Covid and vaccines and whatnot

[jetflag]

study

interresting, Will check/reply later

 

[Hensmon]

interresting, Will check/reply later

I recommend watching the two videos as TED talk is so interesting on how vaccines differ in general, and then the recent video breaks down the results in a more consumable manner for us laymen.

 

[Hot Tuna]

This is a preprint article, it offers immediate access but has not been peer reviewed.

Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed.

 

[Hot Tuna]

For anyone that can be bothered (my advice: do something, anything else better with your time):

PolitiFact - Fact-checking claims about Danish preprint study on COVID-19 vaccines and mortality

A Danish study that evaluated how the COVID-19 vaccines impact mortality is being used online as evidence that the messe

www.politifact.com

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT​

• This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed.
• In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact.
• The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.

Obviously, people are reading into this whatever they want to believe, safe in the knowledge that 99.9% of any Youtube audience will never actually read the article in question.

 

[Hensmon]

@Hot Tuna - I think you miss the point and significance of this. But first to address the 'not peer reviewed' concern. Check out the summary article I linked (second link). Taken from the article:

"Some may criticize the Danish study for not yet being peer-reviewed, but it has been. It was peer-reviewed by me and several colleagues, and all of us have decades of experience with these types of studies. That it has not yet been peer-reviewed by anonymous journal reviewers is inconsequential."

The research follows the expected RCT standards and is coming from a researcher who is credible, knowledgeable and un-bias. Why not listen to her and her argument, making your own mind up if the results are at least worth considering?

The second two bullet points you list just repeat exactly what I said; that the non MRNA vaccines offer protection not only for covid, but other diseases too through non-specific mechanisms. Go (live) vaccines! It's a positive. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines didn't have an impact on mortality though.... That alone is a huge finding. Yes it doesnt conclude that MRNA is ineffective against covid, but because mortality is higher for people who took those specific vaccines we can conclude it either doesnt work OR it does work but instead is causing death through other non-specific mechanisms.

The signifigance I think you are missing is that even the slightest doubt on vaccine safety means a completely new mentality and operation must be adopted concerning global health strategy. For example we would absolutely prioritize Astra-zeneca over Pfizer (opposite happened). We would absolutely not force people through direct or indirect means to take vaccines as we cannot say for sure that they are safe. We would not demonize the portion of society who have hesitations (now justified). The approach is completely flipped on its head when we move to the perspective of 'we need to learn more' - which is exactly the position of Dr Benn.

 

[dmgtz96]

5 bucks that preprint gets retracted for bad science

 

[Hensmon]

5 bucks that preprint gets retracted for bad science

Martin Kulldorf, epidemiologist and biostatistician specializing in infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety and 10 year Harvard professor does not appear to feel the same way (apparently neither do his peers). What makes you so confident?

 

[jetflag]

"Some may criticize the Danish study for not yet being peer-reviewed, but it has been. It was peer-reviewed by me and several colleagues, and all of us have decades of experience with these types of studies. That it has not yet been peer-reviewed by anonymous journal reviewers is inconsequential."

Wait.. let me guess: someone googled a "fact checker" and called it a day? lol

study

Had a quick read through it. And well, it’s the first preprint. Any reasonable scientific conclusion is always (or at least should be) a corpus. That being said the authors seem at the very least credible and the results are eyebrow raising in the sense that, if true, it would flip the “more trustworthy/effective” factor from mRNA based to Adenovirus based

We’ll have to see what the independent peer reviews return.. one thing I for instance couldn’t find that quickly in the research is the differentiating factor between multiple v single dose in case of mRNA variants in the test groups. The latter requires multiple doses for (alleged) effectiveness whereas Astra, Jansen, Sputnik etc. only require one. So that might be something to pick up in future research and/or a reason to retract/edit.

if (and yes, that’s an if) the Adenovirus variants are indeed less deadly/more reliable it would certainly undermine the whole “its time for your *insert number here booster shot, sir” narrative.

