|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 12, 2021 19:39:09 GMT -6
Ehren, I think we need to start discerning the difference between an article *disputing what someone says vs *debunking. That article doesn't debunk Malone, it's more of the "there's no proof... yet." We've seen a lot of that through the pandemic and it has usually turned out to be completely wrong. First there was no proof of human to human transmission...then there was no proof it came from lab...etc, etc..
Matt...is my comment on the narrative about efficacy really that silly? I think it's important to remember where we started on that vs where we are today:
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 12, 2021 19:41:26 GMT -6
thx Ehren - will check it out. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 12, 2021 21:00:11 GMT -6
Pfizer applied for the full approval as soon as they had the required 6 months of safety monitoring. So at this point the goalposts are just on wheels. The VAERS thing is incredible to me. Where are the autopsies? Go look. Seriously, download it and open it in excel, and hit ctrl+f and type the word "autopsy" and look. I pulled the data and did a little bit of filtering and pulled out anything unrelated to the COVID19 vaccines. I sorted by time to death from receipt of the vaccine and looked at the ~400 who are reported to die the day after administration. Average age is 70. There were many autopsies done - going through it there is heart arrhythmia, myocarditis, fall, heart attack, pre-existing cardiac disease, atherosclerosis, enlarged heart and patches on kidney, clot in the atrium, acute cardiac event, neutropenic sepsis with pneumonia, heart disease, another cardiac disease, another heart disease, pulmonary embolism, drowning, another pulmonary embolism, bacterial infection leading to organ failure, and so on and so on. This is publicly available and anyone with ten minutes can do what I did. Look for yourself. Don't trust fake news that spreads outrageous lies like they haven't done autopsies or they're not following VAERS. vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html?You can't follow politicized sources then complain about politicization when the raw data is publicly available. In the case of COVID, most publishers have made all of the papers public. NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, all of them are open. But instead we have people following podcasts and social media. Honestly man this is ridiculous. How do you think they get the data to do the studies? Seriously. Anyone who sells you emotional please like this should be mistrusted. Evidence is the only way out of the trap you're describing - don't turn around and take a dump on the people busting their butts to get that evidence. Goalposts are just flying around now. FDA is going to review these drugs the same way they review the others. This is a no true scotsman argument about safety of a drug. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 12, 2021 21:12:13 GMT -6
Matt...is my comment on the narrative about efficacy really that silly? I think it's important to remember where we started on that vs where we are today: Yes, its silly. Seems to me what she said there is correct. Look at this study. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1.full.pdfNow the original phase 3 trials for the vaccines were testing for symptomatic illness (symptoms plus positive PCR). This paper was only checking for PCR, so there are asymptomatic folks here. Look at the graphs on page 13. Look at the effectiveness against infection - not illness, infection - in March. Why? Maybe because in the few months right after vaccination you have sterilizing immunity (can't get infected) but that changes. Maybe right now, today, if you exposed a vaccinated person to original-type they'd still have sterilizing immunity. We don't really know. So the standard you're using is unreasonable. We get new information as things change, and as that information comes, we should change our position. That's science, that's how it is supposed to work. Unless you have foresight there's nothing else you can do. And what's more, we don't know whether that drop is due to delta (probably?) or time (maybe?) or both. The good thing is the resistance to severe illness doesn't drop. This may be because delta can overwhelm the antibody protection, but the cellular response is there from the vaccine to clear the infection quickly. "Protection" is a moving target. We are literally at the boundary of human knowledge when it comes to immunology. Read this paper (11 years old!) to see how complicated this can be - only for viruses. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897268/These vaccines are better than many of the vaccines we use today. Safer and more effective! Don't let the better be the enemy of the really, really good. Throwing them out because of a drop in protection from minor illness is silly when they're phenomenal at protecting from severe disease. Some of our vaccines can't even manage that, and they're still considered useful and good. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Aug 12, 2021 21:39:10 GMT -6
Ehren, I think we need to start discerning the difference between an article *disputing what someone says vs *debunking. That article doesn't debunk Malone, it's more of the "there's no proof... yet." We've seen a lot of that through the pandemic and it has usually turned out to be completely wrong. First there was no proof of human to human transmission...then there was no proof it came from lab...etc, etc.. Matt...is my comment on the narrative about efficacy really that silly? I think it's important to remember where we started on that vs where we are today: You make a generally great point. The thing is, Malone keeps making statements with little or no proof at all, ever, and he's continually misrepresenting sources and facts and spreading false information and shoddy studies. Maybe this particular situation is better described as 'dispute' vs 'debunk', but it seems clear that the scenario he's describing simply isn't happening at all. It seems like you're putting all of the available information on the same plane. There's a difference between 'it's early, we don't have data, we don't see evidence, we're making a guess' and 'we've studied this in depth and have lots of evidence'. The former is bound to change. The latter is far less likely to change, though there's still a margin of error. You seem to use examples of the former to knock down the latter, but they really aren't the same. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Aug 12, 2021 21:48:25 GMT -6
You can't follow politicized sources then complain about politicization when the raw data is publicly available. In the case of COVID, most publishers have made all of the papers public. NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, all of them are open. But instead we have people following podcasts and social media. Key point. Media figures aren't always acting in good faith. How many times do they need to misrepresent the situation before they are understood for what they are? Yes, it happens on both sides. Weinstien tends to fall on my side of the fence about a lot of stuff, but I can't see him as anything other than clickbait when it comes to this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 12, 2021 21:49:29 GMT -6
Ehren, I think we need to start discerning the difference between an article *disputing what someone says vs *debunking. That article doesn't debunk Malone, it's more of the "there's no proof... yet." We've seen a lot of that through the pandemic and it has usually turned out to be completely wrong. First there was no proof of human to human transmission...then there was no proof it came from lab...etc, etc.. Matt...is my comment on the narrative about efficacy really that silly? I think it's important to remember where we started on that vs where we are today: You make a generally great point. The thing is, Malone keeps making statements with little or no proof at all, ever, and he's continually misrepresenting sources and facts and spreading false information and shoddy studies. Maybe this particular situation is better described as 'dispute' vs 'debunk', but it seems clear that the scenario he's describing simply isn't happening at all. It seems like you're putting all of the available information on the same plane. There's a difference between 'it's early, we don't have data, we don't see evidence, we're making a guess' and 'we've studied this in depth and have lots of evidence'. The former is bound to change. The latter is far less likely to change, though there's still a margin of error. You seem to use examples of the former to knock down the latter, but they really aren't the same. If you look at some of the latest data coming out of places like Israel that are way ahead of us in vaccination rate....I don't think it's clear at all that isn't what's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 12, 2021 23:16:48 GMT -6
Matt...is my comment on the narrative about efficacy really that silly? I think it's important to remember where we started on that vs where we are today: Yes, its silly. Seems to me what she said there is correct. Look at this study. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1.full.pdfNow the original phase 3 trials for the vaccines were testing for symptomatic illness (symptoms plus positive PCR). This paper was only checking for PCR, so there are asymptomatic folks here. Look at the graphs on page 13. Look at the effectiveness against infection - not illness, infection - in March. Why? Maybe because in the few months right after vaccination you have sterilizing immunity (can't get infected) but that changes. Maybe right now, today, if you exposed a vaccinated person to original-type they'd still have sterilizing immunity. We don't really know. So the standard you're using is unreasonable. We get new information as things change, and as that information comes, we should change our position. That's science, that's how it is supposed to work. Unless you have foresight there's nothing else you can do. And what's more, we don't know whether that drop is due to delta (probably?) or time (maybe?) or both. The good thing is the resistance to severe illness doesn't drop. This may be because delta can overwhelm the antibody protection, but the cellular response is there from the vaccine to clear the infection quickly. "Protection" is a moving target. We are literally at the boundary of human knowledge when it comes to immunology. Read this paper (11 years old!) to see how complicated this can be - only for viruses. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897268/These vaccines are better than many of the vaccines we use today. Safer and more effective! Don't let the better be the enemy of the really, really good. Throwing them out because of a drop in protection from minor illness is silly when they're phenomenal at protecting from severe disease. Some of our vaccines can't even manage that, and they're still considered useful and good. Once again, you are just so dismissive as if you've got this thing all buttoned up. Dr. McCullough is a world renowned cardiologist...but no...he's just a quack because you said so. He's literally teaching medicine at your alma matter and you're trying to make him out like he's a complete fool 🤦🏻♂️. Vaers is junk because you spent an afternoon looking at it....come on Matt, seriously? If you were a doctor I'd better tolerate this crap... but dude you've got to come back down to earth with the rest of us mere mortals here. Everything you just said proved my point exactly. I said the changing narrative on the efficacy of the vaccines plays a part in people like myself who have natural immunity, deciding whether it is worth it or not. In the video clip I posted the CDC director said "vaccinated people DO NOT carry the virus, they DON'T get sick." Now she says "what they can't do any more is prevent transmission." They can't do it any more or they never did? We can call that science playing out but for once I'd like to see science just ever so slightly adjust course and quit doing these complete 180s. I don't agree that these vaccines are better than many of the other vaccines we use. What other vaccine has this many breakthrough cases and leaves you with the ability to spread the thing you're vaccinating against? People associate vaccines with immunity. If you can't give them immunity then you can't be mad at people for wondering what's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 13, 2021 5:11:04 GMT -6
If you can't give them immunity then you can't be mad at people for wondering what's the point? Avoiding hospitalization and death of course. Human cost aside, why can't I be upset that people needlessly end up flooding our ICUs and stressing our front line medical workers? It is unfortunate that this particular technology apparently doesn't convey complete immunity. It does give some support to the argument that getting the vaccine doesn't protect others, which was a very powerful argument. Now there's one less, which will make it even harder to deal with the problem. We all have a tendency to put our own rights in front of the rights of others. It's part of the human condition. There will always be anti-vaxers - and given its tenacity it's looking more and more like Covid is here to stay. I'm not mad. I'm sad.. and buckling up for the next wave of unnecessary deaths. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Aug 13, 2021 6:39:53 GMT -6
You make a generally great point. The thing is, Malone keeps making statements with little or no proof at all, ever, and he's continually misrepresenting sources and facts and spreading false information and shoddy studies. Maybe this particular situation is better described as 'dispute' vs 'debunk', but it seems clear that the scenario he's describing simply isn't happening at all. It seems like you're putting all of the available information on the same plane. There's a difference between 'it's early, we don't have data, we don't see evidence, we're making a guess' and 'we've studied this in depth and have lots of evidence'. The former is bound to change. The latter is far less likely to change, though there's still a margin of error. You seem to use examples of the former to knock down the latter, but they really aren't the same. If you look at some of the latest data coming out of places like Israel that are way ahead of us in vaccination rate....I don't think it's clear at all that isn't what's happening. Malone says 'a vaccinologists worst nightmare'. Israeli experts are saying 'the vaccine is around 40% effective at preventing Delta infection and around 90% effective at preventing severe symptoms and hospitalization.' Unless I'm missing something, the data shows that Malone's theory that the vaccine increases the spread and severity of the virus is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Aug 13, 2021 7:21:25 GMT -6
Yes, its silly. Seems to me what she said there is correct. Look at this study. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1.full.pdfNow the original phase 3 trials for the vaccines were testing for symptomatic illness (symptoms plus positive PCR). This paper was only checking for PCR, so there are asymptomatic folks here. Look at the graphs on page 13. Look at the effectiveness against infection - not illness, infection - in March. Why? Maybe because in the few months right after vaccination you have sterilizing immunity (can't get infected) but that changes. Maybe right now, today, if you exposed a vaccinated person to original-type they'd still have sterilizing immunity. We don't really know. So the standard you're using is unreasonable. We get new information as things change, and as that information comes, we should change our position. That's science, that's how it is supposed to work. Unless you have foresight there's nothing else you can do. And what's more, we don't know whether that drop is due to delta (probably?) or time (maybe?) or both. The good thing is the resistance to severe illness doesn't drop. This may be because delta can overwhelm the antibody protection, but the cellular response is there from the vaccine to clear the infection quickly. "Protection" is a moving target. We are literally at the boundary of human knowledge when it comes to immunology. Read this paper (11 years old!) to see how complicated this can be - only for viruses. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897268/These vaccines are better than many of the vaccines we use today. Safer and more effective! Don't let the better be the enemy of the really, really good. Throwing them out because of a drop in protection from minor illness is silly when they're phenomenal at protecting from severe disease. Some of our vaccines can't even manage that, and they're still considered useful and good. Dr. McCullough is a world renowned cardiologist...but no...he's just a quack because you said so. He's literally teaching medicine at your alma matter and you're trying to make him out like he's a complete fool 🤦🏻♂️. Vaers is junk because you spent an afternoon looking at it....come on Matt, seriously? If you were a doctor I'd better tolerate this crap... but dude you've got to come back down to earth with the rest of us mere mortals here. Everything you just said proved my point exactly. I said the changing narrative on the efficacy of the vaccines plays a part in people like myself who have natural immunity, deciding whether it is worth it or not. In the video clip I posted the CDC director said "vaccinated people DO NOT carry the virus, they DON'T get sick." Now she says "what they can't do any more is prevent transmission." They can't do it any more or they never did? We can call that science playing out but for once I'd like to see science just ever so slightly adjust course and quit doing these complete 180s. I don't agree that these vaccines are better than many of the other vaccines we use. What other vaccine has this many breakthrough cases and leaves you with the ability to spread the thing you're vaccinating against? People associate vaccines with immunity. If you can't give them immunity then you can't be mad at people for wondering what's the point? In Matt's defense, Bill said 'let's see the autopsies' and Matt showed him where to look...sitting in plain sight. I'm not sure why that comes off as being holier than thou. If you're going to be upset with someone, maybe direct that towards the people in the media who continually misrepresent the situation to create a scary narrative. VAERS is clearly, unequivocally, by design, and self-described as an unverified and unreliable source of medical information. Be mad at the people who misrepresent it. Science is not doing a 180. Evidence isn't clear until it is. That's not a mistake, or anyone being disingenuous. They look at data and report what they see. As more data comes in, the story changes. Seems like you're asking for the impossible. Dr Kory, the Weinstien guest who is pushing hard to establish ivermectin as a treatment, recently posted that his ivermectin-based ICU treatment protocol doesn't seem to be working against the delta variant. I don't see that as a 180...if anything, it's an indicator that he's truly interested in finding effective treatments and is willing to change course when evidence becomes clear. Is he wrong for that? |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 13, 2021 9:27:18 GMT -6
Once again, you are just so dismissive as if you've got this thing all buttoned up. Dr. McCullough is a world renowned cardiologist...but no...he's just a quack because you said so. He's literally teaching medicine at your alma matter and you're trying to make him out like he's a complete fool 🤦🏻♂️. Vaers is junk because you spent an afternoon looking at it....come on Matt, seriously? If you were a doctor I'd better tolerate this crap... but dude you've got to come back down to earth with the rest of us mere mortals here. Everything you just said proved my point exactly. I said the changing narrative on the efficacy of the vaccines plays a part in people like myself who have natural immunity, deciding whether it is worth it or not. In the video clip I posted the CDC director said "vaccinated people DO NOT carry the virus, they DON'T get sick." Now she says "what they can't do any more is prevent transmission." They can't do it any more or they never did? We can call that science playing out but for once I'd like to see science just ever so slightly adjust course and quit doing these complete 180s. Sorry man, I'm not trying to be dismissive at all. I probably have a crappy writing style for these kind of discussions...too many years in technical writing. What makes Dr McCullough world renowned? What does that even mean, and more importantly why does that matter? Does that make him right?? Hes not a quack because I said so. I think he is a hack because he's saying irresponsible things. If you don't think he's a hack, that's fine - I don't have a monopoly on the truth. Expert-opinion shopping doesn't get you closer to the truth. I didn't say VAERS was junk, I said the claims that no autopsies have been done are junk and demonstrably false. Extend me that much grace, please. Regarding the video, at the time that she said that, what she said was true. "Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus." Is this a true or false statement? Is it contingent or falsifiable by new data? If someone asks you on a clear day if the sky is blue, and you say yes, but later it clouds up and rains, does that make you a liar? Obviously not. Something changed. That something is probably the introduction of a new variant that has a mutation on the spike protein, which is what the vaccines use to generate the immune response. This is a complicated question. Did you read that article? I think if you read the "general principles" and "viruses that infect the mucosae..." sections you can see how complicated this is. But, directly answering - vaccine breakthroughs sometimes depend on how much you stress them. So prevalence matters. We know from measles outbreaks, for example, that you're more at risk as a vaccinated person living in an unvaccinated population than an unvaccinated person is living in a vaccinated population. We also know that high challenge loads can overwhelm antibody immunity (mentioned in the previous review 2010 article). And we know that the way different vaccines protect is different - some give local protection, some general, some wane over time. Its complicated. Vaccines that have breakthrough infections? All of them, by definition, because none of them are 100% effective. Looking at the current immunization schedule... Hep B - 90% develop antibody response, 80-100% efficacy with those at preventing clinical hepatitis, but that takes complete series (3 doses) and isn't as effective for adults. Rotavirus - 63-86% efficacy at depending on the country. 2 or 3 doses required. DTaP - 80% in the first year, 84% 1-3 years, 62% 4-7 years, 41% 8+ years for pertussis. And as the bacteria that causes it changes, the efficacy of the vaccine has dropped. For the rest, the CDC says its 80-90%...after 5 doses. Hib - 95% to get to antibodies, 84% against disease, 75% against menengitis, 69% against pneumonia. We do 3+ doses. Inactive Poliovirus - 80-100% against efficacy depending on the number of doses. We do 3 doses to get 99%. PCV13 - 45-46% against pneumonia, 75% against invasive pneumococcal disease. 4 doses. MMR - 97% against measles, 88% against mumps, 97% against rubella, after two doses. The CDC notes "About 3 out of 100 people who get two doses of MMR vaccine will get measles if exposed to the virus. However, they are more likely to have a milder illness, and are also less likely to spread the disease to other people...Mumps outbreaks can still occur in highly vaccinated U.S. communities, particularly in settings where people have close, prolonged contact, such as universities and close-knit communities." Varicella - two doses 88-98% against all varicella depending on the trial, and 100% against severe varicella. So most of the vaccines can have breakthrough immunity and if you're sick you can spread it. Most vaccines don't give lifelong sterilizing immunity. The point is pretty clear. Just like all those above, they reduce your chances of getting sick, and hugely reduce your chances of getting sick enough to go to the hospital. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Aug 13, 2021 10:10:53 GMT -6
Just want to take a moment to thank matt@IAA for his consistently clear and level-headed writing, and for his commitment to using data. Matt - your contributions here are a real standout. Thank you!! |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 13, 2021 11:24:23 GMT -6
Just want to take a moment to thank matt @iaa for his consistently clear and level-headed writing, and for his commitment to using data. Matt - your contributions here are a real standout. Thank you!! I appreciate Matt's contributions very much..don't get it wrong, Matt has my phone number and we actually have had really nice discussions about gear outside of this particular thread believe it or not. I love Iron Age Audioworks and will continue to do reviews and spread the word far and wide as best I can, assuming we can survive this thread 😬 My point not only to Matt but to everyone else that replied since last night is this...can someone not share a different thought, study, video, article, etc.. without the expert in the video or the poster themselves being belittled? Why does that always have to be the method? I've been accused of everything from a Qanon supporter...to a flat earther...and my favorite, being illiterate LOL. I can't even tell you how many private messages I've received on this forum from people that don't want to share here anymore so they just send it to me because they know I'm crazy enough to keep going 😂 For example, the last clip I shared was from the CDC director Rochelle Walensky. What she said in the clip ended up being flat out wrong. Did I call her a hack? No...I shared her words and you can do with that what you will. McCullough, Kory, Malone, Weinstein and yes even Van Den Bossche have had amazing careers and were all highly respected before daring to blaspheme the covid gods. The things that have been said about them in this thread are shameful honestly and I don't think anyone that has said them are in a position to really do that, but that's just my 2 cents. The efficacy stats on the other vaccines are appreciated. I have a couple of thoughts on that. 1. How many times have you ever been asked about being current on any of those vaccines to go buy groceries? 2. If you add the vaers reports for all of those vaccines(plus all others on the schedule..somewhere around 70 total) for the entire 30 year history of vaers, you don't even get to the numbers reported from the covid vaccines. If that's not interesting to you, that's fine but it is to me. My last thought is this...I appreciate very much what the vaccines actually do(reducing serious illness and death)...but... that is not at all what was promised. It is revisionists history to say they never promised immunity. Directly from the mouths of the CDC director and the President, people were told they would not catch the virus, they would not get sick and they would not spread it. None of those things are true and that gets back into the informed consent issue. I still say that we aren't going to vaccinate our way out of this which is why I continue to pull for a therapeutics(particularly while people are still at home very early in the illness) + vaccines approach. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 13, 2021 12:03:11 GMT -6
I get mad when people who should know better spread misinformation or outright lies. It is upsetting. They should be held to a higher standard. McCullough falls into that category. Wollensky definitely falls into that category. The reason it comes back on them is very, very simple. The argument is being presented as an appeal to authority, NOT on its own merits. If you present an argument on the merits of the data, the way to prove or disprove that is solely with data. When you present an argument as an appeal to expert opinion or authority, you live and die by that person's authority. If they say demonstrably false, dangerous, or ridiculous things not only is the argument shot, but their entire credibility as well. I would not trust an engineer who believes the world is flat. 1) I don't think anyone should have to be vaccinated to go buy groceries unless the owner of that grocery store decides to require that (being a private business, that is up to them. Hey, I'm also against public accommodation laws in general). I think the idea of government mandates or vaccine passports is **completely different** than the discussion of vaccine efficacy. Conflating them muddies the water. That being said, we require vaccinations in various degrees for all kinds of things in public life. Childcare facilities, public schools, and universities all require them. The military can legally forcibly vaccinate soldiers (this is not new). In Texas you can sign an affidavit saying you decline for religious reasons or reasons of conscience, but if there is an outbreak the school or daycare can exclude you. I don't see why these vaccines should have some kind of special pleading, again given that they are ultimately FDA approved. 2) The dosing for those vaccines is fundamentally different than the vaccines for COVID. The vaccines mentioned are almost exclusively given to infants and children, where these had the exact opposite age distribution (top down). If you vaccinated the entire country for anything, literally with a placebo, you'd expect to get a lot of vaers reports of death afterwards. The entire VAERS thing is post-hoc fallacy or an argument from silence (i.e., because the CDC has failed to meet my personal standard for disclosure of analysis of VAERS data I will conclude something about the data). I don't understand the "promised" thing. That's the latest talking point now. Well, "they" said it would do x and now it does y, so somehow the vaccines are bad. Usually unsubstantiated. I personally remember Dr Fauci saying we don't know how long natural immunity will last, we dont know how long vaccinated immunity will last, we don't know if you'll still be able to spread it (remember all the consternation about recommending immune people still wear masks?). I think people heard what they wanted to hear. I've posted the phase 3 trial results for the vaccines. None of them, not one, tested for sterilizing immunity. They all tested for symptomatic disease. Anyone who said anything else was either looking at data *as it currently was and therefore was subject to change* or, if they applied it forward, they were just wrong. Informed consent doesn't require perfect knowledge. Risks and benefits should be discussed. If the knowledge about risks and benefits has to be perfect before treating, suddenly FDA approvals go from 12 years and $1bn to... I don't know what. Infinity. Edit to add - also, Josh and Bill are both awesome people and I respect and care about them both, along with many others who post here (even Eric  ) That's part of the reason to bother with the discussion. Good discussion should benefit everyone involved. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 13, 2021 12:16:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Aug 13, 2021 12:19:30 GMT -6
Just want to take a moment to thank matt @iaa for his consistently clear and level-headed writing, and for his commitment to using data. Matt - your contributions here are a real standout. Thank you!! I appreciate Matt's contributions very much..don't get it wrong, Matt has my phone number and we actually have had really nice discussions about gear outside of this particular thread believe it or not. I love Iron Age Audioworks and will continue to do reviews and spread the word far and wide as best I can, assuming we can survive this thread 😬 My point not only to Matt but to everyone else that replied since last night is this...can someone not share a different thought, study, video, article, etc.. without the expert in the video or the poster themselves being belittled? Why does that always have to be the method? I've been accused of everything from a Qanon supporter...to a flat earther...and my favorite, being illiterate LOL. I can't even tell you how many private messages I've received on this forum from people that don't want to share here anymore so they just send it to me because they know I'm crazy enough to keep going 😂 For example, the last clip I shared was from the CDC director Rochelle Walensky. What she said in the clip ended up being flat out wrong. Did I call her a hack? No...I shared her words and you can do with that what you will. McCullough, Kory, Malone, Weinstein and yes even Van Den Bossche have had amazing careers and were all highly respected before daring to blaspheme the covid gods. The things that have been said about them in this thread are shameful honestly and I don't think anyone that has said them are in a position to really do that, but that's just my 2 cents. The efficacy stats on the other vaccines are appreciated. I have a couple of thoughts on that. 1. How many times have you ever been asked about being current on any of those vaccines to go buy groceries? 2. If you add the vaers reports for all of those vaccines(plus all others on the schedule..somewhere around 70 total) for the entire 30 year history of vaers, you don't even get to the numbers reported from the covid vaccines. If that's not interesting to you, that's fine but it is to me. My last thought is this...I appreciate very much what the vaccines actually do(reducing serious illness and death)...but... that is not at all what was promised. It is revisionists history to say they never promised immunity. Directly from the mouths of the CDC director and the President, people were told they would not catch the virus, they would not get sick and they would not spread it. None of those things are true and that gets back into the informed consent issue. I still say that we aren't going to vaccinate our way out of this which is why I continue to pull for a therapeutics(particularly while people are still at home very early in the illness) + vaccines approach. I should make it clear that I don't think negatively about you, Dr Bill, or anyone else who has engaged in this conversation respectfully. If I've come across as being disrespectful to you or anyone else, I apologize. It wasn't my intent. Being wrong doesn't make someone a hack. Spreading theories based on shoddy studies and half truths does. I've pointed out that Malone et al are doing this, so it is confusing to me that they are considered by some as being more reliable than their peers. I think it's shameful for a person with a large platform to spread demonstrably bad information during a crisis. I don't think it's shameful at all to call them out for it. Nobody asks for your vaccination status in grocery stores for two reasons: 1. We're not facing a global measles or polio pandemic. 2. Most people in the western world were required to be immunized at some point in their lives, thus we already kinda know without asking that enough people have had their shots to eliminate the concern. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 13, 2021 12:53:53 GMT -6
Re: ADE
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 13, 2021 13:48:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 13, 2021 14:06:39 GMT -6
I love science but I think many science lovers cannot disconnect themselves from the human investment, and so human emotion becomes tied up into the investment.
Every study starts out with a hypothesis.. one which will someday either be proven right or wrong. So at the very onset, humans must attach themselves to their choice, and as such, will be subject to bias and emotional attachment.
The early results almost always are barely conclusive at all, since data sets are usually too small. Yet, the early results can have an impactful experience on the scientist in terms of emotions. Right? winner Wrong? loser.
Science must be continued for years and decades to get any real truth, but the human emotional attachment can be deep, very much so, and scientists abandon actual science in a means for protecting their emotional investment. (Often financial investment too)
This is extremely unstudied but obvious.. that’s what bothers me about Science. Please let science do the talking, not the emotions, yet science people love the emotions.
(edit: not aiming this at anyone here.. just venting about the science world even pre Covid)
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 13, 2021 14:06:57 GMT -6
That is interesting. Annoyingly, it applies to recovered antibodies and presumably vaccine induced ones as well. But, it is in vitro, so who the hell knows. Like most things in this pandemic it raises more questions than it answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Aug 13, 2021 15:25:04 GMT -6
I'm not confident in my own ability to understand this but I see that it was posted nearly a year ago, two months before the first vaccine was administered in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by dmo on Aug 13, 2021 22:38:25 GMT -6
I tried to catch up on this thread last night after work, but was way behind on sleep so late response. Planned on commenting about vaccine effectiveness but Matt already beat me to it - and did an excellent job of laying out efficacy rates for the most common vaccines. So I'll just add a few further comments.
