Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
1…321322324326327…419

Comments

  • Options
    #9692
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450156#Comment_119450156

    Ok finally. Only took you like a page to get an answer to this question.


    You can't explain why they wouldn't comment on it.

    So we can exclude the notion that the graph indicates a safety issue, as doesn't make sense for them not to comment on it if it was.

    Now, lets say Odyssey's argument is correct that that the numbers showing negative effectiveness were not statistically significant.

    Would this explain why they wouldn't comment on them?


    Also, since you suspect that the pink areas are confidence intervals, you will then agree that they also show that the numbers might be above zero. Correct?



  • Options
    #9693
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,196 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450194#Comment_119450194

    You mean this massive trial which showed vaccines preventing at least 15000 cases - rather than the much smaller set of data representing AZ at + 8 months?

    By contrast these are the figures for the Total Cohort Study, Any Vaccine, over the entire study:

    • Number of individuals = 1,685,948
    • Vaccinated Number of events = 6,147
    • Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 4.9
    • Unvaccinated Number of events = 21,771
    • Unvaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 31.6
    • Difference in Events = 15,600

    https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140-6736%2822%2900089-7

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #9694
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450222#Comment_119450222

    Ok finally. Only took you like a page to get an answer to this question.

    I raised this point the last time round when I said the far more interesting discussion about this graph is why the authors didn't comment on it, not the question of whether or not it showed vaccine efficacy.

    So we can exclude the notion that the graph indicates a safety issue, as doesn't make sense for them not to comment on it.

    Well that's not necessarily true. As we have seen with the covid origins theory, the chair of the Lancet commission on covid has claimed that scientists have a narrative and deliberately avoid anything that conflicts with this narrative. If scientists and experts prepared to avoid hard questions on covid origins, no reason to believe it would be any different on vaccines. Negative efficacy would definitely conflict with the vaccine narrative.

    Now, lets say Odyssey's argument is correct that that the numbers showing negative effectiveness were not statistically significant.

    Would this explain why they wouldn't comment on them?

    I would definitely expect them to comment on them one way or another. Why not say our findings re negative efficacy are not statistically significant. Exactly like the reports on the clinical trials - they commented that the findings indicated an efficacy against severe disease but findings were unreliable due to insufficient data.

    I don't think you can assume they didn't comment on them because they were not statistically significant. That seems unlikely to me.

    Also, since you suspect that the pink areas are confidence intervals, you will then agree that they also show that the numbers might be above zero. Correct?

    Yes.



  • Options
    #9695
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450289#Comment_119450289

    I raised this point the last time round when I said the far more interesting discussion about this graph is why the authors didn't comment on it, not the question of whether or not it showed vaccine efficacy.

    The point being that you didn't know why they didn't comment on it?

    Well that's not necessarily true. As we have seen with the covid origins theory, the chair of the Lancet commission on covid has claimed that scientists have a narrative and deliberately avoid anything that conflicts with this narrative. If scientists and experts prepared to avoid hard questions on covid origins, no reason to believe it would be any different on vaccines. Negative efficacy would definitely conflict with the vaccine narrative.

    But this explanation isn't possible either. If negative efficacy would conflict with the vaccine narrative, and the authors of the study were involved in a conspiracy, why would they make that graph?

    They could have easily excluded that part of the data without comment. Or could have claimed that it wasn't statistically significant. Or straight up alter the data to show an even bigger benefit than it does.

    Again it makes no sense.

    (Hell they could have even just not put the raw data into a graph at all, and I suspect that you'd have never have found that one picture you keep posting.)

    And again, if this is the argument you're suggesting, then you are suggesting that the study is fraudulent and thus entirely invalid.


    And again, you're misrepresenting things as that expert you're quoting said nothing about vaccine safety studies.


    I would definitely expect them to comment on them one way or another. Why not say our findings re negative efficacy are not statistically significant.

    Maybe because they thought that would be clear from the actual numbers.

    Maybe because they innocently thought that only people who had some idea bout statistics would be reading the data, not conspiracy theorist grifters trawling through studies to cherry pick stuff.

    Maybe because their actual conclusions and comments didn't really rely on anything beyond the point they state, so didn't think it was important enough.


    You are arguing that they stumbled upon a massive safety issue, but neglected to comment on it. Why do you expect them to comment on specifics of the statistics, but then think it's plausible that they wouldn't comment on such a significant finding?

    That's completely ridiculous and grasping at straws.


    I don't think you can assume they didn't comment on them because they were not statistically significant. That seems unlikely to me.

    But you do think it's likely that there's a global conspiracy controlling what they say.

    Your scale of what is and isn't likely is clearly off.

    Also, since you suspect that the pink areas are confidence intervals, you will then agree that they also show that the numbers might be above zero. Correct?

    Yes.

    Ok then. So in that case, the graph doesn't necessarily show negative efficacy.


    Also, you've avoided yet another point.

    The study you're clinging to states:

    "Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

    Do you agree with the study when it claims this? Do you believe this conclusion they reach is accurate?



  • Options
    #9696
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450356#Comment_119450356

    Again it makes no sense.

