[Rama Set]

In other news, most don’t talk about nothing happening after their vaccines.

[AATW]

Around the world we must be getting on for at least a billion people who have had the vaccine.
In a set of people that large you’re going to get some people who had reactions. Pretty easy to cherry pick from those people if you have a certain agenda.

[Rama Set]

Around the world we must be getting on for at least a billion people who have had the vaccine.
In a set of people that large you’re going to get some people who had reactions. Pretty easy to cherry pick from those people if you have a certain agenda.

It’s closer to 4 billion people.

[Tom Bishop]

Around the world we must be getting on for at least a billion people who have had the vaccine.
In a set of people that large you’re going to get some people who had reactions. Pretty easy to cherry pick from those people if you have a certain agenda.

This comment would be less imbecilic if there were not an abnormally large number of reactions in the US Government's only reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine effects in the public - https://openvaers.com/covid-data

Attempting to discredit or discount this means that you have no government reporting mechanism on the public's reaction to the vaccine, and no actual positive data of the vaccine's effects on the US public to point to.

[Rama Set]

Around the world we must be getting on for at least a billion people who have had the vaccine.
In a set of people that large you’re going to get some people who had reactions. Pretty easy to cherry pick from those people if you have a certain agenda.

This comment would be less imbecilic if there were not an abnormally large number of reactions in the US Government's only reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine effects in the public - https://openvaers.com/covid-data

Attempting to discredit or discount this means that you have no government reporting mechanism on the public's reaction to the vaccine, and no actual positive data of the vaccine's effects on the US public to point to.

Incredibly, even if you take VAERS as an accurate statistical report of side effects (it isn’t), the vaccines dearth rate is much lower than the actual virus. The death rate of 23,000 deaths in 1,000,000 reports give a .02% mortality. It’s going to be much close to 23,000 deaths in 500,000,000 doses though, since doctors are required to report all adverse events and practically every vaccine death would involve a doctor. It seems like when you look at VAERS that it actually supports that the vaccine isn’t dangerous statistically speaking.

EDIT: Also an obligatory mention that a death reported on VAERS is not confirmed by anyone, so differentiating a death with vaccine to a death from vaccine doesn’t happen.

[Tom Bishop]

Around the world we must be getting on for at least a billion people who have had the vaccine.
In a set of people that large you’re going to get some people who had reactions. Pretty easy to cherry pick from those people if you have a certain agenda.

This comment would be less imbecilic if there were not an abnormally large number of reactions in the US Government's only reporting mechanism for adverse vaccine effects in the public - https://openvaers.com/covid-data

Attempting to discredit or discount this means that you have no government reporting mechanism on the public's reaction to the vaccine, and no actual positive data of the vaccine's effects on the US public to point to.

Incredibly, even if you take VAERS as an accurate statistical report of side effects (it isn’t), the vaccines dearth rate is much lower than the actual virus. The death rate of 23,000 deaths in 1,000,000 reports give a .02% mortality. It’s going to be much close to 23,000 deaths in 500,000,000 doses though, since doctors are required to report all adverse events and practically every vaccine death would involve a doctor. It seems like when you look at VAERS that it actually supports that the vaccine isn’t dangerous statistically speaking.

The data shows that adverse effects reported is very abnormal as compared to previous years and previous vaccines.

There are also several studies showing that VAERS is underreported.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk

"Notably, adult vaccination increased ulterior mortality of unvaccinated young (<18, US; <15, Europe). Comparing our estimate with the CDC-reported VFR (0.002%) suggests VAERS deaths are underreported by a factor of 20, consistent with known VAERS under-ascertainment bias. Comparing our age-stratified VFRs with published age-stratified coronavirus infection fatality rates (IFR) suggests the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure."

https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system

"Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than one percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

"Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of
ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events
and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."

[Rama Set]

So a study that is in preprint and two reports using data over a decade old? None of which says that the COVID vaccine is dangerous. Please tell me why I should find this compelling?

Have you looked at any studies in a controlled setting regarding vaccine safety? We all know that you consider science to be garbage unless it is in a controlled setting.

[Tom Bishop]

So a study that is in preprint and two reports using data over a decade old? None of which says that the COVID vaccine is dangerous. Please tell me why I should find this compelling?