Science aside though the question of whether or not the antivax crowd was justified in refusing is in my opinion not (co) dependend on any scientific conclusion, seen as its an ethical question, and Science as a toolset is a-ethical by nature.

A complete disaster for a mainstream media and public majority who has been vilifying anti-vaxxers for the past 2 years

yeah I'm sure that, if true, most of them including their funders are going to do the right thing, retract smearpiece articles and apologize to this undesirable minority demographic instead of quitely editing the articles all the way down below the webpage and/or hunkering down in (group) confirmation bias anyway..

In all seriousness though.. I don't think it would even matter at this point íf the mNRA vaccines where discredited scientifically and/or if public opinion where swayed, things like the WHO's Pandemic Treaty are already being pushed through link and they're not going to wait for Science to catch up and give the most accutate view of the Corona situation and its potential remedy. Which means

- more information restriction by the plebs and any reasonable decenting voices (after all: how can we claim "all scientists agree" when we dont censor the ones who don't)
- more surveillance and less privacy.
- more permanent restrictions/ less freedom
- more control over global, regional and national supply chains etc.

never waste a good crisis.

 

[dmgtz96]

Wait.. let me guess: someone googled a "fact checker" and called it a day? lol


We’ll have to see what the independent peer reviews return.. one thing I for instance couldn’t find that quickly in the research is the differentiating factor between multiple v single dose in case of mRNA variants in the test groups. The latter requires multiple doses for (alleged) effectiveness whereas Astra, Jansen, Sputnik etc. only require one. So that might be something to pick up in future research and/or a reason to retract/edit.

Never trust a preprint even if it's been reviewed by Mr. Harvard PhD unless you want another Ivermectin situation to happen.
Many things change in a paper from first submission to published submission that you shouldn't trust the preprint (yet).

 

[jetflag]

Never trust a preprint even if it's been reviewed by Mr. Harvard PhD unless you want another Ivermectin situation to happen.

which is precisely why I wrote: "We'll have to see what the independent peer reviews return" (and by those I don't mean activists/ journalists)

 

[Hensmon]

The main point I really want to stress is that if ANY doubt whatsoever exists in vaccine safety, or if we feel like more research is needed to draw a firm conclusion, then the entire mentality and situation we've seen in the past 2 years comes crashing down. All it takes is 'need more research', not 'we know vaccine is unsafe'. We cannot inject the entire world with something that has unknowns.

So do we have that confidence to say 'it's safe' and if so based on what? Do we have counter studies showing that the non-specific effects are not a factor for covid vaccines? According to Dr Benn's research (before covid) she believes that non-specific effects ARE occurring with certain vaccines in the past, and that much IS still unknown. This analysis on the 3 studies related to Diphtheria-Tetnus vaccine concludes that total mortality was impacted negatively in children who took the vaccine, through non-specific effects. We also have studies showing non-specific POSITIVE effects too in other vaccines. Its a mechanism that has to be understood in the context of each vaccine, clearly.

So there is at the very minimum a historical and scientific context that supports the need for a perspective of 'we need more research', and may even go as far as warranting 'these specific types of vaccine are unsafe'. The covid study is building upon that context. So I ask again, where is our confidence coming from that we have all the answers here?

 

[jetflag]

where is our confidence coming from that we have all the answers here?

in a nutshell:

combined with a sense of urgency, tribalism and "not wanting to be called a conspiracy theorist"

 

[dmgtz96]

The main point I really want to stress is that if ANY doubt whatsoever exists in vaccine safety, or if we feel like more research is needed to draw a firm conclusion, then the entire mentality and situation we've seen in the past 2 years comes crashing down. All it takes is 'need more research', not 'we know vaccine is unsafe'. We cannot inject the entire world with something that has unknowns.

So do we have that confidence to say 'it's safe' and if so based on what? Do we have counter studies showing that the non-specific effects are not a factor for covid vaccines? According to Dr Benn's research (before covid) she believes that non-specific effects ARE occurring with certain vaccines in the past, and that much IS still unknown. This analysis on the 3 studies related to Diphtheria-Tetnus vaccine concludes that total mortality was impacted negatively in children who took the vaccine, through non-specific effects. We also have studies showing non-specific POSITIVE effects too in other vaccines. Its a mechanism that has to be understood in the context of each vaccine, clearly.

