Stupid shit in Medellin

[JustTK]

most of these RCT samples are different than the samples used to base the shutdowns on.

Even though we disagree I enjoyed the discussion and hope you have a nice night.

Thats fine. I enjoy a friendly back and forth. These are the same studies. They are the only ones that exist. Watch the video I posted today for another interpretation.

What I find frustrating are the blinkered people that label all analysts as anti vaccers unless they sign and dance along w the govt line. It shows how inept their position is.

[JjBee62]

For anyone that is interested in the subject (ii. E. Anyone that is not overwhelmingly consumed by cognitive dissonance that the last thing they want to doscuss this days is COVID), here is an excellent discusson on this very study:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_nKoybyMGg

Very fair and balance views expressed. Interesting to anyone that seeks the truth.

And once again, biased YouTube videos, geared towards idiots, serve no purpose except to highlight the stupidity of the idiots who post links to YouTube videos.

If you want to learn how to replace the cabin air filter on your 2009 Chevrolet, go to YouTube. If you want to watch videos of guys getting hit in the gonads, go to YouTube.

If you want to discuss complex scientific studies, go directly to the studies. Anything you find on YouTube is either biased and misleading, completely incorrect or dumbed down to toddler level. Unless you're only able to handle scientific research at a 4 year old level, you're intentionally attempting to push biased, misleading and often totally incorrect material.

Considering you're the one who complained about the days getting too short, I'm going with both 4 year old mentality and biased and misleading.

[JustTK]

Then it seems you either didn't watch the video or you didn't pay attention to what I wrote.

For anyone that is interested in the subject (ii. E. Anyone that is not overwhelmingly consumed by cognitive dissonance that the last thing they want to doscuss this days is COVID), here is an excellent discusson on this very study:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_nKoybyMGg

Very fair and balance views expressed. Interesting to anyone that seeks the truth.

[Paulie97]

I think you emphasize 10. To me that implies the good sex is in your head, and it is not physical.

There's no evidence that this Elvis twerp has ever been to Colombia, much less had a ten, has anyone met the guy? I've asked this before I know, no response.

[Osteoknot]

I disagree with your take on the conclusions in the study

The paper was not designed to make the points for which the anti-vaxers are attempting to use it. The paper was specifically looking at all-cause benefits in the adenovirus-vector arm, hence the title, "Do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects"? Although I have a feeling the authors formed the title after they analyzed their results which isn't Kosher if operating under the pure scientific method where the premise should have been based on a null hypothesis.

The authors feel they proved the benefit in their title. I can't find enough fault with their preliminary findings to say further study is not warranted.

In fact, overall the paper is a "plus" or a win for supporting vaccination because the adenovirus-vector arm showed a clear, statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality.

The Original Poster (OP) commits one of the classic, all-time pitfalls when he poses an argument or evidence that actually supports the opposite viewpoint. Comical, really, and I never cease to be amazed at this how common this intellectual blunder occurs.

You are correct to point out that the death numbers are very small which makes all conclusions suspect, especially considering that data collection was taken from multiple trials with different methodologies, one of the inherent weaknesses in all Review Papers. Did you notice the authors resorted to calling the authors of the original papers to figure out who died from what? While I admire that tenacity, that speaks volumes to the tenuous nature of the data.

That there was not a reduction in overall mortality in the mRNA arm of the study (code for Pfizer and Moderna) is not a surprise. The majority of the individuals in the trials were healthy volunteers. In real-life, COVID-19 vaccines are administered to highly vulnerable populations with high COVID-19-dependent mortalities. The "real world" outcomes are probably significantly different, and I expect would show such a reduction.

In spite of these limitations, the authors concluded that all the vaccines, including Pfizer and Moderna were associated with a lower risk of Covid-19 death, a point that seems to have been lost by the anti-vaxers.

No matter what side of the fence you are on, it only hurts your cause when you take an original scientific research paper that shows the opposite of your beliefs, and then try to co-opt and warp the results to support your viewpoint. That is intellectual laziness caused my emotional zealousness, and creates an instant loss of credibility.

I will not respond to any additional additional posts about this unless by some minor miracle, someone here for the first time has something more advanced to say compared to the sum total of all the prior posts here on Covid. I don't even know why I submit myself to this extra energy other than I think it's intellectual heresy to make the kind of uninformed conclusions the OP made from this paper.

DontSayMuch ShouldSayMore because he is the first person I have seen her in a long time who knows how to think critically without an obvious unfounded bias.

I have no axe to grind. Everything I have predicted about Covid so far has come true. The vaccines are medically becoming a moot point, and all restrictions are easing up. Let's hope a new more virulent strain doesn't pop up somewhere.

Don't try to engage me on these issues. I will not choose to waste my time like that. This post is just about the paper and its misinterpretation.

