Elephant in the Covid room | Page 103 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Elephant in the Covid room

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cool. Maybe Ill get my second dose sooner of the AZ....

Sure why not they told you the first shot was safe and now they say the second shot is safe if you had the first shot. It's like if you don't get food poisoning from the first bite just keep eating , You'll most likely be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sure why not they told you the first shot was safe and now they say the second shot is safe if you had the first shot. It's like if you don't get food poisoning from the first bite just keep eating , You'll most likely be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Odds of VITT after first dose were low. They are much lower after second dose. Still unsure why there is no discussion from gov't on Covishield vs AZ having an order of magnitude different complication rate. Probably still more focussed on being culturally sensitive than paying attention to science or health. Wankers, all of them.
 
Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.


So, it's not exactly all as "new and untested" as many perceive. And it's also a great example of what science can do when all of a sudden theres unending billions of dollars and limitless supplies provided to the scientists.

Will Covid ever go away completely? Increasingly it's seeming unlikely. But that doesn't mean it's all for naught right now - the science continues learning and the next mountain is treatment in addition to continued vaccines. If Covid is here to stay it'll matter a whole lot less in a year or two when those who catch it anyways can just head to a pharmacy and pickup a pill that reduces the symptoms to little more than a cold, or maybe a mild flu. A few days down at worst, and you're on your way.
The speed with which it was developed s of little concern. That is typical, and like you send with endless money etc, it was no doubt going to develop fast. The concern is the batteries of testing, which had to be bypassed in order to get out quickly.
 
Sure why not they told you the first shot was safe and now they say the second shot is safe if you had the first shot. It's like if you don't get food poisoning from the first bite just keep eating , You'll most likely be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I’m still here and it’s been a few weeks now....so I knew the risk going in.

Still alive
2 arms
2 eyes
2 legs
1 penis
 
Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.


So, it's not exactly all as "new and untested" as many perceive. And it's also a great example of what science can do when all of a sudden theres unending billions of dollars and limitless supplies provided to the scientists.

Will Covid ever go away completely? Increasingly it's seeming unlikely. But that doesn't mean it's all for naught right now - the science continues learning and the next mountain is treatment in addition to continued vaccines. If Covid is here to stay it'll matter a whole lot less in a year or two when those who catch it anyways can just head to a pharmacy and pickup a pill that reduces the symptoms to little more than a cold, or maybe a mild flu. A few days down at worst, and you're on your way.
Science based?? Come on PP you know we don't go in for a lot of that weird sciencey stuff here. You trying to start a fight?

What's next? You gonna go around spouting the truth?
 
Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.

Out of the couple of dozen mRNA therapeutics to go to trial, name a single one that passed proper trials to determine risk factor? Just one?

Right, there isn't one, only two that got anywhere are Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID vaccines getting EUA's.

Which your article doesn't even mention. Why? Probably the same reason why they don't disclose how much advertising revenue they generate from pharmaceutical companies, and don't have proper disclosures about the site or their staff.
 
Interesting point @Dimitri I wonder if there is any correlation between the bad press that AZ is getting and no others are getting.

Could it be simply the big boys paying off any negative press to their vaccine? Or are they just not causing any issues at all?

As I understand it AZ was created by a non profit and costs a fraction of the mRNA options.
 
Out of the couple of dozen mRNA therapeutics to go to trial, name a single one that passed proper trials to determine risk factor? Just one?

Right, there isn't one, only two that got anywhere are Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID vaccines getting EUA's.

Which your article doesn't even mention. Why? Probably the same reason why they don't disclose how much advertising revenue they generate from pharmaceutical companies, and don't have proper disclosures about the site or their staff.

What's your definition of a proper trial? As the years have gone by the length of time between invention and sales has increased hugely. A lot of it has been sheer bureaucracy. There are calls to put a halt on some of that as it increases the price of pharmaceuticals and enriches the trials and associated industries at the cost of patients.

While you think about your response...I teach this stuff to undergrads and have run debates on this very topic.
 
Interesting point @Dimitri I wonder if there is any correlation between the bad press that AZ is getting and no others are getting.

AstraZeneca is $2.30 a dose, Pfizer and Moderna are $20+ a dose. With Pfizer already talking about increasing the price to $150 a dose.

