- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
Let's see how it compares to getting COVID:
Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General - "Covid Seasonal Flu Vaccines is Society's New Normal" - FDA
- Thread starter EyelessMC
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Except you are assuming that every person who got vaccinated would have an adverse reaction and thus require submitting to VAERS. Severe reactions to the vaccine are very, very rare, and likely of those 1000, even fewer are due to the vaccine. If someone died after taking the vaccine, it'd be in VAERS because the doctor would submit it (at least, you'd hope a doctor would be aware of VAERS). If the vaccine was as dangerous as SchizOP claims, there'd be people dying from it left and right. Where are all these people?
renée remains insane
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
I think it's great that in your circle of friends and family adverse reactions have been rare, but some of us have not been so lucky and I know several people who have had their health compromised significantly after the vaccine,
The door swings both ways on reporting... nobody I know who has had a negative reaction has had it submitted to any database...
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Uh huh. Then where are all these people crippled by the vaccine?
I agree with this, I think you are right that we are arguing two different things.
Are you really saying that medical examiners and doctors are unaware of VAERS? Come on now. I know you know better than that.
Ponzo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
Lets trigger another sperging from certain people
Illinois family credits Ivermectin with saving life of father hospitalized with COVID-19
Bless Mr. Ng and his family
Illinois family credits Ivermectin with saving life of father hospitalized with COVID-19
Bless Mr. Ng and his family
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
Remember folks, everyday you go on unvaccinated, Hulk spends another sleepless night staring at his ceiling.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
Thank you for vindicating my fear of flight
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I spend my nights not sleeping because I am boning your mom, it has nothing to do with vaccinations. We hear you waking up in the middle of the night and coming up the stairs and wondering what the noise is... well, now you know
renée remains insane
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
George Floyds mom is a Pedo Tranny? That explains so much...
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
Hulk we know you are a racist and hate the darkies
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2021
With the popularity of shows like Air Crash Investigation and growth of aviation themed youtube channels that have become quite well known like Mentour Pilot, Mustard, Curious Droid, etc, I'd say more people than not know about the fundamentals of flight. There has also been a growth in the remote control hobby so even younger people are exposed to the physics of flight at a higher rate than before. It's actually the Marvel and Disney consooming normies who don't give two shits about aviation like the difference between a 737 and A320, and I wager, are more likely to line up for the next booster shots because that's what they're told to do.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I know you're a good little QAnoner so you think everyone you don't like is a pedo, but where's your evidence that the mod is a tranny or a pedo?
renée remains insane
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
It's in the same document that details the OPs Schizophrenia.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
If you read SchizOP's posts, it's obvious he's got schizophrenia + autism.
However, there's no evidence that the janny is a tranny or a pedo, other than the fact that he made you assblasted and since you are a good little QAnoner, you believe everyone who you don't like is a pedo
renée remains insane
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
Oh Jeez, so Pedo Tranny Mods dislike me, how will I ever show my face in polite society again?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2017
Wait you don't have credentials to diagnose someone with schizophrenia, unless you can show us
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Still waiting on that evidence, son.
I don't but it's pretty obvious from his posts. His posts are time-cube level babbling.
He still hasn't told me his credentials though. He said I cannot talk about vaccines because I don't have credentials, but hasn't told me mine and his diseased brain shuts down every time I ask
Secret Asshole
Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
This is going to be a long post because there's so much misinformation out there. Don't come at me whining. Just go SKIP if you don't want to.
So a couple of people asked me to come back to this thread, specifically because stuff like this is what I work on. And you know, you don't want to do more work after you've done work, but I'm a janny anyway so I do it for free. I've been avoiding it because its become entirely too politicized. Vaccinated, unvaccinated, side-effects, no side-effects, etc. I do COVID research, starting up very recently and I am part of a COVID lab that does epidemiological testing. Don't ask for my credentials, because I'm not powerleveling so autists can hunt me down and try to ruin my life. I have run all COVID instant tests as well as PCR tests.
