Vaccine thread

[Heretic]

Well, I  don't care what anyone says, I believe in vaccines. 

Thanks to my generation, small pox was eradicated.  
My kids and grand kids never have to have a small pox vaccination as it's gone.

It took a long time, and my only complaint I have now is how much more technologically advanced we are yet we can't eradicate a virus like covid quickly?

  

[Xanlet]

4 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Well, I  don't care what anyone says, I believe in vaccines. 

Thanks to my generation, small pox was eradicated.  
My kids and grand kids never have to have a small pox vaccination as it's gone.

It took a long time, and my only complaint I have now is how much more technologically advanced we are yet we can't eradicate a virus like covid quickly?

  

Yes, the power of the small pox vaccine to provide sterilizing immunity so that you would not catch the disease after vaccination was extremely amazing.

 

Unfortunately these covid shots fall FAR short of that mark, providing only slightly better odds of surviving if you catch covid in the 6 months after getting the jab.

 

On the merits, they should be regarded as a preemptive therapeutic, they are hardly worthy of the name of vaccines when you consider the power of previous vaccines and the disappointing profile of these covid shots.

[Spring Salmon]

2 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

they are hardly worthy of the name of vaccines when you consider the power of previous vaccines and the disappointing profile of these covid shots.

I guess that's why they had to change the definition of vaccine after those shots came out

[Satchmo]

5 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said:

I guess that's why they had to change the definition of vaccine after those shots came out

Did they?  Can you remind me how they did that?

[Xanlet]

2 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said:

I guess that's why they had to change the definition of vaccine after those shots came out

Careful, that's the kind of thing which is true, and anyone can go and look up and see it is true, but it makes some people uncomfortable so they'll just deny it and call you a conspiracy theorist.

[Spring Salmon]

2 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Did they?  Can you remind me how they did that?

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Did they?  Can you remind me how they did that?

Here is the definition printed in Websters Dictionary from a number of years ago

 

Here's the definition online:

 

 

Notice any differences?

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said:

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered,” the spokesperson said.

 

Makes sense to me but I can see why some would jump right on it crying foul.  Not surprised a Miami newspaper would report on it.  To their credit they did write this:

 

There remains the misconception that COVID-19 vaccines were designed to prevent infections altogether, leading people to believe the vaccines aren’t working as they should when they learn about breakthrough infections among the vaccinated.

But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant.

.

[King Heffy]

37 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The CDC isn't credible? The British Medical Journal isn't credible? Stick you head in the sand if you wish, but the risk level for the covid jab exists and is so high that many European countries restrict them to only people who are at higher risk from the virus (elderly people, remember the average age of death from covid is 83.8 in Canada, and if the average is that high you can imagine how few deaths are at the younger ages).

 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2021002-eng.htm

 

Or is Statistics Canada, the official government statistics body, not credible either?

The link you posted was referring to the virus, not the vaccine.  In fact, if you search the page for the word "vaccine", it comes up empty.  Statistics Canada is a lot more reliable than your reading comprehension.

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

The link you posted was referring to the virus, not the vaccine.  In fact, if you search the page for the word "vaccine", it comes up empty.  Statistics Canada is a lot more reliable than your reading comprehension.

The link is for the average age of death from Covid, which is 83.8 in Canada.

 

Thus, taking the essentially non-existent risk to a young person from the virus, and the fact that the vaccines don't prevent transmission, and that there is some risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine, the conclusion should be (as it is in many European countries) that the vaccines present more risk than benefit to younger people.

Edited May 31 by Xanlet

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

The link is for the average age of death from Covid, which is 83.8 in Canada.

 

Thus, taking the essentially non-existent risk to a young person from the virus, and the fact that the vaccines don't prevent transmission, and that there is some risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine, the conclusion should be (as it is in many European countries) that the vaccines present more risk than benefit to younger people.

Provide a legitimate source that also comes to the ridiculous conclusion that you did.

[Bob Long]

59 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Trials were rushed, public misled, pharma got rich. If you'll permit me another sentence: There is now ample evidence that, particularly for younger males, the vaccines present very real and present risks of serious harm, not to mention the essentially non-existent benefit due to the virus not posing any higher risk than the flu for a young person and the fact that the jab doesn't prevent the spread.

