Who is the Canadian Covid Care Alliance? What is this report?

8,514 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by tmaggies
I Sold DeSantis Lifts
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:08a, 12/30/21
Who is this group? Does this report cause any concerns to the physicians here? Or should it be dismissed as quackery?

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf
Reply Quote
2
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:47a, 12/30/21
30% valid and reasonable criticism, 60% exaggeration and speculation, 10% self promotion.

Reply Quote
1
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cisgenderedAggie • 7:55a, 12/30/21
Still reading through it, but where are the exaggerations? I would imagine any group will have self promotion.

But was the fact that a 12 year old was reported as having "functional abdominal pain" but in reality was placed on a feeding tube and wheelchair bound an exaggeration?

So far through my review I don't see any data capable of "exaggeration." I see misrepresentations/potential lies by Pfizer.

Reply Quote
13
2 edits
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nasreddin • 8:03a, 12/30/21
All the slides discussing increased risk of illness and death in the 6 month report are exaggeration. These are events in population sizes of over 20,000 people. Those numbers, at that large of a group, are difficult to make something notable about.

FWIW, I think most of the criticism of Pfizer's trial design and execution, and especially the risk/benefit to children, are very reasonable criticisms. With omicron, I actually think the entire risk/benefit for all is likely to change completely. We are not still operating in Summer/Fall of 2020 and that really does matter for these discussions.
Reply Quote
6
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cisgenderedAggie • 8:07a, 12/30/21
Yeah...I haven't gotten to the point of increased risk or any of that stuff. I'm talking by about the misrepresentations to the fda. Are the reports statements concerning misrepresentations false or exaggerated? I'm not a scientist or a researcher, so I have ZERO opinion on data or results, but when someone potentially lies to the fda, it will make me question all their data.

Lawyers use this all the time in impeaching witnesses - "you lied about this, why should we believe you on that?"
Reply Quote
6
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nasreddin • 8:12a, 12/30/21
I'm not sure what it's claiming was misrepresented to the FDA. FDA gets the data and does their own analyses. Sometimes they agree with the Sponsor, sometimes they don't. Either way, their own analysis is what matters.
Reply Quote
3
txaggie79
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 12/30/21
AG
If you go to their website and read their FAQ section it becomes obvious that this is a Canadian anti-vax group. I am skeptical of any of these fringe groups, whether pro or anti vax.
Reply Quote
17
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cisgenderedAggie • 8:30a, 12/30/21
cisgenderedAggie said:
I'm not sure what it's claiming was misrepresented to the FDA. FDA gets the data and does their own analyses. Sometimes they agree with the Sponsor, sometimes they don't. Either way, their own analysis is what matters.



You're not sure? Pfizer allegedly reported it as "functional abdominal pain." This child was put into a wheel chair and given a feeding tube.
Reply Quote
7
Wakesurfer817
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to snowdog90 • 8:34a, 12/30/21
snowdog90 said:
Robin Hood Was A Thief said:
Yeah...I haven't gotten to the point of increased risk or any of that stuff. I'm talking by about the misrepresentations to the fda. Are the reports statements concerning misrepresentations false or exaggerated? I'm not a scientist or a researcher, so I have ZERO opinion on data or results, but when someone potentially lies to the fda, it will make me question all their data.

Lawyers use this all the time in impeaching witnesses - "you lied about this, why should we believe you on that?"


There were only a few billion reasons for pfizer to lie. Amazing that people who once hated Big Pharma will believe anything pfizer tells them, in spite of the fact that pfizer has billions of dollars to gain by lying about their garbage "vaccine".
How would you regulate pharmaceutical companies? Are you arguing that the profit motive in and of itself is unethical? How much do you think it cost Pfizer to develop vaccine? What do you think is an appropriate rate of return on development of a vaccine?
Reply Quote
2
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txaggie79 • 8:34a, 12/30/21
txaggie79 said:
If you go to their website and read their FAQ section it becomes obvious that this is a Canadian anti-vax group. I am skeptical of any of these fringe groups, whether pro or anti vax.


100% agree with you. Data can be manipulated. Results can be manipulated. Just look at the X axis on a Google graph for covid cases in California vs the X axis on a Google graph for Florida. No question here from me.

But, they allege that a traditional study for a new drug had the following standards: x, y, z, etc. and then question why the studies for this new drug did not follow those standards. This isn't data manipulation or even an interpretation of data, it's a question of the scientific studies. Let's all recall how important randomized trials and double blind studies were in re ivermectin.
Reply Quote
1
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wakesurfer817 • 8:37a, 12/30/21
Wakesurfer817 said:
snowdog90 said:
Robin Hood Was A Thief said:
Yeah...I haven't gotten to the point of increased risk or any of that stuff. I'm talking by about the misrepresentations to the fda. Are the reports statements concerning misrepresentations false or exaggerated? I'm not a scientist or a researcher, so I have ZERO opinion on data or results, but when someone potentially lies to the fda, it will make me question all their data.

Lawyers use this all the time in impeaching witnesses - "you lied about this, why should we believe you on that?"


There were only a few billion reasons for pfizer to lie. Amazing that people who once hated Big Pharma will believe anything pfizer tells them, in spite of the fact that pfizer has billions of dollars to gain by lying about their garbage "vaccine".
How would you regulate pharmaceutical companies? Are you arguing that the profit motive in and of itself is unethical? How much do you think it cost Pfizer to develop vaccine? What do you think is an appropriate rate of return on development of a vaccine?


The free market regulates itself. You lie and people get sick, you get sued. But, this is most definitely not free market because vaccine manufacturers in the USA are immune from civil liability.

Anti-Vaxxers will neglect to tell you that this has long been the case with vaccine manufacturers, the reason being that the risk-reward without civil immunity would chill vaccine development. We made this policy decision as a nation, but let's not act like it doesn't exist.
Reply Quote
1
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nasreddin • 8:45a, 12/30/21
Robin Hood Was A Thief said:
cisgenderedAggie said:
I'm not sure what it's claiming was misrepresented to the FDA. FDA gets the data and does their own analyses. Sometimes they agree with the Sponsor, sometimes they don't. Either way, their own analysis is what matters.



You're not sure? Pfizer allegedly reported it as "functional abdominal pain." This child was put into a wheel chair and given a feeding tube.


It's hard to make much of that small clip without seeing the rest of the documentation. It reads like a high level summary.

When you report AEs in a study, you have to categorize them according to a standardized medical dictionary, usually MedDRA. For something unusual, there's not always a good fit and a best attempt has to be made. The categorization will be made by the investigator (not Pfizer) in collaboration sometimes with the medical monitor (likely a physician at pfizer). Those categories are used in summary tables and high level summaries of the events.

When a Serious Adverse Event is reported, it must have an investigation and a narrative written to describe what occurred. This is because regulatory agencies are very attentive to SAEs and it is known that a MedDRA term is not particularly descriptive. That investigation and narrative is not described here. That bullet also doesn't describe causality, which is a required assessment. That's another indication that information is missing. What the slide does do is refer to it as a serious reaction. "Reaction" necessitates that the event was believed to have been caused by the treatment.

I don't think there's anything about what is presented in the slide deck that indicates that FDA was unaware or that Pfizer tried to hide it.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:52a, 12/30/21
AG
I actually agree with a lot of their stance on children and adolescent COVID vaccination. It really needs to be given by risk stratification not universal. The risk to children without risk factors from COVID is so incredibly low it is impossible to justify any risk. The original approval was mostly to prevent community spread but the current vaccines are pretty bad at preventing community spread specifically with Omicron.

And the complications of that 12 year old do happen with and without vaccine. It is impossible to know if the vaccine actually caused her gastroparesis. I've had several similar cases without vaccine over my 20 years in practice.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
9
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KidDoc • 9:04a, 12/30/21
Of course. Again my issue isn't the reaction, it's the reporting.
Reply Quote
2
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07a, 12/30/21
What would be interesting is if the pro-ivermectin people and the anti-ivermectin people were consistent in their respective demands as to study requirements.
Reply Quote
7
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nasreddin • 9:47a, 12/30/21
AG
The mRNA vaccine trials dwarf any ivermectin study in every respect. I don't think asking for consistency is going to favor the pro-ivermectin crowd much.

If you want to read a very thorough and surprisingly fair review of ivermectin literature, see here:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted
Reply Quote
4
BudFox7
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:53a, 12/30/21
1600 suspected but unconfirmed COVID cases in the inoculation group. If you include the suspected covid cases, the efficacy reflects what we have seen In real world, and the risks from the Pfizer vaccine outweighs the benefits.
Reply Quote
13
snowdog90
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wakesurfer817 • 10:09a, 12/30/21
Wakesurfer817 said:
snowdog90 said:
Robin Hood Was A Thief said:
Yeah...I haven't gotten to the point of increased risk or any of that stuff. I'm talking by about the misrepresentations to the fda. Are the reports statements concerning misrepresentations false or exaggerated? I'm not a scientist or a researcher, so I have ZERO opinion on data or results, but when someone potentially lies to the fda, it will make me question all their data.