To be honest, the real reason I've been avoiding this thread is that, well, there's really nothing scandalous about the medicine itself. Just the societal reaction to it, which has nothing to do with the science. I deal with enough bullshit politics with modding, so I am not going to touch it. Please don't ask.
I'll kill the smaller topics first.
First: Media articles. Science reporting, notably in scientific circles, is a gigantic joke. They get so much shit wrong its funny. You have to remember science reporters are not scientists, and might only have a Bachelor's level understanding of Doctorate level concepts. It has come to the point where I ignore all science reporting as a matter of principle, because quite often, they don't know what they're talking about. And with COVID and the political element mixed in, they're the worst it has ever been.
These stories are strictly to push papers and clicks, and that's it. Do not use these as proof of anything. They are slanted, biased and have no fucking idea what they're talking about. That's not to say they're all wrong, but for me they're fundamentally useless in conveying scientific or medical information.
Second: Journal Articles. Another reason I avoided this thread. In my scientific career I have literally, not figuratively, read over a thousand journal articles in pretty much every subject under the sun. I was formerly a social sciences student/researcher and am now in hard science. So I know both sides.
I'm going to be completely blunt and honest: If you aren't in the sciences, have no experience with it or are an amateur you are not qualified to comment on heavy, science filled articles. You just aren't. There are things you will not pick upon simply because you don't have the experience or knowledge to pick up on.
I am not doing this to be antagonistic, I am just tired of seeing it over and over and over again. People wonder why scientists just stay in their labs and never talk. This and science journalism is why. You cannot just read about science. You need to be in a lab, doing the grunt work to understand how it is in the field. You have to do all the trivial bullshit, do some tests yourself. This is not something you can just read a textbook or a protocol book and you have knowledge of it. Its like all of us picking up court documents. There's specific jargon, specific ways things are done that are hard to understand if you're not in that field. Science is even more detailed than that.
If you are relying on a title or an abstract, you honestly don't know what you are doing. What methods did they use? What tests did they conduct? Were these tests appropriate? What was the cell line/animal line? What do their graphs and stats look like? What do their figures/images show? How can this be extrapolated?
Abstracts and titles are like sexy people on book covers. They're designed to attract attention. I cannot stress this enough. I've seen enough articles with great looking titles and abstracts that were complete dogshit when I dug into them. Again, blunt: You just don't have the experience to tell. I'm sorry, but you don't. And its not at all different on other corners on the internet but to the general public as well. Just because you have access to all the information in the world doesn't make you good or an expert at interpreting it. You need to be out there doing it to fully understand what these papers mean and are saying.
Another thing: Watch what journals you post from and look at their impact factor. There's a lot of shady journals out there, and impact factor (while imperfect) is a decent way to gauge how influential and regarded a journal is. The impact factor is related to how many times articles in that journal are cited by other articles. Which means, generally, that their results are solid.
And NEVER EVER EVER EVER post unpublished articles, non-peer reviewed articles or articles under review. I don't care what they say. Until they are published and reviewed, they are not valid. They might have to add other experiments or they might have to remove/redo certain stats. They might be rejected from publications outright. Simply, these are drafts and may not resemble the final product. I've read articles in review and have some experience in the review process. Some articles come out completely different. Until they are published, they are not valid sources.
So all in all, this is my biggest pet peeve. Just because you can read shit on the internet doesn't make you an expert.
Third: Discussions by scientists and doctors that contradict things being said by other articles and scientists and doctors. Ok. For this, you have to understand, scientists by nature are extremely eccentric (batshit). Some of us believe in seriously ridiculous shit. For example, Linus Pauling. Brilliant man. Won a Nobel Prize and a noble peace prize (one of very few people who have one two, let alone two from different fields). Published over 1,200 papers in his life. A lot of stuff he found is now in textbooks from High School to Graduate level studies. The dude was a founder of molecular biology and quantum chemistry. His use of X-Ray crystallography to show molecular structures inspired Watson and Crick who found the double helix. Really super duper smart guy, right? Yes. Except he believed in vitamin C megadosing. And when I say megadosing, I mean fucking mega. Like 10 grams of Vitamin C. That's a fucking lot. And you know, Vitamin C is water soluble, so you piss it out. He really believed it could cure cancer and reverse aging. He was very vocal about this. Of course it was all bullshit. Even genius scientists can believe in crazy shit.
Just because you got a professional on YouTube or something doesn't mean you can trust them. The line between genius and madness is very thin, and it is true saying. Again, to a layman he might sound right. You need experience and knowledge to understand what he is talking about. It is very tempting to get caught up in what they say because they seem like they know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean they do. I'm not saying they're not smart or not good at what they do. Look at Pauling. He was brilliant and one of the best scientists of the 20th century, yet he believed something fucking crazy. And because he was so influential and had so many achievements, the public bought into this because, hey, if this smart dude is saying it, it must be true! Don't fall for that trap.
Another thing is, it might be somewhat malicious. If a scientist goes against the grain hard and gets proven right, he gains status and grant money INCREDIBLY quickly. They can spout this off on YouTube and as long as they do their work, they're not going to get fired. There's also the possibility that it is revenge for being fired, let go or expelled from a lab or a company to 'expose' what THEY don't want you to know.
It is very easy to get seduced by the sound of someone who looks like they know what they're talking about. And that includes myself as well. But I have no ulterior motive to lie to you. The stuff I'm saying isn't batshit, in my field its fundamental.
So, we've got that out of the way. What's next? Lets go over the Pfizer report shall we. This will be a deep dive, and I'll be referencing certain portions of the document. Get it out and your pencils ready!
What this document is is basically a section of a monograph. You know, those huge inserts you get with medication that nobody but insane people like me read? Yeah, that's a pharmaceutical monograph. It isn't anything scandalous or nefarious, its basically rote in all drug development. So lets get that out of the way. And yes, a lot of the times the detailed data is proprietary. Its proprietary because this is basically a document that's used to get something approved and may contain things they don't want competitors to know. As I said in the intro, I'm not touching politics. This is just the way it is.
Ok, so what they are basically saying here is that there are going to be a lot of unknowns. That does not mean this information is invalid. The marketing wording here is because people just simply forget they should be sending reports because its been awhile since the drug has been marketed or known about.
The seriousness of the reaction and publicity of adverse events may also effect reporting. We know they have some 42,000 reports, but maybe many people just don't bother reporting fatigue, nausea or other symptoms that go away in a few days. However, if someone develops serious complications or drops dead, you bet your fucking ass someone is going to report that. They say that because its a factor of bias. That is, it can skew the numbers in one direction when it may not necessarily be true.
Now, just what is incident rate vs. proportions? These are not the dictionary definitions, these are epidemiological and biological terms. We also have to define 'incidence'. There are three factors involving incidence in biostatistics: Events, a source population at risk of the event and the passage of time during which events occur. I bolded the last one because it is the most important to the subject at hand.
Incidence Rates are the rates of an incident on a year to year basis.
Incidence proportion are the rates of an incident based on a period of time.
The document stated in the beginning that there was a specific monitoring period. So we are not looking at incidents on a per year basis, but on the basis of the time that these tests were being conducted. The distinction is important because your target population decreases on a year to year bases in incident rate, whereas the population of the incidence proportion.
You cannot make drug to drug comparisons because typically drugs use incidents rates (year to year forever) because their methods are using a time period. So we cannot use this data to compare similar drugs because the time periods they are using are different.
They mention it should be used for signal detection. What is signal detection? I'll let the WHO explain it:
I let you know the important part. This is NOT CONCLUSIVE. This is preliminary. This is basically used to accumulate date on adverse events. When they say hypothesis testing, they mean using the data as a basis for a study. They can't do hypothesis testing simply because they don't have enough information.
