Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths · 11-10-2022 11:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732651#Comment_119732651

Do you believe he's incorrect or lying when he says this?

I am not claiming he's incorrect or lying about anything. I was simply pointing out the findings of the study. When he says It's likely that high risk children were vaccinated first, which would cause underestimation of vaccine effectiveness at the end he's offering a possible explanation for the findings. But the findings remain the findings.

Did you give him any follow up emails asking him to clarify and address the negative effectiveness directly?

No, I sent him an email in the first instance specifically asking him to clarify and address the negative effectiveness directly. He sent me a very courteous and prompt reply which I appreciated, but for whatever reason he chose not to address the specific question I asked. I was not going start badgering him for the sake of scoring irrelevant points here.

Why do you believe that he did not confirm the appearance of negative effectiveness?

As I said repeatedly at the time, I believe this is the more interesting discussion to be had on this forum. But it is kind of difficult trying discuss why a study author did not address a finding of negative effectiveness with posters who are saying there is no finding of negative effectiveness.

Also really funny that you're trying to argue that he didn't address it because he didn't specifically say the phrase.

Don't worry I get the humour in that, just as I see the humour in the fact you believe that he did address it despite making no mention of it!

If you wish to discuss in good faith the study showing negative effectiveness I posted earlier today, then great, I'll engage in good faith and we can attempt to have reasonable debate.

But if you're intent on rehashing the argument about whether the previous study showed negative effectiveness, then I'll go back to ignoring you. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me either way.

11-10-2022 11:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732707#Comment_119732707

Lol as predicted you're trying to run away again.

The author of the study told you that the effectiveness of the vaccine were underestimated. This firstly explains why they did not conclude that the vaccines were negatively effective in the actual conclusions of the study. Your interpretations of their graph is not "their findings." They state their findings in the conclusions of the study. That's what that section is for.

Secondly it confirms that the numbers are estimates only, not actual measurements.

At the time we repeatedly told you (and you repeatedly ignored) that there could be any number of statistical quirks for why the graph could show negative numbers without the vaccine actually having negative effectiveness. The author of the study confirmed this is the case for you. You of course chose to ignore this.

You also can't explain why he wouldn't address the negative effectiveness as you believe he didnt.

You believe it's because of a giant global conspiracy but don't wish to directly state this because you understand that it undermines your facade of being reasonable.

But as you say you're simply going to ignore these points because you can't address them. You will do the same thing if we try to address your latest Twitter find. This is because you're simply doing the same tactic of taking a part of the study out of context to claim it says something it doesn't.

By all means ignore away. My points remain unaddressed and unanswered. Everyone can see this and everyone aside from devout antivaxxers understand why.

If anyone thinks that this tactic of his is actually helping him, please speak up. I'd love to hear how.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 06:21AM

@hometruths and @King Mob enough. We are not going to trawl through another 100 posts of you two arguing over a graph. As per the charter,

Trying to spend 100 odd posts convincing 1 or 2 specific users that your views are more valid than theirs is what causes the most issues. You have to accept that not all people are willing to alter their beliefs to suit you - and they have the freedom to hold those beliefs.

If you can't convince the other after 2 or 3 over and back arguments then it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

12-10-2022 07:00AM

OK then.

So since discussing the graph and what the studies and their authors actually say isn't going to get anywhere, let's move onto the topic that hometruths claimed "there was a discussion about."

In both the previous studies hometruths has alluded to a reason for why the supposed negative effectiveness is not directly stated in the actual text or conclusions. And in his reply he alluded to the notion that the author who responded to him was being evasive about the topic.

I'm very curious as to what this reason is and for him to actually lay out the conspiracy he believes is happening there.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 07:10AM

Also, there is no definition anywhere to describe what "negative effectiveness" means in the context of a vaccine, especially as the authors of these studies do not claim it exists

Perhaps this could be clarified ?

hometruths · 12-10-2022 07:31AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733068#Comment_119733068

This has also been addressed before. It's a relative measure of vaccine effectiveness. For example comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated a finding of negative effectiveness means there is less protection from the vaccine compared to not being vaccinated at all. i.e the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated.

And the authors of this study do explicitly state a finding of negative effectiveness. Just one example - 3 doses of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) is found to have a VE of -24.9% against variant BA.2 after 150 days.

12-10-2022 07:55AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733118#Comment_119733118

OK. Let's pretend that's actually the case.

Why are they reporting negative effectiveness while your other studies are seemingly unwilling to do so?

hometruths · 12-10-2022 08:00AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733188#Comment_119733188

No need to pretend anything. Sure we can agree to disagree on another study that does not explicitly state a finding of negative effectiveness.

But in this case, it is an inarguable fact that this is what the study reports.

12-10-2022 08:12AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733204#Comment_119733204

OK. If you say so. I'm not arguing that point.

So why does one study directly state it while another doesn't.

Why does the other study not state it?

Why did the author of the study avoid your question and give you a false explanation for it?

I can't think of any rational explanation beyond the one I've laid out.