A decade ago was only 2012. Are you claiming that this was an era of stone age methodology? Do you honestly think the 2021 preprint is liable to change considering that previous studies have also concluded severe under reporting?

We know that VAERS reports that there have been significantly more vaccine adverse effects compared to vaccines of previous years.



We also know that VAERS is a system which is being significantly under reported to.

Otherwise we have no data on the US public's adverse reactions to the vaccine.

It is pretty disingenuous to argue that we should trash the data because it "could" be incorrect and instead rely on zero data.

Have you looked at any studies in a controlled setting regarding vaccine safety? We all know that you consider science to be garbage unless it is in a controlled setting.

Yes, I looked into it. The FDA has been arguing that they need 75 years to give it to us. Luckily a Republican judge from Texas has ruled otherwise.

Article from Jan 7 2022 -

https://denvergazette.com/news/judge-scraps-75-year-fda-timeline-to-release-pfizer-vaccine-safety-data-giving-agency-eight/article_f007b8b4-ad66-59b4-a270-4709bc3e4814.html





Have you ever considered that you are on the evil side of this?

[Rama Set]

So a study that is in preprint and two reports using data over a decade old? None of which says that the COVID vaccine is dangerous. Please tell me why I should find this compelling?

A decade ago was only 2012. Are you claiming that this was an era of stone age methodology?

Are you just going to ask disingenuous and idiotic questions?

Do you honestly think the 2021 preprint is liable to change considering that previous studies have also concluded severe under reporting?

So you think we should just assume it is right?

Otherwise we have no data on the US public's adverse reactions to the vaccine.

It is pretty disingenuous to argue that we should trash the data because it "could" be incorrect and instead rely on zero data.

No disingenuous would be assuming that I said anywhere that we should trash the data.  That would be disingenuous.

Have you looked at any studies in a controlled setting regarding vaccine safety? We all know that you consider science to be garbage unless it is in a controlled setting.

Yes, I looked into it. The FDA has been arguing that they need 75 years to give it to us. Luckily a Republican judge from Texas has ruled otherwise.[/quote]

I guess you did a half assed job then if you only looked at the US.  Considering that most of the doses of mRNA vaccine have been delivered outside the US, you might consider going further afield.

Have you ever considered that you are on the evil side of this?

That's what you conclude with?  Obvious troll is obivous.  I expect more, Bom.

[Action80]

This seems rather curious.



If the vaccine is what it is and safe, why wouldn't Pfizer just say, "Sure, we're right on board with you!"

[Lord Dave]

This seems rather curious.



If the vaccine is what it is and safe, why wouldn't Pfizer just say, "Sure, we're right on board with you!"

Not really.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-govt-wont-buy-pfizer-moderna-vaccines-amid-local-output-sources-2021-09-21/

1. Old news.
2. They have a locally produced vaccine: Johnson and Johnson.  Which they need since alot of India lacks the storage facilities needed for the vaccine so having it made in country helps.
3. They don't wanna give immunity to lawsuits for side effects.

[stack]

If the vaccine is what it is and safe, why wouldn't Pfizer just say, "Sure, we're right on board with you!"

I'm guessing $$$, cost.

In any case, it's not like India doesn't have vaccines:

"Pfizer had sought authorisation for its vaccine in India late last year, but the government in January approved two much cheaper shots - one from Oxford University/AstraZeneca (AZN.L) and another developed in India by Bharat Biotech with the Indian Council of Medical Research."

So I'm not sure what the big deal is. Something like 1.8 vaccine doses have been administered in India. Vaccines are obviously still very much in play.

[Action80]

This seems rather curious.



If the vaccine is what it is and safe, why wouldn't Pfizer just say, "Sure, we're right on board with you!"

Not really.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-govt-wont-buy-pfizer-moderna-vaccines-amid-local-output-sources-2021-09-21/

1. Old news.
2. They have a locally produced vaccine: Johnson and Johnson.  Which they need since alot of India lacks the storage facilities needed for the vaccine so having it made in country helps.
3. They don't wanna give immunity to lawsuits for side effects. It is wrong for a government to demand trials of a drug and okay for a company to demand the same government protect them liability in case of damages.