AstraZeneca developed a cheap mass market product with their vaccine and even paid Oxford to study an off patent inhaler that reduces the risk of COVID's severe symptoms.

AstraZeneca's failure has been PR, as they didn't invest millions into marketing for a near free vaccine, unlike others, so they haven't pushed a consistent message. While being caught in the middle of UK's and the EUs spat over Brexit.

However, as far as corporate responsibility goes, that cute thing companies like to brag about, being good corporate citizens, AstraZeneca is by far living up to that standard during this pandemic.
 
What's your definition of a proper trial?

I have zero problem with shorting trials. If the medication is not novel.

So will I take a jab of AstraZeneca's adenovirus-based vaccine, that multiple other vaccines are based on and have been previously approved? In a heart beat.

Will I take a drug or vaccine that is based on something that's never been approved, after a very short, and very flawed trial like Pfizer's mRNA shot? Not a chance.

As for bureaucracy, let's not forget why drug trials have been consistently been increased over the years. Because drug companies have pushed drugs through, that have led to disasters. Such as Thalidomide, or more recently with Pfizer, the experiment they conducted with meningitis drugs on African children.
 
I have zero problem with shorting trials. If the medication is not novel.

So will I take a jab of AstraZeneca's adenovirus-based vaccine, that multiple other vaccines are based on and have been previously approved? In a heart beat.

Will I take a drug or vaccine that is based on something that's never been approved, after a very short, and very flawed trial like Pfizer's mRNA shot? Not a chance.

As for bureaucracy, let's not forget why drug trials have been consistently been increased over the years. Because drug companies have pushed drugs through, that have led to disasters. Such as Thalidomide, or more recently with Pfizer, the experiment they conducted with meningitis drugs on African children.

In what way was the Pfizer trial flawed?

Thalidomide caused drug companies to look at chiral entities as separate products. That’s not the issue here.

Clinical trials are commonly performed in a relatively small number of countries where the legal environment allows for high throughput. Those countries are the UK, Mexico and Canada among others. If you want to get rich...work in the clinical trials business.

Lastly...if aspirin was developed today it would not make it to market due to the FDA mandated trials regulations. Do you know what the most successful drug of all time is?
 
In what way was the Pfizer trial flawed?

For one they were not only not actively testing to see if anyone catches it unlike Oxfords trial, the trial group miraculously decided if they developed symptoms they didn't need to get tested.

So Pfizer eliminated 3,410 people from their study, who developed symptoms but never got a PCR test. And they hid that from their beautifully edited study summery. If you make the opposite assumption, that without a negative PCR test, it's a positive, their vaccine's efficiency drops to a dismal 29%.


All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. 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).

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.” What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)

What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group? The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.
 
For one they were not only not actively testing to see if anyone catches it unlike Oxfords trial, the trial group miraculously decided if they developed symptoms they didn't need to get tested.

So Pfizer eliminated 3,410 people from their study, who developed symptoms but never got a PCR test. And they hid that from their beautifully edited study summery. If you make the opposite assumption, that without a negative PCR test, it's a positive, their vaccine's efficiency drops to a dismal 29%.


29%...that’s a drastic figure likely supported by a peer reviewed journal article since it’s so incredible. Where is that?

Trials..how many millions have now had the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines now?
 
29%...that’s a drastic figure likely supported by a peer reviewed journal article since it’s so incredible. Where is that?

If Pfizer can assume no PCR test, no COVID, then one can assume the opposite. Especially since the CDC among other watchdogs are claiming colds and flus disappeared last year.

Since the data is right from the FDAs report on the vaccine, and Pfizer never published it in their report preferring to bury it, and the BMJ published it. The only thing that is incredible is that Pfizer thought they'd get away with it.
 
If Pfizer can assume no PCR test, no COVID, then one can assume the opposite. Especially since the CDC among other watchdogs are claiming colds and flus disappeared last year.

Since the data is right from the FDAs report on the vaccine, and Pfizer never published it in their report preferring to bury it, and the BMJ published it. The only thing that is incredible is that Pfizer thought they'd get away with it.

The BMJ published an opinion. Opinions in journals aren’t peer reviewed. You need one of those before what you assume is the truth is actually the truth in scientific circles.

Again..how many millions have now had an mRNA vaccine and how many adverse effects have been reported?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom