Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General - "Covid Seasonal Flu Vaccines is Society's New Normal" - FDA

[EyelessMC]

So now the President and Dr. Fauci are double-teaming e-celebs in a recent social media campaign. Kinda weird how they made the set-up look like a knock-off Vatican setting lol
Less funny is how they completely disregard people's concern and emphasize getting vaccinated as an "obligation" (ethical and social, not legal)

No worries. Vigilance is always a good thing, especially when it comes to medical concerns. Whether or not people eventually accept or reject the vaccine should be at their own pace.

Agreed.

The massive global push to vaccinate the population is of course driven by a desire to re-open economies as well as rescuing healthcare systems (for instance, hospitals are overwhelmed and fatalities are high among healthcare workers).

There's more to it than that but that's part of it. As for Covid and fatalities, it makes me wonder why we can list so many deaths as being caused by Covid with comorbidity factors but when it comes to illnesses from the vaccines we focus only on other factors rather than the vaccines. Brings me back to what we were talking about, how there's so many redirecting attention from the correlation between myocarditis and the vaccine--exactly like they did with the blood clots and the AztraZeneca vaccine when it was being banned in 18 countries--rather than taking a balanced approach to even suggest the connection is possible.

It's like with the videos I just posted above. No emphasis on science or anything, just pithy talking points all leaning hard on the "obligation" to get vaccinated. It's frustrating.

Unfortunately I’m not in the US so I can’t really comment on the vaccine mandates. There aren’t any here so far.

Genuinely a good thing for you. Hopefully it stays that way.
I know the EU is already planning to implement a Green Pass vaccine passport but that's about it as far as I know from anything outside America. Also Canada being insane.

If you’re interested in a deep dive, mRNA has a very fascinating history. I already posted links earlier, but here’s an mRNA study pre-pandemic (2018 ):
[...]

mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches, but their application has been hampered by instability and delivery issues. Here, Pardi and colleagues discuss recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology, assess mRNA vaccines currently in development for cancer...

www.nature.com

Great stuff. I don't think that the issues surrounding the Covid vaccines should altogether put off anyone from endorsing research into mRNA vaccines. New technological advancements in medicine should always be encouraged. Once we have proper long term testing with rigorous peer review we could see what the future holds for it. It's a shame that the tech's introduction to the world was under this kind of confusion, bias and otherwise, though.
Kind of reminds me of the reaction people had to 5G because no one bothered taking time to teach others about what it is and how it works, let alone that the US and other countries specifically set up efforts to ensure the tech's development and implementation remains "clean" from CCP influence.

The more informed people are, the more balanced the discussion and the more critical thinking is encouraged, the less confusion and concern there'll be. My only issue with this is how unilateral the attempts at discussion are from government and most higher-up medical representatives.

Also, some idea of why this vaccine was developed so quickly:
[...]

The lightning-fast quest for COVID vaccines — and what it means for other diseases

The speedy approach used to tackle SARS-CoV-2 could change the future of vaccine science.

www.nature.com

I’m guessing if you’re throwing billions of dollars at research, that definitely helps speed up the development of medicines.

Definitely, but then couple that with the urgency of trying to get a vaccine distributed in the middle of a global pandemic? Financing isn't the issue but rather the sway BigPharma had in the deals made and the asinine Operation Warp Speed to try and rush science. I will always label Pfizer's refusal to put their initial study up for peer review before shipping piles of vaccine to the USA and wanting emergency approval from the FDA as an act of self-interest and ill intent, to say the least, but considering the President himself was pushing for rapid distribution--and many other world leaders, too--it could also have been an oversight to get things rolling in the middle of an emergency.

Pfizer doesn't have a history of altruism, though, so I'm not inclined to believe that. In any case, the business of the vaccine definitely accelerated development, but so did government mandates and a general dread of a then-presumed global plague. Your later citations say as much, particularly about why they forewent usual procedure to instead go into simultaneous animal and human testing.

