Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true

So what?

 

Often, but not always. But you knew that.

 

Are you being serious!? So what? Percentage or figure comparisons ONLY work when each group has an equal share of the overall percentage. You posted a comparison that clearly DOESN'T have an equal share.

DO YOU GET THAT?

Direct question:
"Therefore" (according to this useless "logic") the men are 180% more likely to be over 50!
Is that statement true?

 

@Betamax101...

 

It should be always.

 

So what. For the last couple of years more vaccinated people have died than unvaccinated. That is a true statement.

 

And again the response that fails to acknowledge the reality. I await, any time, when any conspiracy theorist ever, reads a slam-dunk post and admits their error. How can you not understand the major problem with your claim!? Hair-tearing stuff.

Now be reasonable and and answer the question:
"Therefore" (according to this useless "logic") the men are 180% more likely to be over 50!
Is that statement true?

Isn't it just!

 

There is no problem with the data provided by the CDV.

 

Correct. The problem is with people ignorant of statistics making crap assumptions!

Now be reasonable and and answer the question:
"Therefore" (according to this useless "logic") the men are 180% more likely to be over 50!
Is that statement true?

Are you afraid to answer that?

 

But then most people have been vaccinated.

In Canada, from the government website...





The unvaccinated 15% of those over five did 47% of the dying.

Over 1m Americans died of covid, maybe significantly more. We should have a national commission on how we dealt with covid so we can get at the truth.

 

And again the data above is meaningless.

 

It's clear evidence you're wrong.

 

Where are the age groups and preconditions data? You can't tell anything from the data above.

 

Duplicate deleted

 

@AFM - literally everyone reading this thread knows why you cannot answer this simple thing!

You are comparing one total against another when they are NOT comparable. The ONLY way to do this is to make them equitable, identifying their relative percentage difference.

It's a testament to the utter failure of conspiracy theorists that a) they don't even understand this b) ergo never do such a thing and c) deny or pretend not to see this stunningly obvious skam-dunk point.

You spent half a dozen posts on the previous page asking for your question to be answered!

The irony... only my question destroys your claim and I reckon you know it.

 

It's your question - answer it yourself.

 

The unvaccinated had more pre-existing conditions--is that your theme? In Canada, the government made a special effort to vaccinate those with preexisting conditions. They went to aboriginal communities, towns in rural areas, poor communities, homeless and street people, old folks' homes... there was a serious effort to protect those with preexisting conditions.

 

No.

 

I didn't post any incorrect information .. I merely posted the Phase III Clinical Trial results .. which you are desperately trying to refute by citing some article from propaganda Pablum circus .. which followed any science they did not like.

Now I am going to post the results again -- as published in the Journal Vaccine .. as opposed to some opinion article from some net-mag.

You see the results friend .. 1 in 800 SAR . and that was over Placebo baseline -- which is quite significant indeed .. contrary to your false assertion below

Sorry mate you need to listen to the Research Scientist .. not mistake your false assertions for my correct information. Big difference 12.5 per 10,000 Jabbed .. over some of these ridiculously nonsensical claims of 1 in a million ..

Now .. if you want to go with the propaganda pablum article that is fine .. if your article did not like the way they assessed SAR -- and one can quibble over the criteria .. he should have stated what the number would be using his suggested criteria. You see .. that's the way the research scientist works ... naked claims don't count for anything .. some fellow claiming to be a pH.D .. carries zero weight .. if you claim X then you must show why your claim is true.

So if the Phase III clinical trial SAR result was not 1 in 800 ... then what was it ? Either come up with a number from the Phase III Trials.. or forever hold your peace

 

Whatever.

 

You really don't appear to be representative of a research scientist. Which part of no significant difference between the placebo group and the vaccine group is not clear to you. Fraiman et al took the results of the Phase III trials and defined his own SAE categories, didn't apply the number of adverse events properly, p-hacked data, and came up with his own special number just so pretend research scientists could try to state that the vaccines cause SAE's in 1 in 800 which is not true. Further research has clearly supported the concept that the vaccines are safe and adverse events like mycarditis are rare. Of course any other study holds no water with you because they don't give the results you want. Where are all the results that indicate that Fraiman's reanalysis was correct? Despite many studies, you still go back to one single reanalysis that gives the results you want, and you ignore the rest. And you call yourself a research scientist?

The Phase III clinical trial results can be found in the Moderna and Pfizer studies, not the p-hacked reanalysis published in the "Vaccine" journal.

From the Moderna Phase III trial:

• The frequency of unsolicited adverse events, unsolicited severe adverse events, and serious adverse events reported during the 28 days after injection was generally similar among participants in the two groups
• Three deaths occurred in the placebo group (one from intraabdominal perforation, one from cardiopulmonary arrest, and one from severe systemic inflammatory syndrome in a participant with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and diffuse bullous rash)
• Two deaths occurred in the vaccine group (one from cardiopulmonary arrest and one by suicide).
• The frequency of grade 3 adverse events in the placebo group (1.3%) was similar to that in the vaccine group (1.5%), as were the frequencies of medically attended adverse events (9.7% vs. 9.0%) and serious adverse events (0.6% in both groups).
• Hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 1.5% and 1.1% of participants in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively
• Bell’s palsy occurred in the vaccine group (3 participants [<0.1%]) and the placebo group (1 participant [<0.1%]) during the observation period of the trial (more than 28 days after injection).
• Overall, 0.5% of participants in the placebo group and 0.3% in the mRNA-1273 group had adverse events that resulted in their not receiving the second dose, and less than 0.1% of participants in both groups discontinued participation in the trial because of adverse events after any dose.
• No evidence of vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease was noted, and fewer cases of severe Covid-19 or any Covid-19 were observed among participants who received mRNA-1273 than among those who received placebo.
• Adverse events that were deemed by the trial team to be related to the vaccine or placebo were reported among 4.5% of participants in the placebo group and 8.2% in the mRNA-1273 group. The most common treatment-related adverse events (those reported in at least 1% of participants) in the placebo group and the mRNA-1273 group were fatigue (1.2% and 1.5%) and headache (0.9% and 1.4%).
• In the overall population, the incidence of treatment-related severe adverse events was higher in the mRNA-1273 group (71 participants [0.5%]) than in the placebo group (28 participants [0.2%]). The relative incidence of these adverse events according to vaccine group was not affected by age.

Those are the numbers from the actual Moderna trial. The total number of trial participants was 30,420, with 15,210 randomly assigned to either the Placebo or Vaccine group. The number of treatment related severe adverse events was not significantly different between the vaccine and placebo group.

You can find all the supplementary data at the following link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_file/nejmoa2035389_appendix.pdf

From the Pfizer Phase III trial:

• Sixty-four vaccine recipients (0.3%) and 6 placebo recipients (<0.1%) reported lymphadenopathy.
• Few participants in either group had severe adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial.
• Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia).
• Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest)
• Four placebo recipients died (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction).
• No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo.
• The favorable safety profile observed during phase 1 testing of BNT162b24,8 was confirmed in the phase 2/3 portion of the trial.
• As in phase 1, reactogenicity was generally mild or moderate, and reactions were less common and milder in older adults than in younger adults.
• Systemic reactogenicity was more common and severe after the second dose than after the first dose, although local reactogenicity was similar after the two doses.
• Overall, reactogenicity events were transient and resolved within a couple of days after onset. Lymphadenopathy, which generally resolved within 10 days, is likely to have resulted from a robust vaccine-elicited immune response.
• The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%, respectively).

You can find all the supplementary data for the Pfizer trial at the following link:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf

 

Your link did not say anything about being the Phase III clinical trial data .. nor have you give the numbers requested .. why are you talking about lymphadenopathy -- which has nothing to do with myocarditis overall SAR. .. then run around saying saying my scientific abilities are lacking.

This is the second time posting a link where it does not say what you claim. Don't need no Science degree to know that is a pile of deception.

Numbers -- how many SAR -- over how many Jabs .. over what number of people .. no need to post pages of nonsense unrelated to the above numbers.

1 in 800 SAR is the number the peer reviewed Study in the Journal Vaccine. and who has not retracted the Study.

U Understand friend Journal of Vaccine , that is the Journal about Vaccines

Some moron writing an article in some web conspiracy publication saying they didn't like the Study ..doesn't cut it outright .. the fact that they give no alternate numbers .. a Phat Joke .. for those of us familiar with Science.

 

It's strange that the actual trial is discarded in favour of somebody's spin on it! I wonder why!

 

You can't answer it because you know it will show your argument to be hogwash!

The answer is a resounding no. Of course that utterly stupid observation is not true. But everyone can see that that is what is being done with the data. You are comparing two unequal percentages - they MUST be adjusted first, before that gives a correct answer!

 

l gave you the actual results from the phase III trials from the results section of each phase III trial. I labelled both links I gave as being links to the supplementary data of Moderna and the supplementary data of the Pfizer trial. The trials results listed prevalent adverse reactions of which lymphodenopathy is just one of the adverse events listed. We aren’t just talking about myocarditis when discussing the Phase III results as they are include many safety signals from minor adverse events to serious adverse events.

I provided the numbers reported by the two phase three trials. I provided the supplementary data which includes SAE’s and number of occurrences. Why are you ignoring the numbers from the trial where it clearly states there WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VACCINE GROUP AND THE PLACEBO GROUP in terms of severe adverse events. The two trials were looking at vaccine efficacy and safety signals. The safety signals were defined and listed in the trials. If you go to the links that supply the supplementary data you can see exactly what the safety signals were defined as, how many were reported in terms of actual numbers, and how many trial participants there were, how old they were and so on.

I really do question your ability to understand the results of the phase III trials and discern information in the supplementary data. I also question your scientific abilities because you don’t seem to be able to understand that you can’t apply the results of a poorly done reanalysis where definitions are changed, and where there is manipulation of the data to get the answer they wanted to the phase III trials. The Fraiman et al reanalysis can’t be used to demonstrate the findings of the Phase III trials. An honest reanalysis of the data would not use statistical tests to get the desired results that they want. As a research scientist you should know this. You should also understand bias. You should understand poorly performed statistical analyses rooted in bias.

Another reason I question your knowledge as a research scientist is that you are stating a reanalysis of data from the Phase III trials is better than data that comes from after the vaccines have rolled out and distributed to billions of people. The true real world safety of the vaccines does not come from a reanalysis of Phase III trials with 73K participants, it comes from the data collected from post-marketing surveillance studies where less common adverse events that might not have shown up during the Phase III trials start showing up and true numbers of known adverse events are collected. If the reanalysis reflected reality, then the many many post-marketing surveillance studies would support Fraiman’s data, they absolutely do not.

You are also failing to even admit that they fudged the data in the reanalysis by comparing NUMBER of SAE’s, not the the number of patients who suffered and SAE which kind of guarantees the doubling of the count of SAES. This is explained in the links that you describe as ‘fluff’ because you want to denigrate information that goes against your beliefs. If you are such a great research scientist that you claim you are, go to the links I provided and refute the information in them.

Here’s a few of them again:

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com...ed-as-a-peer-reviewed-publication-in-vaccine/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/statistical-shenanigans/

The rest of the links can be found in a previous post.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the two links to the Pfizer and Moderna supplementary data which is the data they used in the Phase III trials does not support that both trials determined no significant differences in terms of SAE’s between the vaccine group and the placebo group. Okay, for brevity one more time.

As stated — from the Moderna trial — You can find all the supplementary data at the following link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_file/nejmoa2035389_appendix.pdf

Follow that link — the title is “Supplementary Appendix” with a note below it that states:

I really thought you would be smart enough to google:
Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
N Engl J Med 2021;384:403-16. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

And get to the actual Moderna study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

Which clearly gives the results in terms of safety — which is again:

• The frequency of unsolicited adverse events, unsolicited severe adverse events, and serious adverse events reported during the 28 days after injection was generally similar among participants in the two groups

I also provided the link to the Pfizer supplementary information:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf

Follow the link, the title is: Supplementary Appendix with a note below it:

That should have enabled you to find the Pfizer study — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/

Which clearly states:

• The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%, respectively).

Then you finish your response to me with this:

Are you stating that the Phase III trials are nonsense. The supplementary data gives number of adverse events, number of vaccines, number of subjects in each group.

The 1 in 800 number does not come the Moderna or Phase III trials, it comes from a statistical reanalysis of the data where they defined new side effects and messed around with the data all of which I linked to which you have not addressed. I understand it’s in the Vaccine journal and it’s peer reviewed but obviously there are issues with it that I have provided information about. Lots of peer-reviewed journal articles get critiqued after the fact by other scientists. A published article does not mean perfect. A reanalysis is just a reanalysis and not an actual study. A few scientists decided to reanalyze the reanalysis and came up with some methodological issues.

I actually linked to quite a few articles, yet you refer to ‘some moron’ writing in a web conspiracy publication. Well, ‘ScienceBasedMedicine’ is not a conspiracy publication and the people who write for it are very knowledgeable and know what they are talking about. It’s been around since 2008 and it examines “controversies in science and medicine”, so you have no idea what you are talking about. I am sure if they are so moronic that you would be, as a research scientist, able to address why and how they are wrong but not one word, so I don’t think you can.

The actual trial doesn’t have the results he wants, so he cherry picks the one badly written reanalysis that he can find to support his beliefs. He doesn’t consider the reams of research that supports that the vaccines are safe with admittedly some rare side-effects like myocarditis and pericarditis. He sticks to one study with the magic number (pulled out of somebody’s behind) that states 1 in 800 and has conflated that into the vaccine cause a SAE in one out of 800 hundred people totally ignoring the fact that the placebo group in the Phase III trials had similar SAE’s. He also conveniently ignores that the Phase III trials had nothing to do with the vaccines causing SAE’s rather they were about any concerning safety signals and the efficacy of the vaccine. When presented with information explaining how poor the reanalysis is, he can’t even refute that. He also doesn’t seem to be able to present any kind of research that supports the reanalysis and he wonders why I question his claim of being a research scientist.