Do you have an alternative at all?

hometruths · 12-10-2022 08:18AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733243#Comment_119733243

Why does the other study not state it?

Why did the author of the study avoid your question and give you a false explanation for it?

We've both been given a mod warning to move on from this argument. I intend to heed the warning.

12-10-2022 08:22AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733267#Comment_119733267

Yes which is what I'm trying to do.

I'm asking you to explain you belief in why the authors of the study would not state their findings directly.

For the sake of argument and foe the "good of the thread" I'm accepting that your interpreting of the studies are accurate. That's not a contention any more.

Tou said this was the issue you wanted to get into. So please go ahead.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 08:34AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733118#Comment_119733118

i.e the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated.

well that's just completely wrong, and already debuked:

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/scicheck-vaccinated-people-not-more-susceptible-to-covid-19-than-unvaccinated/

Richterman said it was “indisputable at this point” that vaccinated people are less likely to become infected than unvaccinated people. Other experts weren’t as definitive about that, but also thought it was likely to be true.

“I do think [vaccination] reduce[s] infection and there is some data out there to support this. I just don’t think we have enough data yet to be confident in this,” Matthew Fox, an epidemiologist at Boston University School of Public Health, told us in an email. “So, I’d like to see more before I’m sure.”

In any case, Fox said there’s no good evidence that vaccinated or boosted people would be at higher risk than the unvaccinated, as some have claimed.

“There is evidence in the sense that you can see some places where crude rates of infection in the unvaccinated are lower than in the vaccinated,” he said. But, he added, that “is unadjusted data, so you can’t rely on it.”

so hometruths has been sucked in by unadjusted, unreliable data in their quest to claim theres a global conspiracy regarding covid vaccines.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 08:46AM

@King Mob your very last warning on this thread. You have been warned before about repeatedly asking the same questions and asking someone to explain their belief. As per the charter, anyone is entitled to believe anything the like. They don't need to explain themselves to you or convince you. Equally you are entitled to not believe anything you want.

I will not address you again on this thread. Your persistent repeating of the same questions does nothing to promote discussion and indeed discourages others from posting and getting in the middle of an argument.

If someone hasn't agreed with you or changed their mind after 4 or 5 over and back posts move on. They're not going to agree with you no matter how much you persist. And they don't have to.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 09:13AM

@hometruths_real do not discuss moderation on thread. It is considered off topic.

If you have an issue with any post report it using the report function.

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 09:23AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733495#Comment_119733495

it has been reported before and nothing was done

@hometruths still posts their interpretation of 95% CI and presents it as fact unchastised, they even mentioned it before that they didn't understand it, and rightly so, the regression model used in clinical studies can take years to fully "get"... but they are blatently ignoring basic statistics and mathematics, even when pointed out to them..

conspiracy theories are one thing, blatantly lying is another (most likely through their lack of understanding to give the benefit of the doubt)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Warned for Breach of Charter and ignoring moderator instruction.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 10:53AM

@hometruths still posts their interpretation of 95% CI and presents it as fact unchastised,

On this point: I have mentioned before, this is the conspiracy theories forum. Posters are perfectly entitled to post their beliefs, their interpretation of something, their opinion. Other posters are entitled to disagree, point out inaccuracies, explain errors or misunderstanding etc.

But if anyone believes they are going to come into this thread and convince "the other side" then you are in the wrong thread and I respectfully ask that you do not continue to post if that is your intention. Discuss/disagree/point out differences if you wish. But if someone isn't getting your point, or doesn't agree, or continues to argue the opposite then move on. Circular arguments are tedious to read and just put other posters off joining the discussion.

hometruths · 12-10-2022 11:06AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733334#Comment_119733334

A fact check of some totally separate claim based on totally separate data does not debunk the findings of the study I quoted, published 6 months later than your factcheck. That's ridiculous.

The study says (emphasis mine):

In analyses of 3-dose VE (versus unvaccinated) against infection with Omicron subvariants by time since vaccination, the 3-dose VE against BA.1 ranged from 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.7%, 88.3%) in the 14-30 days after the third dose to 54.9% (95% CI 35.6%, 68.4%) >150 days after the third dose (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2a). VE for these two time intervals, respectively, was 61.0% (95% CI 27.6%, 79.0%) and -24.9% (95% CI -32.3%, -16.7%) for BA.2, excluding BA.2.12.1; 82.7% (95% CI 44.2%, 94.7%) and -26.8% (95% CI -34.6%, -18.0%) for BA.2.12.1; 72.6% (95% CI - 54.7%, 96.6%) and -16.4% (95% CI -35.8%, 8.2%) for BA.4; and 90.6% (95% CI 30.6%, 98.7%) and - 17.9% (95% CI -29.6%, -4.2%) for BA.5.

There is no dispute here that the study a) made findings of negative VE and b) states it explicitly.

It is also totally wrong to say that the above is based on unadjusted data. It explicitly says the the VE is "Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, month of specimen collection, history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, history of SARS-CoV-2 molecular test..."

As far the data being unreliable, why do you think this is so? What is about this study that makes you sceptical of the reliability?

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 11:19AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733901#Comment_119733901

there's a bit of a difference between beliefs and being mathematically incorrect..

they're basically saying 2+2=5 or the sky is yellow but from a statistical point of view....

and the mods not doing anything about it are showing they are happy to be complacent on the distribution of mis-information under "beliefs"

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 11:20AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733954#Comment_119733954

you don't understand 95% CI... so stop trying to make out that you do

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 11:26AM

@hometruths_real thread banned for repeatedly ignoring moderator instruction.

Do not post in this thread again

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 11:27AM

how about no

-----------------------------------------------------

Forum Banned for 1 week.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 12:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733954#Comment_119733954

hummm

6 months after 10 June 2022 is 10th December 2022

are you a time traveller hometruths, or, as is much more likley, you have a tenuous grasp on the principles of mathematics

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 12:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733954#Comment_119733954

As far the data being unreliable, why do you think this is so? What is about this study that makes you sceptical of the reliability?

i dont have any questions as to the data presented in the study??

i certainly have questions as to your unique and solitary understanding of that data though. Thats the only thing thats explicit in your posts

hometruths · 12-10-2022 12:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734226#Comment_119734226

You said I had "been sucked in by unadjusted, unreliable data" - so obviously I took that to mean you thought the data was unreliable.

You say my claim that these are findings of negative VE is unique and solitary, and that is explicit.

Presumably if it is explicitly obvious to you from this study that the VE against BA.2 after 150 days is not -24.9% as I have stated, and it is in fact something else, you'd be happy to correct my understanding and share what you understand it to be?

12-10-2022 12:35PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734226#Comment_119734226

My personal belief is that the conspiracy theory seems to be that all of these conclusions aren't unique to hometruths and that all scientists involved actually did come to the same conclusions but are not allowed to say so directly because of some conspiracy between them. Hence we have these studies that supposedly have the stunning revelations, but then don't actually mention them at all in the conclusions, abstract or headline and why no legit media source or medical organisation is picking it up.

This is of course nonsense and impossible as it simply doesn't make any sense for why they'd go through all that trouble to force that cover up but not to simply excise the troublesome data or block the study entirely.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 02:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734282#Comment_119734282

can you find anyone else of merit (scientist, medical researcher etc) who backs up your claim that that "negative effectiveness" exists in relation to the vaccines.

keeping in mind i have presented you with a factcheck, quoting an infectious disease Fellow doctor who specifically stated that it is "indisputable at this point” that vaccinated people are less likely to become infected than unvaccinated people.

please present your evidence , backed up by anyone to the same level as above that, as you claim " the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated"

keeping in mind again that you have been told quite a number of times that you are interpreting graphs incorrectly when negative values are returned in a study with a 95% confidence intervals.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 02:25PM

@hometruths do not mention negative data again in this thread. You have one understanding of it. Others have explained the data. You even communicated directly with the author who explained it to you.

The point from the charter applies to you too - you don't need to convince others of your arguments, and you are unlikely to change anyone's mind. So stop.

Do not mention it again in this thread. You will be thread banned.

hometruths · 12-10-2022 02:31PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734985#Comment_119734985

edit to remove having seen mod warning

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 02:34PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735043#Comment_119735043

Yes I can. The authors of the study I posted previously. And it is not my claim. I am simply quoting the findings of their study. In doing so I am making a statement of fact that their study resulted in estimates of negative VE after certain timescales. This is not a matter of opinion. It is an inarguable fact.

???

please post where the authors of the study said that " the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated"????

you will not find that ANYWHERE in any study youve linked to

12-10-2022 03:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119724115#Comment_119724115

Number four, it's apparently based on this: https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221007-guidance-mrna-covid19-vaccines-analysis.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery which is preliminary data and doesn't paint a very compelling picture either way

I was listening to Knowledge Fight today, and in it they talked about how Alex Jones was raising this same point and using the same study to make his own conspiracy claims. They succinctly rounded up some key issues with this "study". Namely how it's not actually peer reviewed or published in any paper and it doesn't seem to have any authors.

I then found this article on Science Based Medicine where it gives a good break down of the paper and the other key issues with it as well as a summary of reasons to suspect the motivations behind it.

Some highlights:

The authors included basically a wastebasket set of cardiac diagnoses in their analysis, including ones without a plausible biologic link to vaccination (e.g., valvular disease) and ones that are often included in death certificates as the final cause of death, given that the terminal event in anyone dying is, ultimately, the heart stopping its beating.

...

The authors also admit a huge limitation in their discussion:

This study cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death. We used death certificate data and not medical records. COVID testing status was unknown for those who did not die of/with COVID. Cardiac-related deaths were ascertained if an ACME code of I3-I52 were on their death certificate, thus, the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related.

In other words, even the anonymous authors themselves couldn’t say for sure whether all their “cardiac” deaths were, in fact, cardiac deaths.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments