"Believe" have nothing to do with it. I have current medmal case where a kid sat in an ER for 5 hours before he was even triaged. He had testicular torsion and lost his testicle. Y'all wanna come testify at trial for me? I know the defense lawyers are going to be arguing, covid, covid, covid.Smudge said:GeorgiAg said:Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.Smudge said:Zobel said:
The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.
You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?
Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345
So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?
Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.
Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.
At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.
Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.
Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.
There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.
I've studied all four in detail. McMenamin's studies have actually solidified much of the evidence for the harm from the vaccine in younger folks. Even in that study you linked (the Lancet one) those 20-49 (she actually did another one on those under 20 in a separate study) got far fewer vaccines and proportionately higher low severity cases (far less severe cases). One: backing up that the vaccine wasn't needed for young, healthy folks. And Two: More jabs actually reduced efficacy.Zobel said:
Further clinical trials. Observational studies. Random surveillance.
For example
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00345-0/fulltext
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2117128
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33378-7
And a meta analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials from Cochrane
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015477/full
Yet you voted for Biden.GeorgiAg said:"Believe" have nothing to do with it. I have current medmal case where a kid sat in an ER for 5 hours before he was even triaged. He had testicular torsion and lost his testicle. Y'all wanna come testify at trial for me? I know the defense lawyers are going to be arguing, covid, covid, covid.Smudge said:GeorgiAg said:Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.Smudge said:Zobel said:
The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.
You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?
Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345
So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?
Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.
Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.
At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.
Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.
Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.
There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/10-states-nearing-or-exceeding-hospital-capacity-during-covid-s-summer-resurgence
https://www.ajc.com/news/are-headed-for-crisis-hospital-beds-dwindle-virus-cases-soar/I1KwQCh0Sji5zVq1MoywJL/
1872walker said:
Any studies that show results to the contrary? Especially in all ages?
Any studies showing the long-term effects of these? Adverse events that may be more detrimental than beneficial across the spectrum of those vaccinated?
Zobel said:
You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.
Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449
I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.
If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation
I applaud your details and facts Zobel. And I believe most people agree…Unfortunately we have reached a point in the current political climate where some groups will refute anything that contradicts the narrative they've committed to. Too many people point to studies without understanding how to understand and compare the data against other research. Ironically, I was diagnosed with a heart problem after my vaccines . Completely out of the blue. There is a long list of potential things that could have caused it, but I likely had it for many years and wouldnt have discovered it had I not gone for my colonoscopy (I think the doc may have scoped up too far…Zobel said:
You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.
Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449
I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.
If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation
), or suffered sudden cardiac death (had to wear defibrillator). I run marathons etc, but genetics, prior illnesses when young , stress, too many things could cause problems. Too many are confusing correlation with causation because of biases…and refuse to step back and see this. Zobel said:
Where?
Here's the table that shows efficacy by dose and age group.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900345-0
oh no said:
I run marathons but now I have a heart problem after covid vaccines. I'm thankful that I'm save from covid and I'm going to assume the heart problem is from something else.
There! That will shut those silly conspiraloons up and prove once and for all that a real study or investigation is not necessary!
Quote:
We estimated the relative effect of three doses versus two doses of each vaccine type (table 3). For mild or moderate disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose of BNT162b2 in adults aged 2059 years (relative vaccine effectiveness 59.8% [95% CI 497681]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (71.6% [556828%]) who had previously received two doses of BNT162b2 (table 3). A third dose of CoronaVac also increased protection in adults aged 2059 years (35.7% [221473]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (46.9% [296606]) who had received two doses of CoronaVac (table 3). For severe or fatal disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose in adults of all ages for both vaccine types, with a relative vaccine effectiveness of 64.9% (293844) for three versus two doses of BNT162b2, and 87.9% (795933%) for three versus two doses of CoronaVac among those aged 80 years or older (table 3). Additional protection against death was offered by a third dose in all ages for both vaccines (table 3).
What does efficacy mean to you? Zero transmissions? Zero diagnoses?Quote:
The efficacy is higher with three doses than two for all categories and all age groups.
Zobel said:
Can you explain what you're seeing? Because I don't see the efficacy lowered. The efficacy is higher with three doses than two for all categories and all age groups.