It's important to note that although vaccines significantly reduce morbidity/mortality - they don't automatically equal zero risk of illness. Here in the US (and most Western European countries/societies) we've reduced transmission so low that we consider measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria and polio eradicated - but they are still of concern in other parts of the world and we are at risk of losing that status re: measles from decreased support of vaccination. The only disease considered eradicated from a global perspective is smallpox - hence the concern when a nation/state pursues research in that area. The entire world's population is now naive to smallpox - so if it was somehow reintroduced it would be a novel virus and the impact would be extremely devastating (hmmm...sounds similar to Covid). There are very limited pharmaceutical "treatment" options that are truly effective against viral infections - that's why vaccines remain the single most effective means of controlling viral illness that we currently have.
initially drafted a much lengthier response but deleted it. I'm feeling a little burned out and need to make some time to actually fire up the gear and make music. Work over the last week or so has been brutal, the worst since the onset of the pandemic. At my little shop (quasi free standing ED) our volumes are 2x or more usual summer volume, and currently averaging about 120 pts per 12h day. We staff with 2 providers - so it's hectic all day long. About 1/4 are test and street, another 1/4 test and eval/"treat", then 1/2 non covid visits. Very limited beds for transfers, few ICU beds, etc, etc. To keep the flow going end up staying 2-3h after doors close to chart, call back positive test results, etc. We need to be able to dial back rate of transmission, number of patients, hospitalizations, etc - sooner the better.
Stay safe out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 15, 2021 20:15:01 GMT -6
Will you drop your objection to the Pfizer and Moderna shots when they inevitably get full approval from the FDA? So it's like a foregone conclusion that this will happen, even though the human trials phase of the initial vaccines have not yet concluded? That's how science works, right? Wrong. If you look at some of the latest data coming out of places like Israel that are way ahead of us in vaccination rate....I don't think it's clear at all that isn't what's happening. Israel and Iceland are both "100% Vaccinated!" so no Covid-19 and variant positive test results, right? Wrong again. I don't agree that these vaccines are better than many of the other vaccines we use. What other vaccine has this many breakthrough cases and leaves you with the ability to spread the thing you're vaccinating against? People associate vaccines with immunity. If you can't give them immunity then you can't be mad at people for wondering what's the point? Hey, vaccines work by introducing an impotent form of a disease into your body so your immune system can learn to fight it and thus create immunity. That's how the Covid-19 vaccines work, right? Wrong again. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 15, 2021 20:30:08 GMT -6
The human phase trials for the mRNA vaccines have concluded. The last phase of trials before approval is phase 3, and the phase 3 trials are done. After the phase 3 trial, the FDA requires six months of follow up, which was also done, and has been released. There is such a thing as phase 4 - those are post-marketing trials which are done to determine long-term benefit:risk after approval. They've already applied for full approval. Part of full approval for FDA is something called chemistry manufacturing and controls. This is a quality step, not safety or efficacy, and normally takes a year just by itself. Just for reference, on average FDA approval takes 12 years. Neither Israel or Iceland are 100% vaccinated. Looks like theyre both somewhere between 60 and 78% fully vaccinated. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.htmlgraphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/israel/graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/iceland/Some vaccines work this way - inactive viruses. Some don't - subunit protein vaccines are one example. Some covid19 vaccines are inactive virus. The Chinese one is - Sinovac. It has about a 51% efficacy vs covid19, 100% vs severe illness. That was pre-delta. The upcoming Novavax vaccine is a protein subunit. The spike protein from the virus is manufactured, assembled into nanoparticles, then injected with an adjuvant. These kind of vaccines have been used for around 40 years now, and are not "an impotent form of disease." The mRNA vaccines work the same way a protein subunit vaccine does, the difference being that they inject instructions to make the spike into your body. Your statement would be more accurate if you said they introduce an antigen, so your immune system can learn to respond to it. Then its true for all of the vaccines we have, and it is just as true for the mRNA vaccines. |
|
) That's part of the reason to bother with the discussion. Good discussion should benefit everyone involved.
