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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

1174175177179180

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    Incredible,

    Some batches as high as 1/20 adverse effects.

    Others 1/1000 - even this is too high, vaccines have been pulled for 1/10,000 adverse effects.


    Yet still people on here will defend these.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The study even says the below but of course as expected anti vaxxers will ignore this and misrepreset the findings as proving something about vaccines being unsafe when it can do no such thing:

    "The DKMA-managed spontaneous SAE reporting system in Denmark is a passive surveillance system akin to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US, and reports from these systems are subject to reporting biases, with potential for both under- and over-reporting, as well as incomplete data and variable quality of the reported information. Owing to these inherent limitations, signals detected by these systems must be considered to be hypothesis-generating and generally cannot be used to establish causality."

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    The Danish study signals problems with vaccines and asks interesting questions. I think that the researchers discovered patterns that indicate issues with the Pfizer product. Those issues are most likely related to product quality in a large scale production scenario.

    Ramping up production to millions and billions of units in such a short period of time was most likely achieved by outsourcing and manufacturing in multiple plants at the same time. This product required specific storage and transportation conditions, which imposed the need for distributed manufacturing. For example US received the vaccines from different plants than say Europe and so on, thus making some adverse event reporting systems not pick up the signals. Manufacturing so many vaccines in such a short period of time while maintaining the product quality is extremely difficult. Of course, any deviation from the expected specification should have been picked up by the quality control but as we know that sometime fails too.

    If that is what happened the affected batches should be easily traceable to the respective plants and product quality issues could easily be confirmed. Could it be that some of the plants have failed to provide an in-spec product especially when large quantities were processed at the same time and the process became unstable? Did somebody from Pfizer not say that making the vaccine was like building the plane and flying it at the same time? Maybe it really was.

    Another possibility could be that Pfizer re-formulated the vaccine to make it less and less harmful. That would imply that they knew about the inherent issues to begin with but still chose to introduce the product to the market. Highly unlikely imo.

    I think that the vaccine was safe and the formula/process was stable and worked well on a small scale. It is only when the production was ramped up the issues came up to the surface and this is what the study detected.   

    Of course, the authors in line with scientific epistemology cannot make definite statements and conclusions. It is to early and more research is required. Otherwise they would have not got it published. As far as I understand these are preliminary findings and the data is not fully in yet for the 'yellow line'. On top of that there are concerns about under-reporting of the events that occurred long after the vaccine injections - the more time has passed the harder it is to link the SAE with the jab. Nevertheless this work certainly signals problems with the some of the early batches of the vaccines and gives an opportunity for Pfizer and other researchers to investigate. 

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The differences in data for batches are explicable with regard to the different groups who received the batches, and when.

    The work does not "clearly signal problems with some of the early batches" and to suggest it is scurrilous anti vax scaremongering.

    As explained already, there is plausible alternative explanations to account for the data differences.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821693/#Comment_120821693

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    As I said in the original post age was not a factor. Although not in the paper, this was confirmed by the authors after the paper was published.

    In fact the green and yellow batches had a higher elderly (70+) participation than in the blue batch. Blue batches got first to younger cohorts who were deemed essential i.e. healthcare workers.

    Therefore the 'plausible alternative' is not really plausible.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It wasn't in the original paper. Right.

    And was the original paper even peer reviewed?

    But now we're expected to rely on comments from the authors that contradict the actual contents of the study itself.

    When the study itself actually says:

    In addition, in the present study, the SAE case history of prior COVID-19 was unknown, and specific SAE types (MedDRA system organ class etc.), demographics of SAE cases, relationships of SAEs with consecutive vaccine doses in individuals cases, temporal trends in the observed batch-dependency of SAEs, and batch-dependent effects on vaccine effectiveness, respectively, were not examined.

    The claims about this study get more and more dubious.

    More VAERS reports from early batches can also be explained by known factor of a 'new' medicine undergoing more vigilance by reporters.

    On what has been presented so far, the stories being spun about this study appear to be nothing more than scurrilous anti vax scare mongering.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    The authors are fairly adamant that they are right and that there were issues with some batches of the product.

    I'd also argue that the families of those 579 Danes who are reported to have lost their lives because of the vaccine would consider their findings much more than "scurrilous ant vax scare mongering".

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Right, just they can't provide actual data and you can't provide evidence of same, and they are now contradicting the actual contents of their study.

    Sure lots of scientists are adamant they are right, only to be corrected and disproven in peer reviews when other scientists have examined their data.

    Where in the study does it attribute causation to 579 deaths in Denmark to the vaccines?

    The notion that a VAERS report indicates causation has been thoroughly discredited it is incredible anti vaxxers persist in this scare story.

    Where does the study, or the authors of the study attribute 579 deaths to vaccines?

    You are now deliberately and deceptively misrepresenting the contents of the study to engage in scurrilous anti vax scare mongering.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    This is gas! did all the rich people get together in 2019 and put the plan in place? great co-ordination, fair play to them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    Time and time again you are making unjustified personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion.

    I don’t see a need to search through my browsing history from 3 months ago. Your claim that the demographic distribution is a possible explanation is debunked by the co-author Vibeke Manniche herself in the clip provided. The fact that it is on Cambell’s channel is completely irrelevant and your remarks are aimed purely to deflect from the fact that your arguments are void.  

    I have no intention to be dragging this any further and engage in such a low level discussion with you. You have made several fruitless attempts to discredit the study and went on the personal insults path, which you always do when there is nothing else to hang onto. Standard tactics.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Translation: Your pretence of an 'open mind' on vaccines have been shown up for the obvious falsehood that it is. Your post history on Covid is therefore entirely relevant to demonstrating that. You were unable to find posts where you rebutted an anti vax claim made by another poster. Yet your post history is full of false or exaggerated claims about vaccine safety risks.

    These are not 'personal' attacks. They directly relate to the anti vax propaganda without merit or foundation you post on this thread. Desperate attempt at the posting tactic of 'playing the victim' when your pretence is rumbled.

    When you have to start pulling figures out of an anti vax grifter John Campbell Youtube video, figures which are nowhere in the study itself, it is clear the claims you have made for the study are thoroughly discredited.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭Sconsey


    The fact that it is on Campbell's youtube channel is very relevant, if you are relying on a widely discredited commentator to prove your point, you have already lost the argument.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Exactly, they aren't releasing this new data through seriously peer reviewed sites, but drip feeding it on a known anti vax outlet. Claims they wouldn't be able to make in a proper study. The discredit themselves with these tactics.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,100 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Conspiracy Theories forum ---------->>>>> 🙄

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,100 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    you mentioned 579 deaths, and of course provided zilch to back this up.

    When questioned on it it became an "irrelevant matter" 🙄

    Are the 579 deaths alleged by you irrelevant or not?

    You then posted a video from the well known fraud Campbell who misrepresents himself as a medical doctor, he is not.

    So that's the best thing you have to back this rubbish up? If so you have nothing.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Standard anti vax tactics. Drop in a false scaremongering claim about vaccines with vague weasel words... 579 deaths, 20% excess deaths. BS they know they cant back up, hoping no one will challenge them.

    Then if challenged they pretend they didn't say that or post 'evidence' that actually in no way proves the original claim. Then come back a few posts later repeating the scaremongering slur as fact. Fundamentally dishonest posting tactics.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    Just to summarise the debate has been about whether the early batches higher SAE rates where due to older demographics (increased median age) and that if this could have skewed the data. This has been debunked straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak – by one of the authors. Any attempts to downplay the significance of that are simply pathetic.

    Whatever the issue you have with the 579 deaths that were classified as SAE related, as reported in the paper, is as far as I understand not related to the above matter and thus I consider it irrelevant.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    1. Is the original paper peer reviewed? We have many times over the course of Covid 'preprints' non reviewed studies making very dubious claims, never make it through peer review. Yet amazingly surface on anti vax news feeds and are posted here. Then disappear without trace. Amazing how you found it yet when have you ever once found a pre-print study that reported favourably on vaccines and posted it here? Well?
    2. The subsequent figures are not in the study. The study itself is on very shaky ground. Figures being drip fed through Youtube have no standing. That the authors are going on a known anti vax grifter Youtube channel to spread their views raises serious questions as to their impartiality and agenda. So no nothing has been debunked except the claims made by you for the original study -> which went well beyond the study itself which was much more qualified as to implications.
    3. Based on all that, there is no credibility at present that the authors have controlled for confounding factors to explain the differences - such as age, precondition profile, or just that more scrutiny \ reports might be expected \ logged for a brand new medicine \ vaccine.
    4. As a frequent poster on this forum, you know that an SAE logged post vaccine \ dispensation does not indicate a causal connection. Yet you still scurrilously attempted to directly link 579 deaths to vaccines in Denmark. If it wasn't relevant why was it mentioned? It was done as an obvious example of anti vax tactics to insinuate any scare story about vaccines.
    5. It has been demonstrated beyond question that you are here pushing an anti vax agenda.


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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Co-author of the paper Vibeke Manniche has been debunked before on claims trying to downplay impact of covid.

    https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/detektor/detektor-laegen-vibeke-manniche-vildleder-med-hjemmelavet-corona-graf?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    The authors of this study have no credibility, as demonstrated by their anti vax grifting as they makes claims without foundation on Youtube etc where they start inventing new claims not even in the study.

    The article was rejected by Lancet and multiple other reputable journals.

    The authors of the study are tracking batches shipped- they don't even know how many doses from each batch were actually used. Differences in batches could in part be accounted for simply that some batches had more unused doses. To know that, and then to come out in public and start talking about major safety issues with vaccines is scurrilous scare mongering.

    Health care workers, being familiar with the reporting systems, were encouraged during the rollout to report adverse events - even minor ones such as fatigue, headache. These are the people who are actually trained to log these reports. So there is another explanation as to why certain non-random groups being vaccinated leads to differences in events reported.

    Serious questions have been raised about the study by experts, one going so far as to label it 'pseudoscience'.

    I agree - The claims being made by the authors of this very dubious study on social media are pseudoscience.

    https://sundhedspolitisktidsskrift-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/sundhedspolitik/7612-eksperter-dansk-forskning-af-bivirkninger-af-pfizer-vaccine-er-bevidst-vildledende-pseudovidenskab.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Oh look, one of the authors of the study was placed under official increased supervision for covid related conduct.

    I think the facts are in, and the authors of this study have been shown to be anti vax grifters and covid wingnuts.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    There is no need to get excited about this. That is normal healthy scientific discourse. Something that went missing since 2020 and was replaced by censorship and name calling even in the scientific world. We would have been in a much better place today if this hadn’t happened.

    This is in fact the article I read originally but could not find again. It is a critique of the research to which the authors responded in a constructive manner providing more information and explaining the issues. The critique mainly stems from the fact that the original data set was limited (data as of Dec 2020). This has been clarified since and more data made available. The fact that some do not agree with findings, methodologies etc. is a normal way the science progresses. New discoveries hardly ever go down without a debate and this debate is even encouraged by the authors of a said paper. Can’t see anything wrong with that. Hopefully more work will follow in other countries and we will get a better understanding of the problem. Good quality data is hard to come by in a timely manner though.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    No need to get excited about it? Read back over your posts and the medical misinformation you posted to the thread based on this utterly discredited study. Claims you would still be standing over had you not been challenged on them. Of course, you claim to have an 'open mind' yet noticeably failed to subject the study to any scrutiny whatsoever yourself in your 'excitement' to spread false claims about vaccines.

    So no, it is not normal healthy scientific discourse. It is scurrilous scaremongering. And it is not censorship to shut down people shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre from social media and reputable journals.

    We have seen the damage done from false and fradulent claims from dubious studies pre Covid, such as Wakefield and the MMR vaccines. The authors of this study are in the same category as far as Im concerned for their scaremongering on social media.

    It is not normal healthy scientific discourse to shout 'Fire' without foundation, and then demand to be proven wrong.

    The tactics employed by the authors here are deceitful and underhand. They put forward a study, then when interviewed about the study, start making more wider claims about vaccine safety. Claims which are nowhere supported by the data in the actual study. There is no 'problem' just a fake scare generated by bad faith actors. Dishonest and untrustworthy - standard operating procedures for anti vaxxers and covid wingnuts.

    There were so many red flags about the study and the conduct of the authors, but of course a partisan anti vaxxer ignores all them, defends such conduct even.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    Your post is a complete nonsense of the highest order. Not that I'm surprised. You have no credentials whatsoever to provide any statements on what is or isn't a proper scientific discourse or to provide any statements with regard to who is or isn't to be considered an expert. We have established that a long way back. Those that confirm your believes are experts those who don't "anti vax grifters and covid wingnuts". Statements like that only erode your very dubious credibility even more.

    If the vaccines are as safe as it is claimed, SAEs would be evenly distributed across the batches. Several of other sources reported/claimed to have found that some batches are significantly more dangerous than others.

    The paper hypothesises that the SAEs were caused by defective vials (manufacturing and handling variabilities) and not by the ingredients: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8492451/

    And this article discusses how bad batch of Moderna vaccine was detected but only after most of 1.2 million doses were used across America: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/18/health/ca-vaccine-lot-pause/index.html

    The Danish study shows a preliminary signal that SAEs are not evenly distributed across the batches and if that was the case it would suggest that the vaccines were not as safe as we were led to believe. They have been others before them suggesting similar issues with these products. This is nothing of extraordinary considering the speed and scale at which the ramp up in production of those vaccines had to happen. If anything product quality issues would have been expected by the manufacturers.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Let's just pause on one of your scaremongering claims in that post.

    The CNN article - which you misrepresent as: "This article discusses how bad batch of Moderna vaccine was detected."

    This is a blatantly deceptive misrepresentation of the article contents.

    Nowhere in the article does it state that a bad batch of vaccine was detected.

    Actually what happened here disproves your claims and shows how seriously safety signals were responded to.

    It says that out of an abundance of caution, rollout was paused.

    And what happened next:

    Late last night, CDPH announced that after further discussions with the Western State Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, Allergy and Immunology specialists, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the manufacturer, CDPH found no scientific basis to continue the pause.

    https://ggcity.org/news/county-advisory-moderna-vaccine-lot-041l20a

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I will also link note here there are multiple expert rebuttals to the study.

    The authors behind the "Danish paper" only had access to data on when batches were shipped... They compare batches without taking into account different lengths of follow-up for reporting SAEs - small batches with 1-yr of follow-up vs big batches with 1-wk.

    Rebuttal on the same Wiley platform of the factors the study did not consider:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.14050

    And I will repost the expert refutations of the study from Danish media, one calling the claims made by the authors to be 'pseudoscience', and providing multiple reasons as to doubt the data shows a safety signal.

    A further point of criticism goes to the number of unused vaccines and vaccine batches, which are included in the article's data basis, without it being mentioned.

    https://sundhedspolitisktidsskrift-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/sundhedspolitik/7612-eksperter-dansk-forskning-af-bivirkninger-af-pfizer-vaccine-er-bevidst-vildledende-pseudovidenskab.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    You are dismissing the findings of a peer reviewed publication published in reputable journal on the grounds of the unverified opinions of ‘experts’ for whom we know nothing about the sources of their funding (any privately owned foundations supporting their work?) and any other potential conflicts of interests. Same goes for the journal.

    Interesting to see that you require at the very least peer reviewed publications when it comes to questioning the established pro-vaccine & lockdown narrative. Anything other than that you dismiss as of insufficient quality. However, when things are going the other way and you need to defend the said narrative, a mere tweet or an unverified opinion of so called ‘experts’ is all that you deem sufficient, as long as it bears the confirmation of your believes. When that does not work throwing the labels at people is your last resort. You are in a class of your own.

    It is impossible to have a healthy debate and such grounds.

    The Wiley paper you mention is for purchase only. I cannot view it.

    In reference to the CNN article, at the time they could not call it a bad batch, of course. It takes a basic cop-on to tell that they could not do that. Covid Olympics was all about Covid deaths and not ‘allergic reactions’, and vaccines unavailability was putting people at risk, as reported in the paper. It was only later that researchers started questioning the ‘allergic’ part of the ‘allergic reaction’ as the second and subsequent rounds of jabs were administered and they were able to compare how the same subjects reacted to different batches. That is however entirely different issue that I may leave for another day. The bottom line is that vaccine quality was questioned before and will be questioned even more when the data will be rich enough to be easily separated from the noise. 

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The study was rejected by multiple reputable journals including The Lancet.

    And study itself is much more cautious in its language. But the true colours of the anti vax grifter authors is revealed in social media, where they make statements of medical disinformation without foundation. Statements you repeat here.

    Noted you have failed to dispute to dispute the actual points made by multiple expert rebuttals to the study and the social media claims from the anti vax grifters. You are now reaching for any excuse to avoid engaging with them even though you had multiple opportunities to view them. Articles and a commentary published on the same Wiley platform as the original study.

    Earlier you were link dumping Youtube videos and now you are disputing that the source of some of the rebutals is Twitter! Come off it.

    Blatant hypocrisy and double standards desperately throwing 'shade' about competing interests when one of the authors of the study was put on official supervision in Denmark for unprofessional covid conduct. But you didn't declare that did you? Or that one of the 'authors' is married to another author? But that's not a competing interest or something you are interested in.

    Your description of the CNN article was utterly false. That you have not withdrawn your false claims is proof positive you are presenting a bad faith argument. The reason why they didn't call it a bad batch was that it wasn't. You misrepresented the article contents and created the entirely deceptive and misleading impression the CNN article established it as a bad batch - when it did no such thing. So yes, impossible to have a healthy debate with bad faith arguments.

    It is the same tactic the anti vax grifters have deployed here. They published a study. Then go onto social media and misrepresent new claims as if they came from the study and are established by the study.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    Provide the source of the information that The Lancet and other reputable journals rejected the study including the grounds on which they have made those decisions.

    I have not failed to dispute points made by your experts as I have not even attempted to do that. The simple reason is that these guys do not meet the standards that you yourself demand are meet when questioning the narrative that you support. I have no intention to do it whatsoever. I'll leave the proper science to take its course now that the dissenting voices are finally heard.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Noted you have still failed to withdraw your utterly false misrepresentation of the CNN article contents which bears no relation to the antio vax claims you made about it.

    Or engage with any of the expert rebuttals of the study itself. Still reaching for any excuse whatsoever not to because you know they demonstrate the flaws in the study and hole it below the waterline. You say you want debate but run away from it. You thought you could dump a dodgy study and use it to justify spreading anti vax disinformation (not even in the study) without challenge. That is not debate. That is dumping and running.

    It is not and never has been the standard that for a study to be challenged or rebutted.

    Think about it. How long does it take to get something reviewed and into a Journal?

    So a garbage study could be out there and people couldn't comment on it until they found a Journal to publish it? Absolute nonsense.

    The hypocrisy of your position is even more blatant when earlier you were sharing stuff from Youtube to support the claims! You couldn't make it up that just over the course of posting about one single study you would so obviously contradict yourself. What an entirely self serving bad faith argument. Its is transparent. Or prove me wrong. Withdraw every single claim you made that is not in the text of the original study.

    You won't will you?

    You can't even respond to basic rebuttals of the study such as size of batches, timelines of reports, how many actual doses were used, precondition status of the study population.

    The study was rejected by multiple reputable Journals including the Lancet, JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine. The source is the authors themselves in the Youtube interview with covid wingnut Vibeke Manniche you dumped. Did you even watch it yourself???

    The study has now been fact checked and thoroughly discredited:

    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/analysis-adverse-event-variation-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-batches-doesnt-indicate-safety-problems-contrary-john-campbell/

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus



    Western Australia Vaccine Safety Surveillance Report for 2021 is just out:

    “The total AEFI rate following a COVID-19 vaccine was 264.1 per 100,000 doses. The AEFI rate per brand was: Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) 306.1 per 100,000 doses, Comirnaty (Pfizer) 244.8 per 100,000 doses and Spikevax (Moderna) 281.4 per 100,000 doses.”

    https://www.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Immunisation/Western-Australia-Vaccine-Safety-Surveillance-Annual-Report-2021.pdf

    That makes it roughly 1 in 400 doses for Pfizer vaccine. By the standards established before covid came along this number would indicate that the vaccine was unsafe for use.

    And that is before considering the issue with underreporting of SAEs.

    Post edited by walus on

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭walus


    Speaking of hypocrisy. This is what you said about Campbell's video interview with Manniche: "... they aren't releasing this new data through seriously peer reviewed sites, but drip feeding it on a known anti vax outlet... ". Yet you are using this "anti vax outlet" to support your claims when it suits. You are a legend! LOL.

    You have zero credibility.

    I'm going to leave this discussion at that.

    ”Where’s the revolution? Come on, people you’re letting me down!”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,100 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I bet you won't...

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Except the report states no such that anywhere that the vaccines are unsafe.

    More misrepresentation and anti vax medical misinformation.

    What it does state is:

    This increase in publicity may have contributed to increased awareness of AEFI and increased reporting of COVID-19 vaccine AEFI to WAVSS.

    The fact that an adverse event occurred following immunisation is not conclusive evidence that the event was caused by a vaccine. Factors such as medical history, diagnostic testing, and other medication given near the time of vaccination must be examined to help determine the likely cause of an adverse event

    I can't believe this far into the vaccine rollout the falsehood about such reports indicating the vaccines are unsafe is still being spread. It was one of the first canards to be debunked and still anti vaxxers try to spread it.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,036 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    What Walus is saying is that vaccines worked really well but now believes there was a few bad batches.

    At least that is what Walus is posting.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    You'll have to point me to the post where it is said that vaccines worked really well. The implication is far more than a few bad batches. All I see is anti vax misinformation.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,036 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    By implication, if the poster (walus) is just posting about a few bad batches, they are admitting that there were good batches that worked.

    It means the discussion is about whether there was a few bad batches or not and they have abandoned their previous positions (otherwise the bad batch argument falls apart immediately).

    I don't think the poster realises that however.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭snowstreams


    Were the batches bad or were the vaccines stored poorly in some centres/deliveries & that increased the adverse event rate?

    My wife spent a few weeks in hospital after her 2nd pfizer in August 21. Her cardiologist told her that were mostly seeing younger people with side effects (e.g POTS). Maybe the later batches (that younger people received) weren't stored as well because the government was trying to fire them out as fast as possible. Something similar could have happened in Australia given the rush that they had there too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    There's no evidence to suggest this though. It was speculation if not misinformation fuelled by anti vaxxers.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,058 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Jesus, that is juvenile. You probably won't even have the option of getting the booster unless you're in a high risk category so nothing to concern yourself with.



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,381 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    charlie_says threadbanned



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    I see that the HSE are offering Covid vaccines booster doses from GPs and pharmacies from 2 October to persons over 50 and those with underlying illnesses. I expect the pharmacists and GPs will be busy at first but in any case it might be better to get it closer to Christmas when some sort of wave of transmission is likely.

    I presume that this is a bivalent version of the vaccine, but what is it based on? It seems there isn't really much point in giving people the original vaccine any more, but the "new" strain part of it might be helpful.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06



    There's some information in this article, but it is still vague.

    It is expected the existing boosters , covering the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, will be the jabs on offer initially when the next booster campaign starts here in late September... Updated vaccines aimed at providing greater protection against Covid-19 have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), paving the way for their roll out to Ireland and other countries over the course of autumn and winter as cases rise. The vaccine made by Pfizer targets the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant - but that is already being overtaken by other off-shoots such as the Eris variant. The EMA said that as Omicron XBB.1.5 is closely related to other currently circulating variants, the vaccine is expected to help maintain optimal protection against Covid caused by these other variants as well as Omicron XBB.1.5.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-updated-covid-vaccine-gets-green-light-as-winter-surge-of-virus-expected/a304433837.html

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,037 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Covid certainly doing the rounds at the moment. Every second person seems to have it. I don't expect much vaccine take up in Q4. People are jaded by all the boosters. Might be a spurt of demand just before Xmas

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,559 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    It's just for those over 50 , over 5 with a weak immune system and at high risk , although haven't heard anymore about that rollout which is odd .

    HSE are vague about it .

    Other people just catch it , get better , have a bit more acquired immunity , and move on . Can get a booster but will have to contact GP or pharmacy and pay for it so many won't bother .

    It's not the serious issue it was really before full vaccination and hopefully that will be the way it will stay .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,058 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    It's being rolled out with the October flu shots afaik.

    If you're eligible for it, you don't have to pay for it when going through GP/pharmacy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,559 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Thanks just reading above . Nothing on the site and heard nothing from consultant or GP.

    We are all sick here but so far I'm negative .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    In NI, where they have already started, they state they are using

    • COVID-19 Pfizer BioNTech bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.4-5)
    • COVID-19 Pfizer BioNTech monovalent vaccine (Comirnaty® XBB 1.5
    • COVID-19 Sanofi Pasteur vaccine (VidPrevtyn Beta®




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,618 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Recognition of the work in Covid vaccine development:

    The Nobel Prize in medicine has been awarded to Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman for discoveries that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against Covid-19... Kariko is a professor at Sagan’s University in Hungary and an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania. 

    https://www.thejournal.ie/nobel-prize-medicine-covid-vaccine-scientists-6184248-Oct2023/

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    It seems that the vaccine being used here is Pfizer Omicron variant XBB.1.5



Advertisement