This is another explanation of bias to the reports, as they don't know if it may be from the drug, combination of drugs or anything like that
This is super fucking important. All drugs you get prescribed have to report ALL adverse events when you are taking it. All of them. It doesn't matter if you're taking aspirin and all of a sudden you shit and piss yourself and lose control of your limbs because three days ago you got a concussion and its from the concussion not the aspirin. You HAVE to report it. This is the way ALL DRUGS are done. This is NOT scandalous. All of this is ROUTINE.
Why am I going over this instead of the numbers? Because you need to understand WHAT they are looking for, the limits of this data and the amount of bias this data has. And when I say bias, I mean scientific bias, which is different from the dictionary definition.
The missing information in vaccine effectiveness is not scandalous either, because again, this data is looking for signals, IE: preliminary symptoms. It cannot yet be used to determine its effectiveness right at the moment. This is why you see so many conflicting articles about side effects. The detection of these events are still in the signal phase.
It seems the greatest risk they identified was anaphylaxis or an allergic reaction. Of which you can die from. If a patient dies due to anaphylaxis, it will be recorded as 'death'. So we cannot separate who died from a very common reaction to medication to those who died of other factors. Because, again, this is looking for signals, not to differentiate or hypothesize.
So, what do I think? Its a very typical monograph for a treatment that is still trying to figure out adverse effects. Since the purpose of this information is to look for signal, you cannot extrapolate it to other drugs. There's a large amount of bias so it is hard to say if it is accurate or not. And even so, accuracy isn't something they're looking for. They want to see the total breadth of all the adverse events in a population.
Is the resulting data shocking? No. Fatal cases were 3%, but again, that is from every source, not just from the vaccine. A dude could have been stung by a bee and died of shock. We don't know why these people died and cannot yet attribute it to anything. Looking at this, 46% recovered in the timing of reporting. It may take a long time, up to 90 days I think, but symptoms did fade. Again, there's no timeframe for this, because its preliminary.
Anyone trying to make a big deal out of this just does not know what they're talking about. The data just isn't there. Do I think we should vaccinate anyone under 21? No. We don't yet know the risk events for it. Do I think people should be vaccinated overall? Yes. (I am not going into the politics of this). Do I think you need a booster? No. There's no evidence that boosters provide any greater protection, and with numerous variants coming out (which all viruses have by the way, this is not a big deal) its kind of pointless to keep getting a shot which is now out of date. I mean, it will protect you from the COVID-19 strain that started this, but we do not know which strain will be dominant in the future. My money is on Omnicron. It evades the immune system and is relatively mild, so less work is going to be put into tackling it. I think Delta will eventually get wiped, because its too strong for us to just ignore.
It isn't yet too late for a COVID-19 shot. I got COVID (before the shot, shut up) and got vaccinated. Obviously it is your choice whether or not to get vaccinated, but this has become excessively political to the point where people twist shit back and forth and you can't tell what is real.
All in all, the COVID vaccine and its side effects are not any different or severe from current drugs that are approved on the market. Unless they're hiding information (no evidence of that) like they did with Viox. What do I think are the most likely side-effects for the jab? Arm soreness like the flu shot and fatigue for 2-3 days. Is it possible you will develop severe side effects? Sure. But people die all the time for no reason going under general anesthesia. One of my friends lost his brother because he went under and didn't come back up and that was relatively low dose and just simple wisdom tooth removal.
You have to understand we all react to medication differently. Even the most well studied drugs with the most well studied side effects that are super duper safe might put you in the ground because some weirdo gene was super upregulated/downregulated and it resulted in the normal dose have x10000 times the potency.
What do I think the fatalities were from (With the limited info available that are directly related to the vaccine, a number we don't actually know)? Anaphylaxis. Why do I think this? Because they did not mention 'sudden death' (IE: You just drop dead and they don't know why) or myocardial infarction (heart attack) under symptoms.
I think the likelihood of dying from this vaccine is very very very small if you are an adult. Obviously not for your kids. Don't do that dumb bullshit. Also if you are trying to become pregnant or are pregnant, don't take it. We don't know the implications yet.
You have to separate your personal politics from this issue and look at it objectively. I know its hard with all the media attention, internet bullshit and conspiracy theories. (I do believe it was an unintentional leak from the lab and not a bio-weapon. It was stupidity, the Chinese cutting corners and the cultural concept of 'face' in China. This trifecta lead to the pandemic. There is no benefit to them doing this as their population is extremely vulnerable due to air quality issues and they don't want their young people dropping dead because they might be heading for a demographic crisis. This is the only politics I will engage in).
So, what should you do? That's up to you. You have to weigh the benefits and risks. And we don't entirely know the risks. But I don't think the risks are anything out of the ordinary. They seem similar to other medications that treat serious illnesses. And you can develop long term complications with plenty of meds. The preliminary numbers I'm seeing don't indicate a lot of long term consequences yet.
The data isn't yet all here, but it just doesn't look like anything crazy to me that you have to be paranoid about.
EDIT:
So to be clear, you CANNOT use the Pfizer document to compare to other studies. Again, do not do this. That is not what it is meant for. You CANNOT use it to draw conclusions about incident rates because its methodology explicitly says proportions.
As for pregnancy and lactation, they cite missing information. Which means they don't have a large enough population, not enough reporting and/or not enough anything to say if there are any adverse effects or not.
So a couple of people asked me to come back to this thread, specifically because stuff like this is what I work on. And you know, you don't want to do more work after you've done work, but I'm a janny anyway so I do it for free. I've been avoiding it because its become entirely too politicized. Vaccinated, unvaccinated, side-effects, no side-effects, etc. I do COVID research, starting up very recently and I am part of a COVID lab that does epidemiological testing. Don't ask for my credentials, because I'm not powerleveling so autists can hunt me down and try to ruin my life. I have run all COVID instant tests as well as PCR tests.
To be honest, the real reason I've been avoiding this thread is that, well, there's really nothing scandalous about the medicine itself. Just the societal reaction to it, which has nothing to do with the science. I deal with enough bullshit politics with modding, so I am not going to touch it. Please don't ask.
I'll kill the smaller topics first.
First: Media articles. Science reporting, notably in scientific circles, is a gigantic joke. They get so much shit wrong its funny. You have to remember science reporters are not scientists, and might only have a Bachelor's level understanding of Doctorate level concepts. It has come to the point where I ignore all science reporting as a matter of principle, because quite often, they don't know what they're talking about. And with COVID and the political element mixed in, they're the worst it has ever been.
These stories are strictly to push papers and clicks, and that's it. Do not use these as proof of anything. They are slanted, biased and have no fucking idea what they're talking about. That's not to say they're all wrong, but for me they're fundamentally useless in conveying scientific or medical information.
Second: Journal Articles. Another reason I avoided this thread. In my scientific career I have literally, not figuratively, read over a thousand journal articles in pretty much every subject under the sun. I was formerly a social sciences student/researcher and am now in hard science. So I know both sides.
I'm going to be completely blunt and honest: If you aren't in the sciences, have no experience with it or are an amateur you are not qualified to comment on heavy, science filled articles. You just aren't. There are things you will not pick upon simply because you don't have the experience or knowledge to pick up on.
I am not doing this to be antagonistic, I am just tired of seeing it over and over and over again. People wonder why scientists just stay in their labs and never talk. This and science journalism is why. You cannot just read about science. You need to be in a lab, doing the grunt work to understand how it is in the field. You have to do all the trivial bullshit, do some tests yourself. This is not something you can just read a textbook or a protocol book and you have knowledge of it. Its like all of us picking up court documents. There's specific jargon, specific ways things are done that are hard to understand if you're not in that field. Science is even more detailed than that.
If you are relying on a title or an abstract, you honestly don't know what you are doing. What methods did they use? What tests did they conduct? Were these tests appropriate? What was the cell line/animal line? What do their graphs and stats look like? What do their figures/images show? How can this be extrapolated?
Abstracts and titles are like sexy people on book covers. They're designed to attract attention. I cannot stress this enough. I've seen enough articles with great looking titles and abstracts that were complete dogshit when I dug into them. Again, blunt: You just don't have the experience to tell. I'm sorry, but you don't. And its not at all different on other corners on the internet but to the general public as well. Just because you have access to all the information in the world doesn't make you good or an expert at interpreting it. You need to be out there doing it to fully understand what these papers mean and are saying.
