Elephant in the Covid room | Page 105 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Elephant in the Covid room

Status
Not open for further replies.
timtune said:
Social media is just a bunch of people yapping (like here). Science is still science and no place for anti-vaxers.
Click to expand...

Science can be what ever you want it to be.

While dramatic, Dr. Ioannidis paper on bias and twisting facts to support your study from 2005 is just as relevant today.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Which Pfizer did, when they eliminated 3,410 cases of suspected COVID on their trial and omitted it from their published study. Hiding the data that would have caused concern at the peer review stage, and at 29% effective, wouldn't have landed them their new trillion dollar drug's EUA.
 
Dimitri said:
Science can be what ever you want it to be.

While dramatic, Dr. Ioannidis paper on bias and twisting facts to support your study from 2005 is just as relevant today.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Which Pfizer did, when they eliminated 3,410 cases of suspected COVID on their trial and omitted it from their published study. Hiding the data that would have caused concern at the peer review stage, and at 29% effective, wouldn't have landed them their new trillion dollar drug's EUA.
Click to expand...
I cant comment on data suppression, but saying it is 29% effective is pretty pessimistic and not supported by reality. If efficacy was that low, uk numbers would be staying sky high and there would be thousands of reported cases of infection long after vaccination.
 
Wingboy said:
What? Why don't we reinvent arithmetic too.
Science is not open to interpretation. It is the collection of facts and data at the present time.
It is not open to opinion. Very simple.
Click to expand...
If you selectively pick the data you want to examine, you can get any desired result. I think that is his point. If they did intentionally avoid testing potential cases so they didnt show up in the data as confirmed cases, that's pretty bad.
 
Wingboy said:
What? Why don't we reinvent arithmetic too.
Science is not open to interpretation. It is the collection of facts and data at the present time.
It is not open to opinion. Very simple.
Click to expand...

Lying by omission, and lying through setting statistical parameters for your study to be successful, is very common.

GreyGhost said:
I cant comment on data suppression, but saying it is 29% effective is pretty pessimistic and not supported by reality. If efficacy was that low, uk numbers would be staying sky high and there would be thousands of reported cases of infection long after vaccination.
Click to expand...

Primary vaccine in the UK is AstraZeneca by a large margin.

However, this is not my opinion, that number comes from the FDAs report on Pfizer which mentions the 3,410 suspected but not confirmed by PCR cases.

blogs.bmj.com

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data - The BMJ

On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 [...]More...
blogs.bmj.com

According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).
Click to expand...

Pfizer used only the 170 confirmed cases, in their study and did not mention any suspected cases in the study, to come up with their claim of 95% effective rate.
 
I’ll say it again...the trials surrounding the vaccines for COVID-19 are likely the most visible and studied clinical trials in our history and as every day passes, they are the largest with the biggest numbers of patient groups in every category conceivable.

But if your “research“ contradicts what most vaccine researchers, epidemiologists, biochemists, medics, ethicists, infectious disease specialists from major institutes/centres of learning/health authorities/NGOs and yes...pharmaceutical companies around the world say then you need to send off your resume here....

 
So the AZ shots are no longer going to happen in Alberta and Ontario

Brian P is going to have to modify his numbers he had calculated
 
Wingboy said:
Then it isn't Science is it? It's just crap.
Click to expand...
Denier. The fanaticism within the pseudo-science community sometimes astounds me.

Edit: ;) Forgot to use the sarcasm font.

For some scientists even, if you don't believe what they do, you're the problem. That's a huge stumbling block to progress.
 
Last edited:
In every scientific study there is data that is contaminated or broken and not valid, it is common to remove this data from the study.

The issue can be, was the invalidity of the data thoroughly checked and was the anomaly bad data or was it bad results....

Some other food for thought....
The term "Scientist" gets misused (vs Applied Scientist) by the general public, gov, GTAMers.... The people that came up with mRNA without a specific applicaiton were Scientists. Once mRNA was used to an applied problem or application (like an actual vaccine) the people doing the work are Applied Scientists. A common example is, most people will understand, Applied Science is Engineering (they apply science) vs say Physicist with no specific applied application doing String Theory--that one is easy. A Chemist, or Biologist can be either by education, but if they are appling science to a specific application they are now Applied Scientists. May seem like a minor or even moot point, but it matters in this context as the job is diffident and the methods and motivation are different. One seeks truth, the other applies known truths.
 
ToSlow said:
But but but the Az was out saving grace to get us clear of covid

What happens to the people who took the AZ shot as the first one
Click to expand...

Nothing.

The main problem with AZ isn't the blood-clotting issue (for most people), it's that the supply of it has been unreliable and is not expected to improve.

The UK has an ongoing study about the effectiveness of having the first and second doses of different vaccines, and I suspect that we are going to have to make use of that possibility.
 
Dimitri said:
As India places export controls, Ford ships them 3,000 ventilators.

Figure that one out.
Click to expand...

Not hard to figure out. This is a worldwide problem, and India is in the midst of a humanitarian disaster. I am totally on board with them trying to solve the problem within their borders. Meanwhile, we (as a country) are on the mend, we have a source of vaccine that looks like it will be sufficient to carry us through, and we don't foresee needing any more ventilators than what the hospitals already have.
 
Brian P said:
Nothing.

The main problem with AZ isn't the blood-clotting issue (for most people), it's that the supply of it has been unreliable and is not expected to improve.

The UK has an ongoing study about the effectiveness of having the first and second doses of different vaccines, and I suspect that we are going to have to make use of that possibility.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, Ontario apparently has 250K AZ shots approaching expiry and doesn't sound like they have a plan yet to get them in arms in time.
 
ToSlow said:
So the AZ shots are no longer going to happen in Alberta and Ontario

Brian P is going to have to modify his numbers he had calculated
Click to expand...

The numbers change a bit but not much. The risk of "blood clot" (not necessarily fatal) appears to be one in 60,000; the risk of "fatal blood clot" remains roughly two in a million (we've had ~1.5 million doses in Canada, we've had IIRC 3 or 4 deaths).

The situation remains, if you are over 30 years old and you live in an area with high transmission, if you have a choice of AstraZeneca now as opposed to having to wait more than a day for some other hypothetical zero-risk vaccine, you are better off getting the AstraZeneca now.

In Ontario as of tomorrow, anyone who was previously only eligible for AstraZeneca will then be eligible to get any of them, which makes this a moot point.

Main problem with AstraZeneca is that the supplier has been unreliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom