Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[probinson]

Yeah, I mean it's not like there are previous examples of covid vaccines which generate an increase in antibody levels and also have track record of being effective in preventing covid.

There is no correlate of protection between increased antibody levels and protection.

There seems to be an implication here that me not falling for anti-vaxx spin is some sort of flaw.

This isn't "anti-vaxx" spin. The CDC and the FDA both say you should not use antibody testing to determine your immunity from COVID, yet this is the very metric they use to continually grant EUA approvals to vaccines that have no proven clinical benefit. I get why you're trying to pretend like that's "spin", but it isn't.

What makes you think my personal vaccination status has anything to do with how effective the vaccine might or might not be. Please be specific - are you saying that if I have or plan to get the booster, you'll admit that it is safe and effective? If not, why bring it up?

I'm curious to see what level of trust you're placing in these "experts" and "studies". It has nothing to do with whether I think it is "safe and effective" (a buzz-phrase that has become utterly meaningless). It has to do with whether you agree with the recommendations of these experts in your own personal circumstances.

I've already told you I'm not getting the bivalent booster, because for someone in my age group who has already had two doses of the Pfizer vaccine and at least one COVID infection, the data is pretty clear that any "benefit" is incredibly marginal.

So what say you? Will you get the bivalent vaccine, and why or why not?

 

[probinson]

Opinion | CDC Oversells the ‘Bivalent’ Covid Shot

​

 

[KCfromNC]

I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about any more.

If you can't follow a simple thread like this, how seriously can we take your assertions that you somehow understand the intricacies of the science better than actual scientists?

Have you listened to him explain his reasons? Or do you just blindly follow whatever the majority says?

Likewise, are you just blindly following whatever he says rather than listen to the majority explain their reasons?

Omicron-targeted vaccines do no better than original jabs in early tests

Wait, wasn't the initial argument that we had no data about how effective the omicron booster was? Now we suddenly have data showing how it is only as good as the initial vaccine? Why not include that in the original list of data for the booster rather than claiming that researchers' hopes were coming from results on a few mice or whatever the previous talking point was?

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no correlate of protection between increased antibody levels and protection.

So you say, and yet for some reason people who do this for a living seem to find it a good measure for vaccine effectiveness. I wonder who I should believe.

I'm curious to see what level of trust you're placing in these "experts" and "studies". It has nothing to do with whether I think it is "safe and effective" (a buzz-phrase that has become utterly meaningless). It has to do with whether you agree with the recommendations of these experts in your own personal circumstances.

You didn't answer the question - would you change your mind on the subject if I did get the booster? If not, seems like an attempt at a pointless diversion into making the discussion about me.

 

[KCfromNC]

Opinion | CDC Oversells the ‘Bivalent’ Covid Shot

I wonder what would happen if I posted Dr. Offit's opinions on the benefits of masking and of at least 2 doses of vaccines for 5-18 year olds.

 

[probinson]

So you say, and yet for some reason people who do this for a living seem to find it a good measure for vaccine effectiveness. I wonder who I should believe.

No they don't!

Do you look at any of the links?

Here is what the FDA says;

Date Issued: May 19, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reminding the public and health care providers that results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.

Antibody Testing Not Recommended to Assess Immunity After Vaccination​

Here is what the CDC says;

Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following COVID-19 vaccination, to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person, or to determine the need to quarantine after a close contact with someone who has COVID-19.

Labs​

If you can't use antibody tests to determine your level of immunity or protection from COVID-19, then why is it being used as a metric in place of actual clinical outcomes to determine vaccine efficacy?

You didn't answer the question - would you change your mind on the subject if I did get the booster? If not, seems like an attempt at a pointless diversion into making the discussion about me.

The question is pertinent because you are here defending the data-poor recommendations from the CDC to get the bivalent booster. So I'd like to know just how strongly you feel about this. Have you gotten, or will you get, the bivalent booster, and why or why not?

 

[probinson]

I wonder what would happen if I posted Dr. Offit's opinions on the benefits of masking and of at least 2 doses of vaccines for 5-18 year olds.

I wonder what would happen if you actually responded to the concerns Dr. Offit has concerning the erosion of trust in public health over data-poor recommendations for an unproven booster dose?

 

[KCfromNC]

No they don't!

Do you look at any of the links?

Here is what the FDA says;

Date Issued: May 19, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reminding the public and health care providers that results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.

Antibody Testing Not Recommended to Assess Immunity After Vaccination​

Here is what the CDC says;

Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following COVID-19 vaccination, to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person, or to determine the need to quarantine after a close contact with someone who has COVID-19.

Labs​

If you can't use antibody tests to determine your level of immunity or protection from COVID-19, then why is it being used as a metric in place of actual clinical outcomes to determine vaccine efficacy?

What did the NEJM say when you sent your review of the paper to them? They might even be nice enough to point out that you seem to have a misunderstanding of what the CDC is talking about here, and that research shows your concerns about the paper are unfounded - Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection | Nature Medicine

What the CDC pages you've dug up seem to be referencing are the concerns here - The Flawed Science of Antibody Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Immunity - which have little to nothing to do with connection you're trying to conjure up but instead are more related to issues with large scale testing of the US population.

 

[KCfromNC]

I wonder what would happen if you actually responded to the concerns Dr. Offit has concerning the erosion of trust in public health over data-poor recommendations for an unproven booster dose?

I'd first like to see if he's really a "reliable" source of opinions, or if his opinions only matter when they match up with certain predetermined conclusions.

Are masks a good idea for people who haven't had a full series of vaccination, and is going strictly by this Dr's opinion the correct way to answer that question?

 

[probinson]

What the CDC pages you've dug up

Dug up? The CDC and FDA pages on antibodies don't have to be "dug up".

They say such things as;

Test results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19.
​

and

Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following COVID-19 vaccination...​

Both the FDA and CDC say there is no correlate between increased antibody levels and immunity from COVID. Yet this is the very metric they are using to determine if boosters will provide any benefit. They aren't looking at clinical outcomes. As long as some mice have increased antibody levels, that's good enough for the FDA and the CDC to recommend that everyone over the age of 12 should get the booster, even if every mouse still got COVID;

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-09-01/06-COVID-Miller-508.pdf

That's probably a big reason why only 1.5% of people have gotten this bivalent booster;

Updated Covid boosters rolled out 3 weeks ago. Here's how many Americans have gotten them.

Of course, the only "logical" explanation for this pitiful uptake is that 98.5% of people are "anti-vaxxers". The CDC says that you should get the booster. People simply aren't listening any more.

How about you? Are you in the 1.5% of people that have gotten the bivalent booster?

 

[probinson]

I'd first like to see if he's really a "reliable" source of opinions, or if his opinions only matter when they match up with certain predetermined conclusions.

You have a very odd perspective. You seem to be implying that in order for someone to have a valid opinion, you must agree with EVERYTHING they have to say on all topics forever and ever. Of course that's complete and utter nonsense and isn't true of anyone.

I'm 100% certain there are opinions held by Dr. Paul Offit says that I would disagree with. While you seem to think that is a gotcha moment, it's not. Shouldn't you be more interested in the points made rather than who makes them? I mean, consider that I posted an hour-long interview with Dr. Paul Offit, and an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal last week, yet you've not addressed a single point that he made. Your argument begins and ends with the FDA and the CDC and the majority (although you're being oddly clandestine regarding whether you will comply with their latest recommendation to get the bivalent booster).

If you disagree with Offit's points, then explain why. That's how discussions and disagreements work. You say something like, "Dr. Offit said ____, but I disagree because ____". It's really not that difficult.

Are masks a good idea for people who haven't had a full series of vaccination,

Masks aren't a "good idea" for anyone when speaking of respiratory viruses. The Cochrane Review states (emphasis added);

Medical or surgical masks
Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort.

N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well reported; discomfort was mentioned.

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?​

All of the highest quality evidence available suggests that masking is not an effective NPI to stop respiratory infection.

​

and is going strictly by this Dr's opinion the correct way to answer that question?

Going strictly by any one person's opinion is NEVER the correct way to answer ANY question. I have no idea what Dr. Paul Offit has said regarding masks, but if you have a source, I'd be happy to read his thoughts on masking and do what I said above, respond to the points he made with my thoughts.

 

[probinson]

Remember when "science-deniers" were ridiculed for suggesting that mRNA might be expressed in breast milk? "That's anti-vaxx rhetoric! How could mRNA be passed through breast milk? This isn't possible!"

As of this posting, it says this on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists website;

This has now been proven to be false by this recent JAMA pediatrics study, which states this;

Of 11 lactating individuals enrolled, trace amounts of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were detected in 7 samples from 5 different participants at various times up to 45 hours postvaccination

Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk​

Oh. So mRNA DOES find its way into breast milk, despite assurances from "experts" that "there is no plausible mechanism" by which that could happen.

The CDC website says this;

Remarkable! There is "limited data" on the "Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in people who are breastfeeding", "Effects of vaccination on the breastfed baby", and "Effects on milk production or excretion". Yet the CDC has absolutely no problem "recommend[ing]" the vaccine for breastfeeding mothers even in the absence of this data.

Yesterday's "anti-vaxx rhetoric" is today's scientific discovery.

 

[KCfromNC]

Dug up? The CDC and FDA pages on antibodies don't have to be "dug up".

They say such things as;

Test results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19.
​

and

Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following COVID-19 vaccination...​

Both the FDA and CDC say there is no correlate between increased antibody levels and immunity from COVID. Yet this is the very metric they are using to determine if boosters will provide any benefit. They aren't looking at clinical outcomes. As long as some mice have increased antibody levels, that's good enough for the FDA and the CDC to recommend that everyone over the age of 12 should get the booster, even if every mouse still got COVID;

View attachment 321279

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-09-01/06-COVID-Miller-508.pdf

Again, you should really let the New England Journal of Medicine know that their reviewers - experts in their field with years of experience - missed something you learned on a CDC web paged designed to give basic info to laypeople. I'm sure they'll be anxious to fix their mistake once you've let them know how wrong they were to publish the article I linked.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have a very odd perspective. You seem to be implying that in order for someone to have a valid opinion, you must agree with EVERYTHING they have to say on all topics forever and ever. Of course that's complete and utter nonsense and isn't true of anyone.

I'm 100% certain there are opinions held by Dr. Paul Offit says that I would disagree with. While you seem to think that is a gotcha moment, it's not. Shouldn't you be more interested in the points made rather than who makes them?

Not when the points made are a random opinion piece by the author in question, offered up with zero commentary.

 

[probinson]

Not when the points made are a random opinion piece by the author in question, offered up with zero commentary.

Except that's not at all what's been provided. If you listened to any of the video interview, you could respond to any of the points Dr. Offit made. But then you'd actually have to try to have a substantive discussion, rather than yammering on endlessly about "anti-vaxxers", and I know that would be difficult for you.

 

[probinson]

Again, you should really let the New England Journal of Medicine know that their reviewers - experts in their field with years of experience -

Protip: if an "expert" with years of experience in mathematics tells you that 2+2=5, you should question it. If public health authorities tell you that antibodies are not a good measure of immunity from COVID but then those same public health authorities tell you they're granting vaccine approvals based on increased antibody levels in mice, you should question it.

missed something you learned on a CDC web paged designed to give basic info to laypeople. I'm sure they'll be anxious to fix their mistake once you've let them know how wrong they were to publish the article I linked.

Sure. Antibodies are a good measure to determine vaccine efficacy for approvals, but not a good measure to determine immunity, especially after vaccination. If you want to pretend those two things are not completely contradictory, and there's some magical explanation that only non laypeople can understand, I suppose that's your prerogative.

 

[whatbogsends]

If you can't follow a simple thread like this, how seriously can we take your assertions that you somehow understand the intricacies of the science better than actual scientists?

Probinson followed the thread, but accurately noted that you don't remember what you said or posted in the thread.

This is you:

All I'd need is a single one to prove your previous post was wrong, for example https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208343
I anxiously await the excuses for why the experts should ignore these results when evaluating the effectiveness of bivalent boosters.

Probinson later responded:

No, it's not. The paper you cited is for a different vaccine than the one the FDA approved.

To which you said:

Not sure what you're talking about. I didn't cite any paper to back up my claim that your claim was false.

Probinson made a claim. You cited a paper/study claiming that it refuted Probinson's claim. When called out that your paper wasn't for the same vaccine, you claimed "I didn't cite any paper to back up my claim that your claim was false".

The only one not following this discussion is you.

"If you can't follow a simple thread like this, how seriously can we take your assertions..."

 

[KCfromNC]

Protip: if an "expert" with years of experience in mathematics tells you that 2+2=5, you should question it. If public health authorities tell you that antibodies are not a good measure of immunity from COVID but then those same public health authorities tell you they're granting vaccine approvals based on increased antibody levels in mice, you should question it.

OK. What did these experts tell you when you did question it?

 

[KCfromNC]

You cited a paper/study claiming that it refuted Probinson's claim. When called out that your paper wasn't for the same vaccine, you claimed "I didn't cite any paper to back up my claim that your claim was false".

If you follow it a bit further back (post 707), you'll notice the discussion was about the claim

"No safety testing has been done on this bivalent vaccine."

and not the bits you quoted about the reasons researchers think the vaccine is effective. Very easy to see by clicking on the little arrows until one reads that text and my quote of it - if one is interested in actually following the discussion.

"If you can't follow a simple thread like this, how seriously can we take your assertions..."

You were saying?

 

[probinson]

Oh the times, they are a-changin';

Air Canada Welcomes Government of Canada Decision to Lift Mask, Testing and ArriveCan Requirements