These vaccines were definitely rushed in their development and although we have all the right to be suspicious about BigPharma itself, the doctors involved in the trials should be given some charity considering the rush in development was coming from both government and executive push, and it was all under the frightening umbrella of the pandemic wreaking havoc everywhere.

However, this charity--at least for those calling the shots--ends where the fear of the pandemic ceases to be legitimate, in that the situation had not remotely been as dire as when it was first discovered a year ago. There should be greater scrutiny and testing for these vaccines rather than the push to vaccinated everyone, even children, and hand-wave away the side effects and correlations like too many do. The vaccines have not been "proven" to be "totally safe" like Fauci or otherwise keep saying. We need further (and apparently more coordinated) trials and testing. Being vaccinated cannot be pushed on people like as an "obligation" like President Biden keeps saying.

Great posts and interesting info. I should post this into the OP, too, or at least link to your post there.

 

[Abracadabra]

Technically speaking, animal trials are to ensure the safety of human trials. The vaccines did go through all three phases of human trials before approval.

If you want a better idea of how the vaccines would fare in a lengthier process, Japan actually had to conduct its own additional human trials because medical regulation there is much stricter. Vaccines were approved there only recently.

However, this charity--at least for those calling the shots--ends where the fear of the pandemic ceases to be legitimate, in that the situation had not remotely been as dire as when it was first discovered a year ago.

The problem though is that the pandemic conditions are asymmetric. The situation in India remains dire, for instance. Countries with weaker healthcare infrastructure would greatly benefit more from a vaccine.

The motivations of a massive push for vaccination in the US are labyrinthine, but I don’t think a country such as India can have the luxury of time.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

lol I guess she wouldn't take your "No" for an answer. Well, now you get to say "I told you so" between keeping an eye on her and making her chicken noodle soup. If anything happens, and preferably nothing happens and she just gets over some typical post-vax sniffles, keep us posted!

I called my local clinics and they all said this is """normal""" and that their doctors won't do anything. This shit is so terrifying. I've never had a vaccine that made me sick for weeks at a time. But it's all normal if this experimental one makes you feel like you're dying. He's actually been sick for the entire time since getting the first shot. Sure, I told him the second shot would only be worse, but he still got it anyway because normie. Now it's like 10 times worse. Splitting migraines, fever, chills, cannot eat anything, can't walk, no energy to even talk. All the symptoms of COVID-19.

This is far worse than the "normal" side effects, too. I honestly feel bad that I didn't get on my partner's ass early about how questionable this experimental mRNA therapy shot is, but it's too late now. I have had several friends who got the shot and had mild discomfort for a few days, sick maybe for a day. Not literally bed ridden.

I've been trying to read more about vaccine side effects all day, and everything I read from official sources is the same line everywhere: "question nothing, do not be alarmed, side effects are fake news". Great, that doesn't help me. So what do I do now? I can't find any info because they refuse to even talk about side effects unless I go to some alterative and independent source.

 

[Abracadabra]

I called my local clinics and they all said this is """normal""" and that their doctors won't do anything. This shit is so terrifying. I've never had a vaccine that made me sick for weeks at a time. But it's all normal if this experimental one makes you feel like you're dying. He's actually been sick for the entire time since getting the first shot. Sure, I told him the second shot would only be worse, but he still got it anyway because normie. Now it's like 10 times worse. Splitting migraines, fever, chills, cannot eat anything, can't walk, no energy to even talk. All the symptoms of COVID-19.

This is far worse than the "normal" side effects, too. I honestly feel bad that I didn't get on my partner's ass early about how questionable this experimental mRNA therapy shot is, but it's too late now. I have had several friends who got the shot and had mild discomfort for a few days, sick maybe for a day. Not literally bed ridden.

I've been trying to read more about vaccine side effects all day, and everything I read from official sources is the same line everywhere: "question nothing, do not be alarmed, side effects are fake news". Great, that doesn't help me. So what do I do now? I can't find any info because they refuse to even talk about side effects unless I go to some alterative and independent source.

I’m sorry to hear that. Can I ask which vaccine? Maybe we can find something.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

I’m sorry to hear that. Can I ask which vaccine? Maybe we can find something.