If I were one of the original journal reviewers who decided whether or not the paper gets published, which was one of the many hats I wore, I would have said the paper was in need of a major rewrite and reorganization before publication.

[JjBee62]

I read the study cited by the website and the video titled.

"Randomised clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: do adenovirus-vector.

Vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects?

I disagree with your take on the conclusions in the study. The paper clearly states that the vaccines had an effect on Covid-19 related deaths. They also have incredibly low numbers. When you are looking at 1/21926 vs 2/21926, the numbers are so small that just +1/-1 throws it all out of whack. Look at the chart in the study discussing AstraZeneca in South America.

The effect on all-cause mortality is that the placebo has a mortality rate three times as high as the vaccine. This is accurate but then you see that the number is 1/1011 (with vaccine) vs 3/1011 (without vaccine).

You'll have to forgive JustTk. He's an idiot. If it's on YouTube, that's all the proof he needs.

[DontSayMuch]

Then it seems you either didn't watch the video or you didn't pay attention to what I wrote. I mentioned Pfizer and Moderna. I did not mention adenovirus vaccines.

Agreed, the sample sizes are small. But these are the same RCT samples that governments decided it was a great idea to lock the entire wolrd down for 2 years. They re the only ones that we have, and they show no conclusive effect of mRNA vaccines on all-cause mortality. Watch the video, the guy explains it all very well.

Right, you didn't mention adenovirus. That was the name of the study though. The study is the one the video used and, in my opinion, purposefully mislead upon. Also not to nitpick, but most of these RCT samples are different than the samples used to base the shutdowns on.

If you look at figure1 in the study it shows that the vaccines have a strong correlation on deterring COVID-19 death. And even though it weakens my point LOL, I have to point out that even though there is a very strong effect shown it's really the difference of 5 people.

The study is a quick read if anyone wants to look:

SSRN-id4072489. Pdf.

That's the file referenced.

Even though we disagree I enjoyed the discussion and hope you have a nice night.

[JustTK]

I think you emphasize 10. To me that implies the good sex is in your head, and it is not physical.

I had a 10.5 many times from Tuk Tik. And I didn't commit to her anymore than the 100's of other guys she fucks every year. If I loved her and committed to her. I might be less impressed by the handful of guys that visit her room every day.

[JustTK]

I read the study cited by the website and the video titled.
"Randomised clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: do adenovirus-vector.
Vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects?

Then it seems you either didn't watch the video or you didn't pay attention to what I wrote. I mentioned Pfizer and Moderna. I did not mention adenovirus vaccines.

Agreed, the sample sizes are small. But these are the same RCT samples that governments decided it was a great idea to lock the entire wolrd down for 2 years. They re the only ones that we have, and they show no conclusive effect of mRNA vaccines on all-cause mortality. Watch the video, the guy explains it all very well.

[DontSayMuch]

Ah well you see, this is why you will like this study. It ignores the cause of death. It looks at ALL-cause mortality. And it shows that Pfizer and Moderna had zero effect on all cause mortlity. The only RCTs ever done show us that.

I read the study cited by the website and the video titled.

"Randomised clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: do adenovirus-vector.

Vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects?

I disagree with your take on the conclusions in the study. The paper clearly states that the vaccines had an effect on Covid-19 related deaths. They also have incredibly low numbers. When you are looking at 1/21926 vs 2/21926, the numbers are so small that just +1/-1 throws it all out of whack. Look at the chart in the study discussing AstraZeneca in South America.

The effect on all-cause mortality is that the placebo has a mortality rate three times as high as the vaccine. This is accurate but then you see that the number is 1/1011 (with vaccine) vs 3/1011 (without vaccine).

[Nounce]

...
So to have the best sex IMO, you get a woman who is very attractive who is a 10 in bed but who has no inhibitions, and I do not think you get there unless you commit to her...

I think you emphasize 10. To me that implies the good sex is in your head, and it is not physical.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Ah well you see, this is why you will like this study. It ignores the cause of death. It looks at ALL-cause mortality. And it shows that Pfizer and Moderna had zero effect on all cause mortlity. The only RCTs ever done show us that.

https://thehill.com/changing-america...d-by-covid-19/

[JustTK]

So she lets you fuck her ass and shit on her face?

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/ZpHfk943T9I

She's the best sex I ever had in Thailand.

[JustTK]

It is really hard to prove something prevents death and even harder when you realize how the pols dictate what is put on a death certificate. That is why death numbers so often are fake.

Ah well you see, this is why you will like this study. It ignores the cause of death. It looks at ALL-cause mortality. And it shows that Pfizer and Moderna had zero effect on all cause mortlity. The only RCTs ever done show us that.

[Villainy]

...... You can even win it and not be a head turner LOL!

Very true and sometimes it made me wonder if they were a "head-giver" since they weren't a "head-turner".