Pfizer vaccine is junk nor tested for safety otherwise

These are the people providing us with the "truth".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevi...mericas-news-media-companies/?sh=71183310660a

 

I know that. But it's exaggerated and outdated. Do you think that with my 40 years of expertise, I'm limited to accepting at face value everything that the CDC says? They've been wrong before, in many different aspects of this pandemic (e.g. mask use, contact testing, aerosol spread, asymptomatic spread). They are wrong in this assessment too. Just do some math, man! We've tested almost two thirds of our population already; where are the folks we're missing if we're missing 8 times more??? By some INCREDIBLE coincidence, ALL the folks we're missing are the ones who haven't been tested yet? The statistical likelihood of that is virtually zero.

 

I understand, but you are asserting the test can tell with certainty the person had covid-19 in the past (and I question your claim of 2/3rds already tested). This is the FDA's words:

"We do not know how long antibodies stay in the body following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. We do not know if antibodies give you protective immunity against the virus, so results from a serology test should not be used to find out if you have immunity from the virus. The FDA cautions patients against using the results from any serology test as an indication that they can stop taking steps to protect themselves and others, such as stopping social distancing or discontinuing wearing masks."
(Not from a blog, but the FDA itself)
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics

Would you agree the tests are anything but perfect and a person testing positive and testing negative is not rare. By my understand the tests by no means precise. Rather, they are based upon duplicating a molecule with the more times it is duplicated the more likely it will show positives and the lesser times it is duplicated it will show less positive? That is NOT saying they are worthless, only less than perfect.

If a person had covid-19 back in January, will that show in testing now? The FDA doesn't know.

How many people have been tested compared to how many tests have been done? The number of tests done does not indicate how many people have been tested. My wife has been tested 3 times - because it was required before medical and dental care. They still keep telling her to get tested again. If she was tested every time some professional urged it she'd have been tested probably a dozen times by now (she is in high risk categories). It would seem if a person tests negative there certainly is reason to test again and again since the person could get infected after testing negative - particularly a person in a high risk category.

I'm not claiming you are wrong, but how did you come up with your 2/3rds number? By my reading, the 2/3rds number is the number of tests done compared to total population, not the actual number of people tested. The number of tests done equals 2/3rds the population does not mean 1 test per person does it? Are hospital personnel tested 1 time never to be tested again?

Did I get that wrong? Did you? Just asking because you do seem to know alot about this as a highly knowledgeable person on the subject.

 

We all have one of these stories.
There is a very nice lady in my house right now that had it and was very sick.
A month later her dad got it and died.

 

I got nothing wrong because if you see what I said when I first addressed this (scroll up) I said "with some overlap due to retesting." Yes, some people have been tested more than once but the overwhelming majority of people have been tested once. The ones being retested are usually the ones with strong symptoms that didn't initially test positive, or the ones known to be positive, retested after 14 days to finish up their quarantine. The people with some respiratory symptoms that get tested, typically get tested only once, and these are the bulk of the tests.

You seem to be mixing up antigen tests and antibody tests. RT-PCR tests are antigen tests and are EXTREMELY precise and have very few false positives. They can have false negatives. They diagnose current infection. Antibody tests (a.k.a. serology tests) have more false positives and false negatives and diagnose past infection (and once the vaccines roll out more, they will be identifying people who are immune due to vaccines).

Still, even with the overlap, 223 million tests with most of them being done when someone gets symptoms and goes see a provider afraid of having Covid-19 but then testing negative, with the positivity rate hovering between 5% and 10% depending on how hot a spot is, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely at this point that we are truly missing 8 cases for each diagnosed one.

Can I prove it? No. Do I know precisely how many people have been tested, due to the issue of retesting? No. But still, it is extremely unlikely at this time that with our testing infrastructure having vastly improved, that we are still missing 8 cases for each diagnosed case. That's just a number. That's just a guess. It sounds cute to say "we're missing 8 for each 1 positive." Just like I can't know for sure, THEY can't know for sure either, because if they did know for sure how many cases are being missed, then, duh, those cases wouldn't be missed any longer, right?

I am basing my skepticism about the "8 cases missed for each case diagnosed" on international data, too. Certain countries like the UAE and New Zealand and a few others have pretty much tested their ENTIRE population and they DID NOT find that they were previously missing 8 cases for each diagnosed case; at most 3. Also, I'm basing this on epidemiological serology surveys (antibody tests). The infamous herd immunity experiment in Sweden, they were all excited using similar guesswork ("we must be missing X number of cases for each diagnosed case so we're likely to have reached the Herd Immunity Threshold already"), well, then, they tested, using antibodies. Found a meager 6% of the population positive... LOL. So much for the missed cases.