That sketchy 10-year-old, off-brand company

Spoiler

Moderna

 

[EyelessMC]

I can't find any info because they refuse to even talk about side effects unless I go to some alterative and independent source.

And most of those aren't even able to help your situation. The only good news right now is that your partner's suffering here isn't unique, but that's not a great consolation. I can tell how scary this is. This is enraging. This is the reason why this "Gotta Go Vax!" mentality is such a poison as opposed to balanced discussion.

Moderna isn't even a long-time company in the vaccine scene! This mRNA vax is their first product to market! It's not something to blindly trust just because a doctor blindly trusts it, who does so because some other doctor trusts it, who themselves do so because another doctor who has more pedigree trusts it because CDC said so. Certain other posters have mentioned their doctors warning them or suggesting they hold off for now. I'm sorry your partner didn't have such a doctor.

Spoiler: My Suggestion

Wish I could help. All I can suggest is maybe call and set appointments for other doctors, physicians your partner have never met, and see if visiting them can help. Don't mention the vaccine or Covid19. Just give his medical history, tell them he's very sick, tell them for how long and what the symptoms are, etc. Feign naivete or confusion on the subject of the vaccine.

This should make the new doctors immediately consider running tests (blood work, MRI etc.) since they'll be searching for an answer to the cause of what's happening, or they'll offer some medicine to help alleviate symptoms why they search. The point is, if you mention the vaccine then they'll likely get a mental switch flipped and they'll start parroting like a broken toy, "VAX GOOD. THIS IS NORMAL. GOOD VAX."
Or even if you find a sympathetic doctor who's more given to critical thinking, what would they do? No one knows anything about this kind of reaction from the vaccine, let alone how to make it stop. Even a sincere doctor would be at a loss.

I already said that I was horribly ill for little over two years until a new doctor saw my problem and immediately put me to be tested for something my previous doctor didn't. I should also mention I saw another new doctor at the same time. Both new doctors--who didn't know I was seeing another one--tested me for the same thing and both suggested the same result. If I had gone to see a new doctor instead of waiting for my old one to be relocated and end up being forced to see his replacement I could have saved myself from losing two years of my life.

New perspectives with open minds hungry for investigation: By hiding the vaccine subject and just feigning ignorance you can maybe get something figured out. In the very least it's better than nothing, if you can afford do it.

And if any of the doctors ask, "Has he been tested for Covid? Has he had the vaccine?" You say, "He's tested negative for Covid. I don't know if he's had the vaccine. I don't think so."
Try to avoid saying he's had the vaccine or talk around it. It'll come up eventually and if they check his medical records it'll show, but just emphasize confusion about the cause of the illness and the severity.

Edit: See if you can get a doctor to have his heart and blood tested, too. Not a stress test but simple MRI or something. Thankfully he hasn't had a stroke or blood clotting.

 

[Abracadabra]

Moderna isn't even a long-time company in the vaccine scene! This mRNA vax is their first product to market! It's not something to blindly trust just because a doctor blindly trusts it, who does so because some other doctor trusts it, who themselves do so because another doctor who has more pedigree trusts it because CDC said so.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it needs to be said that Moderna was founded with the intention of studying and developing mRNA technology. This was only possible when Katalin Kariko’s research drew sufficient attention :

“That was a key discovery,” said Norbert Pardi, an assistant professor of medicine at Penn and frequent collaborator. “Karikó and Weissman figured out that if you incorporate modified nucleosides into mRNA, you can kill two birds with one stone.”

That discovery, described in a series of scientific papers starting in 2005, largely flew under the radar at first, said Weissman, but it offered absolution to the mRNA researchers who had kept the faith during the technology’s lean years. And it was the starter pistol for the vaccine sprint to come.

And even though the studies by Karikó and Weissman went unnoticed by some, they caught the attention of two key scientists — one in the United States, another abroad — who would later help found Moderna and Pfizer’s future partner, BioNTech.

The story of mRNA: From a loose idea to a tool that may help curb Covid

Scientists have dreamed about the possibilities of custom-made messenger RNA. The pandemic may turn those possibilities into realilty.

www.statnews.com

To be fair, the company was founded by members of the medical community with vast experience in vaccine development, most notably Robert Langer. It’s also not unusual for the most cutting-edge laboratories to have been established recently, of course.

 

[EyelessMC]

To be fair, the company was founded by members of the medical community with vast experience in vaccine development, most notably Robert Langer. It’s also not unusual for the most cutting-edge laboratories to have been established recently, of course.

Good info and fair point, however my aim wasn't to imply Moderna is some out-of-their-depth start-up ran by the inexperienced.
My point is that they have not produced anything for the market until only recently and their first product, their vaccine, was part of the massive rush development all the Covid vaccines underwent, and their research particularly has only been for roughly three years by their CEO's own words--with billions in funding, of course.

Ultimately my point is that no one should just shrug and say, "Yeah, well it's a Moderna vaccine so we know it's good." That goes for anything even from major pharmaceutical names and doubly for a newer name like Moderna and a new product like their vaccine. BadTakeCrucifier's partner's doctors shouldn't be shrugging this off just because it's a Covid vax or because it's a suddenly well known name.

I've posted this in the other thread but I'll post it again here just to emphasize the issue of these doctors' mentality--not all, but those like who BadTakeCrucifier is dealing with:

 

[Abracadabra]

I've posted this in the other thread but I'll post it again here just to emphasize the issue of these doctors' mentality--not all, but those like who BadTakeCrucifier is dealing with:
View attachment 2212539

From what I’ve read, Moderna had been developing the components of its vaccine for more than three years. In 2013, Moderna and AstraZeneca signed an agreement to co-develop mRNA technology:

mRNA-based therapeutics — developing a new class of drugs - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

The therapeutic potential ofin vitro-transcribed mRNA (IVT mRNA) extends from prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines to applications such as protein replacement and genome engineering. In this Review, the authors describe the recent developments in the IVT mRNA field, discuss the class-specific...

www.nature.com

Believe it or not, I’m extremely skeptical of psychiatric drugs and the field of psychiatry. That is the most problematic medical field, if it even deserves that label. I think it belongs in the social sciences and shouldn’t even be equated with the other medical fields.

 

[EyelessMC]

Believe it or not, I’m extremely skeptical of psychiatric drugs and the field of psychiatry.

You're a reasonable person so I'd believe it. Only the nutty don't hold skepticism to psychiatry, and only the mind-numbed think psych meds are magic bullets.

That is the most problematic medical field, if it even deserves that label. I think it belongs in the social sciences and shouldn’t even be equated with the other medical fields.

Spoiler: My Thoughts

Psychology and psychiatry deal with the mind rather than typical anatomy and biochemistry. As such, the entire focus is predominantly on the immaterial (psychological trauma, PTSD, depression, suicidal ideation, night terrors, etc.) rather than the material (brain synapses, blood-brain barrier, nervous system, enteric system, etc.)

There's a lot of cross-over between the mind and body, hence the discovery of mental illnesses not only arising from psychological trauma but also genetics or physical trauma (like the disorders from head trauma) and learning how our mind is tied to biological functions of the brain. Still, it does sit separate from STEM for a reason. What doesn't help its perception as being less scientific is how much of it boarders on philosophy--which I suppose is inevitable since, again, we're dealing with the mind and psychological perspective/processing.

It's definitely a legitimate field of medical work, though. There really are universal aspects to the human mind which enable a scientific approach, just like there's universal reactions to our biological chemistry. As such we can diagnose disorders like illnesses and treat them to success. Examples:
- Someone comes in with a bad pain, unable to eat, etc. The doctor considers the symptoms, runs tests until they discover the root cause. Medicine and treatment is provided. Turns out the patient was suffering from a failing gallbladder and needed surgery.
- Someone comes in describing mental flashes, waking up screaming or startled, general anxiety, fear of being alone in the dark, erradic swings, etc. Doctor considers the symptoms, asks questions and speaks with patient until they discover the root cause. Turns out the patient was suffering from PTSD as a result of a latent trauma from early abuse.
The real difference is that once the root cause is discovered it's a matter of helping the patient process the trouble and their own feelings/thoughts on it. In this way the treatment is more akin to physical rehabilitation--it can take anywhere from months to years depending on severity but with effort it can be overcome.

However, again the problem is that this is a field of the mind and it can border on philosophy, both regarding the patient and the doctor. There's less wiggle room for a doctor's worldview or philosophy to effect their method of treatment for patients in STEM than in Psychology/Psychiatry. This greater freedom of approach to treatment is a two-edged sword, making things easier for good professionals to do their job in a way they know works but also enabling bad professionals to harm patients. It's led to endemic problems you can find out on your own, like leading patients to destructive behaviors or even traumatizing young patients, but such methods are usually routed out eventually.
STEM has it's fair share of doctors harming patients by their method, too, but that's just my take on it.

Psychology/Psychiatry must focus on being predominantly immaterial, though. It's about the mind, after all. Part of the impetus of the RX craze of the 90's was the idea "Every problem can be tied back to brain chemistry" and therefore if we fix the brain's chemistry we fix the problem. However, the chemistry isn't the problem, the mind's processing of emotions or events is, and shoving one pill after another in an effort to give a material solution to an immaterial problem led to horrors. Also BigPharma greed but that's beside the point and systemic even in STEM.

Certain universal facts of psychology prove it to be legitimate, as I mentioned, and animal trials are just as effective as in STEM. Just look at the Mouse Utopia experiment or the monkey experiments regarding group behavior. Psychaitry is meant to apply this knowledge to people who need help. Thanks to this overall field we have much of the best means of helping people return to healthy lives despite enduring trauma, something medicine can't otherwise help--like overcoming the psychological ramifications of having witness a loved die dramatically before your eyes, or having been abused as a child or abducted for ten years or etc, things which STEM is impotent to help.

Of course we also have some of the worst mankind has ever conceived of thanks to this field of study, like brainwashing, transgenderism and even the very origin of marketing today. If Psychology (psychiatry being part of it) wasn't a real science then Edward Berneys would never have been so successful.

Because the field deals with the mind--a fundamentally immaterial subject--it can border on pseudo-science depending on how far from the root science doctors venture. If people take everything Carl Jung wrote down as bible then we'd be left in a mire of disparate parables, dreamscapes and philosophical analogs. Just like with other fields of medicine or science, psychology needs scrutiny and doctors operating on facts. Psychiatry tends to gather a lot of kooks but no more than most things, even Quantum Physics. Just look at String Theory for example.

P.S. Sorry if I repeated myself a lot. I need to get some sleep. lol

TL;DR It's certainly a legitimate field and immeasurable help but it can be immeasurably harmful when practiced poorly or utilized for evil. In that sense it's exactly like STEM. However, it's fundamentally about the mind, not just the brain, making the field more about the immaterial than the material, hence why it's apart from STEM.

Edit: There's also the issue of how certain therapists will speak in a less clinical manner about their field when asked, instead adopting an almost esoteric dialogue. The worst are doctors who talk like teenage spiritualists. These people are retards.
Here's an example of how a proper psychologist and even therapist would speak on something like PTSD:

 

[Abracadabra]

P.S. Sorry if I repeated myself a lot. I need to get some sleep. lol

TL;DR It's certainly a legitimate field and immeasurable help but it can be immeasurably harmful when practiced poorly or utilized for evil. In that sense it's exactly like STEM. However, it's fundamentally about the mind, not just the brain, making the field more about the immaterial than the material, hence why it's apart from STEM.

Haha, no worries. I appreciate the time and care you take with your replies.

I will have to make the distinction, though: I don’t really have any grave issues with the general field of psychology. Its best practitioners know they must straddle the social science aspects of the discipline alongside its medical parameters. Clinical psychologists, developmental psychologists, neuropsychologists: they’re all right with me. They know the limitations of and reforms needed in the field (a high degree of research bias, for instance).

It’s psychiatry in particular that I have massive reservations about. The long history of the abuse of psychiatric medicine is pretty well-documented, and the vast commercial industry built around the field makes me extremely wary of the motivations behind passing off its less rigorous science as something more sound.

 

[knobslobbin]

ADE is Antibody-dependent enhancement and is what was killing animals in earlier corona vaccine trials. Minimizing ADE risk was a large part of what the trials were designed to detect.

"Both ADE pathways can occur when non-neutralizing antibodies or antibodies at sub-neutralizing levels bind to viral antigens without blocking or clearing infection." Source. (Talking about when ADE was observed in the study)

A recent study on the immune response of the vaccinated:

Polyclonal antibody responses in vaccinees were robust and comparable to or exceeded those seen after natural infection. However, that the ratio of binding to neutralizing antibodies after vaccination was greater than that after natural infection and, at the monoclonal level, we found that the majority of vaccine-induced antibodies did not have neutralizing activity. Source

The purpose of that study was to see if vaccinated people would have immune responses to covid variants (they did), but is it also showing a higher chance of ADE down the road?

 

[Abracadabra]

ADE is Antibody-dependent enhancement and is what was killing animals in earlier corona vaccine trials. Minimizing ADE risk was a large part of what the trials were designed to detect.


A recent study on the immune response of the vaccinated:



The purpose of that study was to see if vaccinated people would have immune responses to covid variants (they did), but is it also showing a higher chance of ADE down the road?

As with any ongoing observation of the effects of a vaccine outside of the laboratory and clinical studies, there are no definitive answers yet.

However, just to contextualize ADE:

In vitro systems and animal models do not predict the risk of ADE of disease, in part because protective and potentially detrimental antibody-mediated mechanisms are the same, and designing animal models depends on understanding how antiviral host responses may become harmful in people. The implications of our lack of knowledge are twofold. First, comprehensive studies are urgently needed to define clinical correlates of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Second, since we cannot predict ADE of disease reliably after either vaccination or treatment with antibodies, regardless of what virus is the causative agent, it will be essential to depend on careful analysis of safety in humans as immune interventions for COVID-19 disease move forward.

A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 | Request PDF

Request PDF | A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 | The possibility of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is a general concern for the development of vaccines and antibody therapies... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Also, ADE itself does not kill. Rather, it’s something that invites more serious infections. The question is: was it observed in animals in the current Covid-19 animal trials?

Antibody-dependent enhancement was specifically tested for in the animal models as these candidates were being developed (re-exposure of vaccinated animals to coronavirus to see how protective the vaccine was). And no cases of more severe disease were seen – I’ve gone back through the reported preclinical studies, and I don’t think I’ve missed one, and what I’m seeing is not one single case of ADE for any of them.

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement and the Coronavirus Vaccines | In the Pipeline

I’m getting a lot of queries about antibody-dependent enhancement these days, and I can only assume that’s because there’s a lot of talk about this making the rounds of various social media platforms. Many of the people who are contacting me sound a lot more worried than I would have thought, so...

blogs.sciencemag.org

The blog is constantly updated and I recommend reading it and the comment section.

Needless to say the risk of ADE is an ongoing concern that is not being overlooked.

 

[Ndnd]

Thanks again for making this thread @EyelessMC, and thanks for keeping up the flow of info, despite of all the autistic slap fights from the other thread.

This might be of interest to you. This is an interview with Dr. Byram Bridle, an associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph.

He’s saying that he and his collaborators have concrete evidence that the spike protein produced by the vaccine does enter the blood stream and accumulates in certain tissues (i.e. the spleen, bone marrow, liver, ovaries).

This is a brief interview where he discusses his findings. I know the paper he collaborated on has been reviewed and accepted for publication, but I don’t believe it’s been released yet.

New peer reviewed study on COVID-19 vaccines suggests why heart inflammation, blood clots and other dangerous side effects occur - ON Point with Alex Pierson - Omny.fm

Alex talks with Dr. Byram Bridle, an Associate Professor on Viral Immunology at the University of Guelph about new peer-reviewed studies that suggests there may be terrifying reasons side effects such as heart inflammation, VITT, and other serious issues may occur in those who have been...

omny.fm

 

[Merrick]

Thank you for posting this thread, @EyelessMC - it's been incredibly informative.

LOL
View attachment 2207795

DEFINE_ME

in before deboonked and fact checked.

I found this article, which explains:

ARR has to be interpreted in the context of baseline risk. In the above example, the baseline risk of death was 44% and ligation with an ARR of 16%reducedthis risk to 28%, which is nearly two-third (=0.28/0.44 = 0.636 or 64%) of the baseline risk. This is a medium-sized “relative” effect. However, if the baseline risk of death had been 20%, then a 16% ARR would bring the risk down to 4%, i.e. to about one-fifth of the original risk, a much bigger change in relative terms. This interpretation of risk reduction in the context of baseline risk is termed as “relative risk reduction (RRR).”

RRR = ARR/risk in control group (baseline risk).

RRR is an estimate of the percentage of baseline risk that is removed as a result of the new therapy. The problem with using RRR is that we cannot assess the actual effect size if the event rate in the control group is not known. A particular RRR may thus imply very different ARRs, depending on the baseline risk. For instance, a 50% RRR may represent an ARR of 40% (if the absolute risk comes down from 80% to 40%), a major effect, or of only 1% (if the absolute risk comes down from 2% to 1%), probably an inconsequential effect size).

and

Physicians tend to over-estimate the efficacy of an intervention when results are expressed as relative measures rather than as absolute measures.[2] ARR (expressed along with baseline risk) is probably a more useful tool than RRR to express the efficacy of an intervention.[3] Thus, reporting of absolute measures is a must. The CONSORT statement for reporting of results of clinical trials recommends that both absolute and relative effect sizes should be reported.[4] It helps to report NNT in addition, since this is an easily-interpreted single indicator of clinical utility of an intervention.

So I have two questions: did they report the ARR at all, and have they reported the event rate in the control group?

 

[Disgruntled Pupper]

I was watching Benjamin Boyce and his 4-year post-Evergreen interview of Bret Weinstein when they went off on a bit of tangent on the virus and the vaccine. I think it provides some useful information about some of the things the CDC and other organizations have lied about, and puts some context to the vaccine that is very troubling. It's only 20 minutes and I suggest you give it a watch.

I'll admit I was initially 100% on board with the vaccine and planning to get one due to my own medical history, but the way the CDC has repeatedly violated medical ethics and lied to the public combined with the push for this vaccine when they refused to even look into its origin has me doing a compete 180. I'll stick to masks ( you know, those things they falsely told people not to wear at the beginning so they could buy the remaining supply because they let their stockpiles expire under Obama and used their funding to promote tranny kids despite it going against the basic principles of virology and germ theory) and positioning myself away from people in public.

 

[Polyboros2]

Here's what I wanna know, let's say I want to get the vaccine just to get faggots off my back with social pressure, I don't care about the effectiveness at all. I'm pretty sure I've had it, I have almost no risk if I caught it, but I got CNNbrains who will think I'm literally Ted Kaczynski for not wanting to get the vaccine.

What is the easiest, least chance of complications option? Note, being asked for receipts and caught in a lie it's a major complication in my opinion considering how all rights, including employee, are out the window in this madness.

 

[knobslobbin]

Thank you for posting this thread, @EyelessMC - it's been incredibly informative.


I found this article, which explains:



and



So I have two questions: did they report the ARR at all, and have they reported the event rate in the control group?

Unfortunately we are living in an era where science and health care have been weaponized by bureaucrats. Are they comparing the survivable rates to areas where HCQ + steroids given early as the intervention, or areas where ventilators were the primary line of defense? (big difference in outcome) Does it include areas where ivermectin was tried?