Lawyers use this all the time in impeaching witnesses - "you lied about this, why should we believe you on that?"


There were only a few billion reasons for pfizer to lie. Amazing that people who once hated Big Pharma will believe anything pfizer tells them, in spite of the fact that pfizer has billions of dollars to gain by lying about their garbage "vaccine".
How would you regulate pharmaceutical companies? Are you arguing that the profit motive in and of itself is unethical? How much do you think it cost Pfizer to develop vaccine? What do you think is an appropriate rate of return on development of a vaccine?


These questions are not relevant. Pfizer should not be able to lie about their product for billions in profit. That's all.
Reply Quote
4
JFABNRGR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to I Sold DeSantis Lifts • 10:43a, 12/30/21
AG
Jay Reimenschneider said:
Who is this group? Does this report cause any concerns to the physicians here? Or should it be dismissed as quackery?

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf
I posted this last night and it looks like it was removed. Much of this is Pfizer's own data and why it shouldn't be allowed to be reviewed by persons to determine their own best health is beyond me. This should be the very nature of informed consent. The rest was compiled by doctors.

“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Reply Quote
10
JFABNRGR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nasreddin • 10:52a, 12/30/21
AG
Robin Hood Was A Thief said:
Yeah...I haven't gotten to the point of increased risk or any of that stuff. I'm talking by about the misrepresentations to the fda. Are the reports statements concerning misrepresentations false or exaggerated? I'm not a scientist or a researcher, so I have ZERO opinion on data or results, but when someone potentially lies to the fda, it will make me question all their data.

Lawyers use this all the time in impeaching witnesses - "you lied about this, why should we believe you on that?"
My perspective on the reports, is that it was written in a manner to deflect some or even most of the liability on CDC, FDA, even the Pence led Covid team to get this approved for distribution even with massive failures in testing and even efficacy. Page 11 Table S3 of Pfizer's own data, is extremely alarming and you do not need to be a medical professional to understand.

To me this report makes the FDA approval of Comarditiy and not the EUA drug continuing to be used in the USA understandable.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Reply Quote
2
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txaggie79 • 12:13p, 12/30/21
txaggie79 said:
If you go to their website and read their FAQ section it becomes obvious that this is a Canadian anti-vax group. I am skeptical of any of these fringe groups, whether pro or anti vax.
Small request for clarification: with the recent redefinition of anti-vax it's hard to tell when that term is thrown around if someone is true quack, a freedom-minded American, or somewhere in between. (This confusion was purposeful, but that's another matter.)

Are these full-blown anti-vaxers, EUA suspicious folks, or anti-mandate types?
Reply Quote
3
Nasreddin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 12:23p, 12/30/21
500+ doctors and medial professionals = anti vax. Loooooool
Reply Quote
3
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:31p, 12/30/21
AG
In general, I tend to put more stock in presentations/reports that are just dry analytics and stats, and avoid emotional appeals and one-off anecdotes. The latter tend to be tell tale signs you're being sold on a special interest rather than being allowed to come to your own independent conclusions.

But if the data are good then worth a consideration in the overall risk-reward proposition.
Reply Quote
4
Another Doug
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:04p, 12/30/21
AG
Quote:
Who is the Canadian Covid Care Alliance?
According to their site, if you give them $50 they will tell you who they are (and become one of the 500+ professionals).

In short they are just the maple syrup version of all the horse **** that has been made the rounds over the last year. There might be some actual facts to be found from them, but the site is riddled with dubious claims. One of the first questions on their FAQ is do the vaccines change their DNA, and their answer isn't "no".
Reply Quote
16
txaggie79
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Nasreddin • 3:24p, 12/30/21
AG
Robin Hood Was A Thief said:
500+ doctors and medial professionals = anti vax. Loooooool
In their FAQ, these "doctors" define a vaccine by quoting Wikipedia.

Seems legit. :-)
Reply Quote
1
tmaggies
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txaggie79 • 4:09p, 12/30/21
AG
txaggie79 said:
If you go to their website and read their FAQ section it becomes obvious that this is a Canadian anti-vax group. I am skeptical of any of these fringe groups, whether pro or anti vax.




Agree 100% but just as skeptical of the CDC.
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.