Covid and vaccines and whatnot

Bobby Summa

Senior Member
Sep 7, 2022
872 Posts
649 Thanked
Age
47
Brighton UK
Website
soundcloud.app.goo.gl
I’m not sure if fatigue /iron deficiency are related symptoms to mRNA or Vector shots, could be, dunno.

my grandmother in law is suffering from a similar symptom regarding iron deficient blood. The standard dietary supplements are making her nauseous so we now have her on this which seems to do the trick although it is rather expensive.



maybe something worth looking into.
Good Lord. So your relation only discovered her iron deficiency in the last few years? I am the same but iron deficiency is something both my mother and at times my sister have had. But its unsure whether or not iron deficiency is hereditary. General consensus with Nurses at work was it isn’t hereditary.
Before Covid times i was a cleaner in a hospital for a year and was often tired then, but put it to the managers working us hard. Cheers

edit: just googled Synthesit. That looks like interesting stuff👍
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
I had the same question. Maybe serious adverse event covers the bad reactions people had with vaccines i.e fevers, weakness, feeling very ill etc...

I looked it up and it appears like it doesn't include that. It's death, being made disabled, requiring emergency room hospitalization or a surgical intervention. Would love someone else to confirm that i'm getting that right. If that's the case then 1 in 800 is indeed disgraceful, all things considered.
If all else, the study only has 43 citations. If it were truly a slam dunk against the COVID vaccines, showing how ineffective they are, this study would have *way* more citations. Scientists aren't citing this article for whatever reason (and no, it's not because "there is a conspiracy" or their careers would be demolished by "going against the narrative"; I'm thinking the article is just bad science.)
 

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
Yup, that article by Joseph Fraiman is bad science. Called it.
Here is an article denouncing Vaccine for publishing this paper.

some interesting quotes:

Less common AEs sometimes don’t show up until after a vaccine is rolled out and distribution goes from a population of tens of thousands to administration to millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions, as has happened with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines over the last 21 months. In other words, if you are truly interested in the actual real-world safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines right here, right now, in September 2022, then the original RCT data are not the best data to use to estimate rates of adverse events. After all, well over 12 billion doses have been administered since then, and numerous countries have safety and efficacy data. Say what you will about Peter Doshi’s “reanalysis” of the clinical trial data in January 2021 that falsely concluded that the Pfizer vaccine had only demonstrated 19% efficacy, in January 2021 the randomized clinical trial data for the vaccine was all that there was. It made sense to look at those data then. Today? Not nearly as much

The AESIs included because they have a theoretical or proven association with specific vaccine platforms are interesting, mainly because none of them are associated with the mRNA platform, but rather platforms that existed before the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were released. Also note how the AESIs are (mostly) listed as broad categories, rather than specific diagnoses. Exceptions include, of course, myocarditis, which is associated with COVID-19 and has been associated in safety data with COVID-19 vaccines, but mapping the AEs in the clinical trials to these categories requires some subjectivity. There are more than just what’s listed above, delineated in a number of charts under each organ system. For example, colitis is listed in Annex 6, which encompasses the gastrointestinal system.

Admittedly, many of the SAEs in the excluded list do make sense given that they include fractures, gunshot wounds, head injuries, and the like, but a number do not, such as viral pharyngitis, volvulus, vomiting, and others.

so... @Perpetuous dreamer I'm not going to lose sleep over this "paper" since it's just bad science.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

Katadunkass

The Banhammer
TranceFix Crew
Jun 27, 2020
1,453 Posts
1,265 Thanked
Age
33
Denmark
Don't mind me, I'm just here for the drama

giphy.gif
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
No, but it is outdated. Randomised clinical trail data back then was all there was. So given that his methodology and conclusions back then we’re actually fairly reasonable.
The J Fraiman paper was published in ~August 2022. Are you really implying that there were no data available other than the early randomized clinical trials from 2021?