Difficult to pry good data out of our systems when political biases dictate policy that stops doctors from using all of their tools. It doesn't matter that the banned therapies were eventually proven right, those data points are already set. And given how little I trust the medical establishment, big pharma, and our governing bodies I'm going to assume that any choices they make about which data to use is always the one that 1)makes covid look worse than it is 2) makes the vaccines look as good as possible.

 

[Abracadabra]

So I have two questions: did they report the ARR at all, and have they reported the event rate in the control group?

Maybe we need to clarify first what is meant by absolute risk and relative risk. Hilda Bastian has been following the pandemic since the beginning and is a fairly balanced voice in the medical community. She’s quite critical of the way the AstraZeneca clinical trials were conducted (not very rigorously, in her opinion). She’s worth a follow on her blog and Twitter.

This relative versus absolute risk issue is a common manipulative device – used both by people who want to magnify or trivialize benefits. In this case, it's the latter. The trial was powered around a risk of getting ill with Covid-19 of 1.3% in a short period of time. So of course in absolute terms, any reduction of that risk would be small. But that doesn't mean our lifetime risk of getting Covid-19 is small in an unvaccinated community where the virus can't be held at bay forever.

We need to know the relative risk reduction of the vaccines because we know we need to minimize the impacts of this disease – as of this week, 1 in 1,000 Americans have died of it, another 2 or 3 may be dying every minute, and it's far from over – but those risks vary. Take me, for example. I live in the country, in Victoria, Australia. The total people from my area who have tested positive for Covid-19 in the whole pandemic so far is 11 – and the last of those was months ago. My risk of getting infected in my part of the country is basically 0. So no matter how effective a vaccine was, the absolute risk reduction I would have from it at this rate would be 0. However, if I got on a plane, flew into a hot zone where every third person was infected, and pitched in on a Covid ward without any PPE, the absolute risk reduction I could gain from a highly effective vaccine would shoot up. It's all relative.

Unpacking Doshi's Take at BMJ on Covid Vaccine Trials

Personal website

hildabastian.net

Let’s use a totally made up example (reduced to just the risk bit of the data). Say your risk of having a heart attack is 0.1% and mine is 10%. If a study showed that by knitting for half an hour a day, people could on average reduce their risk of a heart attack by 50%, for you that would mean your absolute risk (AR) would reduce from 0.1% down by half to 0.05%. But mine could drop by a full 5%.

Or, to put just the AR reduction part of the information into natural frequencies: My risk of having a heart attack would be estimated to be about 10 out of 100 without knitting. With daily knitting, my chances of having a heart attack might go down to about 5 out of 100.

Without using the RR, I could only know the average for people who might not be at all like me. If the studies only included people with a much lower risk than me, and all I heard was their small AR reduction, I would think it wouldn’t make much difference to me.

Mind Your "p"s, RRs, and NNTs: On Good Statistics Behavior - Absolutely Maybe

P is for pandemonium. And a bit of that broke out recently when a psychology journal banned p–values and more, declaring the whole…

absolutelymaybe.plos.org

However, she does conclude:

But there's another issue here. And that's the public health and societal one. Even though my personal risk of infection is miniscule, I am affected by the pandemic. Everyone around me is – locally and globally. Our societies need community risk to be way, way down everywhere.

So I think, with regard to getting the vaccines, it’s really up to your individual circumstances. If you would like to contribute to minimizing community risk or if you are part of the population at risk, then by all means consider the vaccines. On the other hand, if you are not part of the group at risk or if you know your movements will be in areas where the numbers remain low, then you won’t be faulted for hesitating or refusing the vaccines.

The debate about statistics is actually very robust within the medical community. There’s a diversity of opinion.

 

[Saint Alphonsus]

If a vaccine requires bribery and threats of social ostracism to promote its widespread use, how serious was the original threat to begin with?

Here I am not sanitizing my hands (unless they were seriously soiled) and not wearing a mask and I'm fine yet the deaths of people I don't know who don't live close to me somehow justify forcing me to live like a hypochondriac on crystal meth.

Before you @ me, I have professional experience in developing companion diagnostic tools for respiratory infections as well as experience handling live virus; I'm not your crunchy granola yoga hippie.