States like Rhode Island have done a fabulous job with widespread testing. They have a population of 1,059,031 people, and with retesting, they have performed 1,786,663 tests. So how many cases have they found? 76,209. Pray tell, where the hell are all the other 8x additional cases??? Do you actually think that Rhode Island has had 9 times this number (8 missed + 1 diagnosed = 9)??? That would be 685,881 people. Almost 70% of their population. So, despite having tested about 170% as related to their population, somehow they still missed almost 70% of their population being positive? LOL. That is simply ABSURD. Anybody looking at these numbers and still thinking that we're missing 8 cases for each diagnosed case, doesn't possess the simplest math skills. My conclusion is that the CDC is wrong about this, and it won't be the first nor the last time that they are wrong.

No, my friend. These days, everybody is panicking. If they have a little bit of upper respiratory symptoms they run to get tested. No, we are most likely NOT missing 8 cases for each diagnosed case. That's just a guess, and the data are showing more and more that it is a misguided and outdated guess.

 

@JakeJ
Care must be taken with constantly changing data.
Back in September we were only doing about 75,000 tests a day.
Now many days are over 200,000. So of course we are finding more and missing fewer.

 

You seem to have an informed opinion. Any thoughts on people taking this vaccine who have an autoimmune disease and take drugs to suppress their immune system?

 

If you have a claim like that, you need to cite its source.

So far, I'm assuming this is just your conspiracy theory.

Free speech is NOT a justification for protecting conspiracy theories. Such theories have a very real cost. This is a democracy. Democracies can not make appropriate decisions when the people are steeped in crap.

In other words, fake news IS an assault on our very form of government.

 

I will wait for a vaccine that doesn't
require dry ice storage.
Too much opportunity for it to go bad
before it is administered

 

All these arguments need to be held to a standard of truth.

There are legitimate reasons both for and against taking a COVID vaccine.

For example, they have gotten expedited testing, the actual benefit is not fully known, there are cases of allergic reaction, the claim that it is free is absolutely not always true, it could be hard to commit to the second dose within the required time period, etc. It's legitimate for someone to say that they just don't accept western medicine.

What can't be allowed is the flat out falsehoods and totally unsubstantiated claims of nefarious behavior and "agendas".

 

I see nothing to substantiate your cliam here.

 

??
Good lord!! Do you actually think that Zuckerman should have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with judging statements concerning medicine??

We have numerous groups of very serious medical scientists as well as those who make policy concerning medical threats to our population.

 

Figures.

 

Unknown, so far, given that these people were excluded from the trials. The FDA, in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, chose not to issue a counter-indication. They simply authorized the vaccine for people 16 and older, and didn't address pregnant women or immunocompromised people. We'll see if after today's meeting they say something about it. I would like to follow the meeting but I'm at work with no time to spare (it's an 8-hour meeting) except for short breaks like the one I'm having now. But the meeting will be available to be watched later, and its conclusions will be known.

At this point, I'd say it's not recommended. I'd be watchful. I would keep immunocompromised people very well isolated. Hopefully these people will benefit from others being vaccinated, with the rate of contagion going down through vaccine-induced herd immunity, or with their caretakers being vaccinated, until more data comes in about this segment of the population.

 

I think it's a valid point. And it's not even just having the temp go too high. Two batches of the Pfizer vaccine were replaced because the temperature went too low and it's unknown if this would have hurt the vaccine's efficacy. Pfizer does have this GPS system to monitor the temperature inside their containers so that it doesn't go too high without anybody noticing. So they did all they could. But like you, I do feel more comfortable with the less extreme requirements of the Moderna vaccine, which is likely to be approved by tomorrow evening. The Pfizer containers can only be opened twice a day and for 2 minutes at a time. I hope people get well trained and do it well, but like you said, there's always the possibility that someone doesn't, and then doesn't tell a supervisor, afraid of being fired.

 

Type slowly for @WillReadmore
maybe you can help him "get it".

ref.: #136 above

Waiting for the next vaccine


Moi

 

This said, I would add that most of the time the vaccine should be just fine. It doesn't spoil that fast. The 2-minute time for opening the thermal shipper container is to avoid the vaccine left behind in there from thawing, since it is not supposed to be used immediately. If it is left there and thaws and gets refrozen, that is what spoils it). But once you open the container, rapidly remove the number of trays you are planning to use that day, you can keep these trays in a regular refrigerator (2-8 degrees C), for up to five days. Once each vial is diluted to make the five doses, you need to use them within 6 hours. So it's not THAT fragile. Here, the full details:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-top...xt=The vaccine can be stored,2-8°C conditions.

Initially Pfizer had said 15 days inside the thermal shippers, renewing the dry ice on days 5 and 10. This has now been extended to 30 days as long as you renew the dry ice every five days (pellets, not blocks), with 5 more days in a fridge, for a total of 35 days.

Still, like you said, I prefer the much less demanding conditions for the Moderna vaccine.

 

@JakeJ - just a clarification. When I said antigen tests I spoke in the broad sense, because a virus can be called an antigen. But the RT-PCR test actually detects the virus' RNA which is what makes it so accurate. Other antigen tests, the rapid tests, detect protein fragments of the virus so they can have more cross-positivity. Therefore what is advisable is: if you test positive with a rapid antigen test, then get it confirmed by an RT-PCR test.

The FDA has issued the first EUA for a rapid antigen test kit you can buy in a pharmacy without a prescription, which returns the result in 20 minutes and is a fully at-home test (you don't need to mail the swab to a lab). It is fairly accurate but not as much as the RT-PCR, of course. It will cost $30 in points of sale. It hasn't been shipped to pharmacies yet. It's called Ellume. The problem is, the company is planning to start by making 20 million tests. These will go away fast.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...test-first-over-counter-fully-home-diagnostic

"The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms. In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples."

 

I would take the Sputnik v vaccine if it were available.
Would you @CenterField ?
I would take any other. Just not Pfizer product

 

Cold chain is required for vaccines for mumps, measels, flu, yellow feever, glaucoma eye drops, asthema inhalers, insulin, tissue transplants, organs, blood components, stem cell therapy components, biologicals used in various methods of fighting rhumatism and cancer.

The list goes on and on.

While one of the COVID vaccines requires unusual cold until near the time of injection, that doesn't mean that temperature measurement is somehow foiled or that medical science isn't VERY aware of the requirements for shipping and handling before injection.

How many of the treatments above would you reject on the grounds that maybe modern medical science can't monitor temperature?

 

No, Moi621, not the Sputinik V at this time. I read their phase 1 trial and wasn't impressed. A number of scientists, mostly from Italy, even questioned if the data weren't falsified, given some suspicious results (a large number of people with the exactly same antibody titers, which sounds like a statistical impossibility - were those numbers cooked? I certainly wouldn't put it past Putin. Also, their 90% efficacy was based on a very small cohort in terms of a phase 3 trial. They haven't even finished their phase 3 yet, and they've approved the vaccine before they even started their Phase 3 and have already vaccinated 200,000 people in Moscow. Bold. Imprudent.

I continue to think that as of now, Moderna is the best bet. I like the Novavax vaccine too. We'll see what they get when they conclude their Phase 3 in January. I'm poorly impressed with AstraZeneca's blunders, and with their case of transverse myelitis.

Both the AstraZeneca and the Gamaleya (Sputinik V) are non-replicating adenovirus vector vaccines. Because someone may develop immunity against the adenovirus that carries the genetic material, these vaccines can be less efficacious. Johnson & Johnson's is also an adenovirus vector vaccine.

For now, the hot technology seems to be mRNA, and given the glitches with Pfizer's, I'm assigning more of my hope to the Moderna product.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-are-mrna-vaccines-so-exciting-2020121021599

The Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine, also a good platform. I'm very curious to learn about the efficacy of the CoronaVac, which is done with the inactivated SARS-CoV-2. Results for CoronaVac are expected on December 23rd.

 

Look, fellow, this is a -70 degrees Celsius requirement. A lot of places don't even have the infrastructure. Shortage of dry ice is feared. Like I said in post #142, it's not so bad, but still, it is a concern, given that industrial freezers for this much cold are not readily available. The Moderna vaccine can be stored in regular medical freezers and even well-performing household freezers. That's an advantage, no doubt.
-------
I'm watching live now, Moderna is about to get the FDA vote.

 

But, Sputnik v has been given to the most people. Si? or eh?
That gets some trust.

Drug company science is one of my 3 favorite
"diving for dollars" science areas.
All of them cheaters' science.

The others are claiming the current global warm up
is warmer than the medieval warm up and
Environmental Impact Reports science.


Moi

Don't further ize


​

Diet & Cholesterol theory
another diving for dollars science
Don't get me started!

 

But, that's not the issue being discussed. I'm well aware of the issue. I know people who have self injectables where THEY have to maintain the cold chain in their refrigerators or freezers. In those cases, the required temperature isn't like this one vaccine, obviously. But, there are known limits the must be monitored and when there are unacceptable excursions the product must be discarded. We trust PATIENTS to be that smart.

Again - the issue is whether the temperature can be monitored. And, as with all such biologicals the handling instructions have to be followed. If the flu vaccine gets too warm, it has to be discarded. If the kidney gets delayed by flight conditios at some airport, then they don't just decide to implant that kidney anyway.

For ALL those biologicals I listed, if the temp goes high (or too low, for that matter), there is't some big question about what to do.

The "fear" was that some doctor might inject you with a rotting vaccine. And, that has to do with whether the temperature can be monitored and whether doctors know how to follow instructions.

 

No. It's been given to 200,000 people in Moscow. Actually the Chinese vaccines have been given to more people. And by now the Pfizer just in the UK has been given to 200,000 people as well, not counting the USA and Canada doses.

The issue is, the two adverse reactions in the UK got immediately disclosed. If there was an adverse reaction to the Sputinik V in Moscow, would Putin have allowed it to be disclosed? I simply don't know, and I don't trust him.

Now, not all of us, scientists, are greedy cheaters. I resent that.