FTFY, I guess.

[Action80]

If the vaccine is what it is and safe, why wouldn't Pfizer just say, "Sure, we're right on board with you!"

I'm guessing $$$, cost.

In any case, it's not like India doesn't have vaccines:

"Pfizer had sought authorisation for its vaccine in India late last year, but the government in January approved two much cheaper shots - one from Oxford University/AstraZeneca (AZN.L) and another developed in India by Bharat Biotech with the Indian Council of Medical Research."

So I'm not sure what the big deal is. Something like 1.8 vaccine doses have been administered in India. Vaccines are obviously still very much in play.

The big deal is the matter of a company having government provided immunity from liability from any adverse affects of the vaccine.

That seems like a rather large deal to me.

[Lord Dave]

This seems rather curious.



If the vaccine is what it is and safe, why wouldn't Pfizer just say, "Sure, we're right on board with you!"

Not really.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-govt-wont-buy-pfizer-moderna-vaccines-amid-local-output-sources-2021-09-21/

1. Old news.
2. They have a locally produced vaccine: Johnson and Johnson.  Which they need since alot of India lacks the storage facilities needed for the vaccine so having it made in country helps.
3. They don't wanna give immunity to lawsuits for side effects. It is wrong for a government to demand trials of a drug and okay for a company to demand the same government protect them liability in case of damages.

FTFY, I guess.

Still not sure what you're getting at.
The immunity bit is pretty standard.  Its so they don't have that .02% who have bad reactions sue them for alot of money.  You act like this is somehow new.

Go check other vaccines.
Honestly, it was probabky just redtape so they could justify keeping the locally produced vaccine instead of importing one.

[Action80]

Still not sure what you're getting at.
The immunity bit is pretty standard.  Its so they don't have that .02% who have bad reactions sue them for alot of money.  You act like this is somehow new.

The immunity bit is not necessarily standard, and the reaction from the Indian Government is, "We're not going to play that stupid bullshit here! Either you acknowledge the need for further clinical trials or get the fuck out with this bullshit your peddling."

You act like the .02% is a legitimate number.

Go check other vaccines.

Why? Who cares?

Honestly, it was probabky just redtape so they could justify keeping the locally produced vaccine instead of importing one.

Honestly, you continue to roll out a litany of ridiculous revised explanations for what took place here.

The Indian Government told Pfizer to take their inadequately tested vaccine and shove it up their ass and for good reason.

It seems the Indian government has some sense.

[Lord Dave]

Still not sure what you're getting at.
The immunity bit is pretty standard.  Its so they don't have that .02% who have bad reactions sue them for alot of money.  You act like this is somehow new.

The immunity bit is not necessarily standard, and the reaction from the Indian Government is, "We're not going to play that stupid bullshit here! Either you acknowledge the need for further clinical trials or get the fuck out with this bullshit your peddling."

Then why are they using the Johnson and Johnson vaccine?  Same trial time.

You act like the .02% is a legitimate number.

I mean, I was making it high.  Let me grab the real number...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html#18-serious-adverse-events

.06% had serious side effects in the vaccine group.  .05% in the placebo group.
Meaning its .01% of people likely had vaccine related issues that were serious.

Go check other vaccines.

Why? Who cares?

Honestly, it was probabky just redtape so they could justify keeping the locally produced vaccine instead of importing one.

Honestly, you continue to roll out a litany of ridiculous revised explanations for what took place here.

The Indian Government told Pfizer to take their inadequately tested vaccine and shove it up their ass and for good reason.

It seems the Indian government has some sense.

Yet again, use the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
I mean, if you think that one is superior and the Pfizer is bad, thats another debate.

[Action80]

Still not sure what you're getting at.
The immunity bit is pretty standard.  Its so they don't have that .02% who have bad reactions sue them for alot of money.  You act like this is somehow new.

The immunity bit is not necessarily standard, and the reaction from the Indian Government is, "We're not going to play that stupid bullshit here! Either you acknowledge the need for further clinical trials or get the fuck out with this bullshit your peddling."

Then why are they using the Johnson and Johnson vaccine?  Same trial time.

You provided the answer yourself. Evidently locally produced and the trials took place in the Indian population.

