Vaccine thread

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

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.

No it's ok.  You "forgot" to put the data that showed that this was only during an initial shot with no increases in subsequent shots and didn't take in to account any pre-existing conditions or compounding factors or incomplete data on the subjects themselves.

 

Totally easy mistake to make when copying and pasting data to only post exactly what fits your argument.  Easy to make 'm sure

[Xanlet]

13 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

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.

I am very sorry to hear of your situation. It is unimaginably tragic to lose a family member.

 

The vaccines do not halt the transmission of the virus. No amount of forcing other people to take these vaccines would save someone from catching it eventually. This is the unfortunate reality of an airborne coronavirus.

[Warhippy]

9 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

I am very sorry to hear of your situation. It is unimaginably tragic to lose a family member.

 

The vaccines do not halt the transmission of the virus. No amount of forcing other people to take these vaccines would save someone from catching it eventually. This is the unfortunate reality of an airborne coronavirus.

Had my step dad had a bed available at the time because the ER was not full of covid patients who had not potentially not had their shots and were there due to the severity of a non vaccine blunted virus he might still be here.  I only got a bed because my sister was the staffing nurse at the time or else I might not even be posting this.

 

The reality is now and always has been that mitigating the severity of the virus has always been essential to avoid the collapse or overrunning of the health care system.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Warhippy said:

No it's ok.  You "forgot" to put the data that showed that this was only during an initial shot with no increases in subsequent shots and didn't take in to account any pre-existing conditions or compounding factors or incomplete data on the subjects themselves.

 

Totally easy mistake to make when copying and pasting data to only post exactly what fits your argument.  Easy to make 'm sure

The study used very large sample sizes and presented the raw data. Again, it was an observational study, and the observations were that of 1.3 million doses of AstraZeneca, 862 events were observed, or 1 in every 1,508 doses and of 2.1 million doses of Pfizer, 520 events were observed, or 1 in every 4,038.

 

Again, the purpose of the study was to compare the risk between the vaccines, but in providing the data, we can see that there is data which shows an associated risk of this complication in taking those vaccines which have higher rates of occurrence.

 

It doesn't matter that it only looked at the first shot, and why would it? You think as long as you get by the risk of the first shot there's no reason to suspect a similar risk may be associated with subsequent shots? Also, since it seems you actually did rush to try and discredit the study without reading it, you may be interested to find this statement in the study: "To minimise possible error, participants were matched by age and sex and a range of other potentially influential factors such as pre-existing conditions and medication use were taken into account."

 

This means we can be relatively sure that the observed difference between the rates of the shots are really associated with the difference in shots, as they have tried to account for all other potential influences.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Warhippy said:

Had my step dad had a bed available at the time because the ER was not full of covid patients who had not potentially not had their shots and were there due to the severity of a non vaccine blunted virus he might still be here.  I only got a bed because my sister was the staffing nurse at the time or else I might not even be posting this.

 

The reality is now and always has been that mitigating the severity of the virus has always been essential to avoid the collapse or overrunning of the health care system.

Uhh, so you got a bed because of nepotism? Are you saying some other person may have died because your sister gave you a bed and did not adhere to the usual order of priority for beds? And you're lecturing me on sacrifice for the benefit of others? What a perplexing thing to publicly admit.

[Warhippy]

12 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Uhh, so you got a bed because of nepotism? Are you saying some other person may have died because your sister gave you a bed and did not adhere to the usual order of priority for beds? And you're lecturing me on sacrifice for the benefit of others? What a perplexing thing to publicly admit.

I got a bed because my sister drove me to the hospital as I was flatlining and unable to breathe and she shoved a metal tube down my throat on a sidewalk in front of the emergency room doors.  So yup, let's call it nepotism.

Edited May 31 by Warhippy

[Warhippy]

16 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The study used very large sample sizes and presented the raw data. Again, it was an observational study, and the observations were that of 1.3 million doses of AstraZeneca, 862 events were observed, or 1 in every 1,508 doses and of 2.1 million doses of Pfizer, 520 events were observed, or 1 in every 4,038.

 

Again, the purpose of the study was to compare the risk between the vaccines, but in providing the data, we can see that there is data which shows an associated risk of this complication in taking those vaccines which have higher rates of occurrence.

 

It doesn't matter that it only looked at the first shot, and why would it? You think as long as you get by the risk of the first shot there's no reason to suspect a similar risk may be associated with subsequent shots? Also, since it seems you actually did rush to try and discredit the study without reading it, you may be interested to find this statement in the study: "To minimise possible error, participants were matched by age and sex and a range of other potentially influential factors such as pre-existing conditions and medication use were taken into account."

 

This means we can be relatively sure that the observed difference between the rates of the shots are really associated with the difference in shots, as they have tried to account for all other potential influences.