    I'm not ignoring any of your points, just highlighting this comment because it covers all of your points. I agree. It makes no sense why they did not comment on it. They included the graph, when as you say presumably they could have left it out.

    But it is far from the first let's rustle up an argument for covid vaccines study/report/article/commentary that makes no sense.

    And again, you're misrepresenting things as that expert you're quoting said nothing about vaccine safety studies.

    And again, I am not misrepresenting things. The point is there is no reason to believe scientists would stick to a narrative on covid origins and avoid looking at things that contradict that narrative, but not do the same on vaccines. This point seems to have gone over your head.

    Ok then. So in that case, the graph doesn't necessarily show negative efficacy.

    Grasping at straws.

    Also, you've avoided yet another point.

    The study you're clinging to states:

    "Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

    Do you agree with the study when it claims this? Do you believe this conclusion they reach is accurate?

    I'm not clinging to this study. I'm simply pointing out there findings on vaccine effectiveness. I think using these findings to promote vaccines is horseshit.

    As you well know I think, except in certain circumstances, vaccination is neither wise nor important.

    But in any event, the study does not claim that. Where in the study does it state that. Anywhere at all in the text or abstract or conclusion? Yes or no? If yes, quote it directly please. If no then stop misrepresenting things, yadda yadda yadda, etc etc etc.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9697
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450482#Comment_119450482

    I'm not ignoring any of your points, just highlighting this comment because it covers all of your points. I agree. It makes no sense why they did not comment on it. They included the graph, when as you say presumably they could have left it out.

    No, you're yet again putting an argument in my mouth.

    I said that your insistence that they are engaging in a cover up makes no sense. I said the idea that they stumbled upon a huge safety issue like that, but didn't comment on it makes no sense.

    My actual argument is that they didn't actually stumble on a huge safety issue and that the appearance of negative numbers in the graph are perhaps due to statistical quirks from a very low number of data points or similar. This makes complete sense.


    Your scenario does not make any logical sense. I've explained why it makes no sense rather than just declare it does, unlike you.

    You are ignoring the rest of my points, because you are not actually able to counter them like I was able to show your suggested explanation didn't make sense.

    So, you've no explanation for why they wouldn't mention it. I've supplied several that are plausible and logically consistent.


    And again, I am not misrepresenting things. The point is there is no reason to believe scientists would stick to a narrative on covid origins and avoid looking at things that contradict that narrative, but not do the same on vaccines. This point seems to have gone over your head.

    But, leaving your misrepresenting aside, as we've seen, we know that this isn't the case here. See above.


    Grasping at straws.

    Nope, just holding you to the same accuracy that you demand from others.

    According to that graph, the efficacy after 9 months has a huge range of values. They can't narrow it down any more than they have because the data they are working with at that end of the graph isn't statistically significant. So for all we know the actual number could be positive.


    I'm not clinging to this study. I'm simply pointing out there findings on vaccine effectiveness. I think using these findings to promote vaccines is horseshit.

    As you well know I think, except in certain circumstances, vaccination is neither wise nor important.

    Ok. So then you think the study's conclusions are false and therefore it and all it's statistics are invalid.

    If that's not the case, why are they making this false conclusion? Why would you trust the figures when you believe the authors are lying?

    It makes no sense to do this unless you were just cherrying picking the graph and completely editing out of reality the rest of the context.

    Edit: Scratch that last part. Double checked the study and it doesn't actually contain that quote. I confused it with something else.

    However the study does state:

    The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.

    Which is much the same idea.

    Edit edit:

    The source of the quote is from the author of the study:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207100117.htm

    "The bad news is that the protection against infection seems to be diminished by seven months after the second dose of vaccine," says Peter Nordström, professor of geriatric medicine at Umeå University. "The good news, however, is that the protection against a severe infection that leads to hospitalization or death seems to be better maintained. Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."



  • Options
    #9698
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450576#Comment_119450576

    Double checked the study and it doesn't actually contain that quote. I confused it with something else.

    Becoming quite the habit.



  • Options
    #9699
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450645#Comment_119450645

    Mm hmm.

    Cool.

    Using that as an excuse to dodge points then. I will take that as you conceding them.


    I edited the post to reflect the source of the quote.

    The author of the paper states:

    "Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

    You believe he is either lying or incompetent.

    Which is it?



  • Options
    #9700
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 30,196 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450482#Comment_119450482

    It was a direct quote from the author of the report introducing it and has been presented to you already on the thread, with its source.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207100117.htm

    It was his conclusion, as an expert, in response to his finding. A study you introduced onto the topic so you must accept his standing as an expert. And he uses these findings to promote vaccines. What you have provided to counter this, well it counts for nothing in comparison.

    You can cling to whatever opinion you want about vaccines, but don't pretend it is supported by this report and is expressly refuted by the expert author of the study.

    The findings of the study show the benefits of vaccination - thousands of cases prevented over the trial period.

    • Number of individuals = 1,685,948
    • Vaccinated Number of events = 6,147
    • Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 4.9
    • Unvaccinated Number of events = 21,771
    • Unvaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 31.6
    • Difference in Events = 15,600

    https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140-6736%2822%2900089-7

    That's just cases. It also showed durable protection against severe covid for the entire trial period.

    For the outcome of severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness waned from 89% (82 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days to 64% (44 to 77; p<0·001) from day 121 onwards

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362200089-7/fulltext

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #9701
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450671#Comment_119450671

    So in the context of hospitalization or death, he thinks vaccination is wise and important.

    I’ve no problem with that. If you’re at increased risk of hospitalization or death then vaccination could of course be viewed as wise or important.

    But not for everybody. The wisdom and importance depends on the individual.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9702
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450750#Comment_119450750

    Great. He's not a liar then. So he's not involved in the conspiracy which means that his study wasn't influenced like you suggested. Again another reason to exclude that possibility.

    And as his study shows and you therefore accept, the vaccines reduce the chances of dying or being hospitalised regardless of age.



  • Options
    #9703
    kernkraft500
    Registered Users Posts: 181 ✭✭kernkraft500


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448296#Comment_119448296

    I'm gonna let you in on a little secret that'll blow your mind...

    Vaccines don't work for forever..

    Do you kick up this much fuss about the seasonal flu vaccine, which lasts 3-9 months (if even) and has about 40-60% efficacy?

    Last years one was found to be only 16% effective because they predicted the wrong variants in some parts of the world (imagine, it's marketed as "Flu vaccine" but doesn't fight off Flu call the EMA).



  • Options
    #9704
    snowcat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448127#Comment_119448127

    You are a very difficult person to try and reason a point with. Screaming and wailing for evidence is great but not always possible in the short time frame that we have injected billions of people with a new vaccine. Again we are seeing massive excess deaths across many countries and it is caused by something. It is possible the vaccine or covid or a combination of the two is causing it. Is there evidence. No. Is it a conspiracy theory, possibly but we dont have a jury or trial or anything yet so we could say the jury is out.



  • Options
    #9705
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451016#Comment_119451016

    But all the evidence and studies point to the vaccine being safe. So are all those studies fake?



  • Options
    #9706
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451047#Comment_119451047

    Let's say there are commercial interests at work..



  • Options
    #9707
    snowcat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451047#Comment_119451047

    Course not. They believe GMO food is safe too. It is up to you to participate in the experiment or not. Same with GMO food.



  • Options
    #9708
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451052#Comment_119451052

    So you believe that's it all been faked to sell vaccines?



  • Options
    #9709
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451063#Comment_119451063

    Haven't the Pfizer releases not kind of implied it was fudged a bit?..

    And like, they obviously didn't go through prolonged proper testing?..

    Who knows what happens after a few years?..

    Aren't insurance companies in the states showing deaths among working age people up significantly too?..



  • Options
    #9710
    snowcat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451063#Comment_119451063

    I doubt it somehow but Pharma companies like to seize an oppurtunity. And in fairness if i was their CEO i'd be screaming this is our chance of a lifetime as well.



  • Options
    #9711
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451086#Comment_119451086

    And we are back to this.

    We know mrna does not stay in your system, no vaccine does. So no it won't take years to see what will happen.

    Also yet again... The vaccines have been proven to be safe... You just guessing deaths are related means nothing.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9712
    snowcat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451100#Comment_119451100

    OK thanks for the information. I wont be trusting you though. No offence. We will see how things pan out



  • Options
    #9713
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451100#Comment_119451100

    Well..Best of luck with it..



  • Options
    #9714
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451116#Comment_119451116

    Do you know what mrna is?



  • Options
    #9715
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450860#Comment_119450860

    ˇDo you kick up this much fuss about the seasonal flu vaccine, which lasts 3-9 months (if even) and has about 40-60% efficacy?

    Last years one was found to be only 16% effective because they predicted the wrong variants in some parts of the world (imagine, it's marketed as "Flu vaccine" but doesn't fight off Flu call the EMA).

    The difference with flu vaccines is historically when there have been a large number of breakthrough infections - i.e cases of vaccine failure - it has generally been acknowledged that they don't work very well, and this is judged to be a disappointment, notwithstanding their ability to reduce severity.

    I don't recall a leaky flu vaccine to which everybody responded "This is brilliant, the vaccines are amazing, and anybody who says they are not working well is a heretic"



  • Options
    #9716
    snowcat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451129#Comment_119451129
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451116#Comment_119451116

    Do you? This is not a public information thread.



  • Options
    #9717
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451154#Comment_119451154

    Yes I also know its been used for decades... How much longer testing do you need?



  • Options
    #9718
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451129#Comment_119451129

    Don't they do credit cards or something?..



  • Options
    #9719
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451162#Comment_119451162

    Yeap so you don't know, fair play.



  • Options
    #9720
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451168#Comment_119451168

    Ah, that's mBna I was thinking of..



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9721
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119451100#Comment_119451100

    The vaccines have been proven to be safe

    Proven to be safe is a bit of a stretch according to the Australian Medical Professionals Society:

    The comparative lack of vital long-term data (present for other vaccines and medical treatments) is lacking in Covid vaccines – making it difficult to justify statements such as proven safe and effective. ‘Assumed to the best of our knowledge’ would be more accurate.

    https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/the-end-of-medicine/



Advertisement