Another thing: Watch what journals you post from and look at their impact factor. There's a lot of shady journals out there, and impact factor (while imperfect) is a decent way to gauge how influential and regarded a journal is. The impact factor is related to how many times articles in that journal are cited by other articles. Which means, generally, that their results are solid.
And NEVER EVER EVER EVER post unpublished articles, non-peer reviewed articles or articles under review. I don't care what they say. Until they are published and reviewed, they are not valid. They might have to add other experiments or they might have to remove/redo certain stats. They might be rejected from publications outright. Simply, these are drafts and may not resemble the final product. I've read articles in review and have some experience in the review process. Some articles come out completely different. Until they are published, they are not valid sources.
So all in all, this is my biggest pet peeve. Just because you can read shit on the internet doesn't make you an expert.
Third: Discussions by scientists and doctors that contradict things being said by other articles and scientists and doctors. Ok. For this, you have to understand, scientists by nature are extremely eccentric (batshit). Some of us believe in seriously ridiculous shit. For example, Linus Pauling. Brilliant man. Won a Nobel Prize and a noble peace prize (one of very few people who have one two, let alone two from different fields). Published over 1,200 papers in his life. A lot of stuff he found is now in textbooks from High School to Graduate level studies. The dude was a founder of molecular biology and quantum chemistry. His use of X-Ray crystallography to show molecular structures inspired Watson and Crick who found the double helix. Really super duper smart guy, right? Yes. Except he believed in vitamin C megadosing. And when I say megadosing, I mean fucking mega. Like 10 grams of Vitamin C. That's a fucking lot. And you know, Vitamin C is water soluble, so you piss it out. He really believed it could cure cancer and reverse aging. He was very vocal about this. Of course it was all bullshit. Even genius scientists can believe in crazy shit.
Just because you got a professional on YouTube or something doesn't mean you can trust them. The line between genius and madness is very thin, and it is true saying. Again, to a layman he might sound right. You need experience and knowledge to understand what he is talking about. It is very tempting to get caught up in what they say because they seem like they know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean they do. I'm not saying they're not smart or not good at what they do. Look at Pauling. He was brilliant and one of the best scientists of the 20th century, yet he believed something fucking crazy. And because he was so influential and had so many achievements, the public bought into this because, hey, if this smart dude is saying it, it must be true! Don't fall for that trap.
Another thing is, it might be somewhat malicious. If a scientist goes against the grain hard and gets proven right, he gains status and grant money INCREDIBLY quickly. They can spout this off on YouTube and as long as they do their work, they're not going to get fired. There's also the possibility that it is revenge for being fired, let go or expelled from a lab or a company to 'expose' what THEY don't want you to know.
It is very easy to get seduced by the sound of someone who looks like they know what they're talking about. And that includes myself as well. But I have no ulterior motive to lie to you. The stuff I'm saying isn't batshit, in my field its fundamental.
So, we've got that out of the way. What's next? Lets go over the Pfizer report shall we. This will be a deep dive, and I'll be referencing certain portions of the document. Get it out and your pencils ready!
What this document is is basically a section of a monograph. You know, those huge inserts you get with medication that nobody but insane people like me read? Yeah, that's a pharmaceutical monograph. It isn't anything scandalous or nefarious, its basically rote in all drug development. So lets get that out of the way. And yes, a lot of the times the detailed data is proprietary. Its proprietary because this is basically a document that's used to get something approved and may contain things they don't want competitors to know. As I said in the intro, I'm not touching politics. This is just the way it is.
Bottom of Page 5 said:
Ok, so what they are basically saying here is that there are going to be a lot of unknowns. That does not mean this information is invalid. The marketing wording here is because people just simply forget they should be sending reports because its been awhile since the drug has been marketed or known about.
The seriousness of the reaction and publicity of adverse events may also effect reporting. We know they have some 42,000 reports, but maybe many people just don't bother reporting fatigue, nausea or other symptoms that go away in a few days. However, if someone develops serious complications or drops dead, you bet your fucking ass someone is going to report that. They say that because its a factor of bias. That is, it can skew the numbers in one direction when it may not necessarily be true.
Bottom of Page 5 said:
Now, just what is incident rate vs. proportions? These are not the dictionary definitions, these are epidemiological and biological terms. We also have to define 'incidence'. There are three factors involving incidence in biostatistics: Events, a source population at risk of the event and the passage of time during which events occur. I bolded the last one because it is the most important to the subject at hand.
Incidence Rates are the rates of an incident on a year to year basis.
Incidence proportion are the rates of an incident based on a period of time.
The document stated in the beginning that there was a specific monitoring period. So we are not looking at incidents on a per year basis, but on the basis of the time that these tests were being conducted. The distinction is important because your target population decreases on a year to year bases in incident rate, whereas the population of the incidence proportion.
You cannot make drug to drug comparisons because typically drugs use incidents rates (year to year forever) because their methods are using a time period. So we cannot use this data to compare similar drugs because the time periods they are using are different.
They mention it should be used for signal detection. What is signal detection? I'll let the WHO explain it:
WHO said:
I let you know the important part. This is NOT CONCLUSIVE. This is preliminary. This is basically used to accumulate date on adverse events. When they say hypothesis testing, they mean using the data as a basis for a study. They can't do hypothesis testing simply because they don't have enough information.
Page 6 said:
This is another explanation of bias to the reports, as they don't know if it may be from the drug, combination of drugs or anything like that
Page 6 said:
This is super fucking important. All drugs you get prescribed have to report ALL adverse events when you are taking it. All of them. It doesn't matter if you're taking aspirin and all of a sudden you shit and piss yourself and lose control of your limbs because three days ago you got a concussion and its from the concussion not the aspirin. You HAVE to report it. This is the way ALL DRUGS are done. This is NOT scandalous. All of this is ROUTINE.
Why am I going over this instead of the numbers? Because you need to understand WHAT they are looking for, the limits of this data and the amount of bias this data has. And when I say bias, I mean scientific bias, which is different from the dictionary definition.
The missing information in vaccine effectiveness is not scandalous either, because again, this data is looking for signals, IE: preliminary symptoms. It cannot yet be used to determine its effectiveness right at the moment. This is why you see so many conflicting articles about side effects. The detection of these events are still in the signal phase.
It seems the greatest risk they identified was anaphylaxis or an allergic reaction. Of which you can die from. If a patient dies due to anaphylaxis, it will be recorded as 'death'. So we cannot separate who died from a very common reaction to medication to those who died of other factors. Because, again, this is looking for signals, not to differentiate or hypothesize.
So, what do I think? Its a very typical monograph for a treatment that is still trying to figure out adverse effects. Since the purpose of this information is to look for signal, you cannot extrapolate it to other drugs. There's a large amount of bias so it is hard to say if it is accurate or not. And even so, accuracy isn't something they're looking for. They want to see the total breadth of all the adverse events in a population.
Is the resulting data shocking? No. Fatal cases were 3%, but again, that is from every source, not just from the vaccine. A dude could have been stung by a bee and died of shock. We don't know why these people died and cannot yet attribute it to anything. Looking at this, 46% recovered in the timing of reporting. It may take a long time, up to 90 days I think, but symptoms did fade. Again, there's no timeframe for this, because its preliminary.
Anyone trying to make a big deal out of this just does not know what they're talking about. The data just isn't there. Do I think we should vaccinate anyone under 21? No. We don't yet know the risk events for it. Do I think people should be vaccinated overall? Yes. (I am not going into the politics of this). Do I think you need a booster? No. There's no evidence that boosters provide any greater protection, and with numerous variants coming out (which all viruses have by the way, this is not a big deal) its kind of pointless to keep getting a shot which is now out of date. I mean, it will protect you from the COVID-19 strain that started this, but we do not know which strain will be dominant in the future. My money is on Omnicron. It evades the immune system and is relatively mild, so less work is going to be put into tackling it. I think Delta will eventually get wiped, because its too strong for us to just ignore.