So there is at the very minimum a historical and scientific context that supports the need for a perspective of 'we need more research', and may even go as far as warranting 'these specific types of vaccine are unsafe'. The covid study is building upon that context. So I ask again, where is our confidence coming from that we have all the answers here?

Huh, didn't know that about the DT vaccine.
Dug around a little bit, and found out that studies conducted afterwards could not replicate the results of the original studies which suggested that the DT vaccine increased mortality. That's not very scientific.

 

[jetflag]

^correct. But then again neither is en mass skipping long term side effect test trails / studies before unleashing a fairly new/ experimental treatment on the world populus. It's a tad hypocritical for the previously adament "ad veracundeam it'll be fine" crowd too now frown uppon credible experts in the fields who fire warning shots and get to be all sticky on correct scientific procedures instead of placing trust in said equally qualified institution or person. This is what I mean by tribalism. (Not saying this is you personally @dmgtz96 I believe you and I have been proponents of correct scientific methodology from the start, but in general)

Correct procedures should have been followed from day 1

 

[Hensmon]

There are 3 DTP vaccine studies which conclude an increase in total mortality, and the analysis of those 3 studies doesn't bring up any issue with those findings (what I shared). Dr Benn has no affiliation with the studies but also seems to have confidence enough to reference it in her talk. As mentioned there are also other studies that show non specific vaccinations POSITIVE effects on total mortality too, like this one. There's plenty more.

So not only is there a strong theoretical basis for vaccines non-specific effects, but good evidence demonstrating it in both positive AND negative effects, and in the context of Covid vaccines that's exactly what the latest research suggests. No one is committing to anything, just that we clearly need more research and should proceed with caution.

Doesn't that change our entire perspective and approach to the pandemic? Is it not fair to say that vaccinations should be entirely optional for citizens or possibly even put on hold, until we have clear evidence for or against non-specific effects? Its such a reasonable position, why is that so controversial or taboo in the public debate?....this is before we even get into the ethics (which have been thrown out the window)!

p.s I feel obliged to mention I am not anti vaccinations, I am vaccinated myself (just wish it wasnt Pfzier).

 

[dmgtz96]

Well.. at least they're being upfront about it?
US Open confirms vaccine status will rule out Novak Djokovic from tournament (The Guardian link)

TIL the US is still banning unvaxx internationals* from entering the country. Didn't know that rule was still in place.

*Only applies to noncitizen nonimmigrants. US citizens and people with immigrant visas can still enter the country without being vaccinated.

 

[dmgtz96]

No takers?

Novak Djokovic named for US Open despite vaccine laws

“I’m not vaccinated and I’m not planning to get vaccinated so the only good news I can have is them removing the mandated green vaccine card or whatever you call it to enter United States or exemption,” the 35-year-old said.

“I don’t know. I don’t think exemption is realistically possible. If that is possibility, I don’t know what exemption would be about. I don’t know. I don’t have much answers there.

“I think it’s just whether or not they remove this in time for me to get to the USA.”

A foreign country isn't going to bend to the will of some international dude. THE ENTITLEMENT.

 

[jetflag]

Never sacrifice personal principes or bodily autonomy to please the mob. Even if it might get you cancelled

 

[Magnevi]

No takers?

Novak Djokovic named for US Open despite vaccine laws


A foreign country isn't going to bend to the will of some international dude. THE ENTITLEMENT.

I don’t see which point you are trying to make.

Djokovic doesn’t even ask for some kind of exception. He says he won’t play. Unless the USA changes their guidelines (and lets face it, they should).

anyway, Djoko is zero to blame here. He’s not complaining at all.

 

[Hot Tuna]

99% of the sane human population = "the mob"

Djokovic's body, Djokovic's rules

America's country, America's rules

Very little else to say about it.