As the article I linked mentions, this paper was only published because it has two big names attached to it, and one of them is a big time statistician. Everyone else has shown questionable antivaxx views, including the lead author who once said that antivaxx know more about the vaccine than vaxx. The statistics in the paper are actually really bad/unacademic and look more like what a desperate statistics student would attempt by massaging the data.

The paper *is* bad science, but the authors claim plausible deniability even though the entire antivaxx world (and no one else!) latched on to it.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
Don't mind me, I'm just here for the drama

giphy.gif
I mean, if Pfizer and Moderna committed fraud, sure, go ahead and prove that they did it. Show the data and statistical methods that prove these companies committed fraud. You have millions of dollars and a bright academic career ahead of you if you can do that!

The paper that Perpetuous Dreamer linked fails to do so. It proves nothing.
 

Katadunkass

The Banhammer
TranceFix Crew
Jun 27, 2020
1,453 Posts
1,265 Thanked
Age
33
Denmark
I mean, if Pfizer and Moderna committed fraud, sure, go ahead and prove that they did it. Show the data and statistical methods that prove these companies committed fraud. You have millions of dollars and a bright academic career ahead of you if you can do that!

The paper that Perpetuous Dreamer linked fails to do so. It proves nothing.
You sure you replied to the right person? As I said, I'm just here for the drama :ROFLMAO:
 

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,660 Posts
2,140 Thanked
Are you really implying that there were no data available other than the early randomized clinical trials from 2021?
No, buts that’s about 1 á half a year of collecting, indexing, researching writing and eventually publishing of one empirical strain. Not uncommon in medical research. It is empirical research. Not combining all potentially maybe available streams of data in 1 publication..

and that’s not even getting into potential gatekeeping of said other data streams.

I think you're (and the article author) are unfairly projecting malintent based on your personal hatred toward vax sceptics here..
 
Last edited:

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,660 Posts
2,140 Thanked
...

If I had to choose I would always agree with Jetflag.

I mean... he lives much closer to me. The possibility of him beating me up is a million times bigger than dmgtz96.
first: @dmgtz96 is a hot-blooded latino fitness fanatic with mexican herritage who probably has ties with the maffia there.

second: yes, I live closer to you but whereas i'm married to a tiny russian woman, you're married to a guy who's a head taller then you and me, so that would mean I would have two gay guys beating me up in the end, and god knows what you'll do to me when i'm out unconcious.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
No, buts that’s about 1 á half a year of collecting, indexing, researching writing and eventually publishing of one empirical strain. Not uncommon in medical research. It is empirical research. Not combining all potentially maybe available streams of data in 1 publication..

and that’s not even getting into potential gatekeeping of said other data streams.

I think you're (and the article author) are unfairly projecting malintent based on your personal hatred toward vax sceptics here..
Take My pro-vaxx stance out of the equation for a moment.
If I were an ardent antivaxxer, I would want ironclad proof that the vaccines are indeed as dangerous as the author claims. But the article fails to do what it set out to do, which is what the author of the article I linked mentions. The conclusions of the paper are not supported by actual statistics.

Ask yourself why that paper only has 43 citations. If it truly were as impactful as it claims to be, and if indeed 1 out of 800 people had "serious adverse events", all scientists everywhere would be citing it. Why aren't they?

That paper is no different from typical antivaxx propaganda. No real scientist will take it seriously (other than to point out the flaws in its premise and methodology), and it's more of an example of how peer-review can still fail.