You act like the .02% is a legitimate number.

I mean, I was making it high.  Let me grab the real number...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html#18-serious-adverse-events

.06% had serious side effects in the vaccine group.  .05% in the placebo group.
Meaning its .01% of people likely had vaccine related issues that were serious.

That is some serious math you got going on there!

The .06% number stands alone and there is no reduction in that number just because Sally down the street had some of the same serious side effects by drinking plain old water.

Go check other vaccines.

Why? Who cares?

Honestly, it was probabky just redtape so they could justify keeping the locally produced vaccine instead of importing one.

Honestly, you continue to roll out a litany of ridiculous revised explanations for what took place here.

The Indian Government told Pfizer to take their inadequately tested vaccine and shove it up their ass and for good reason.

It seems the Indian government has some sense.

Yet again, use the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
I mean, if you think that one is superior and the Pfizer is bad, thats another debate.

I am simply pointing out that Pfizer refuses refuses to perform what would be standard day-to-day medical business practices for a company seeking a potential market.

[Lord Dave]

Still not sure what you're getting at.
The immunity bit is pretty standard.  Its so they don't have that .02% who have bad reactions sue them for alot of money.  You act like this is somehow new.

The immunity bit is not necessarily standard, and the reaction from the Indian Government is, "We're not going to play that stupid bullshit here! Either you acknowledge the need for further clinical trials or get the fuck out with this bullshit your peddling."

Then why are they using the Johnson and Johnson vaccine?  Same trial time.

You provided the answer yourself. Evidently locally produced and the trials took place in the Indian population.

Glad we agree then.

You act like the .02% is a legitimate number.

I mean, I was making it high.  Let me grab the real number...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html#18-serious-adverse-events

.06% had serious side effects in the vaccine group.  .05% in the placebo group.
Meaning its .01% of people likely had vaccine related issues that were serious.

That is some serious math you got going on there!

The .06% number stands alone and there is no reduction in that number just because Sally down the street had some of the same serious side effects by drinking plain old water.

Kinda does, yeah.  Means the side effects may not be related to the vaccine.  The goal is to determine what happens with and without the vaccine.  If people have the same issue regardless, you can't attribute it to the vaccine itself.  Same with any medicine or any study with a control group.
If 100 people drink the new pepsi, another 100 drink only water, and 10 from each group puke... New pepsi probably didn't make them puke.  Unless the control group was just a coincidence.

Go check other vaccines.

Why? Who cares?

Honestly, it was probabky just redtape so they could justify keeping the locally produced vaccine instead of importing one.

Honestly, you continue to roll out a litany of ridiculous revised explanations for what took place here.

The Indian Government told Pfizer to take their inadequately tested vaccine and shove it up their ass and for good reason.

It seems the Indian government has some sense.

Yet again, use the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
I mean, if you think that one is superior and the Pfizer is bad, thats another debate.

I am simply pointing out that Pfizer refuses refuses to perform what would be standard day-to-day medical business practices for a company seeking a potential market.

Know wnat?
Sure.
Lets agree on that then.
Glad you approve of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine at least.

[Action80]

You act like the .02% is a legitimate number.

I mean, I was making it high.  Let me grab the real number...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html#18-serious-adverse-events

.06% had serious side effects in the vaccine group.  .05% in the placebo group.
Meaning its .01% of people likely had vaccine related issues that were serious.

That is some serious math you got going on there!

The .06% number stands alone and there is no reduction in that number just because Sally down the street had some of the same serious side effects by drinking plain old water.

Kinda does, yeah.  Means the side effects may not be related to the vaccine.  The goal is to determine what happens with and without the vaccine.  If people have the same issue regardless, you can't attribute it to the vaccine itself.  Same with any medicine or any study with a control group.
If 100 people drink the new pepsi, another 100 drink only water, and 10 from each group puke... New pepsi probably didn't make them puke.  Unless the control group was just a coincidence.

No, absolutely not. Incorrect.

Know wnat?
Sure.
Lets agree on that then.
Glad you approve of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine at least.

I approve of valid clinical trials and full transparency.

You, it seems at least, (based on your posts), approve of underhanded shady dealings by pharmaceutical companies and world governments.

Unbelievable.