Pfizer vaccine is junk nor tested for safety otherwise

So, you're interested in promoting conspiracies and claiming that science based medicine is interested in harming individuals?

Seriously??

 

I said Twitter will start censoring people who distrust vaccines next week.

Did I say anything about what I am personally interested in promoting? (Hint: No, I did not.)

If you are interest, I do promote free speech more than any other issue.

 

I guess if you have an anti vaccine agenda you can find all kinds of supporting "evidence" on the dark web.

 

CNN's talking points? I have never read anything by CNN on it. What I said above stems from my professional knowledge (40 years of experience in this field).

No, Pfizer did not forget to mention that. It's just that YOU don't know where to get the information, unlike me.

The Pfizer phase 3 trial had 8,614 subjects aged equal to or older than 65. It had 1,712 above the age of 75.

If you have more questions about the demographics, here you have the answers:



How long does the vaccine is good for? Unknown. How in the hell do you want us to know that, since only now we are starting the vaccination? We'll be following the antibodies for the next two years and will continue to follow the subjects. We'll find out.

The measles vaccine is a live attenuated one. It's a different platform. Different viruses are amenable to this technique while others aren't. Examples of live attenuated virus vaccines are the MMR (therefore, including measles), the flu vaccine, and the polio one. Inactivated whole virus vaccines include the HPV one.

If you want to compare SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) to the measles vaccine, you need to compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges, so you have to look at four other vaccines, not the Pfizer or the Moderna which are mRNA vaccines. The more comparable ones to the measles platform are the two vaccines from Sinopharm (the Beijing one and the Wuhan one) and the vaccine from Sinovac/Butantan, called CoronaVac. All three are with live attenuated viruses like the measles vaccine. We do not have efficacy data on these yet, although we know when we'll have it for at least one of them: the Phase 3 CoronaVac results are expected to be released on December 23rd as they have already reached the end-point of 170 cases of Covid-19. The only SARS-CoV-2 vaccine made of inactivated virus is the one from Medicago. Last I checked they were still in phase 1. Given the various vaccines much closer to approval, the Medicago one will probably not succeed and will be abandoned. The two Sinopharm ones and the CoronaVac one though, have or will earn approvals. All three have been approved in China, of course, but we don't know under what criteria, the Chinese being less transparent than Westerners. Sinopharm already got approval for their Beijing one in a Middle Eastern country, and the CoronaVac is likely to be approved in Brazil, where it is being tested and manufactured.

Viruses leave in the host different degrees of immunity. Some leave transient immunity, some leave long-term immunity, some leave lifelong immunity behind, after the acute infection. We do not know yet how long the immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 will last (the virus has only been described for the last 12 months, so obviously this information is not in, yet). So, regardless of the platform chosen by the vaccine makers, the main determinant of how long the immunity lasts, is the SARS-CoV-2 itself. There is no point in criticizing a vaccine maker or their product on these grounds. They did not make the virus. They are making a vaccine. Whatever immunogenicity this particular virus yields, is likely to be close to what the best vaccines will yield. Most likely boosters will be needed from time to time, and if the virus mutates, the vaccines will need to adapt.

This is one of the biggest advantages of the mRNA vaccines: if the virus mutates, they can RAPIDLY be synthesized again with the new genomic sequence. So, it is not excluded, if the SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic or seasonal and mutates a lot, that we'll need an yearly updated vaccine, like the flu shot which changes yearly to adapt to new strains.

Look, do you want to genuinely learn more about vaccines? Keep asking. I can dissipate your doubts. You can also consult the thread I've published with this very goal, and you'll learn a lot about vaccines, there.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-state-of-the-vaccines.576983/

Consulting that thread, you'll easily realize that my knowledge does NOT come from CNN, given that it is hundreds of times deeper and broader than anything that a lay press vehicle like CNN would even dream of possessing.

By the way, the full composition of the Pfizer vaccine was also posted by me in that thread. Post #315 there, which I posted this past Sunday.

 

Thanks for the chart. 5100 people age 65 and over as the basis for a study? Really?

I now readily acknowledge you are well versed in your opinions and that definitely is not from CNN. I praise you for this, very much as it is very rare. Well done and thank you for the info. I'll check out your other thread.

Unlike most posters, I never have a problem acknowledging I was mistaken nor ever post anything I know is false.

 

5,100 is not what I said. Read again. I said 8,614. Anyway, what exactly do you want? This was a VERY good phase 3 trial, with people of all ages. You can't know for sure how many people will show up and volunteer. You get what you get. I think that 8,614 people older than 65 is remarkable.

Look, you can't do a phase 3 ONLY with people above 65. They have a pattern of exposure different from that of the general population. Your phase 3 group is supposed to recruit people from all ages, all races, both genders, etc., otherwise your results won't be applicable to the entire population. If we had only the elderly who are retired, don't go anywhere, first, it would take too long to reach the endpoint (remember, this is an emergency, the pandemic is raging), and second, then we wouldn't know if the vaccine would work for other age groups.

There is little to scientifically criticize in the Pfizer trial. It was a very good trial.

The Moderna one is looking good too, although it was smaller (30,000 subjects).

The Johnson and Johnson aimed for 60,000 but they have just capped it at 40,000 (and they have above this number already) due to the severity of the third wave in the United States. Their pace to reach the endpoint is faster than what they expected so they stopped at 40,000, in the hope to conclude in January and get the EUA in early February. Fingers crossed for them because they are testing a one-dose vaccine that doesn't need refrigeration. I hope they succeed. They are a non-replicant viral vector vaccine, like the Gamaleya Sputinik V, the Oxford/AstraZeneca, and the Cansino.

Correction: I quoted by memory and I was mistaken: the two Sinopharm and the CoronaVac are not alive. They are inactivated viruses. So they can't compare perfectly to the measles vaccines. The Medicago one is a virus-like particle so not comparable either. Sorry for stating that without checking, I made a mistake (I'm always willing to acknowledge it, when I'm wrong).

Now here is what the correct info is:

There are only 4 vaccines truly comparable to the Measles one and they are all four still in pre-clinical phase (so I doubt they will end up approved somewhere). They are: Indian Immunologicals/Griffith University; Meissa Vaccines; Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University/Acibadem Biolab; Codagenix/Serum Institute of India. If you want a SARS-CoV-2 with a platform similar to the measles vaccine, you'll have to root for one of these.

Why am I saying that they are unlikely to succeed? Not due to the science but rather because of the trials. It is very difficult to recruit dozens of thousands of people for a phase 3 trial, to test an unproven vaccine (safety and efficacy-wise) that you don't know if you will actually be getting (or if you will get the placebo) in the middle of a dangerous pandemic, when you can walk into your nearest Walgreens and get the real thing, already deemed safe and efficacious, and already approved by regulators. Also, if the already approved ones become widely available and accepted, resulting in surpassing the Herd Immunity Threshold, the pandemic may extinguish, making the testing of new vaccines virtually impossible.

-------------

Oh, and thank you for your kind words.

 

In other words, you agree that I'm right.

You support propagating what is very well known to be fake news that is lethal to Americans.

Do you also accept the notion of usiing armed threats against elected officials in support of your fake news? Or, are you just supportive of the "just say'n" level of claims of those who subvert well known principles of medical science?

Where's the limit? It clearly has nothing at all to do with truth. Do you at least reject terrorism?

 

Sure, pal, very funny. Now, talking seriously: are you actually aware of the risks of complications and sequelae that this virus entails? It's been estimated at 10% to 20% of all people who catch it, even the young and healthy. Myocarditis, renal insufficiency, propensity to develop strokes and pulmonary embolism, fibrosis in the lungs with shortness of breath, cognitive impairment with foggy brains... are you sure you want this virus? Even if it is just 10%, that's 1 in 10 people... while the risks of the vaccines are like one in one million people. Does it really make sense to prefer the natural infection? The answer is, no, it doesn't.

 

I support allowing people who are all in favor of the vaccine to speak to its benefits and to attempt to influence others toward their viewpoint.

I support allowing people who object to the vaccine to speak their opinion about its potential dangers and to attempt to influence others to agree.

I believe that whatever belief an individual chooses to be "propagated" with in forming their own unique opinion is their own business.

The "truth" is always a grey area, otherwise there would never be a difference of opinion on any topic.

 

5100ish 65 and over got the vaccine by the chart.

Any comment on the 3 instances of severe allergic reactions? 3 is not a significant number of course, but not that many have been vaccinated yet. Was this detected within any trial group? A potential commented on by Pfizer? I'm not saying OMG about that, but there is a negative - trivial as it may be.

People are took quick to declare "the greatest ever" - like "the most accurate election ever" etc as just a slogan. I understand anything put into the body can cause adverse reaction. It's all a matter of the odds and which is the greater good (or lesser evil).

This is not a simple of topic of "vaccines good" versus "vaccines bad" or about the Pfizer vaccine as perfectly beneficial or absolutely harmful. That I do understand. An 80 year old with stage 4 cancer in the hospital should get probably any vaccines of any kind that will not negatively interact with cancer treatment or poise some known severe allergy risk.

I'm glad to see the FDA did not approve this rocketed to the market vaccine for children under age 16, though there is question as to why. Maybe it is as simple as the risks of child subjects and difficulty obtaining them (if even possible legally/ethically) versus it known covid-19 is virtually never lethal to little children.

 

Spreading misinformation about vaccines will kill people.
I am not for censorship; I try to educate.
I'm very patient in doing this... but I'm only one and although I post here a lot, I don't have all the time in the world. So I'm not about to go to Tweeter to dispel misinformation. I do it here, as best as I can.

Now, consider something: there are countries out there that aren't friendly to us. Example, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. Who do you think would be delighted if we didn't accept the new vaccines, and continued to face a prolonged epidemic with severe economic damage?

Beware of vaccine misinformation. It could be coming from Russian bots, or a North Korea concerted cyber-attack, etc.

It is with vaccines that we will beat this, and return to full economic boom. It's our country, our population, and we need to beat this virus for the sake of all of us.

Now, do the vaccines have risks? Absolutely. I talk about them, too. But I talk about the real ones, not the fake ones that originate in misinformation and conspiracy theories.

 

Of course I don't want the virus. I just don't want the vaccine even more. We have almost a year more data on what the virus does in a very large sample population than what the vaccine does in a small sample population. Whats more, every bad thing the virus does is blasted ad nauseum and likely exaggerated in the MSM while I suspect that much of what the vaccine/s do/es has been suppressed by the pharma industry.

I want neither, and I'll be seeking to contract neither.

 

I was talking about the total of recruited subjects. Of course part of them will have to go to the placebo group. That's how we can compare and reach efficacy data.
-----------
I responded to you in another thread, regarding the allergic reactions. 6 million people in the United States have a history of severe allergies. That's 1.8% of the population. That group will be allergic to a variety of things. When you get one specific component, of course not all 6 million will have a reaction to that. It's a minority. So, a phase 3 trial with about 22,000 people getting a vaccine can perfectly go without finding one of these, but then in post-marketing experience you find 3 people like the 3 that were identified. Do realize that millions of doses are being released as we speak in Canada, the UK, Bahrein, Mexico, and the United States (the five countries where Pfizer has already earned approval) and we got 3 cases of anaphylactoid reaction. It happens. It is not a reason to toss out this vaccine. It's a reason to counter-indicate it to certain groups, and be careful (epi-pen is your friend).

There is absolutely no question to why it wasn't approved under 16. The answer is very simple: Pfizer's trial has no children under 16 so there is no data on safety and efficacy, which is why, of course, the FDA didn't approve it for this group. Pfizer did NOT apply for approval for this group.

 

I understand that you believe that your opinion is the only correct and true opinion. People who disagree with your opinion believe their opinion is correct.

Everyone is going to make up their own mind for their own personal reasons at the end of the day, but hey, your opinions are appreciated just as much as others' are.

 

Beware of Chinese and Iranian bots who would like to harm as many Americans as possible by vaccines such as causing sterility, dementia or brain damage or other crippling or lethal long term harms in the future - including to destroy are economy.

In my opinion anyone who rants about Russian disinformation is someone to not take seriously about anything - ever.

Censorship against those of alternatives to the consensus view has always been the real curse against scientific and medical discovery. In fact, without minority opinions via censorship there would be virtually no scientific or medical discovery for which doctoring would still be by bleeding, leaches, charms and doctors who militantly refused to wash their hands between sawing off people's limbs and drilling holes in people's skulls for headaches.

 

I understand that you are suspicious of the pharma industry, but I can assure you that this process has been very transparent and is being watched by thousands in the scientific community. Yes, sometimes these companies are less transparent: Moderna at first, then AstraZeneca, were berated by the scientific community for less than ideal transparency, then they shaped up and got more serious. This is such a large world phenomenon that there is extremely little opportunity for these companies to cheat.

See Sinovio/GSK: they spontaneously pulled back and went back to the drawing board, when their vaccine didn't show enough immunogenicity in the elderly.
The Queensland vaccine was withdrawn entirely when it started causing HIV false positive tests. That one is gone for good.
The J&J, CoronaVac, and AstraZeneca trials were all three put on hold due to emerging complications.
These trials are overseen by an independent board called the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, and I assure you, the system works.

These vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people; like all medications, they will have side effects, adverse reactions, and will be counter-indicated for some parts of the population. That's normal and happens to all medications.

I do encourage you to reconsider. Yes, the vaccines do have risks although small and very rare, and yes, I understand you don't want to catch the virus either, but while you CAN make a decision to accept the vaccine, you CANNOT be sure that you won't catch the virus, in such a widespread pandemic.

One day you may bitterly regret it, if you catch it and you are one of the 10% of people who catch persistent silent myocarditis from it, resulting in heart failure a few years down the road.

This is a dangerous virus. Take the vaccine, my friend.

 

So you claim Mark Zuckerman is the world's greatest virologist! LOL

 

Where did you get that I think my opinion is the only true opinion and always correct? I just mentioned IN THIS VERY THREAD a mistake that I made in reference to live versus attenuated vaccines. But yes, since I do this for a living for 40 years, I do know more about vaccines than most posters here. But no, I'm not infallible. I make mistakes too. Maybe a big difference is that when I do, I acknowledge it and either correct it spontaneously, or if someone points it out to me, I say "oops, I stand corrected, thanks."

 

My 2 cents- leftists, dont let the government inject you with something that you wouldn't let a corporation inject you with. They're on the same team, and it isn't yours.

Rightists- dont let a corporation inject you with something that you wouldn't let the government inject you with. They're on the same team, and it isn't yours.

 

Not that it matters, but the reason Pfizer didn't test under age 16 is because they didn't is why they didn't.

 

I aporeciate the advice. If I get injured or killed by the cvirus, I will not blame you for not trying hard enough to convince me.

 

Like I said, I'm not for censorship, so I don't know why you are responding to ME in these terms. I said so in the very second line of the very post that you've just quoted.

But look, in this very forum, I saw a CLEAR example of Russian misinformation. That one, not even disguised. It was a piece by Russian Today, published in their website. It contained great praise for Gamaleya's Sputinik V vaccine, with exaggerated claims (which I debunked), and then, drum roll... it contained several paragraphs of misinformation bashing the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, including saying that it causes cancer and alters people's DNAs (both are absurd claims - it is virtually impossible for mRNA vaccines to do that).

Of course, it is interesting for Russia if the Gamaleya vaccine is well accepted (so that they sell it), and if the Western front runner at the time, the Oxford/AstraZeneca, got mistrusted.

So, are you saying, Russia does NOT try to manipulate information to favor their agenda? Really? Are you naïve or something?

 

They are doing it now. They have started a trial for children.
This pandemic is not very dangerous for children. Their priority was to test the vaccine in people 16 and older.

 

I'd rather say, leftists, rightists, and centrists, don't catch this virus that couldn't care less for your ideological orientation and has a high potential to harm you (and in rarer cases, kill you) .
This virus is an equal opportunity killer...

JakeJ, you shouldn't make a political issue out of these vaccines. Enough politicizing of this situation. The election is over. Both sides tried to politically profit from it, which was the wrong thing to do. Meanwhile the pandemic is raging, out of control, killing and maiming people. This is much more a public health calamity (and one with dire economic consequences) than a political issue.

We have two vaccines now that seem very safe and efficacious (and yes, there will be glitches; they will harm a very, very rare people). They are way safer than the virus itself. So, forget about politics and corporations etc., and just take the damn vaccine; you'll be better off.

If you don't and you catch this virus and you are not one of the (more numerous) lucky ones who don't suffer consequences, but you are rather among those 10% who suffer permanent organ damage, you'll remember this conversation and regret your decision for the rest of your limited, curtailed, and abbreviated life. Not to forget, if you catch the virus and pass it to a loved one and that person dies or suffers permanent organ damage, you'll never forgive yourself. Think about it.

 

That's nothing. There are millions of instances of false claims in the American press and media. So what? Or are you claiming if some American posts a false American news source on a Russian forum then it is an American "disinformation" campaign against Russia? If I posted on a Russian forum some blog who claimed Trump won a majority of electors this constitutes an American disinformation campaign against Russians?

NO county in the last decades has more messed with other countries governments, elections and info than the USA. Hell, we had radio stations broadcasting propaganda into the USSR 24/7 for decades. Even used mass disinformation against foreign leaders we wanted to depose - if we didn't just outright assassinate them or bomb the hell out of their government.

Here's a clue. Your Russians are everywhere hero conspiracy theorist Joseph McCarthy died a long time ago. I'm not the naive one.