 

Totally false, but thanks for the concise response.

[Xanlet]

2 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered,” the spokesperson said.

 

Makes sense to me but I can see why some would jump right on it crying foul.  Not surprised a Miami newspaper would report on it.  To their credit they did write this:

 

There remains the misconception that COVID-19 vaccines were designed to prevent infections altogether, leading people to believe the vaccines aren’t working as they should when they learn about breakthrough infections among the vaccinated.

But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant.

.

To me, the important part is that they had to insert "or from its constituents or products" which highlights the strange decision to choose a single part of the virus, the spike protein, to be the mechanism for immunity, when a single part of the virus is liable to mutate quickly, thus erasing any immunity granted very quickly. It's much harder for a virus to evade immunity if your body has seen the whole virus, not just one part of it. It raises the question of whether they wanted a shot which had short lived immunity which would require regular updates as the spike protein mutated. But of course, that would just be speculation, since public health is the main concern of pharma companies, and profits hardly factor in at all, I'm sure.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

Totally false, but thanks for the concise response.

I referenced the CDC, The British Medical Journal, and the fact that many European countries updated their guidelines to say that young people should not get the covid vaccine, but I'm glad you can just dismiss that all as "false" because you've already made up your mind and won't consider any new facts.

[Spring Salmon]

11 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered,” the spokesperson said.

 

Makes sense to me but I can see why some would jump right on it crying foul.  Not surprised a Miami newspaper would report on it.  To their credit they did write this:

 

There remains the misconception that COVID-19 vaccines were designed to prevent infections altogether, leading people to believe the vaccines aren’t working as they should when they learn about breakthrough infections among the vaccinated.

But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant.

.

You like facts and the fact is they changed the definition of vaccine after vaccinated people were catching and transmitting covid.  I've never caught measles or TB or whatever because those vaccines worked...

[Xanlet]

10 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Provide a legitimate source that also comes to the ridiculous conclusion that you did.

The British Medical Journal did an observational study on thrombocytopenia events (a condition relating to low platelet count in your blood). They found the following:

 

"The researchers then compared rates of thrombosis and of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia between the adenovirus vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) and the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) within 28 days after vaccination.

Overall, 1.3 million first dose Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients were matched to 2.1 million Pfizer-BioNTech recipients from Germany and the UK.

A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were found in the matched first dose Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech."

 

862 events in 1.3 million doses of AstraZeneca works out to 1 in 1,508. And 520 events in 2.1 million doses of Pfizer works out to 1 in 4038. These are the raw numbers of events in the 28 days following vaccination.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-updates-evidence-on-rare-blood-clotting-condition-after-covid-19-vaccination/

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said:

You like facts and the fact is they changed the definition of vaccine after vaccinated people were catching and transmitting covid.  I've never caught measles or TB or whatever because those vaccines worked...

Yes, I like facts.  I like Shakespeare too.

 

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.”

 

He never wrote every virus is different from another but he could have.   He likely would have phrased it better than I did.

[RupertKBD]

50 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Well, I  don't care what anyone says, I believe in vaccines. 

Thanks to my generation, small pox was eradicated.  
My kids and grand kids never have to have a small pox vaccination as it's gone.

It took a long time, and my only complaint I have now is how much more technologically advanced we are yet we can't eradicate a virus like covid quickly?

 

Several reasons for that H....

 

Smallpox was a fairly stable virus, meaning that mutations happened slowly. Covid, much like the Flu is the opposite and mutates quickly. This is where a lot of the confusion about the Covid vaccines came in. People would wonder why they could still get sick after being immunized, but the reality was, they were actually infected by a different virus. The immunizations might have mitigated the severity of later strains, but they couldn't prevent contraction. This is why there have been so many boosters released.

 

A second issue is that Covid has what they call "animal reservoirs". In a nutshell, that means the virus can be carried by animals (like bats and pangolins) and then transmitted to humans.

 

Smallpox was a virus that only affected humans, so no worries about wet markets and the like.