They even have a paragraph comparing relative effectiveness of two vs three doses. Reading their discussion they did this to reduce bias between vaccinated and non vaccinated population (ie if the vaccinated population is more healthy on average since there is an age skew to vaccination rates).Quote:
We estimated the relative effect of three doses versus two doses of each vaccine type (table 3). For mild or moderate disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose of BNT162b2 in adults aged 2059 years (relative vaccine effectiveness 59.8% [95% CI 497681]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (71.6% [556828%]) who had previously received two doses of BNT162b2 (table 3). A third dose of CoronaVac also increased protection in adults aged 2059 years (35.7% [221473]) and in adults aged 60 years or older (46.9% [296606]) who had received two doses of CoronaVac (table 3). For severe or fatal disease we found an additional benefit of a third dose in adults of all ages for both vaccine types, with a relative vaccine effectiveness of 64.9% (293844) for three versus two doses of BNT162b2, and 87.9% (795933%) for three versus two doses of CoronaVac among those aged 80 years or older (table 3). Additional protection against death was offered by a third dose in all ages for both vaccines (table 3).
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl3&pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900345-0
Zobel said:
"The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19"
This seems like a completely objective review.
Quote:
The overwhelming desire of governments to vaccinate everyone could find an additional explanation through the work of Dr. Pablo Campra (PhD in Chemical Sciences), from the University of Almeria in Spain. This scientist discovered graphene but also microstructures in COVID-19 vaccines. According to the experts he contacted, these microstructures could be part of a Wireless Nanosensors Network, whether as nanosensors, as nanorouters, or as nanoantennae.[28]
Zobel said:
You continue to state things as fact without any evidence whatever. If there's an adverse risk benefit to young people not covered in the paper, show it.
Or I'll do it for you.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449
I think the case for boosters for young people is much more tenuous than the initial doses. But this is based on research not twitter posts and feels.
If you have any evidence for the safety signals post it. Otherwise it's just the same old thing, unfounded speculation
I cannot imagine having a Biden and Kamala supporter who seriously thought Donald Trump fought Secret Service for the wheel of the car so that he could go partake iin the "insurrection" at the capitol. I feel like this is stuff he and his family should know.GeorgiAg said:"Believe" have nothing to do with it. I have current medmal case where a kid sat in an ER for 5 hours before he was even triaged. He had testicular torsion and lost his testicle. Y'all wanna come testify at trial for me? I know the defense lawyers are going to be arguing, covid, covid, covid.Smudge said:GeorgiAg said:Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.Smudge said:Zobel said:
The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.
You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?
Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345
So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?
Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.
Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.
At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.
Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.
Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.
There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/10-states-nearing-or-exceeding-hospital-capacity-during-covid-s-summer-resurgence
https://www.ajc.com/news/are-headed-for-crisis-hospital-beds-dwindle-virus-cases-soar/I1KwQCh0Sji5zVq1MoywJL/
This always happens and is very normal. /fully boosted white liberal male feministsoh no said:
I'm sure this guy is thankful he's protected from the omicron sniffles.
I did see at least one doctor explaining how something the spike proteins give off can eat at and tear away at one of the major coronary arteries in some unlucky people. Which i had more of a medical background so I could better remember the process and terminology.Zobel said:
Now the vaccines tear arteries? They're getting smarter.
BadMoonRisin said:
Did they still keep doing it? E.g. lying to scare people?
It's the graphene in the vaccines that can cause this. It's also thought that this is what is causing thrombosis and micro-tears causing some of the pulmonary and circulatory swelling.Brittmoore Car Club said:I did see at least one doctor explaining how something the spike proteins give off can eat at and tear away at one of the major coronary arteries in some unlucky people. Which i had more of a medical background so I could better remember the process and terminology.Zobel said:
Now the vaccines tear arteries? They're getting smarter.
right on cue!Zobel said:
Graphene? Seriously? Ok. Sorry I had you in the wrong mental category.
It's something that has to be considered. There was a large scientific contingent pushing for this in the vaccines... see the paper I linked... for its antibacterial and bonding properties. Remember, anything and everything was being thrown out there. Now there are traces of it in the blood of those vaccinated, and in masks worn by the vaccinated. I don't think anyone legitimately asking these questions thinks it's some nanochip bio tracker...Rapier108 said:
Oh joy, graphene oxide again.
Guess we won't be far off from the claims that the shots contain an aluminum-carbon lifeform being recirculated again.
The more out there claims do nothing but help the shot shrills discredit all of legitimate problems these shots cause.
Edit: And before I could even hit post, my point gets proven.