It isn't yet too late for a COVID-19 shot. I got COVID (before the shot, shut up) and got vaccinated. Obviously it is your choice whether or not to get vaccinated, but this has become excessively political to the point where people twist shit back and forth and you can't tell what is real.
All in all, the COVID vaccine and its side effects are not any different or severe from current drugs that are approved on the market. Unless they're hiding information (no evidence of that) like they did with Viox. What do I think are the most likely side-effects for the jab? Arm soreness like the flu shot and fatigue for 2-3 days. Is it possible you will develop severe side effects? Sure. But people die all the time for no reason going under general anesthesia. One of my friends lost his brother because he went under and didn't come back up and that was relatively low dose and just simple wisdom tooth removal.
You have to understand we all react to medication differently. Even the most well studied drugs with the most well studied side effects that are super duper safe might put you in the ground because some weirdo gene was super upregulated/downregulated and it resulted in the normal dose have x10000 times the potency.
What do I think the fatalities were from (With the limited info available that are directly related to the vaccine, a number we don't actually know)? Anaphylaxis. Why do I think this? Because they did not mention 'sudden death' (IE: You just drop dead and they don't know why) or myocardial infarction (heart attack) under symptoms.
I think the likelihood of dying from this vaccine is very very very small if you are an adult. Obviously not for your kids. Don't do that dumb bullshit. Also if you are trying to become pregnant or are pregnant, don't take it. We don't know the implications yet.
You have to separate your personal politics from this issue and look at it objectively. I know its hard with all the media attention, internet bullshit and conspiracy theories. (I do believe it was an unintentional leak from the lab and not a bio-weapon. It was stupidity, the Chinese cutting corners and the cultural concept of 'face' in China. This trifecta lead to the pandemic. There is no benefit to them doing this as their population is extremely vulnerable due to air quality issues and they don't want their young people dropping dead because they might be heading for a demographic crisis. This is the only politics I will engage in).
So, what should you do? That's up to you. You have to weigh the benefits and risks. And we don't entirely know the risks. But I don't think the risks are anything out of the ordinary. They seem similar to other medications that treat serious illnesses. And you can develop long term complications with plenty of meds. The preliminary numbers I'm seeing don't indicate a lot of long term consequences yet.
The data isn't yet all here, but it just doesn't look like anything crazy to me that you have to be paranoid about.
EDIT:
So to be clear, you CANNOT use the Pfizer document to compare to other studies. Again, do not do this. That is not what it is meant for. You CANNOT use it to draw conclusions about incident rates because its methodology explicitly says proportions.
As for pregnancy and lactation, they cite missing information. Which means they don't have a large enough population, not enough reporting and/or not enough anything to say if there are any adverse effects or not.
Last edited:
renée remains insane
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
Hey guys,
As one of the chosen few who actually makes MORE money since this mess started, I totes think y'all should keep doing what the people who created this mess say... the fact that they also profit from your prolonged misery is purely coincidental. You must ignore your gut feelings and actual experiences of these reactions. Remember, keep doing what didn't work last year until it works again.
Bro, The Covid testing system is totally not a mass scam, Bro.
p.s. there is NOTHING scary about forcing every human on earth to take one of two experimental medical interventions.
k, thanks bbz
xoxo
Secret Arsehole.
As one of the chosen few who actually makes MORE money since this mess started, I totes think y'all should keep doing what the people who created this mess say... the fact that they also profit from your prolonged misery is purely coincidental. You must ignore your gut feelings and actual experiences of these reactions. Remember, keep doing what didn't work last year until it works again.
Bro, The Covid testing system is totally not a mass scam, Bro.
p.s. there is NOTHING scary about forcing every human on earth to take one of two experimental medical interventions.
k, thanks bbz
xoxo
Secret Arsehole.