Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

King Mob · 05-06-2022 12:19am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119159221#Comment_119159221

You keep claiming this man, but it doesn't mean it's true. You keep clinging to weird, specific and narrow definitions of specific out of context quotes. But when you're asked to actually provide more examples outside of that to confirm your interpretation, you ignore the post.

That's fine though.

What do you believe they should have actually done?

You agree that the vaccine is still useful and effective. You say that this was never in doubt.

Should they have approved the vaccine separately for the specific use at reducing the severity of the virus?

astrofool · 05-06-2022 4:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119158610#Comment_119158610

I think you've narrowed your argument sufficiently that you can go broad on the reasons why all (thousands and thousands across multiple companies and agencies, some of which are competing with each other directly and others of which worked on developing vaccines which didn't prove effective) the scientists involved are lying (knowing that the main reason people posting as such as that there is some conspiracy involved which they can't define).

And at least you're at the point where you understand why the thread is on the conspiracy forum.

hometruths · 05-06-2022 6:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119161786#Comment_119161786

I think there is a range of plausible reasons, depending on who is doing the lying, and how blatant the lie is.

For example at a higher level such as EU messaging, governments, individual politicians etc - if they say that the vaccines were approved to reduce the severity of outcomes based on comprehensive data from massive trials then I'd guess the reason for lying is simply public health policy.

Policy is to have as a high a vaccination rate as possible. They have calculated that a more transparent and honest approach - i.e saying we'll update the approval from authorising use to prevent symptomatic Covid, to authorising use to reduce the severity of symptomatic Covid - would harm vaccine confidence and thus uptake. Far better for confidence and uptake to cling to the charade that vaccines are working as intended.

At a lower level, members of the public - eg yourself and some of the other posters on this forum - I have absolutely no idea why you would lie, but I don't think you are deliberately lying to cover anything up. The only plausible explanation is that the spin has been very effective thus you genuinely believe it.

astrofool · 05-06-2022 6:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162342#Comment_119162342

So, the politicians of every different country (some of which are now at war with each other) are putting pressure on all of the scientists to lie? Come on, bring it to it's conclusion without needing guidance for each step.

hometruths · 05-06-2022 7:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162399#Comment_119162399

I haven’t accused scientists of lying, I’ve been referring to spin all along. It was you and KingMob that started the whole i must believe the scientists are lying, that’s just part of your either you think you’re smarter or they’re lying argument

I said if a scientist claims the vaccines were approved to reduce the severity of outcomes based on comprehensive data from massive trials, then yes I think they are lying.

I’ve seen plenty of spin but have not seen a scientist lie about the trial data like that. Probably because this data does not exist.

I did accuse you of lying because that’s exactly what you said.

astrofool · 05-06-2022 8:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162576#Comment_119162576

OK, so no one is lying, but the politicians of all countries around the world are using spin, all of them with the same message? And the regulatory authorities of every different country and grouping are all in on the spin? (keep going, we're almost there, you will think everyone else in the world is lying, so that last comment means nothing other than you fighting like a rat in a corner, the other 2 CT posters agree with you, but aren't as close to spilling the beans on the conspiracy yet).

I said if a scientist claims the vaccines were approved to reduce the severity of outcomes based on comprehensive data from massive trials, then yes I think they are lying.

I’ve seen plenty of spin but have not seen a scientist lie about the trial data like that. Probably because this data does not exist.

You've already been debunked plenty of times on these (you just really want to re-tread this area and get away from all governments being in on a global vaccine spin plot don't you? :) , there is a bmj report from scientists saying exactly this that you are now accusing of lying by the way).

Roxxers · 05-06-2022 8:42pm

man this thread sucks man

hometruths · 05-06-2022 8:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162723#Comment_119162723

You've already been debunked plenty of times on these (you just really want to re-tread this area and get away from all governments being in on a global vaccine spin plot don't you? :) , there is a bmj report from scientists saying exactly this that you are now accusing of lying by the way)

Please stop making ridiculous accusations of who I am accusing of lying. By all means link to the report and I will tell you if I think they are lying or not!

Dohnjoe · 05-06-2022 8:54pm

Page 227 of "No one can convince me" on the "I can't post this drivel anywhere but here" forum

Roxxers · 05-06-2022 8:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162799#Comment_119162799

;

'

hometruths · 05-06-2022 9:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162399#Comment_119162399

Come on, bring it to it's conclusion without needing guidance for each step.

Ok, fair enough, let's give it a shot.

According to an article in the BMJ, October 2020, pre-approval, your beliefs are a reasonable assumption, but not actually true:

In the trials, final efficacy analyses are planned after just 150 to 160 “events,”—that is, a positive indication of symptomatic covid-19, regardless of severity of the illness.

Yet until vaccine manufacturers began to release their study protocols in mid-September, trial registries and other publicly released information did little to dispel the notion that it was severe covid-19 that the trials were assessing. Moderna, for example, called hospital admissions a “key secondary endpoint” in statements to the media. And a press release from the US National Institutes of Health reinforced this impression, stating that Moderna’s trial “aims to study whether the vaccine can prevent severe covid-19” and “seeks to answer if the vaccine can prevent death caused by covid-19.”

Just in case anybody is tempted to dismiss the BMJ as another anti-vaxxer rag, they quote the chief medical officer of Moderna:

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.”

Just to hammer home the point that the public might believe otherwise, they continue:

Still, it’s fair to say that most of the general public assumes that the whole point of the current trials, besides testing safety, is to see whether the vaccine can prevent bad outcomes. “How do you reconcile that?” The BMJ asked Zaks.

Zaks has no problem reconciling that. He is emphatically unambiguous:

“Very simply,” he replied. “Number one, we have a bad outcome as our endpoint. It’s covid-19 disease.” Moderna, like Pfizer and Janssen, has designed its study to detect a relative risk reduction of at least 30% in participants developing laboratory confirmed covid-19, consistent with FDA and international guidance.

Number two, Zaks pointed to influenza vaccines, saying they protect against severe disease better than mild disease. To Moderna, it’s the same for covid-19: if its vaccine is shown to reduce symptomatic covid-19, it will be confident it also protects against serious outcomes.

So the chief medical officer of Moderna is saying the data prevents the bad outcome of covid-19 disease. That's what the data shows. Yes he was confident that it will protect against serious outcomes but he does not have the data to prove it. Which is exactly why the regulators cited insufficient data on protecting against serious outcomes.

So the chief Medical officer of Moderna says of the the trial data: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences"

Yet you say: "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

These two statements are totally contradictory.

By your own logic there can only be two explanations for this: a) you're smarter than him or b) he's lying.

Which is it?

astrofool · 05-06-2022 9:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162932#Comment_119162932

Next step, why is everybody in every country spinning this information, why is every scientist in on it.

(and good to see you found the BMJ article I pointed you at 😉)

King Mob · 06-06-2022 12:57am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162576#Comment_119162576

And when the scientists were proposing an explanation for the case data that you believe is clearly false, were they lying there too? Or...?

Because in that case you have to belive that they were either lying about it or that you are somehow better at their jobs than them.

Unless you can provide another reason why they would provide an explanation that is totally and clearly false.

hometruths · 06-06-2022 11:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119163116#Comment_119163116

Next step? Surely the next step takes care of itself, by addressing this fact:

So the chief Medical officer of Moderna says of the the trial data: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences"

Yet you say: "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

These two statements are totally contradictory.

My position is given that you are spinning this, you are far better placed than I to explain why people are spinning it.

Unless of course I am mistaken, and you in fact agree with the chief medical officer of Moderna?

Igotadose · 06-06-2022 12:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164693#Comment_119164693

The Moderna CEO is implying that when vaccinated, hospital admissions and deaths drop off. Not that vaccine isn't effective - in fact, it's so effective they can't find enough cases to study because they've dropped off.

Data on severity and complications was proven in massive trials before the vaccines were given approval. This isn't contradictory at all - in fact, it emphasizes the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

astrofool · 06-06-2022 12:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164693#Comment_119164693

You're plumbing the depths now, even the approval authorities agreed with the chief medical officer of Moderna, nobody is arguing that, just your inability to grasp any of these constructs.

But, come on, next step, you've humiliated yourself enough with misunderstanding concepts (yet seem to want to go over them again and again).

Why are all governments and scientists around the world engaging in spin over vaccine effectiveness, why are the scientists of failed vaccines also backing up the findings of the successful vaccines when they have nothing to gain. Just get it out of your system. "I don't know" from you means you've conceded your entire argument again, you have to know for your argument to make any sense.

King Mob · 06-06-2022 1:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164961#Comment_119164961

Again he's cornered cause he can't be honest and just admit to believing into a giant silly conspiracy theory.

He knows that admitting it would invalidate all of his attempts at pretending to not be a conspiracy theorist.

hometruths · 06-06-2022 1:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164961#Comment_119164961

You're plumbing the depths now, even the approval authorities agreed with the chief medical officer of Moderna, nobody is arguing that, just your inability to grasp any of these constructs.

Yes the approval authorities agreed with the chief medical officer of Moderna when he said: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences" - the approval authorities said exactly the same thing in their reports.

My point is that you disagree with him when you say that approval was granted because ""the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

Are you saying he is lying or that you are smarter than him? What is your reason for disagreeing with him?

astrofool · 06-06-2022 1:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165187#Comment_119165187

You keep trying to go over the bits that were explained to you and you don't understand even when explained in detail. However, assuming that you believe this, you need to explain why all the scientists and governments around the world engaged in spin around the vaccines or your argument doesn't stand up.

Going over the minutiae of statements you don't understand doesn't progress that area and it's impossible to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.

(I am impressed by how easy it was to lead you to the BMJ article and then proceed to thoroughly misunderstand it, as predicted 😊).

hometruths · 06-06-2022 2:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165202#Comment_119165202

You keep trying to go over the bits that were explained to you and you don't understand even when explained in detail.

Nobody has even tried, least of all you, to explain how the statement on trial data: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences" means that approval was granted because "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials".

Did I miss the explanation? Perhaps you could link to where it was explained in detail?

Because the more you just keep on deflecting with "you don't understand" the more you prove my original point:

When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

This is total and utter nonsense, and as far as I am concerned it undermines all subsequent claims about the vaccine efficacy and safety.

astrofool · 06-06-2022 2:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165293#Comment_119165293

You can re-read the thread in your own time, but we are at this juncture now, I'm not disputing that you don't understand while everyone else does (and I did notice you backed away from the controlled environment question a few times at this stage):

you need to explain why all the scientists and governments around the world engaged in spin around the vaccines or your argument doesn't stand up.

hometruths · 06-06-2022 3:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165499#Comment_119165499

No need to re-read the thread. I raised this specific question for the first time last night, only a handful of posts ago, and you haven't even acknowledged it let alone explained it detail:

The chief medical officer of Moderna says:

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

And you say: "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

Is the chief medical officer of Moderna wrong?

King Mob · 06-06-2022 3:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165587#Comment_119165587

Why aren't you answering his question man?

hometruths · 06-06-2022 4:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165613#Comment_119165613

Out of interest, why aren’t you so concerned, that he has not answered this question, man?

Is the chief medical officer of Moderna wrong?

are you able to answer it?

Fighting Tao · 06-06-2022 5:16pm

Wormed so far down a hole that he is now clinging onto dear life on one comment someone made once upon a time in the hope that it distracts people enough to try and dig out the other side of the world away in some remote location that he can be an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist where he can’t be questioned.

hometruths · 06-06-2022 5:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165988#Comment_119165988

So are you saying the chief medical officer of Moderna is wrong on this point?

astrofool · 06-06-2022 5:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165587#Comment_119165587

I completely agree with what the Moderna CMO Tal Zaks said, he hasn't said what you think he has, you would need to read much much more approval data and analysis (and study science and medicine) then you have delved into so far (such as the approval processes for other medicines and vaccines). However, this is you still stuck like a rat, if Tal Zaks meant what you think he meant, that means that everybody is in on something, what is that thing that you won't say?

Remember, what is at question is your reading of the statements and data, for that to hold together, you need to explain why, with that interpretation, scientists and governments are spinning the data.

Fighting Tao · 06-06-2022 5:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166006#Comment_119166006

Your comprehension skills have been lacking even when people were translating into language that toddlers would understand. No matter what I say to explain it to you won’t make a difference because you don’t want to understand. Don’t forget to pop back up the hole to spam the same same posts in a month or so after living alone on the outback where no one will challenge your wilful ignorance.

hometruths · 06-06-2022 6:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166054#Comment_119166054

I completely agree with what the Moderna CMO Tal Zaks said, he hasn't said what you think he has

There is no doubt in what I think he means, it's written in plain English any fool could understand:

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

He means that they cannot conclusively say the vaccine is effective at reducing hospital admissions and death due to insufficient data.

However, this is you still stuck like a rat, if Tal Zaks meant what you think he meant, that means that everybody is in on something, what is that thing that you won't say?

Everybody is admiring the emperor's new clothes. They're truly stunning.

King Mob · 06-06-2022 8:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165791#Comment_119165791

Because he hasn't spend a good deal of the thread dodging questions.

Because these gotcha questions of yours are very silly.

Because your arguments always seem to rely on their narrow interpretations of out of context quotes that you can't actually explain on the wider context of your own beliefs.

And cause it's funnier to highlight your cowardice and dishonesty.

I'll answer any question you'd like the moment you answer astrofools.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments