Stupid shit in Medellin

[Ptrbrgr]

First, allow me to say kudos on a well thought out response. I would agree with most of your points and disagree with a few.

I also appreciate the dialogue and that you share your reasoning in a way one can have a discussion. With apologies, my response will be a bit shorter as things are very busy at the moment.

This is really not meant to be condescending, but I am predicting you never ran a clinical trial yourself or served on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB). So here is the gist: Every clinical trial (this one, run by Pfizer) has oversight by an independent group of experts. That's the DSMB. The trial protocol is established and agreed upon before the trial starts, and includes a detailed plan for interim analyses and early stopping rules. And if the trialists deviate one iota from the protocol, the DSMB hands them their asses. It rarely happens, but when it does, it is epic.

I could not disagree more. As I said earlier in the thread, this was arguably the most important human trials of our lifetime. You contradict yourself when you say everything went as planned. And then detail how they moved the mark. It's like a 100-question exam. If you answer the first 10 questions correctly, you can stop there and claim a perfect score? I concede there is an ethical argument that can be made. (I don't necessarily agree with it on balance.) But to pull the plug 2 months in because you like the early results? That's borderline unethical.

It is important to understand that nobody moved any mark, whatsoever. The early stopping rules were detailed in the protocol before the trial started. As the data comes in, at prespecified intervals the evidence is assessed. These are the interim analyses. To stop a trial early for positive reasons, the evidence for efficacy has to be overwhelming. The fact that you look at the data multiple times throughout a trial on a rolling basis is taken into account by what's called type I error attribution (type I error means you falsely conclude the treatment is effective when it is not). So nobody gets to cherry pick because they like the early results. When you start a trial, you have no idea what the outcome will be. There are many avenues a trial can take, and the decision rules where to go are established in the protocol. In this trial, an interim analysis hit all primary efficacy endpoints and safety checks, as specified in the protocol. In general, this can happen after 1 month, this can happen after 1 year, it might never happen and the trial runs for the maximum time specified in the protocol. In this trial, it happened after 2 months. Nobody moved any mark. Everything went as planned, according to protocol. The "not according to plan" in the video is a blatant lie.

We lost any ability to track longevity.

It depends on what you mean by "track longevity". As far as estimation of efficacy is concerned: yes, that ended when the trial was unblinded. But as I said above, when they stopped the trial the evidence was beyond any reasonable doubt that the vaccine was effective. The safety monitoring of course is still is ongoing.

And lo and behold, one of the biggest problems we have today is the vaccine waning.

I would argue the biggest issue right now is that omicron is a completely new serotype, which means it is a variant with a different set of antigens. So the standard vaccines do little if anything to prevent transmission. Yes, the antibodies are waning over time, but that has nothing to do with this trial per se. The vaccines still keep you out of the hospital (and preliminary data seem to indicate especially so if you have received a booster shot; and no, I am not a pharma guy).

Let's not mention long term side effects.

There is a common misconception what "long term side effects" means. Yes, there can be long term side effects. But is not going to be that in 10 years all of a sudden pandemonium starts among a large proportion of the vaccinated. The long term side effects we are concerned about are the really severe ones that are rare. Long term means you have to be monitoring for a long time so you observe enough of these rare events to be able to link them to the vaccine.

But this is where it gets ugly and sinister. We allowed Pfizer to grade their own test. Granted, that's normal. But the FDA and CDC were waiting with their rubber stamp. The reality: they got a 100% on those first 10 questions but boy, they sure didn't earn a perfect score.

See above, this is not true. There is no way any trial is going to stop early unless the DSMB is 100% behind it. And the NEJM report went through an additional set of independent hands. I agree that the CDC and FDA were probably very happy to put their stamp of approval onto this, but given the clean outcome of the trial, that was not a difficult decision to make.

I'm ashamed to admit to being a numbers nerd. LOL. Again, I don't disagree with much of what was said. Both RRR and ARR are valid metrics. And you were very effective in summarizing their worth. But what I strongly object to is selling RRR as efficacy. Or even the false definition spread about efficacy. Use your example. If that old lady got a flier saying you are 95% more likely to stay free of covid if you take this shot, would she? Because that's what happened to the masses. And that is not at all accurate. So I suppose my beef is more with the marketing vs the actual math. Here again, I blame CDC and FDA as much as I blame Pfizer. And I blame our policy makers even more. They put the politics over science anf clarity.

Good for you! I think we are walking in lock step about our assessment of the piss poor communication that took place throughout the pandemic, and the CDC to the day proudly carries that torch. Now to your point: I fully agree that most people including the elderly lady when asked would interpret efficacy incorrectly. My point was that despite what the CCCA wants you to believe, the ARR is even harder to correctly interpret in this particular context. The ARR changes when you run the trial longer or shorter (see previous post). The ARR changes when you run the trial for the same time but at a different point in time (because the prevalence of the virus will have changed). The ARR changes if you run the trial in a different population (healthier populations have a better chance of fighting of infections). So to correctly interpret the ARR in the context of a clinical trial, you would have to list all conditions that could affect the endpoint, and I would argue the vast majority of such conditions aren't even known to us (think genetics). The ARR is not a fixed number, unless you can specify all these conditions. And even then, it is not generalizable going forward. The RRR is the same in all of those settings, because the conditions (known or unknown) are the same in the treatment and placebo arm through randomization, and that stuff (disclaimer: typically) cancels when you calculate relative measurements. So yes, we should do a much better job of explaining what all of this means, but if you can't convey to grandma what the RRR means, zero chance you can convey what the ARR really means in this context. Again, medical decision making is a totally different story.

But I would also argue that often you don't have to be an expert to keep up, a little bit of critical thinking can go a long way. For example, let's assume you are watching the CCCA video, and they fully convince you that the FDA said you should always report the ARR and not the RRR, because the ARR is less misleading and more objective. Fine. But two minutes later, literally two minutes later after kicking up all this dust, the CCCA decries a 300% increase in adverse events comparing the vaccine to the placebo group. That number, my man, is a relative rate change. And at that point a little light bulb should go on - "wait a minute, didn't they just say you should always. . . ? " And if the CCCA hasn't lulled you, I think you would come to the conclusion that these CCCA people are either a bunch of hacks, or that they are trying to do a number on you. Or both.

[Nounce]

For anyone traveling internationally, the pandemic isn't over, no matter what they think. If you're required to have a negative test to enter a country, telling the airline that your positive test doesn't matter because the pandemic is over for you, won't get you on the plane. Taking off your mask on the plane will still have you in legal trouble, if you refuse to put it back on...

That is why I say for me freedom is a collective right. Just follow rules and move on. What I am trying to say in my post is that the debate here or issue like this in general is not a science one, not the type of science being discussed here. You won't get very far at this point if you only focus on numbers or medical science alone.

Also the way you frame your reply here because you impose an idea on someone who may think differently but follow the rules. I think that is why it ends with shutting match.

Didn't you notice that Elvis was not really saying vaccine does not work, although that may seem what he was saying, but based on the reply, I think he was saying virus is evolving faster than vaccine development. I am not him, so only he knows what he thinks but that is what I came away with. The other poster reacted negatively about my post is similar.

[JjBee62]

And how many slaves did you see refusing to pick cotton? Different day and time. Back then it was send your soul to heaven because your ass belongs to Uncle Sam. Today people are more fuck this bullshit; I am going home.

If people had been of the mind of refusing then that is exactly what they would have done. And I am not saying they would have refused because of the vaccine. They would have refused because of the needles alone.

I tell people that 2 times I have literally seen grown men cry are when it was time to get a shot and when it was time to jump into some water. There were a lot of damn people that can't swim and are deathly afraid of water that went to join the Navy. Maybe they did not know they would have to get into the water at one point or another? Enjoy your basements gentlemen. Excuse me as I head out to enjoy this fine Cancun day.

I didn't realize you were old enough to actually see slaves picking cotton? Amazing. Your 200th birthday should be coming up soon.

I'm having trouble figuring this out. Are you saying that people in the military are slaves? Or that slaves were all volunteers? Seems a rather strange comparison to make.

But they didn't refuse because of the needles alone. 2 guys fainted every single time. 1 guy pissed his pants every single time. Can't get much more terrified than that.

The difference wasn't that everyone then thought their ass belonged to Uncle Sam. The difference was they didn't have a bunch of unqualified conspiracy theorists making up horror stories about the vaccines. Unfortunately, people are more willing to believe a lie than the truth. And more people are willing to spread lies rather than learn the truth. I guess it makes them feel important.

For example, earlier you lied (many times, but just one example) when you said you can't read more than 2 lines of anything I write. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how someone can have 2 separate Covid infections in under 1 month. Still working on it?

Hate to disappoint you. I don't have a basement, not that I'm ever home. Only home 28 hours last week. Hoping to get in 40 hours this week.

[Mr Enternational]

I don't recall anyone refusing the forced vaccinations I went through. Pretty sure they would have quickly been removed. Either that or, someone would have helped hold them down and they would have been vaccinated anyway.

And how many slaves did you see refusing to pick cotton? Different day and time. Back then it was send your soul to heaven because your ass belongs to Uncle Sam. Today people are more fuck this bullshit; I am going home.

If people had been of the mind of refusing then that is exactly what they would have done. And I am not saying they would have refused because of the vaccine. They would have refused because of the needles alone.

I tell people that 2 times I have literally seen grown men cry are when it was time to get a shot and when it was time to jump into some water. There were a lot of damn people that can't swim and are deathly afraid of water that went to join the Navy. Maybe they did not know they would have to get into the water at one point or another? Enjoy your basements gentlemen. Excuse me as I head out to enjoy this fine Cancun day.

[ChuchoLoco]

CL, what is frustrating to me is that it is the number of droplets that cause disease, and the government has just emphasized the mask when that is a small part of the whole picture. Yeah, N95 probably works better than cloth. I think both are helpful though. Thing is that it is just not masks but length of time with someone and talking to them and also the force of the particles expired so more with singing, laughing, coughing, or the force of someone's voice. The goal is to limit the exposure of those particles.

And handwashing was a complete joke. Social distancing was pretty arbitrary as well.

The NFL did some great Covid studies. It was thought that you had to be present with someone for 10 minutes indoors to catch Covid from them. The NFL found that if people were talking to each other and not wearing masks, there could be transmission of the virus in as little as 5 minutes.

But like I said, you can throw that all out the window now. You have teams that are 98% vaxxed and half the team has Covid. I do not know what the time frame is with catching Covid now. It seems like it may be down to a minute or two and now the people do not look sick. Outside of doing what Paulie does and living in a bunker, I do not know how someone does not catch omicron.

E, Just saw this. CDC is now saying that the virus is only active and alive and therefore contagious in the air for only 5 minutes! Maybe they are just learning along the way. Only thing, my son had to go to emergency room here in US for non virus reason anf he told me the ER was overflowing and people wired up and O2 in hallways and waiting area. He left but his doctor got him a room. Spoke with a friend's wife who works there and they have 3 times the virus patients compared to highest level a while ago. Not sure wtf is going on. I don't think angone really knows. All I know is we live in a crazy time. Keep staying healthy and enjoying yourself and same to all.

[JjBee62]

Are you stupid or are you just dumb? Forced quarantine of actual TB PATIENTS you compare to forced discaharge of people with nothing wrong with them, people with no disease to spread. But I guess we are going by they MIGHT get a disease to spread around. So if calculations are correct, now that the noncompliant selfish morons are gone we should see nobody in the military come up with the disease to spread around. If there was a Nobel prize for stupid you would be a repeat winner. But since there is not you will just have to keep settling for being a loser.

I don't recall anyone refusing the forced vaccinations I went through. Pretty sure they would have quickly been removed. Either that or, someone would have helped hold them down and they would have been vaccinated anyway.

This is pure speculation. What if the Pentagon mandate has less to do with spreading the disease and more to do with minimizing the serious illness cases? If 20% of your crew is incapacitated with Covid, you've got a problem. If 20% of your crew has a mild cough and fever, you're still able to operate.

[JjBee62]

Or, they survive as a paraplegic, and you, JB, taxpayers in general, and I have to support them in a vegetative state for years. I'm old enough to admit that I only started wearing my seat belt when my employer required it. It became a habit. Then it became a law.

So how others' behaviors affect the society in which they live does actually matter. A lot of the stuff I hear opposing vax mandates is the exact same crap from 40 years ago about seat belt laws. Now, I'm quite sure that seat belt usage is lower among the un vaxxed. I'd bet my own money on it if anyone can prove it. So it's the same kind of people saying it's personal choice to get thrown through the windshield who are saying it's personal choice to run around un vaxxed. And the non-seat belt wearers affect society inexorably in the long run via health care costs, but the anti vaxxers are affecting society more and faster because their inactions affect and infect everyone around them, all the time, all day long.

This is why Singapore now refuses to pay healthcare costs for any voluntarily unvaccinated person.

[JjBee62]

Your portrayal of me could not be further from the truth. I would consider my position to be somewhere between conservative and libertarian. It would also be fair to say 90%+ of the democrat party turns my stomach. But what you cannot say about me is that I follow a party line. Clearly you misinterpreted my last point about Dem vs Rep. Or maybe I wasn't clear; it works both ways. The vast majority of political discourse is party driven. That is a sad fact. Gone is independent thought. It is my side vs your side at all costs. Ideas? They don't matter. And as I have said repeatedly now, my only interest in this whole vaccine argument is to challenge people to think for themselves.

I often hear the vaccine has become a political issue. That is so sad. I don't quite agree entirely but yes, there are many that make their decisions based on our political hacks, be them elected or on MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN etc.

What gave you the impression I 'declare I have a closed mind, my positions are totally dependent on politics. ' . I am baffled. Call me wrong. Call me an idiot. You can call me a lot. LOL But I greatly value my independent thought. Sean Hannity makes me just as nauseous as Rachel Maddow.

My opinions are founded on principles. I have a strong bias towards freedom and with that, personal responsibility. Only recently has a "freedom thumper" become a dirty phrase. I could go on about my perspective, but pretty sure no one gives a shit. But suffice to say, you could not be more wrong in your assessment.

If you value your independent thought, why aren't you using it? Our entire discussion started with my response about some anti-vax propaganda. You've repeatedly defended that propaganda and the anonymous people who are responsible for it. Merely 5 seconds of independent thought will clearly show it for what it is. If you want a more detailed approach, read ptrbrgr's post on the CCCA video. He covers the same points I covered, in greater detail and with a high level of knowledge.

This gave me the impression you have a closed mind and base your decisions on politics:

Perhaps you need to research what a "right" is. The left seems to have a real challenge with that.

When people phrase things as left, right, liberal or conservative, they're making a political declaration. If one side "has a real challenge" with something, it's black or white thinking. Add in that 90% of Democrats turn your stomach and the summation is a closed mind guided by politics.

What is a right? Time for another quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Recognize that? All men? Unalienable rights? Liberty? Are you wondering "what about all those slaves?" Right in the US Declaration of Independence.

"Rights" are subject to change. 200 years ago, most people didn't have the right to vote. Until 100 years ago women didn't have the right to own property. It wasn't too long ago when a woman didn't have the right to choose a husband.

Let's apply the concept of rights to your open mind. Every year rights get changed. Some go away, some new ones take their place.

What is your argument against healthcare as a right? Do you believe that wealth is the determining factor on who receives medical care?

[Dcrist0527]

First, allow me to say kudos on a well thought out response. I would agree with most of your points and disagree with a few.

the video also contains falsehoods and at least one blatant monster lie, which is that the trial deviated from the 'plan' as they put it. Every clinical trial has a protocol. This is the gospel. Every T is crossed, every I is dotted. For those with a masochistic bent, you can find the protocol for this trial in the supplementary material of the NEJM paper, all 376 pages thereof. Every protocol has a detailed plan for interim analyses, and has exactly defined rules for stopping early. This can happen for example if you find early on that the vaccine is highly effective, or if there are adverse outcomes and safety issues. This trial was stopped early, exactly following the protocol, because it hit all primary efficacy endpoints and safety checks. This was reported in all media outlets at the time. The CCCA knows this. When they say the trialists deviated from the protocol, they are blatantly lying to you. There is no other way of putting it. And when you stop early, the trial is over, you unblind, and offer the vaccine to all participants, also according to protocol. If you have a highly effective vaccine, it would be unethical to do otherwise

I could not disagree more. As I said earlier in the thread, this was arguably the most important human trials of our lifetime. You contradict yourself when you say everything went as planned. And then detail how they moved the mark. It's like a 100-question exam. If you answer the first 10 questions correctly, you can stop there and claim a perfect score? I concede there is an ethical argument that can be made. (I don't necessarily agree with it on balance.) But to pull the plug 2 months in because you like the early results? That's borderline unethical. We lost any ability to track longevity. And lo and behold, one of the biggest problems we have today is the vaccine waning. Let's not mention long term side effects. But this is where it gets ugly and sinister. We allowed Pfizer to grade their own test. Granted, that's normal. But the FDA and CDC were waiting with their rubber stamp. The reality: they got a 100% on those first 10 questions but boy, they sure didn't earn a perfect score.

Onwards to the RRR versus ARR mambo jambo (if numbers aren't your thing, you might want to skip this section). Dcrist0527 pointed out in his post there is indeed an important difference. A clinical trial is always comparative, treatment versus placebo arm. Therefore you always report the outcome as a relative measure such as efficacy. There is nothing special about COVID trials. It's always been that way, always will be that way. That was the 95% cited in the NEJM paper. Now if you are a policy maker, and you want to know for example something about the basic reproduction number R0, you want to know something about absolute risks and reduction of those through interventions. But this is pretty complicated stuff and hard to estimate, because things constantly change.

I'm ashamed to admit to being a numbers nerd. LOL. Again, I don't disagree with much of what was said. Both RRR and ARR are valid metrics. And you were very effective in summarizing their worth. But what I strongly object to is selling RRR as efficacy. Or even the false definition spread about efficacy. Use your example. If that old lady got a flier saying you are 95% more likely to stay free of covid if you take this shot, would she? Because that's what happened to the masses. And that is not at all accurate. So I suppose my beef is more with the marketing vs the actual math. Here again, I blame CDC and FDA as much as I blame Pfizer. And I blame our policy makers even more. They put the politics over science anf clarity.

I'll agree to disagree with you on these points. But I appreciate the dialogue.

[JjBee62]

It's equivalent to over for some. It's based on a different thinking. It is possible if this continues for another 10 years. Many more will just move on to live normally.

Why a bar is packed with people without masks? I see plenty of them. I know some just decided they want to live normally and not live in fear. That is why you see some people change their tune in this thread, although they gave a different reason.

For me freedom is a collective right. In that, I mean I have no problem going into a packed bar right now or every night, but I won't go back to my family before I quarantine myself for 2 weeks. LOL. I will do the quarantine for my family in this case because they don't think like me.

For anyone traveling internationally, the pandemic isn't over, no matter what they think. If you're required to have a negative test to enter a country, telling the airline that your positive test doesn't matter because the pandemic is over for you, won't get you on the plane. Taking off your mask on the plane will still have you in legal trouble, if you refuse to put it back on.

Not just bars, but entire stadiums are packed with maskless people. I don't know any people who have been living in fear. Mostly they are people who recognize the risks and base their actions on whether or not the risk is worth it.

Freedom is a collective, or community right. If the exercise of your freedom has a negative impact on others, then you're not exercising freedom, you're imposing tyranny.

I am also willing to take risks for myself, but I try not to put others at risk.

[JjBee62]

Thank you for this. I found the video, and managed to watch almost ten minutes of it before I threw in the towel. Oh dear. Well, to those who got so upset about the video: as they told Cheese Wagstaff in the Wire after the dog fight: "I think you have been played". I'll see if I can find a bit of time later today to type up a brief summary.

I enjoyed your summary. Although you went into more detail, I've been over all of those points several times. It's an exercise in futility. Either people see the easily verified truth immediately, or they will defend the easily debunked lie until the day they die.

[JjBee62]

One thing about JBee. Agree with him or not at least he researches his comments using reputable sources and doesn't just get his BS off of some conspiracy theory website or podcast.

BTW I think I recognize you two guys. Didn't they make a movie about you, starring Jeff Daniels and Jim Carey?

Shhh. Don't tell them my secrets.

[JjBee62]

+1. And everybody sees it but him and his senile sidekick paulie.

Another excellent example of not knowing what you're talking about.

Paulie and I had a big public, knock down fight right here over 3 years ago. It might have been the reason this thread was started. We haven't really talked since then. We're not sidekicks, friends or buddies.

Here's something you might understand when you reach emotional maturity. I agree or disagree with what is posted. It doesn't matter who posted it. Bullshit (for example, declaring the pandemic is over) is bullshit, regardless of the source. Good advice is good advice regardless of the source.

As for the rest of what you agreed with, I suggest you go read the other threads. There have been a few people over the years who might have agreed with me at one time or another.

[RamDavidson84]

Everyone has "common sense" after the fact which is the classic Monday morning quarterbacking angle. But the very nature of science is to amend conclusions and policy as more information becomes available. Homemade cloth masks were useful, depending on weaves, layers, and thread counts. Not all are created equally, and they were only promoted for a time due to the shortage of N95 and surgical masks. The former are the best, the latter still rather effective depending on the grade.

Be careful when you start accusing someone like Elvira of common sense, as there's surely more to the story, while you are swallowing some barstool analysis full of omissions. See above. Wink.

P.S. The same kicked, cried, and screamed because he was denied access to a supermarket in Mexico for not having a mask. He has also posted YouTubes of 4th rate shock jocks who discouraged mask wearing, while he predicted that less than 80 k Americans would die of Covid. So if you are looking to suck up you need to keep looking.

With hundreds of thousands of cases of Omicron daily, should we still have to take a covid test to re-enter the country? Hmmmmm.

Vaccines were supposed to be 95% effective. More people die in 2021 than 2020 when there were no vaccines available. Why are Vaccines mandates and Boosters are still being discussed? Why is no one talking about the false effectiveness of the vaccines? Hmmmmmmmmm.

How does China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, not have more cases of Omicron? Hmmmmm.

The answers to these questions seem like common sense to me, but half the country will cry murder if I were to state my opinion publicly. Hmmmmmm. Freedom of speech? Hmmmmm. LOL let the name calling and slandering begin! Jaja.

[Elvis 2008]

Next came the ballyhoo about the evidence of harm.

Given what's at stake, of course lots of people looked at the 20 deaths in the vaccine group from every possible angle. The final FDA report concluded not a single death was due to the vaccine.

All the BS aside, at the end of the day, you are left to trust the FDA. Fauci said 70% and we get to herd immunity, and we are there now. Was there a decrease in deaths due to Covid in 2021? Nope, so vaccine rates went through the roof and Covid deaths went higher. Fauci said that you were 11 X more likely to die from Covid if you are unvaccinated. Well then how come deaths from Covid went up and not down with 70% of the population being vaccinated?

Did the study predict the increased death rate? Yes or no? And if it did then you have to look at how the FDA determined that these deaths were not related to the vaccine, but you did not touch on that at all. When the government was shut down, half the FDA was still open because that is what % of the FDA is supported by big pharma. The government shut off funds to the FDA and they were still going.

And do you know when FDA / Pfizer / Moderna wanted to release safety data on the vaccine? 75 years from now. A judge rejected that and told them 8 months:https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/j...-cuts-8-months.

That is not exactly confidence inspiring is it?

The #1 killer in America is heart disease, and it is known the vaccine harms the heart. So if someone dies of a heart attack after getting the vaccine, how do you say the heart attack was or was not related to the vaccine? I do not even know how you would do it. Do you?

What I could certainly say is this person had atherosclerosis and say "Eh, that had nothing to do with the vaccine. He was a goner anyway" and blow it off.

That is not science. Science is showing us the method you used for blowing it off and seeing if it is valid.

This is part of what informed consent is about. Do you think most people who get the vaccine are told "the death rate was higher with those who got vaccinated but the FDA said it was no big deal" or are led to believe the vaccine is a life saver?

I keep reading about how these vaccines saved millions of lives. My question is where are they?

You can argue about whether the vaccine does increase deaths or say it may increase deaths. My question to you is where does anyone get off mandating or advocating for a therapy that may increase death rates?