Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

[probinson]

To me they were sold to be a “good fit” for the coronavirus, to offer some measure of protection without the two-to-ten year waiting time for a “traditional“ vaccine to “come online”.

You know as well as I do that they were sold to be a miracle cure to COVID so that we could all return to normal life. "95% effective!" was blared in the headlines, which while mathematically accurate from a relative risk reduction standpoint, was incredibly misleading, and a population made desperate by people who had overestimated the risk SARS-CoV2 posed to them by many orders of magnitude and a government who had shuttered life as we know it was more than happy to line up to be test subjects so they could regain some semblance of normalcy in their lives.

As a “proof-of-concept” they nailed it, now comes the tweaking.

If you say so.

Meanwhile, demand for COVID vaccines has absolutely cratered despite the CDC recommending everyone to get one. Clearly the CDC has lost the trust of the overwhelming majority of Americans, at least on this topic. Pfizer is suing European countries to try to force them to buy vaccines that no one wants.

Pfizer's profits are tanking. For the last 3 months, they've had to revise down their profits due to underestimating just how many people DON'T WANT the COVID vaccine any more.

Reality has a way of catching up with people, and with the mRNA vaccines, the honeymoon is well and truly over.

 

[Pommer]

You know as well as I do that they were sold to be a miracle cure to COVID so that we could all return to normal life. "95% effective!" was blared in the headlines, which while mathematically accurate from a relative risk reduction standpoint, was incredibly misleading, and a population made desperate by people who had overestimated the risk SARS-CoV2 posed to them by many orders of magnitude and a government who had shuttered life as we know it was more than happy to line up to be test subjects so they could regain some semblance of normalcy in their lives.



If you say so.

Meanwhile, demand for COVID vaccines has absolutely cratered despite the CDC recommending everyone to get one. Clearly the CDC has lost the trust of the overwhelming majority of Americans, at least on this topic. Pfizer is suing European countries to try to force them to buy vaccines that no one wants.

Pfizer's profits are tanking. For the last 3 months, they've had to revise down their profits due to underestimating just how many people DON'T WANT the COVID vaccine any more.

Reality has a way of catching up with people, and with the mRNA vaccines, the honeymoon is well and truly over.

New tech performed adequately.
(YMMV, obviously)
Please feel free to complain that it didn’t work perfectly like the vaccines that would have only been getting to market NOW.

 

[KCfromNC]

I've already explained this multiple times. It's relevant because healthy-user bias exists in ALL observational studies on vaccination

So you're saying that covid levels started to come under control just as vaccines were rolled out because people magically started adopting more healthy behaviors right then such as, well, something. Masking maybe? Seems like an awfully big coincidence.

Maybe go ahead and read the studies I posted and see if they have any other alternative explanations based on the data in them?

, I've provided you multiple links to show you this, which you've continually ignored. But it doesn't change the fact that ANY observational study of ANY vaccine is going to be affected by the healthy user effect.

If so, then there shouldn't be much difficulty in reading the studies I posted and explaining exactly how the data in them was impacted.

Instead, we get canned talking points with articles from a decade or more ago as if they were relevant. Pretty obvious what's going on. Seems like a hope that after hearing a term which says that there's some error bars in the numbers there was a jump to a conclusion that any study of vaccines is fatally flawed. I can see the need to do that to quiet the cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't seem like a reliable way to understand what's actually going on back here in reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

they were never even studied for their ability to prevent disease transmission.

Bold claim, given a previous post of yours quoted a my post with a study doing exactly that.

It's one thing to disagree with the studies, but to claim that they actually don't exist is pretty telling of the level of denialism we're dealing with here.

 

[probinson]

So you're saying that covid levels started to come under control just as vaccines were rolled out because people magically started adopting more healthy behaviors right then such as, well, something. Masking maybe? Seems like an awfully big coincidence.

What are you talking about? You have to work hard to misunderstand healthy-user bias, especially since I posted multiple articles on the topic. People who are healthier are generally more likely to be vaccinated. It's no more complicated than that.

Instead, we get canned talking points with articles from a decade or more ago as if they were relevant.

Healthy-user bias is relevant to every observational study on medical interventions.

Pretty obvious what's going on.

Indeed.

Seems like a hope that after hearing a term which says that there's some error bars in the numbers there was a jump to a conclusion that any study of vaccines is fatally flawed.

Any OBSERVATIONAL study of vaccine efficacy is indeed flawed for the clearly stated reasons in the articles I posted from the BMJ and NIH.

I can see the need to do that to quiet the cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't seem like a reliable way to understand what's actually going on back here in reality.

Back here in reality, Pfizer is tanking financially because nearly no one anywhere in the world wants the COVID vaccines any more. Heck, they're suing European countries to try to force them to buy them.

 

[probinson]

Bold claim, given a previous post of yours quoted a my post with a study doing exactly that.

The original phase 3 clinical trial was not testing to determine whether the vaccines could prevent transmission because they couldn't. Any observational study you post after fact is hopelessly confounded. The RCTs that were run before COVID vaccines were approved were our best and only hope of understanding the true efficacy of the vaccines for preventing disease and transmission of the disease. But that wasn't the point of the trials. The point of the trial was to generate relative data that looked compelling to coerce the entire world into taking unproven vaccines.

It's one thing to disagree with the studies, but to claim that they actually don't exist is pretty telling of the level of denialism we're dealing with here.

Indeed. Despite having been educated on the effects of healthy-user bias in observational vaccine studies, you continue to deny that this is problematic for the COVID vaccine studies you've posted.

 

[probinson]

New tech performed adequately.

If you say so.

Please feel free to complain that it didn’t work perfectly like the vaccines that would have only been getting to market NOW.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Like you don't understand the potential downsides of injecting the entire world's population with an unproven vaccine with a never before used mechanism.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I tend to believe there is are both risks and benefits associated with every medical intervention, and when we're talking about using some new technology that just 2-years prior had been deemed unsafe for human use, perhaps some more caution was warranted.

Oh, I know the narrative of the "saved lives" that persists that makes people think that had we not acted quickly, MILLIONS (!!!!) would have died. But that doesn't even stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.

I am appalled at the actions of our regulatory agencies throughout the pandemic. They have continually used shoddy studies that would be laughed out a fifth-grade science fair to justify all sorts of mandates. I'm more amazed at the number of people that are completely apathetic to the whole thing. It discourages me to realize that all it takes to get the majority of people to comply with all manner of inanity is to sufficiently frighten them.

 

[Pommer]

If you say so.



You say that as if it is a bad thing. Like you don't understand the potential downsides of injecting the entire world's population with an unproven vaccine with a never before used mechanism.

Yes, it was risky, putting a theoretically sound (but as yet unproven) technology to the test and see if we couldn’t cobble-up a “vaccine” that should work but maybe not?, this is how innovation works a “leap of faith” in the science.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I tend to believe there is are both risks and benefits associated with every medical intervention, and when we're talking about using some new technology that just 2-years prior had been deemed unsafe for human use, perhaps some more caution was warranted.

An d despite all of the problems and fears it was still a “pretty good” response, no!?

Oh, I know the narrative of the "saved lives" that persists that makes people think that had we not acted quickly, MILLIONS (!!!!) would have died. But that doesn't even stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.

Scrutinize away! You and your ilk are a necessary component to the overall movement, I celebrate with you for being the ones who will hold the scientists’ feet to the fire to make sure that what they did was not “too aggressive“ or lacking in safety protocols.

I am appalled at the actions of our regulatory agencies throughout the pandemic. They have continually used shoddy studies that would be laughed out a fifth-grade science fair to justify all sorts of mandates. I'm more amazed at the number of people that are completely apathetic to the whole thing. It discourages me to realize that all it takes to get the majority of people to comply with all manner of inanity is to sufficiently frighten them.

The thing is that the priority was to get something out fast (operation Warp-speed) which was done and it mostly sorta worked and next time we’ll be in a better position to know what (if anything) to do next time.

 

[johansen]

Scrutinize away! You and your ilk are a necessary component to the overall movement, I celebrate with you for being the ones who will hold the scientists’ feet to the fire to make sure that what they did was not “too aggressive“ or lacking in safety protocols.

there won't be any scrutiny, you won.

Your ilk btw, just go away. leave the externalities to the adults to discuss.

basically. you won. you got your vaccine, you're still alive. you probably don't actually care about how this happened. you probably don't care about anyone who lost their job because the non mandated vaccine was mandated but not really. so, you can't sue.

and just about every public statement made by a government official or the vaccine manufacturers about the vaccine has been proven false. but, it wasn't that bad, not enough people died of the vaccine so, it doesn't matter anymore, they have a secret unaccountable vaccine court to pay out the price money, and because it was an emergency authorization, nothing will be paid out!

 

[probinson]

Yes, it was risky, putting a theoretically sound (but as yet unproven) technology to the test and see if we couldn’t cobble-up a “vaccine” that should work but maybe not?, this is how innovation works a “leap of faith” in the science.

I guess I have a higher standard. I'd hope the regulatory agencies would also, but sadly, they have demonstrated that they do not.

An d despite all of the problems and fears it was still a “pretty good” response, no!?

Not at all. The collateral damage from the pandemic response has been immense.

Scrutinize away! You and your ilk are a necessary component to the overall movement, I celebrate with you for being the ones who will hold the scientists’ feet to the fire to make sure that what they did was not “too aggressive“ or lacking in safety protocols.

Thankfully, there are people much smarter than me that are trying to do just that.

The thing is that the priority was to get something out fast (operation Warp-speed) which was done and it mostly sorta worked and next time we’ll be in a better position to know what (if anything) to do next time.

I disagree. I am disheartened that most people seem to have learned nothing and will almost certainly impose the same disastrous responses "next time".

 

[Pommer]

I guess I have a higher standard. I'd hope the regulatory agencies would also, but sadly, they have demonstrated that they do not.


Not at all. The collateral damage from the pandemic response has been immense.



Thankfully, there are people much smarter than me that are trying to do just that.



I disagree. I am disheartened that most people seem to have learned nothing and will almost certainly impose the same disastrous responses "next time".

I come away from the COVID pandemic somewhat ignorantly blissful, while better informed people are pessimistic, live-and-[don’t]-learn, I guess.

 

[johansen]

I come away from the COVID pandemic somewhat ignorantly blissful, while better informed people are pessimistic, live-and-[don’t]-learn, I guess.

that's nice.

i would have been stuck with a 50K hospital bill if my wife didn't have good insurance. instead it was more like 4.

 

[probinson]

Benefits

The CDC recently outlined benefits to expect from repeat COVID vaccination in 2023-2024. The new vaccine is heralded for boosting antibody levels against new variants. But this is hardly a “benefit”. There is no proven correlation between antibody levels and the prevention of severe illness and death. Direct evidence on hard clinical outcomes is needed.

Upon announcing the new XBB.1.5 vaccine, the CDC estimated the quantitative benefits we might expect from the new booster. They estimate the following benefits for every 1,000,000 doses in each demographic:

• 6 months – 4 years: Avoid 103 hospitalizations
• 5 – 11 years: Avoid 16 hospitalizations
• 12 – 17 years: Avoid 19-95 hospitalizations, 5-19 ICU admissions, and “perhaps one death”
• 18 – 49 years: Avoid 75 hospitalizations

When an effect size is so minuscule, it becomes crucial to avoid biased data collection in formulating these estimates. Ideally, this is done via randomized controlled trials. But instead, the CDC relies upon observational data. A recent publication in the NEJM demonstrates that observational data exaggerates the benefits of boosters against COVID. Benefits might be exaggerated by an entire order of magnitude. This is due to the “healthy vaccinee bias”—people who choose vaccination are generally healthier.

Harms

According to randomized controlled trials, the following are estimated risks per 1,000,000 COVID mRNA vaccines:

• Pfizer: 1,010 serious adverse reactions
• Moderna: 1,510 serious adverse reactions

Serious adverse reactions are defined as “death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgment.”

...

As the only country pushing boosters to healthy 6-month-old infants, we better produce the best data in the world. Instead, we get antibody titers from 10 mice.

The CDC and FDA are whittling away at public trust by forgoing their duty to protect and inform. Meanwhile, their recent actions are aligned with the financial interests of Pfizer and Moderna.

Consent to perpetual COVID boosters is not informed, it is manufactured.

How Many COVID Vaccines Are Enough?

Thoughts on perpetual boosters & vaccine hesitancy

www.sensible-med.com

 

[KCfromNC]

Anyone else notice the opinion piece is based in part on ignoring most of the data in one of the studies it quoted?

 

[probinson]

Anyone else notice the opinion piece is based in part on ignoring most of the data in one of the studies it quoted?

Anyone else notice that no attempt is made to refute the points made in the article?

If you follow the link above, the CDC posits that in the best-case scenario, for every million doses of COVID vaccine administered, 1,061 hospitalizations are avoided. However, an analysis of RCTs demonstrates that 2,520 serious adverse events result from those same million doses.

Don't worry though. Pfizer tested the updated vaccine on 10 mice, and they had elevated antibody titers. And Moderna tested their updated vaccine on 50 humans, only one of which (2%) had a severe adverse reaction.

 

[KCfromNC]

Anyone else notice that no attempt is made to refute the points made in the article?

Weird to make this claim then go on to correct the numbers based on the issue my post pointed out.

If you follow the link above, the CDC posits that in the best-case scenario, for every million doses of COVID vaccine administered, 1,061 hospitalizations are avoided. However, an analysis of RCTs demonstrates that 2,520 serious adverse events result from those same million doses.

Seems like an attempt to imply that all the alleged serious adverse events from vaccines would result in hospitalizations or deaths. Is there data (of the non-cherry-picked kind) that shows this to be the case?

 

[probinson]

Seems like an attempt to imply that all the alleged serious adverse events from vaccines would result in hospitalizations or deaths. Is there data (of the non-cherry-picked kind) that shows this to be the case?

These aren't "alleged" events. They are real, documented events that can be verified in the data and tables in the study.

In the study linked above. A "serious adverse event of special interest" is defined as follows:

The definition of a serious adverse event (SAE) was provided in each trial’s study protocol and included in the supplemental material of the trial’s publication. [2], [3], [4] Pfizer and Moderna used nearly identical definitions, consistent with regulatory expectations. An SAE was defined as an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions: death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgment.​

Sounds pretty serious. We're not just talking about a sore arm or a day of missed work.

The study states:

The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.​

In other words, we shouldn't just be vaccinating everyone indiscriminately because there are very real and serious risks associated with vaccination that outweigh any modest benefit in many groups of people. That's probably why most of the rest of the world only recommends the COVID boosters for those 65+.

And why haven't the "formal harm-benefit analyses" discussed in the study been completed? Well, because:

Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible. [45], [46].​

An independent analysis of the data for purposes of analyzing the harms and benefits CAN'T be done because the data necessary for such analysis remain inaccessible.

Despite all of these concerning signals, for some inexplicable reason, the CDC continues to recommend the COVID vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and up. However, the abysmal uptake numbers (currently around 17-18%) are an indication that the overwhelming majority of the US population no longer trusts the CDC's recommendations and for good reason.

 

[KCfromNC]

These aren't "alleged" events. They are real, documented events that can be verified in the data and tables in the study.

In the study linked above. A "serious adverse event of special interest" is defined as follows:

The definition of a serious adverse event (SAE) was provided in each trial’s study protocol and included in the supplemental material of the trial’s publication. [2], [3], [4] Pfizer and Moderna used nearly identical definitions, consistent with regulatory expectations. An SAE was defined as an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions: death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgment.​

Sounds pretty serious. We're not just talking about a sore arm or a day of missed work.

Guess it depends on what the category "medically important event" includes. Given there are things like "serious rash" and "diarrhea" included in the list, it seems to be a bit strange to compare those side effects against hospitalization numbers from covid itself.

Which is probably why the study itself warns us :

First, benefits and harms are rarely exact equivalents, and there can be great variability in the degree of severity within both benefit and harm endpoints. For example, intubation and short hospital stay are not equivalent but both are counted in “hospitalization”; similarly, serious diarrhea and serious stroke are not equivalent but both are counted in “SAE.” Second, individuals value different endpoints differently. Third, without individual participant data, we could only compare the number of individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 against the number of serious AESI events, not the number of participants experiencing any serious AESI. Some individuals experienced multiple SAEs whereas hospitalized COVID-19 participants were likely only hospitalized once, biasing the analysis towards exhibiting net harm.​

​

Not to mention the error ranges in table 2, which aren't surprising given the raw numbers in the subsequent tables. Curious those weren't mentioned in the confident, exact numbers claimed above for excess risk per million in previous posts.

 

[probinson]

Guess it depends on what the category "medically important event" includes. Given there are things like "serious rash" and "diarrhea" included in the list

Again, an SAE is defined as:

​

death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event​

If you have "serious diarrhea" that requires hospitalization, you may well be at risk of dying from dehydration.

These questions could all be answered if the data were available. But it's not, as evidenced by the section you chose to quote which states, "without individual participant data,". Why is this data not available? Why is there such a lack of transparency?

These events that result from COVID vaccination are indeed "serious" and real. I have no idea why you're trying to downplay them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, an SAE is defined as:

​

death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event​

If you have "serious diarrhea" that requires hospitalization, you may well be at risk of dying from dehydration.

Could be, but let's start with where are you getting the idea that hospitalization was required for that particular "medically important event"? I assume you understand that just because one item in a list mentions hospitalization that not everything in the list results in such.

These questions could all be answered if the data were available. But it's not, as evidenced by the section you chose to quote which states, "without individual participant data,". Why is this data not available? Why is there such a lack of transparency?\

If the goal is to make these posts look less like anti-vax conspiracy theories, perhaps less of this sort of nonsense and more actually addressing what I wrote would be useful to the cause.

These events that result from COVID vaccination are indeed "serious" and real. I have no idea why you're trying to downplay them.

If quoting from the sources the editorial references shows the claims in the piece are overstated, I think that tells us all we need to know. But I get it is tempting to try to blame the messenger rather than actually address the facts of how the sources have been misused by the editorial.