You're getting lied to by the people that share your same perspective about vaccines.
 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,660 Posts
2,140 Thanked
Take My pro-vaxx stance out of the equation for a moment.
If I were an ardent antivaxxer, I would want ironclad proof that the vaccines are indeed as dangerous as the author claims. But the article fails to do what it set out to do, which is what the author of the article I linked mentions. The conclusions of the paper are not supported by actual statistics.
the conclusion (s) in the article are supported by the (now outdated but then relevant and available) empirical data set. This happens all the time in research. The author of the article you linked doesn’t factually debunk this, he just assigns subjectivity, subjectively. Same goes for so called P-hacking. you can make that argument about the vast majority of empirical research papers. (hence me pointing that out to perpetuous dreamer in my reply first sentence) that doesn't make it bad science, it just means is part of the corpus,

Ask yourself why that paper only has 43 citations. If it truly were as impactful as it claims to be, and if indeed 1 out of 800 people had "serious adverse events", all scientists everywhere would be citing it. Why aren't they?
Simple, like I said the empirical data set is now outdated. And 43 citations within 1 year on a very specific subset of a very specific topic is not that bad at all actually.
For reference, there’s broad scale genuine crackpot young universe creationist theory “papers” out there who’ve been cited 9 times in 10 years, almost exclusively by fellow creationist peers.

it doesn’t make the paper bad science. The methodology and procedures followed are sound, they aren't leading the evidence.. Had they done that and it not been the paper (especially given the topic and everybody being on top of it) would have been retracted by now.

That paper is no different from typical antivaxx propaganda. No real scientist will take it seriously (other than to point out the flaws in its premise and methodology), and it's more of an example of how peer-review can still fail.
No. What we have here is valid empirical research (on now outdated data) culminating in a valid scientific paper, with a stretched but still within bounds valid conclusion having passed multiple peer review stages and two publications by respectable medical journals.

…and 1 opinion piece /cope article on a medical website bemoaning that. If we’re going to talk about “massaging the data” fallacy here. The SBM opinion piece reads like an article from salon.com with things like “it suggests subjectivity to me” and “nonsense peddled” activist-language. its dripping with bias rather then an actual, scientific rebuttals and 25 odd what "twitter references". which i'd like to point out, is not the researchers fault nor "proof" the paper is ideologically or politically compromised.

If there’s the possibility, which I’m not going to deny that there might be, that the original paper had participants in it with an antivax sentiment, then that 1 wasn't severe enough in the end result to get it retracted or revise/reviewed by peers. and 2 certainly the case with this “investigative journalist” over here only then the other way around on the pro-vax camp.
You're getting lied to by the people that share your same perspective about vaccines.
my same perspective about vaccines compared to whom?

My perspective on vaccines is that , before releasing them. should be grounded in a solid corpus of scientific works and tests (so not just one or two papers, which is the mistake both your full-pro and dreamers full-against camp regularly make, that’s not how science works, notice also my first reply to the man) which, factually, didn’t happen with the sarscov2 vaccines and tests/procedures where skipped, specifically multiple long-therm effect test stages and being rushed into the demos.

hence we ended up with a fairly shit set of vaccines and a huge set of promises that wherent fulfilled. Hence me waiting and seeing.
Any other vaccines like polio that do meet those standards I’m all in favour of and have most of them in my body as we speak.

^if that is an unreasonable position to hold regarding medical science and vaccination in your view, then you should ask yourself who's actually the extreme party out of both of us here m8 😄 . and until ( and that’s a big untill) the paper is actually withdrawn, it remains a valid part of the corpus of scientific research surrounding COVID mRNA vaccines.
 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
the conclusion (s) in the article are supported by the (now outdated but then relevant and available) empirical data set. This happens all the time in research. The author of the article you linked doesn’t factually debunk this, he just assigns subjectivity, subjectively. Same goes for so called P-hacking. you can make that argument about the vast majority of empirical research papers. (hence me pointing that out to perpetuous dreamer in my reply first sentence) that doesn't make it bad science, it just means is part of the corpus,


Simple, like I said the empirical data set is now outdated. And 43 citations within 1 year on a very specific subset of a very specific topic is not that bad at all actually.
For reference, there’s broad scale genuine crackpot young universe creationist theory “papers” out there who’ve been cited 9 times in 10 years, almost exclusively by fellow creationist peers.

it doesn’t make the paper bad science. The methodology and procedures followed are sound, they aren't leading the evidence.. Had they done that and it not been the paper (especially given the topic and everybody being on top of it) would have been retracted by now.