 

Smallpox was also less transmissible than Covid and easier to identify, when someone had contracted it. There was a telltale rash associated with Smallpox, while Covid can easily be confused with a cold, or the flu

 

There are other reasons, but those give you the gist....

[Duodenum]

11 hours ago, Xanlet said:

The cost would only go up based on the degree of risk associated with that liability. So what are you implying here? Perhaps the manufacturers are better positioned to gauge the risk than anyone? And they gauge it as equating a high cost?

 

Also, if these were so thoroughly tested and safe, why did many European countries halt use of Moderna in younger people after almost a year of roll out? In fact, according to wiki, "In June 2021, the US CDC confirmed that myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in about 13 of every 1 million young people, mostly male and over the age of 16, who received the Moderna or the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine

 

For the math guys out there, that's one person having heart damage caused by the vax for every 76,923 people vaccinated. Or are the CDC a bunch of anti-vax conspiracy theorists? Also, this is literally only a single adverse reaction, what are the odds of blood clotting disorders and Guillain-Barre syndrome? You would have to add those as well to get the true risk factor. Do we begin to approach one life altering catastrophe per 40k people vaxxed? 20k people vaxxed? Are we still at liberty to call this "safe"? Remember, I am beginning with the CDC's statement which asserts roughly 1 in 77k get heart damage.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

 

Oh look, The British Medical Journal actually did do an observational study on thrombocytopenia events (a condition relating to low platelet count in your blood). They found the following:

 

"The researchers then compared rates of thrombosis and of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia between the adenovirus vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) and the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) within 28 days after vaccination.

Overall, 1.3 million first dose Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients were matched to 2.1 million Pfizer-BioNTech recipients from Germany and the UK.

A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were found in the matched first dose Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech."

 

862 events in 1.3 million doses of AstraZeneca actually works out to 1 in 1,508. And 520 events in 2.1 million doses of Pfizer works out to 1 in 4038. These are the raw numbers of events in the 28 days following vaccination. Shall we get the input of @Duodenum to check this study?

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-updates-evidence-on-rare-blood-clotting-condition-after-covid-19-vaccination/

 

 

To keep things brief as it would take a lot of time to go over everything:

 

Please note these are observational studies without controls. All they can say is there was an increase or decrease of x but they cannot determine that the subject is the absolute cause of x.

 

These studies are showing rates per dose.

What is the baseline rate? How many people experience these illnesses regardless of vaccine? 

What is the rate increase caused by Covid infection? Myocarditis occurs 6 fold higher in those with a covid infection. 

 

These studies can show that there is an increase of x comparing two vaccines. That's why Moderna (increase in myocarditis in young males) was paused in some countries because Pfizer was readily available and Astrazeneca is no longer available in Canada. Fyi, no increase over the baseline rate has been found in Canada for TTS by the mRNA vaccines. This does not mean that these vaccines were bad, but when you have better, then...?

 

Second, you have to compare these numbers to the benefit of the vaccine. How many hospitalizations/deaths did it reduce?

 

Agency, study, etc has time and again found that the benefit far outweighs the slight increase in harm. 

 

These things aren't as simple as "look at this study, it shows 800 ppl out of 2 million had this side effect". That's why we have professionals to look deeper into the data.

[Satchmo]

3 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

That's why we have professionals to look deeper into the data.

What do I need professionals for when I have Reddit and X?   

[King Heffy]

8 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

What do I need professionals for when I have Reddit and X?   

You mean 10 minutes googling while I'm on the crapper isn't as good as years of education?

Edited May 31 by King Heffy

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Xanlet said:

The link is for the average age of death from Covid, which is 83.8 in Canada.

 

Thus, taking the essentially non-existent risk to a young person from the virus, and the fact that the vaccines don't prevent transmission, and that there is some risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine, the conclusion should be (as it is in many European countries) that the vaccines present more risk than benefit to younger people.

Ah this chestnut.

 

Ok.  So when I gave covid to my stepdad and he died.  And I was intubated for 3 days.  That's all good.  he was older so it was his fault you potentially had to get a shot.

 

Again the math is insanely easy to see.  14 billion shots less than 650k VAERs events.

 

Tell me more.

