COVID-19 Vaccines Unsafe For Use In Humans

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The government vaccine pushers are responsible for assessing vaccine effectiveness. It's one of those fox-in-charge-of-hen-house situations.

But when they kill a bunch of people with it, it's "Nobody in here but us chickens!"

 

[rjs330]

They know it in their hearts that Donald J Trump (AMERICAN!), is a good honest and True Patriot, because if he isn’t then they got fooled, and they’ll never admit that!

THANK YOU President Trump for the vaccine! It will completely end this pandemic.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think that Fauci made it a moral issue. I think that Trump made it a moral issue, that somehow being conscientious about averting and overcoming a life-threatening pandemic was a insult to our liberty.

That's a total fabrication. Trump is the one that got us the vaccine. It was his administration that got the vaccine created in AMERICA. He was the key to getting this done to avert and overcome this pandemic. AMERICA saved the world.

 

[A_Thinker]

THANK YOU President Trump for the vaccine! It will completely end this pandemic.

To the extent that Trump contributed to the acquisition of the COVID vaccines ... thanks are due.

 

[A_Thinker]

That's a total fabrication. Trump is the one that got us the vaccine. It was his administration that got the vaccine created in AMERICA. He was the key to getting this done to avert and overcome this pandemic. AMERICA saved the world.

We were speaking of masking here ...

 

[Strathos]

That's a total fabrication. Trump is the one that got us the vaccine. It was his administration that got the vaccine created in AMERICA. He was the key to getting this done to avert and overcome this pandemic. AMERICA saved the world.

If that's what you have to believe in order to convince people to get the vaccine, I say go for it.

 

[rjs330]

If that's what you have to believe in order to convince people to get the vaccine, I say go for it.

It's not a belief, it's a fact! You are free to ignore facts if you wish. We are then free to ignore your opinion.

 

[sfs]

The government vaccine pushers are responsible for assessing vaccine effectiveness. It's one of those fox-in-charge-of-hen-house situations.

More conspiracy theories. The 'government vaccine pushers' are individual people with individual incentives. Who exactly do you mean? What do they get out of it? Who actually assesses vaccine effectiveness, specifically? What do they get out of pushing vaccines they know don't work? Why do those assessing vaccine effectiveness in every country come up with the same answers?

You really do think that public health officials all over the world -- who don't benefit at all from people getting useless vaccines -- are in a giant conspiracy to get you vaccinated.

I'm sorry to say that doesn't look like a robust piece of research.We know that the proportion of people who are hospitalised or die of covid is very small. From that point of view, the sample size to get statistically valid results needs to be very, very large. And although 91,000 might sound like a lot of trial participants, for the purposes of evaluating a covid vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death, it probably isn't sufficient.

Sample size does indeed matter. Which is why any decent study like this should give both the point estimate of the efficacy and the confidence interval on that estimate. Which this study did, in the text that I quoted. Clearly, you disagree. So now's your chance: calculate what you think is the correct confidence interval for the data in this paper. You say the sample size is too small? Demonstrate it, and show your work.

You appear to be just blindly searching for and posting up any scientific paper that supports your pro-vaxx dogma, without stopping to consider if it might be valid and robust. A good scientist needs to take a more sceptical view, and use knowledge from other sources to determine if what they are reading is likely to be reliable and true.

One of us is a scientist who has spent decades evaluating scientific papers and statistically evaluating scientific data. One of us isn't. Why is the latter trying to lecture the former on how to do science?

Furthermore, real-world, non-trial data on deaths in the vaccinated and unvaccinated seems to suggest that the vaccines have little to no effect on deaths. You might find it helpful to read my other thread, where I look at this.

Look, I don't want to be rude, but (as you demonstrate again in that thread), you have no competence at all in evaluating scientific data.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That's a total fabrication. Trump is the one that got us the vaccine. It was his administration that got the vaccine created in AMERICA. He was the key to getting this done to avert and overcome this pandemic. AMERICA saved the world.

I do give Trump some credit with the vaccines. Not in their production or distribution. He didn't have anything to do with that, but the simple fact that he's never taken a hardline stance against the shot or discouraged anyone against taking the vaccine or even tried to spread conspiracies surrounding the vaccines, when he so easily could have, it's enough for me to look past him never publicly showing himself getting the shot. With a simple tweet he could have really set back the country by sowing distrust in the vaccines that were being developed under his administration and he knew this.

 

[Strathos]

It's not a belief, it's a fact! You are free to ignore facts if you wish. We are then free to ignore your opinion.

Like I said, go with whatever makes you more likely to get the shot.

 

[KCfromNC]

But when they kill a bunch of people with it, it's "Nobody in here but us chickens!"

Maybe wait until this actually happens before making up stories about what they said.

But yeah, par for the course for anti-vaxx rhetoric - fabricate something which never happen and then fabricate a character attack about the fictional people involved in the made up story. Not particularly convincing.

 

[A_Thinker]

But yeah, par for the course for anti-vaxx rhetoric - fabricate something which never happen and then fabricate a character attack about the fictional people involved in the made up story.

And then, when it doesn't happen, ... crickets ...

 

[rjs330]

I do give Trump some credit with the vaccines. Not in their production or distribution. He didn't have anything to do with that, but the simple fact that he's never taken a hardline stance against the shot or discouraged anyone against taking the vaccine or even tried to spread conspiracies surrounding the vaccines, when he so easily could have, it's enough for me to look past him never publicly showing himself getting the shot. With a simple tweet he could have really set back the country by sowing distrust in the vaccines that were being developed under his administration and he knew this.

He had everything to do with that. If it wasn't for him we may still be waiting for the vaccine and distribution would not have happened so fast. No, he is totally to thank for what we have.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Maybe wait until this actually happens before making up stories about what they said.

But yeah, par for the course for anti-vaxx rhetoric - fabricate something which never happen and then fabricate a character attack about the fictional people involved in the made up story. Not particularly convincing.

There was no attempt to convince. I commented to JSB, not you.

 

[KCfromNC]

There was no attempt to convince. I commented to JSB, not you.

There's a direct message function available if you don't wish others to participate in a conversation.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

He had everything to do with that. If it wasn't for him we may still be waiting for the vaccine and distribution would not have happened so fast. No, he is totally to thank for what we have.

You should inform some of his supporters who are still refusing to take the vaccine and holding up the entire country from putting the pandemic behind us.

 

[pitabread]

Trump is the one that got us the vaccine. It was his administration that got the vaccine created in AMERICA.

Because his administration happened to be the one in power at the time?

This is just a correlation by happenstance, nothing more.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

He had everything to do with that. If it wasn't for him we may still be waiting for the vaccine and distribution would not have happened so fast. No, he is totally to thank for what we have.

Why didn’t he publicly get the vaccine on live TV? Why is t he reminding us everyday his accomplishment of getting the vaccine? Why is it areas that he performed the best in the election are the areas with the least number vaccinated?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

More conspiracy theories. The 'government vaccine pushers' are individual people with individual incentives. Who exactly do you mean? What do they get out of it? Who actually assesses vaccine effectiveness, specifically? What do they get out of pushing vaccines they know don't work? Why do those assessing vaccine effectiveness in every country come up with the same answers?

You really do think that public health officials all over the world -- who don't benefit at all from people getting useless vaccines -- are in a giant conspiracy to get you vaccinated.

The UK government has continually moved the goalposts with respect to which groups of people have to be vaccinated before lockdown restrictions can be lifted. When a government does that for month after month, intelligent people are right to be sceptical.

And maybe you are not familiar with UK politics, but the Conservative and Unionist Party is currently in power, and many people regard them as having a long and distinguished history of putting in place policies that enrich their friends in business.

Sample size does indeed matter. Which is why any decent study like this should give both the point estimate of the efficacy and the confidence interval on that estimate. Which this study did, in the text that I quoted. Clearly, you disagree. So now's your chance: calculate what you think is the correct confidence interval for the data in this paper. You say the sample size is too small? Demonstrate it, and show your work.

Do it yourself. You are the one trying to prove that these studies are valid. First you gave me a study written entirely by government employees and Pfizer employees, then you gave me a study with not very many participants. Perhaps the failure to identify Bell's Palsy as a side effect was partly as a result of trials with too few participants.

One of us is a scientist who has spent decades evaluating scientific papers and statistically evaluating scientific data. One of us isn't. Why is the latter trying to lecture the former on how to do science?

You know absolutely nothing about me.

Look, I don't want to be rude, but (as you demonstrate again in that thread), you have no competence at all in evaluating scientific data.

If you don't like what I did in the other thread, get over there and do it better yourself. I've given all my data sources. Over to you.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

When a government does that for month after month, intelligent people are right to be sceptical.

So are prudent people:

"Only simpletons believe everything they’re told! The prudent carefully consider their steps."--Proverbs 14:15