You're creating some sort of narrative to promote the idea or insinuate that vaccines are dangerous and harmful to individuals.

 

Again, 633k VAERs incidents of any severity recorded to roughly 14 BILLION injections.

 

Your math and questionable copy and pasting don't really hold a candle to that level of overwhelming existing data.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Warhippy said:

You're creating some sort of narrative to promote the idea or insinuate that vaccines are dangerous and harmful to individuals.

 

Again, 633k VAERs incidents of any severity recorded to roughly 14 BILLION injections.

 

Your math and questionable copy and pasting don't really hold a candle to that level of overwhelming existing data.

633,000 events in 14,000,000,000 equals 1 in every 22,116.

 

Is 1 severe adverse reaction per 22k shots supposed to be reassuring? and if most people get two shots or three, would that equal 1 severe adverse reaction per 10k people?

 

How's my math?

[Satchmo]

16 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

Drive-By just put this in the meme thread.   I think it also fits here, especially after the last few days.

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Xanlet said:

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.

 

just because you referenced something, it doesn't mean you understood it or used it properly. Thats why all this 'I did my own research' thinking leads you to dumb places. 

[DrJockitch]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

just because you referenced something, it doesn't mean you understood it or used it properly. Thats why all this 'I did my own research' thinking leads you to dumb places. 

And that was at a time when vaccines were scarce and so they prioritized the high risk individuals. 
Why keep arguing with the misinformation machine?

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

just because you referenced something, it doesn't mean you understood it or used it properly. Thats why all this 'I did my own research' thinking leads you to dumb places. 

How have I misunderstood or misused the CDC's statement that "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."? That works out to 1 in every 76,923 for the adverse reaction of heart inflammation (which indicates heart damage).

 

Again, you seem eager to make vague dismissals, but totally unwilling to actually engage with the official sources relaying the actual data on adverse reactions. Even the numbers @Warhippy is posting works out to 1 in every 22,000 shots (each shot, mind you, so if you take two shots it would be 1 in 11,000 chance of having a severe adverse reaction).

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, DrJockitch said:

And that was at a time when vaccines were scarce and so they prioritized the high risk individuals. 
Why keep arguing with the misinformation machine?

 

honest to god, I have no idea why these people keep doing this. Are they finding that they are getting new recruits, or maybe they "learned" all this and just want to use it again? dunno. Its stupid. 

[Xanlet]

Just now, DrJockitch said:

And that was at a time when vaccines were scarce and so they prioritized the high risk individuals. 
Why keep arguing with the misinformation machine?

How is referencing a statement from the CDC "misinformation"? Unless you take the rather daring position that the official sources are spreaders of misinformation?

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

How have I misunderstood or misused the CDC's statement that "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."? That works out to 1 in every 76,923 for the adverse reaction of heart inflammation (which indicates heart damage).

 

sigh. How many were long term cases? how many cases of myocarditis occurred in unvaccinated young people? 

 

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

Again, you seem eager to make vague dismissals, but totally unwilling to actually engage with the official sources relaying the actual data on adverse reactions. Even the numbers @Warhippy is posting works out to 1 in every 22,000 shots (each shot, mind you, so if you take two shots it would be 1 in 11,000 chance of having a severe adverse reaction).

 

I'm fine with the actual sources. I'm not willing to entertain what you try to do with it. 

 

Like I said above, you don't know what you're talking about, or worse, you are intentionally trying to mislead people. 

[DrJockitch]

5 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

How is referencing a statement from the CDC "misinformation"? Unless you take the rather daring position that the official sources are spreaders of misinformation?

When cherry picked, used out of context and misunderstood. 

[Warhippy]

16 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

How have I misunderstood or misused the CDC's statement that "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."? That works out to 1 in every 76,923 for the adverse reaction of heart inflammation (which indicates heart damage).

 

Again, you seem eager to make vague dismissals, but totally unwilling to actually engage with the official sources relaying the actual data on adverse reactions. Even the numbers @Warhippy is posting works out to 1 in every 22,000 shots (each shot, mind you, so if you take two shots it would be 1 in 11,000 chance of having a severe adverse reaction).

Now do the adverse reactions to ctatching covid.  go ahead

 

Let us know the contraction rates vs long covid, severe long term issues and death.

 

This will be fun

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

sigh. How many were long term cases? how many cases of myocarditis occurred in unvaccinated young people? 

 

 

I'm fine with the actual sources. I'm not willing to entertain what you try to do with it. 

 

Like I said above, you don't know what you're talking about, or worse, you are intentionally trying to mislead people. 

Why are you unwilling to entertain what the data is indicating? Why wouldn't you want a more thorough exploration of the adverse reactions which have been documented and confirmed to be associated with these covid vaccines?