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Xanlet said:

The British Medical Journal did an observational study on thrombocytopenia events (a condition relating to low platelet count in your blood). They found the following:

 

"The researchers then compared rates of thrombosis and of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia between the adenovirus vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) and the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) within 28 days after vaccination.

Overall, 1.3 million first dose Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients were matched to 2.1 million Pfizer-BioNTech recipients from Germany and the UK.

A total of 862 thrombocytopenia events were found in the matched first dose Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients from Germany and the UK, and 520 events after a first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech."

 

862 events in 1.3 million doses of AstraZeneca works out to 1 in 1,508. And 520 events in 2.1 million doses of Pfizer works out to 1 in 4038. These are the raw numbers of events in the 28 days following vaccination.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-updates-evidence-on-rare-blood-clotting-condition-after-covid-19-vaccination/

Just gonna put the really important information thre that you might have missed in your rush to post something that appeared to justify your position.  Since you know, you cut it off at the important information.  Just thought I'd do you a solid and post what you accidentally (right) missed

 

When the data were pooled together, analysis showed a 30% increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca compared with Pfizer-BioNTech – an absolute risk difference of 8.21 per 100,000 recipients.

An increase in risk, albeit not statistically significant, of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia was observed after a first vaccine dose of Janssen/Johnson & Johnson compared with Pfizer-BioNTech. But the researchers say this finding needs to be replicated in other studies before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

No differential risk of thrombocytopenia was seen after a second dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca compared with a second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech. Similarly, no increased risk of thrombocytopenia was noted after Janssen/Johnson & Johnson compared with a first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech.

This is an observational study, and the researchers acknowledge that the rarity of the condition and incomplete vaccine records may have affected the results. What’s more, they can’t rule out the possibility that some of the observed risk may have been due to other unmeasured (confounding) factors.

[Xanlet]

17 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

 

 

TThat's why Moderna (increase in myocarditis in young males) was paused in some countries because Pfizer was readily available and Astrazeneca is no longer available in Canada.

Why would they need to pause a roll out and switch advice on what vaccine to take? I thought they went through thorough trials so that all the information was available before the rollout? It sounds from these facts that they were rushed the rolled out, and when data was collected from the general public, it became clear that some of these shots were more dangerous than other. It sounds like the first rollout to the general public served the roll of a clinical trial.

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Just gonna put the really important information thre that you might have missed in your rush to post something that appeared to justify your position.  Since you know, you cut it off at the important information.  Just thought I'd do you a solid and post what you accidentally (right) missed

 

When the data were pooled together, analysis showed a 30% increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca compared with Pfizer-BioNTech – an absolute risk difference of 8.21 per 100,000 recipients.

An increase in risk, albeit not statistically significant, of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia was observed after a first vaccine dose of Janssen/Johnson & Johnson compared with Pfizer-BioNTech. But the researchers say this finding needs to be replicated in other studies before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

No differential risk of thrombocytopenia was seen after a second dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca compared with a second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech. Similarly, no increased risk of thrombocytopenia was noted after Janssen/Johnson & Johnson compared with a first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech.

This is an observational study, and the researchers acknowledge that the rarity of the condition and incomplete vaccine records may have affected the results. What’s more, they can’t rule out the possibility that some of the observed risk may have been due to other unmeasured (confounding) factors.

The study focused on comparing different vaccines, but within the study they showed the raw number of cases of thrombocytopenia in the 28 days after vaccination.

 

Now, if we could compare a generic sample of comparable non-vaccinated people in any given 28 day period, we'd be able to see the difference between the baseline in the general population and the increased rate after vaccination, but unfortunately that is not provided as part of that study. Thus, what we can see from this study is that some of the vaccines are definitely associated with higher rates of thrombocytopenia by the simple fact that vaccines are associated with significantly higher rates of thrombocytopenia than others in this group.

 

As a mere layman, this would seem to indicate a significant safety signal at least, wouldn't you say? The question would simply be how different is the lowest rate observed in this study from the actual general public baseline? Personally, I wonder whether 1 in every few thousand people usually develop thrombocytopenia every 28 days, as was observed after vaccination.