No. What we have here is valid empirical research (on now outdated data) culminating in a valid scientific paper, with a stretched but still within bounds valid conclusion having passed multiple peer review stages and two publications by respectable medical journals.

…and 1 opinion piece /cope article on a medical website bemoaning that. If we’re going to talk about “massaging the data” fallacy here. The SBM opinion piece reads like an article from salon.com with things like “it suggests subjectivity to me” and “nonsense peddled” activist-language. its dripping with bias rather then an actual, scientific rebuttals and 25 odd what "twitter references". which i'd like to point out, is not the researchers fault nor "proof" the paper is ideologically or politically compromised.

If there’s the possibility, which I’m not going to deny that there might be, that the original paper had participants in it with an antivax sentiment, then that 1 wasn't severe enough in the end result to get it retracted or revise/reviewed by peers. and 2 certainly the case with this “investigative journalist” over here only then the other way around on the pro-vax camp.

my same perspective about vaccines compared to whom?

My perspective on vaccines is that , before releasing them. should be grounded in a solid corpus of scientific works and tests (so not just one or two papers, which is the mistake both your full-pro and dreamers full-against camp regularly make, that’s not how science works, notice also my first reply to the man) which, factually, didn’t happen with the sarscov2 vaccines and tests/procedures where skipped, specifically multiple long-therm effect test stages and being rushed into the demos.

hence we ended up with a fairly shit set of vaccines and a huge set of promises that wherent fulfilled. Hence me waiting and seeing.
Any other vaccines like polio that do meet those standards I’m all in favour of and have most of them in my body as we speak.

^if that is an unreasonable position to hold regarding medical science and vaccination in your view, then you should ask yourself who's actually the extreme party out of both of us here m8 😄 . and until ( and that’s a big untill) the paper is actually withdrawn, it remains a valid part of the corpus of scientific research surrounding COVID mRNA vaccines.
Since you're so keen on "unbiased" articles, here's another one fron SBM back from when the paper was still a pre-print.


The authors of the article you insist is "good science" effectively double-counted. If a single person has multiple serious adverse events, as defined by the weird definition of the Brighton organization, then that was counted as multiple instances of adverse events, but the paper really wants you to think that multiple people got adverse events. See the problem there?

There is one bit about data transparency, in which the article author agrees with Peter Doshi (one of the authors of the paper).

Like dude, you took some math and stats courses back in college. You should see that the paper did some serious massaging with the data to make their hypothesis look true.
 
Last edited:

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,660 Posts
2,140 Thanked
Since you're so keen on "unbiased" articles, here's another one fron SBM back from when the paper was still a pre-print.


The authors of the article you insist is "good science" effectively double-counted. If a single person has multiple serious adverse events, as defined by the weird definition of the Brighton organization, then that was counted as multiple instances of adverse events, but the paper really wants you to think that multiple people got adverse events. See the problem there?
so why wasn't the paper pulled then and/or isn't being pulled now? and please don't give me the "lobby" argument because if we're going down that road you might aswell chuck every single covid pro or con vaccination research in the bin.


Like dude, you took some math and stats courses back in college. You should see that the paper did some serious massaging with the data to make their hypothesis look true.
yeah but i'm also a realist who knows this happens all the time. in empirical (medical) research 😄. Do you honestly think this doens't happen with pfizer funded research that claim the vaccin is 97% effective?

This is why most published research in and of itself is wrong. and why the first thing i said to @Perpetuous dreamer is
"if you torture data long enough it'll confess to anything" so be carefull with latching on that or any other single paper.

.


it still doesn't make it an invalid research paper or something as outrageous as "antivaxx misinformation" not as long as it follows proper scientific procedures and its just part of the corpus that eventually sets the overall conclusion on the matter

Science as a methodology and system is in that way comparitivly a bit like a constitutional democracy. Its the absolute worst, -> except for all the others and simply the best we've got 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
so why wasn't the paper pulled then and/or isn't being pulled now? and please don't give me the "lobby" argument because if we're going down that road you might aswell chuck every single covid pro or con vaccination research in the bin.
nah, not lobby. It's kind of random when papers get retracted. Andrew Wakefield's "vaccines cause autism" paper from 1998 was retracted in 2010, which btw is what kicked off the entire antivaxx movement.
On the other hand, the hydroxychloroquine paper was retracted almost immediately because it was rightfully recognized as bad science.
yeah but i'm also a realist who knows this happens all the time. in empirical (medical) research 😄. Do you honestly think this doens't happen with pfizer funded research that claim the vaccin is 97% effective?

This is why most published research in and of itself is wrong. and why the first thing i said to @Perpetuous dreamer is
"if you torture data long enough it'll confess to anything" so be carefull with latching on that or any other single paper.
I'm not saying pfizer isn't doing it. They probably do, just like J Fraiman and colleagues did, but J Fraiman's paper is an extreme attempt at "torturing data."
it still doesn't make it an invalid research paper or something as outrageous as "antivaxx misinformation" not as long as it follows proper scientific procedures and its just part of the corpus that eventually sets the overall conclusion on the matter

Science as a methodology and system is in that way comparitivly a bit like a constitutional democracy. Its the absolute worst, -> except for all the others and simply the best we've got 🤷‍♂️
I agree with your last statement, but there are enough issues with the methodology that you should be careful of using it to determine the effectiveness and risk of COVID vaccines. The authors are double-counting, and you should be aware of that.

edit: I listened to that video up until I realized it was from Veritasium. He's a well-known science misinformer who only cares about money, so nothing he says should be taken seriously:


edit2: at least nothing that obviously has serious corporate sponsorship or deals with controversial topics
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag

Jetflag

Elite Member
Jul 17, 2020
2,660 Posts
2,140 Thanked
He's a well-known science misinformer who only cares about money, so nothing he says should be taken seriously
Nothing he sais should be taken seriously 😂

dude. HIS ENTIRE argument/vid is a 101 copy of the YouTube vid on p hacking you linked me not 3 posts ago!

like.. what’s it gonna be here m8? That’s untrue now is it?

Edit: i'm halfway in the tom nicholas video and you know what his argument boils down to?

Vertasium doesn't say anything factually wrong, but doesn't mention all the nitty gritty pro's cons and details in his 15 min video's whilst targeting an audience for money on youtube.

yes. SO DOES TOM NICHOLAS 😅 so does bill nye, so does michio kaku, so does f ing carl sagan.. 2 seconds in and we have surf-shark add, getting clicks from a target drama audience on youtube not going through veratasiums whole range of video's/topics.

By his own set of standards he himself is a “misinformation peddler” making money of that on YouTube. God the hypocrisy.. and I’m not even a veratasium subscriber eh, I just googled the first infovid on the topic
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2020
2,632 Posts
1,490 Thanked
Nothing he sais should be taken seriously 😂

dude. HIS ENTIRE argument/vid is a 101 copy of the YouTube vid on p hacking you linked me not 3 posts ago!

like.. what’s it gonna be here m8? That’s untrue now is it?

Edit: i'm halfway in the tom nicholas video and you know what his argument boils down to?

Vertasium doesn't say anything factually wrong, but doesn't mention all the nitty gritty pro's cons and details in his 15 min video's whilst targeting an audience for money on youtube.

yes. SO DOES TOM NICHOLAS 😅 so does bill nye, so does michio kaku, so does f ing carl sagan.. 2 seconds in and we have surf-shark add, getting clicks from a target drama audience on youtube not going through veratasiums whole range of video's/topics.

By his own set of standards he himself is a “misinformation peddler” making money of that on YouTube. God the hypocrisy.. and I’m not even a veratasium subscriber eh, I just googled the first infovid on the topic
Yeah it's a contradiction. I still don't trust veritasium though, atleast not compared to other scientists.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jetflag