 

What I would like is a more open and honest conversation about the risks associated with this pharmaceutical product beyond the reflexive and dubious "safe and effective" rhetoric which has been imbibed like a religious dogma.

 

Particularly alarming is the fact that these vaccines were rolled out with a "one size fits all" approach, when it was clear even early on that young people were both at a higher risk from the vaccines and a lower risk from the virus than the rest of the population. Even The New York Times was reporting on this in Jan 2022 with this headline:

"An Israeli study finds a slightly higher-than-expected rate of heart problems in vaccinated boys. Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, occurred in 1 of 12,361 boys aged 12 to 15 within a week of receiving a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, researchers found."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/health/myocarditis-israel-vaccine-study-boys.html

Here's another interesting excerpt from that article: "Concern about heart inflammation may have prompted the Food and Drug Administration to ask Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to enroll more children in their vaccine trials. Even so, Pfizer’s trial of the vaccine included just 567 boys aged 12 to 15 — too few to detect uncommon side effects."

 

Is this not cause for concern?

[Xanlet]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Now do the adverse reactions to ctatching covid.  go ahead

 

Let us know the contraction rates vs long covid, severe long term issues and death.

 

This will be fun

You can still catch covid even when vaccinated. Sorry, but 1 in 10k chance of a severe adverse reaction to a double dose which loses it's efficacy within 6 months against a disease that has almost zero risk to my age category, and which I would still be able to spread to others?

 

No amount of lipstick will make that pig look any better.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Why are you unwilling to entertain what the data is indicating? Why wouldn't you want a more thorough exploration of the adverse reactions which have been documented and confirmed to be associated with these covid vaccines?

 

What I would like is a more open and honest conversation about the risks associated with this pharmaceutical product beyond the reflexive and dubious "safe and effective" rhetoric which has been imbibed like a religious dogma.

 

Particularly alarming is the fact that these vaccines were rolled out with a "one size fits all" approach, when it was clear even early on that young people were both at a higher risk from the vaccines and a lower risk from the virus than the rest of the population. Even The New York Times was reporting on this in Jan 2022 with this headline:

"An Israeli study finds a slightly higher-than-expected rate of heart problems in vaccinated boys. Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, occurred in 1 of 12,361 boys aged 12 to 15 within a week of receiving a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, researchers found."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/health/myocarditis-israel-vaccine-study-boys.html

Here's another interesting excerpt from that article: "Concern about heart inflammation may have prompted the Food and Drug Administration to ask Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to enroll more children in their vaccine trials. Even so, Pfizer’s trial of the vaccine included just 567 boys aged 12 to 15 — too few to detect uncommon side effects."

 

Is this not cause for concern?

 

I'm fine to talk about the data, but what you're doing is attempting to spread confusion about what really happened. 

 

Why? why would yo do it? are we going to see Xanlet brand Ivermectin on the market soon?

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

I'm fine to talk about the data, but what you're doing is attempting to spread confusion about what really happened. 

 

Why? why would yo do it? are we going to see Xanlet brand Ivermectin on the market soon?

That would be rather fruitless since it's off patent and can be manufactured generically for pennies per dose. Now, how much was the government paying per shot? $34.51? Now that's where the money is, especially if you can get suckers to take 5, 10, infinite doses!

[Spring Salmon]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

I'm fine to talk about the data, but what you're doing is attempting to spread confusion about what really happened. 

 

Why? why would yo do it? are we going to see Xanlet brand Ivermectin on the market soon?

Do you think the majority of unvaccinated people took ivermectin?

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

That would be rather fruitless since it's off patent and can be manufactured generically for pennies per dose. Now, how much was the government paying per shot? $34.51? Now that's where the money is, especially if you can get suckers to take 5, 10, infinite doses!

 

whatever credibility you may have built with anyone is gone. 

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said:

Do you think the majority of unvaccinated people took ivermectin?

 

like, in Alberta? 

[Duodenum]

2 hours ago, Xanlet said:

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.

Because they did studies large enough to see side effects that even if they occur, would be so infrequent that it would not come close to the benefit of having the vaccine distributed. 

Ie a study of 70,000 ppl can easily miss a side effect that occurs 1 in 50,000-100,000 injections. Once the observational studies occur post release (happens with all medication/vaccine), then we usually see rare side effects that do not pop up in the studies and things can be adjusted accordingly. 

Those side effects that do pop up in the study, may not occur at a high enough rate vs placebo to warrant change either or the 'power' of the study isn't high enough to confidently say that the side effect occurred due to the vaccine or due to statistical anomaly. 

 

As covid was running rampant, health agencies did not have the luxury of time.

Edited May 31 by Duodenum