Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

37,789 Views | 1320 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by bearister
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

Hey, the knuckle dragger is back! Did you miss me?

For those with ears to hear, Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer at Pfizer.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/05/03/michael-yeadon-what-is-the-pharmaceutical-industry-really-manufacturing/

LOL 21st century wire. A propagator of pseudo science and conspiracy theories with ties to Alex Jones and RT.

Here's the first comment to the article zippergate posted:

Quote:

kevin duckworht 6 days ago

Sadly this is not a vaccine, nor is it experimental. It was experimental many years ago,and was found successful. It is now being used for the purpose it was designed for, genocide.
Yup. Seems legit. This must be the "other side" oski003 is proud to be a part of.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

Hey, the knuckle dragger is back! Did you miss me?
No point in dialoging; most here are all too content to sit atop Dunning-Kruger's first peak as you bully and shame with appeals to authority anyone with the temerity to question Science. Like everyone else here, I'm not a scientist but here's the difference: I admit my understanding is limited and remain open to viewpoints from a variety of perspectives. Some here actually think they have a handle on the immune system (it's all about antibodies) and understand the risks (anaphylaxis). ROFL. Go ahead, vax your teens. And if now or down the line they suffer serious harm, own it. It's on you. And no, I feel no responsibility whatsoever to protect you by giving gene therapy to my kids. Call it whatever you like, I don't care. When there is proper data over a reasonable period of time documenting safety, then and only then will I feel an obligation to have them vaxed for your benefit because it will not be for theirs. Even if I'm wrong and the vaccine is totally safe for teens, I'm still right. You either believe in the process or you don't.

For those with ears to hear, Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer at Pfizer.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/05/03/michael-yeadon-what-is-the-pharmaceutical-industry-really-manufacturing/

Oski003,
Have you seen this?

http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/gcep_dr_vanessa_schmidt_krueger/?fbclid=IwAR220l5NgpR6vgIDKKZYdFCMfE44nqv2jawO8UQat0kYDX4JIg9bVuLkzcM

Lots of interesting comments on LNPs, PEG, insufficient control and documentation of production, inadequate testing, etc.



Dude, this site is largely populated by Cal alums. Tons of scientists here. We're talkin' Nobel Prizes and all that. Okay, maybe you're not a scientist, I get that, but realize where you are, man.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
I can't find this information anywhere. What are you talking about?

This is what the FDA says: "The most commonly reported side effects in the adolescent clinical trial participants, which typically lasted 1-3 days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain. With the exception of pain at the injection site, more adolescents reported these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose. The side effects in adolescents were consistent with those reported in clinical trial participants 16 years of age and older."
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
I can't find this information anywhere. What are you talking about?

This is what the FDA says: "The most commonly reported side effects in the adolescent clinical trial participants, which typically lasted 1-3 days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain. With the exception of pain at the injection site, more adolescents reported these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose. The side effects in adolescents were consistent with those reported in clinical trial participants 16 years of age and older."


I am neither surprised that the msm did not report such nor at your biased skepticism. Berkeley graduates (nobel prize winners etc...) should seek primary sources .

https://t.co/7HXgefmnJi
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
I can't find this information anywhere. What are you talking about?

This is what the FDA says: "The most commonly reported side effects in the adolescent clinical trial participants, which typically lasted 1-3 days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain. With the exception of pain at the injection site, more adolescents reported these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose. The side effects in adolescents were consistent with those reported in clinical trial participants 16 years of age and older."


I am neither surprised that the msm did not report such nor at your biased skepticism. Berkeley graduates (nobel prize winners etc...) should seek primary sources .

https://t.co/7HXgefmnJi
Interesting reading. Here's this tidbit from page 27 of the linked document (my emphasis):

Serious Adverse Events
Serious adverse events from Dose 1 through up to 30 days after Dose 2 in ongoing follow-up were reported by 0.4% of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine recipients and by 0.1% of placebo recipients. There were no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of serious adverse events that would suggest a causal relationship to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
I can't find this information anywhere. What are you talking about?

This is what the FDA says: "The most commonly reported side effects in the adolescent clinical trial participants, which typically lasted 1-3 days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain. With the exception of pain at the injection site, more adolescents reported these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose. The side effects in adolescents were consistent with those reported in clinical trial participants 16 years of age and older."


I am neither surprised that the msm did not report such nor at your biased skepticism. Berkeley graduates (nobel prize winners etc...) should seek primary sources .

https://t.co/7HXgefmnJi
Interesting reading. Here's this tidbit from page 27 of the linked document (my emphasis):

Serious Adverse Events
Serious adverse events from Dose 1 through up to 30 days after Dose 2 in ongoing follow-up were reported by 0.4% of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine recipients and by 0.1% of placebo recipients. There were no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of serious adverse events that would suggest a causal relationship to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.


Yes, you are bolding the conclusion of Pfizer's trial investigators. Still, the facts are there for you to consider.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
I can't find this information anywhere. What are you talking about?

This is what the FDA says: "The most commonly reported side effects in the adolescent clinical trial participants, which typically lasted 1-3 days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain. With the exception of pain at the injection site, more adolescents reported these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose. The side effects in adolescents were consistent with those reported in clinical trial participants 16 years of age and older."


I am neither surprised that the msm did not report such nor at your biased skepticism. Berkeley graduates (nobel prize winners etc...) should seek primary sources .

https://t.co/7HXgefmnJi
Thanks for the link. I did not find anything on the FDA website with a casual search.

I think you are referring to this: "Serious adverse events from Dose 1 through up to 30 days after Dose 2 in ongoing follow-up were reported by 0.4% of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine recipients and by 0.1% of placebo recipients. There were no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of serious adverse events that would suggest a causal relationship to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."

So 5 serious adverse events in the vaccine group, 1 in the placebo group. Not a statistically significant difference [my calculation]. And according to the report, no pattern in the adverse events linking them to the vaccine.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am not grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am note grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.


Encouraging unqualified people to conclude what they will is anti-vaxxer 101. You are just trying to sow doubt with no reasonable basis. Just like the very fine people from zipperhate's link.

You could have pointed out that the vaccine was 100% effective in the trial but I guess that doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative.

So spare us the histrionics, your agenda is laid bare.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am note grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.


Encouraging unqualified people to conclude what they will is anti-vaxxer 101. You are just trying to sow doubt with no reasonable basis. Just like the very fine people from zipperhate's link.

You could have pointed out that the vaccine was 109% effective in the trial but I guess that doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative.

So spare us the histrionics, your agenda is laid bare.


My conclusion is that we ban placebos in all testing of vaccines. Who knows what effects these placebos will have on the test subjects years from now
(Where is the old SARCASM smilie when I need it?).
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am note grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.


Encouraging unqualified people to conclude what they will is anti-vaxxer 101. You are just trying to sow doubt with no reasonable basis. Just like the very fine people from zipperhate's link.

You could have pointed out that the vaccine was 100% effective in the trial but I guess that doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative.

So spare us the histrionics, your agenda is laid bare.


Pfizer doesn't test asymptomatic cases, and I believe the placebo was 100% effective as well. Regardless, I am not questioning the effectiveness, especially with current U.S. variants and the height of immunogenicity. I am not an anti-vaxxer.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am note grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.


Encouraging unqualified people to conclude what they will is anti-vaxxer 101. You are just trying to sow doubt with no reasonable basis. Just like the very fine people from zipperhate's link.

You could have pointed out that the vaccine was 109% effective in the trial but I guess that doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative.

So spare us the histrionics, your agenda is laid bare.


My conclusion is that we ban placebos in all testing of vaccines. Who knows what effects these placebos will have on the test subjects years from now
(Where is the old SARCASM smilie when I need it?).


If the placebo had a serious adverse reaction rate 5x that of the vaccine, I would question what is the actual placebo. Anyway, because it is the opposite in a smallish sample size, further testing makes sense to me. FYI, some placebos are approved vaccines.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am note grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.


Encouraging unqualified people to conclude what they will is anti-vaxxer 101. You are just trying to sow doubt with no reasonable basis. Just like the very fine people from zipperhate's link.

You could have pointed out that the vaccine was 100% effective in the trial but I guess that doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative.

So spare us the histrionics, your agenda is laid bare.


Pfizer doesn't test asymptomatic cases, and I believe the placebo was 100% effective as well. Regardless, I am not questioning the effectiveness, especially with current U.S. variants and the height of immunogenicity. I am not an anti-vaxxer.




If you aren't an anti-vaxxer why are you constantly posting misleading claims intended to make people question vaccines?

By the way, you keep saying 5 serious adverse events, but how do you know it's not 4? I think you are just showing the larger number because it looks worse. Similar to how you referenced the AZ blood clotting to make all COVID vaccines look worse even though it has no relevance to the conversation.

When you stop carrying water for the dangerous anti-vaxxer agenda, I will stop calling you out as one.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Could be 4 serious adverse events which is still 0.4%.

Wonder what was in the placebo to cause a serious adverse event. Weird right?

Also, my understanding from oski003 type people is that the vaccine is intended to cause genocide but seems like a failure in that respect. We need zipperhate to show us the way.

Anyone surprised that oski003 would grandstand on a misleading point in order to spread more vaccine hesitancy?


This is awful, hateful dialog. I am note grandstanding on a misleading point. 5 in the vaccine group out of around 1100 had a serious adverse event. 1 in the placebo group. Conclude what you will but put down the pitchforks.


Encouraging unqualified people to conclude what they will is anti-vaxxer 101. You are just trying to sow doubt with no reasonable basis. Just like the very fine people from zipperhate's link.

You could have pointed out that the vaccine was 100% effective in the trial but I guess that doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative.

So spare us the histrionics, your agenda is laid bare.


Pfizer doesn't test asymptomatic cases, and I believe the placebo was 100% effective as well. Regardless, I am not questioning the effectiveness, especially with current U.S. variants and the height of immunogenicity. I am not an anti-vaxxer.


Effectiveness is measured versus the placebo! Saying they are both 100% effective is logically impossible. The calculation is 100%(#placebo-#vaccine)/#placebo. The placebo had 18 cases, the vaccine had 0.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Pfizer had 5 serious adverse events out of 1,131 12-15 year olds in the trial. Pfizer just got EUA today for 12-15.

The decision does not seem obvious for a parent of a 12-15 year old.
I can't find this information anywhere. What are you talking about?

This is what the FDA says: "The most commonly reported side effects in the adolescent clinical trial participants, which typically lasted 1-3 days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, chills, muscle pain, fever and joint pain. With the exception of pain at the injection site, more adolescents reported these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose. The side effects in adolescents were consistent with those reported in clinical trial participants 16 years of age and older."


I am neither surprised that the msm did not report such nor at your biased skepticism. Berkeley graduates (nobel prize winners etc...) should seek primary sources .

https://t.co/7HXgefmnJi
Interesting reading. Here's this tidbit from page 27 of the linked document (my emphasis):

Serious Adverse Events
Serious adverse events from Dose 1 through up to 30 days after Dose 2 in ongoing follow-up were reported by 0.4% of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine recipients and by 0.1% of placebo recipients. There were no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of serious adverse events that would suggest a causal relationship to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.


Yes, you are bolding the conclusion of Pfizer's trial investigators. Still, the facts are there for you to consider.
The document you linked is from the FDA, not Pfizer. The FDA repeats calculations on the data submitted by those seeking approval.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1) I do not doubt the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at peak immunogenicity against current U.S. variants. It is a non-issue.
2) I do believe the number is 5, but 4 vs 5 does not matter that much anyway.
3) The FDA accepted the trial investigators conclusion. Okay.

You are now nitpicking because you do not like my message. For what it is worth, I have gotten both my flu shot and the moderna shot over the last 6 months or so. My kids have gotten every recommended vaccination.

I absolutely believe that the eua vaccines have saved lives, and have allowed many, including myself, to partially return to normalcy. I know many of you believe otherwise, but I believe we will have covid 19 vaccine booster shots very soon. I hope safer vaccines will be developed for that purpose, and we are still developing such in the USA.

For the sake of many kids, I hope you are right and the prevalence of serious adverse events with Pfizer etc are combinations of large amounts of false VAERS data, people lying on the internet, extremely rare local news stories, and fluky coincidences.

71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

1) I do not doubt the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at peak immunogenicity against current U.S. variants. It is a non-issue.
2) I do believe the number is 5, but 4 vs 5 does not matter that much anyway.
3) The FDA accepted the trial investigators conclusion. Okay.

You are now nitpicking because you do not like my message. For what it is worth, I have gotten both my flu shot and the moderna shot over the last 6 months or so. My kids have gotten every recommended vaccination.

I absolutely believe that the eua vaccines have saved lives, and have allowed many, including myself, to partially return to normalcy. I know many of you believe otherwise, but I believe we will have covid 19 vaccine booster shots very soon. I hope safer vaccines will be developed for that purpose, and we are still developing such in the USA.

For the sake of many kids, I hope you are right and the prevalence of serious adverse events with Pfizer etc are combinations of large amounts of false VAERS data, people lying on the internet, extremely rare local news stories, and fluky coincidences.


Personally, I believe annual boosters will be necessary on a go-forward basis. COVID will be with into the far distant future, if not forever.

An interesting article about one of the favorites for a Nobel Prize....

https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20201218-katalin-kariko-the-scientist-behind-the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

1) I do not doubt the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at peak immunogenicity against current U.S. variants. It is a non-issue.
2) I do believe the number is 5, but 4 vs 5 does not matter that much anyway.
3) The FDA accepted the trial investigators conclusion. Okay.

You are now nitpicking because you do not like my message. For what it is worth, I have gotten both my flu shot and the moderna shot over the last 6 months or so. My kids have gotten every recommended vaccination.

I absolutely believe that the eua vaccines have saved lives, and have allowed many, including myself, to partially return to normalcy. I know many of you believe otherwise, but I believe we will have covid 19 vaccine booster shots very soon. I hope safer vaccines will be developed for that purpose, and we are still developing such in the USA.

For the sake of many kids, I hope you are right and the prevalence of serious adverse events with Pfizer etc are combinations of large amounts of false VAERS data, people lying on the internet, extremely rare local news stories, and fluky coincidences.
LOL your entire history of posting on the vaccines is nitpicking in order to cast doubt and contribute to vaccine hesitancy. You aren't providing a balanced view - you are presenting misleading info every which way you can. In this very thread you referenced blood clots from a vaccine never approved in the US to make people think we were using unsafe vaccines.

Let's look at the SAEs that you are using to claim that Pfizer is unsafe for 12-15 year olds. Do you have a basis for believing the number is 5 instead of 4? Both round to 0.4%. The reason you are sticking with 5 is so you can claim 5x as many SAEs rather than 3 out of 1,100 more SAEs. The FDA doesn't appear to think there is an issue here but you are "just asking questions."

As for your misleading reference in your final paragraph, this is another perfect example of innumeracy. 150+ million people have been vaccinated in the US, just about half the country. So of course you are going to have lots of instances of life happening to people who were recently vaccinated. My friend's grandmother died recently following her vaccination but I'm pretty sure the vaccine didn't cause her cancer. It's not about coincidences, it's just reality.

As long as you continue to spread misleading and dangerous information about the vaccines, I (and others) will call you out for it. You have a right to your opinions, but you don't have a right to spew them without criticism on the internet.

Unfortunately there are enough vaccine hesitant people out there that can be swayed by false and misleading information and it's going to make it harder (if possible at all) to achieve herd immunity in this country. As a result, we will have to suffer through the pandemic, negative health and economic consequences and all) even longer than necessary. Ironically the contribution you are making to this debate is likely going to result in more children having to be vaccinated to make up for the selfish, uninformed vaccine hesitant crowd who listens to false and misleading anti-vaxxer propaganda.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

KoreAmBear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I want to be at CMS again watching a football game!



If the UC's and the CSU's are going to require vaccinations for students to return to in-person classes, it is very possible that proof of vaccination would be required for in-person access to the games on university property (that is, CMS and Haas Pavilion)

By September, everyone who wants the vaccine should have had an opportunity to be fully vaccinated (except maybe kids 10 and under)

So vax-up and bring you vaccination record along with your regular game-day gear.
Small price to pay to see the game in person (since the vaccination is free).

Governor Cuomo has just announced a similar policy for the various campuses of the State University of
NY.
Once again Cal leads the way. (OK. Sort of leads the way.)
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

oski003 said:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/tct/89143

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/27/are-rare-cases-of-myocarditis-linked-to-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

What is the appropriate belief so as not to be a climate denier?

1) There is no relationship between mrna vaccines, clotting, and heart damage; or

2) There might be a relationship but encourage more youth to get vaccinated because the risk to them of covid damage is currently known to be greater than the risk of vaccine damage; or

3) There might be a relationship, the individual risk may be greater from the vaccine, but society needs herd immunity. Maintain the optics that these are the only vaccines, and we need them to get past covid 19.
4) Talk to your pediatrician and follow his/her advice. If you don't trust your pediatrician to give you good advice, why in the world would you trust him/her to provide overall medical care for your child?

Medicine is all about trust. If you trust your MD, listen to them. If you don't trust your MD, find one you do trust.

Stop going to Dr. Internet and start seeing (and listening to) a trustworthy licensed, board-certified medical doctor.


Today MSNBC reports that the vaccine for 12 - 15 year olds has been approved. One of the doctors involved in developing that vaccine was interviewed. He understands why many parents might be concerned whether to have their children vaccinated. But he advises parents to discuss the matter with their pediatrician or other health professional who cares for their child and to stay away from the internet. Their pediatrician has their child's health as the primary concern. The posters on the internet have their own agenda as their primary concern.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

71Bear said:

oski003 said:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/tct/89143

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/27/are-rare-cases-of-myocarditis-linked-to-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

What is the appropriate belief so as not to be a climate denier?

1) There is no relationship between mrna vaccines, clotting, and heart damage; or

2) There might be a relationship but encourage more youth to get vaccinated because the risk to them of covid damage is currently known to be greater than the risk of vaccine damage; or

3) There might be a relationship, the individual risk may be greater from the vaccine, but society needs herd immunity. Maintain the optics that these are the only vaccines, and we need them to get past covid 19.
4) Talk to your pediatrician and follow his/her advice. If you don't trust your pediatrician to give you good advice, why in the world would you trust him/her to provide overall medical care for your child?

Medicine is all about trust. If you trust your MD, listen to them. If you don't trust your MD, find one you do trust.

Stop going to Dr. Internet and start seeing (and listening to) a trustworthy licensed, board-certified medical doctor.


Today MSNBC reports that the vaccine for 12 - 15 year olds has been approved. One of the doctors involved in developing that vaccine was interviewed. He understands why many parents might be concerned whether to have their children vaccinated. But he advises parents to discuss the matter with their pediatrician or other health professional who cares for their child and to stay away from the internet. Their pediatrician has their child's health as the primary concern. The posters on the internet have their own agenda as their primary concern.
Could not have said it better myself...

Oh wait, I already did.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.*****ute.com/video/OhKC74FaPOXO/

DOCTORS TESTIFY BEFORE TEXAS STATE SENATE TO OPPOSE MANDATORY COVID SHOTS

If you have an open mind, spend 20 minutes to hear what doctors treating Covid have to say on this issue.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

71Bear said:

oski003 said:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/tct/89143

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/27/are-rare-cases-of-myocarditis-linked-to-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

What is the appropriate belief so as not to be a climate denier?

1) There is no relationship between mrna vaccines, clotting, and heart damage; or

2) There might be a relationship but encourage more youth to get vaccinated because the risk to them of covid damage is currently known to be greater than the risk of vaccine damage; or

3) There might be a relationship, the individual risk may be greater from the vaccine, but society needs herd immunity. Maintain the optics that these are the only vaccines, and we need them to get past covid 19.
4) Talk to your pediatrician and follow his/her advice. If you don't trust your pediatrician to give you good advice, why in the world would you trust him/her to provide overall medical care for your child?

Medicine is all about trust. If you trust your MD, listen to them. If you don't trust your MD, find one you do trust.

Stop going to Dr. Internet and start seeing (and listening to) a trustworthy licensed, board-certified medical doctor.


Today MSNBC reports that the vaccine for 12 - 15 year olds has been approved. One of the doctors involved in developing that vaccine was interviewed. He understands why many parents might be concerned whether to have their children vaccinated. But he advises parents to discuss the matter with their pediatrician or other health professional who cares for their child and to stay away from the internet. Their pediatrician has their child's health as the primary concern. The posters on the internet have their own agenda as their primary concern.
Could not have said it better myself...

Oh wait, I already did.

Great minds come to similar conclusions.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read that Harvard and other universities are requiring proof of vaccination this Fall to live on campus. It seems they have approved not just the vaccines discussed here, but China's Sinopharm. If true, that's concerning, based upon much of the data provided on Sinopharm, even in today's in NYT's article (Seychelles).

Others heard the same? If so, I find that acceptance damaging to the end sought...
Sig test...
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

1) I do not doubt the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at peak immunogenicity against current U.S. variants. It is a non-issue.
2) I do believe the number is 5, but 4 vs 5 does not matter that much anyway.
3) The FDA accepted the trial investigators conclusion. Okay.

You are now nitpicking because you do not like my message. For what it is worth, I have gotten both my flu shot and the moderna shot over the last 6 months or so. My kids have gotten every recommended vaccination.

I absolutely believe that the eua vaccines have saved lives, and have allowed many, including myself, to partially return to normalcy. I know many of you believe otherwise, but I believe we will have covid 19 vaccine booster shots very soon. I hope safer vaccines will be developed for that purpose, and we are still developing such in the USA.

For the sake of many kids, I hope you are right and the prevalence of serious adverse events with Pfizer etc are combinations of large amounts of false VAERS data, people lying on the internet, extremely rare local news stories, and fluky coincidences.
LOL your entire history of posting on the vaccines is nitpicking in order to cast doubt and contribute to vaccine hesitancy. You aren't providing a balanced view - you are presenting misleading info every which way you can. In this very thread you referenced blood clots from a vaccine never approved in the US to make people think we were using unsafe vaccines.

Let's look at the SAEs that you are using to claim that Pfizer is unsafe for 12-15 year olds. Do you have a basis for believing the number is 5 instead of 4? Both round to 0.4%. The reason you are sticking with 5 is so you can claim 5x as many SAEs rather than 3 out of 1,100 more SAEs. The FDA doesn't appear to think there is an issue here but you are "just asking questions."

As for your misleading reference in your final paragraph, this is another perfect example of innumeracy. 150+ million people have been vaccinated in the US, just about half the country. So of course you are going to have lots of instances of life happening to people who were recently vaccinated. My friend's grandmother died recently following her vaccination but I'm pretty sure the vaccine didn't cause her cancer. It's not about coincidences, it's just reality.

As long as you continue to spread misleading and dangerous information about the vaccines, I (and others) will call you out for it. You have a right to your opinions, but you don't have a right to spew them without criticism on the internet.

Unfortunately there are enough vaccine hesitant people out there that can be swayed by false and misleading information and it's going to make it harder (if possible at all) to achieve herd immunity in this country. As a result, we will have to suffer through the pandemic, negative health and economic consequences and all) even longer than necessary. Ironically the contribution you are making to this debate is likely going to result in more children having to be vaccinated to make up for the selfish, uninformed vaccine hesitant crowd who listens to false and misleading anti-vaxxer propaganda.



More food for thought.
Today's NYT reports in two separate articles:

1. The new P1 COVID variant in Brazil is Turing out to be 8 times more deadly (and otherwise dangerous) for children than the original COVID strain and

2. The P1 variant is more contagious than the original strain and gaining ground in America and

3. The current vaccine is effective (more or less) against the P1 variant.

This is one more factor arguing for having your children vaccinated.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

1) I do not doubt the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at peak immunogenicity against current U.S. variants. It is a non-issue.
2) I do believe the number is 5, but 4 vs 5 does not matter that much anyway.
3) The FDA accepted the trial investigators conclusion. Okay.

You are now nitpicking because you do not like my message. For what it is worth, I have gotten both my flu shot and the moderna shot over the last 6 months or so. My kids have gotten every recommended vaccination.

I absolutely believe that the eua vaccines have saved lives, and have allowed many, including myself, to partially return to normalcy. I know many of you believe otherwise, but I believe we will have covid 19 vaccine booster shots very soon. I hope safer vaccines will be developed for that purpose, and we are still developing such in the USA.

For the sake of many kids, I hope you are right and the prevalence of serious adverse events with Pfizer etc are combinations of large amounts of false VAERS data, people lying on the internet, extremely rare local news stories, and fluky coincidences.
LOL your entire history of posting on the vaccines is nitpicking in order to cast doubt and contribute to vaccine hesitancy. You aren't providing a balanced view - you are presenting misleading info every which way you can. In this very thread you referenced blood clots from a vaccine never approved in the US to make people think we were using unsafe vaccines.

Let's look at the SAEs that you are using to claim that Pfizer is unsafe for 12-15 year olds. Do you have a basis for believing the number is 5 instead of 4? Both round to 0.4%. The reason you are sticking with 5 is so you can claim 5x as many SAEs rather than 3 out of 1,100 more SAEs. The FDA doesn't appear to think there is an issue here but you are "just asking questions."

As for your misleading reference in your final paragraph, this is another perfect example of innumeracy. 150+ million people have been vaccinated in the US, just about half the country. So of course you are going to have lots of instances of life happening to people who were recently vaccinated. My friend's grandmother died recently following her vaccination but I'm pretty sure the vaccine didn't cause her cancer. It's not about coincidences, it's just reality.

As long as you continue to spread misleading and dangerous information about the vaccines, I (and others) will call you out for it. You have a right to your opinions, but you don't have a right to spew them without criticism on the internet.

Unfortunately there are enough vaccine hesitant people out there that can be swayed by false and misleading information and it's going to make it harder (if possible at all) to achieve herd immunity in this country. As a result, we will have to suffer through the pandemic, negative health and economic consequences and all) even longer than necessary. Ironically the contribution you are making to this debate is likely going to result in more children having to be vaccinated to make up for the selfish, uninformed vaccine hesitant crowd who listens to false and misleading anti-vaxxer propaganda.



More food for thought.
Today's NYT reports in two separate articles:

1. The new P1 COVID variant in Brazil is Turing out to be 8 times more deadly (and otherwise dangerous) for children than the original COVID strain and

2. The P1 variant is more contagious than the original strain and gaining ground in America and

3. The current vaccine is effective (more or less) against the P1 variant.

This is one more factor arguing for having your children vaccinated.


For those without an NYT subscription, this is what I found:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/why-is-covid-19-killing-so-many-young-children-in-brazil-doctors-are-baffled/%3famp=1
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.13.444010v1?s=07

Moderna published data on durability and lab neutralization of variants.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.malaymail.com/amp/news/malaysia/2021/05/15/health-ministry-says-national-archer-haziqs-death-not-related-to-covid-19-o/1974286

27 yr old olympian heart attack post mrna vaccine but unrelated.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.malaymail.com/amp/news/malaysia/2021/05/15/health-ministry-says-national-archer-haziqs-death-not-related-to-covid-19-o/1974286

oski003: This may be the case with others as well... I am far more likely to click on a link if the poster provides a brief summary of what's in there. Thanks. (Edit: This would apply more to your post above the one I'm quoting.)

(2nd edit: Thanks for going back and doing that.)
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-indefensible-rush-to-experiment-on-children


"So, what are the benefits? There is no data on children, but we know from Israeli data on the Pfizer vaccine for adults published in the New England Journal of Medicine (p.22), that the "needed to treat" number of vaccines to save a life from COVID is 27,778. Their study showed 19 fewer deaths in the vaccine group over the placebo group out of 526,877 people. That is 1/0.00036, which is 27,778.

As Dr. Andy Bostom of Brown University points out, if children 12-15, on average, suffer a serious adverse event every 333 doses, that would add up to about 84 SAEs before you get to one life saved at roughly 27,700 doses."


My comment: the needed to treat number for 12-15 year-olds is much, much higher. The IFR for children is estimated at 0.002% versus perhaps 0.2% for the entire population. Given that the risk of death is 100 times less for children, the needed-to-treat number becomes 2,000,000-3,000,000--one life saved for every 2-3 million who receive the vaccine.

There are only 25 million children in the 12-17 age group. Vaccinating them all saves an estimated 10 lives. Meanwhile, an estimated 75,000 children will experience serious adverse events to say nothing of the long-term effects 25 million children might experience at some point in the future. The time period of the trials was one month. If you think we know with any confidence what the long-term safety profile of these vaccines are, then why have multiple fully approved vaccines been pulled from the market due to safety concerns? Why are vaccines typically vetted for more a decade or more before approval?

"According to statute (21 U.S.C. 360bbb3(c)(2)(B)), a medical product can only be offered under emergency use if "the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product." There is simply no way this condition can be fulfilled with kids."

Anti-vax Zipperhate, yeah, that's me. I just hate children. It couldn't be you, pampered boomer, who demand safety and comfort regardless of what it costs others.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uhhh Zippergate, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you didn't read the study. Am I wrong?

If you did read the study, I have a few questions for you.

What is the context for "needed to treat"? Is that a temporal number? Is that number specific to Israel during the time period where the study was conducted? Would it be the same number in California in January? How about California today? Would it change with high mask compliance? How about if we stopped all mask and social distancing mandates and returned to business as usual? How do you calculate the number of lives saved while allowing children to resume their normal childhood experiences?

If you know the answers to these questions, please enlighten us.

You have an obvious anti-vax agenda. You repeatedly post information designed to paint the COVID vaccines in the most unfavorable light possible. You skew things in order to minimize the threat of COVID and maximize the potential downside of vaccines. For COVID, you ignore all possible long-term impacts and only consider near-term death. We all know that in the short-term that COVID doesn't kill many children. For the vaccines, you ignore that they are extremely effective against COVID and rely on "potential" long-term complications. A very small number (perhaps 4 out of 1100) isn't enough information to support this agenda that the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID, which is what you've said. I believe you said that we should expose children to COVID naturally because that would be better for them. That is a fringe theory, to put it politely. You aren't even remotely doing any sort of apples-to-apples comparison.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would provide a balanced perspective in your anti-vax advocacy.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Uhhh Zippergate, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you didn't read the study. Am I wrong?

If you did read the study, I have a few questions for you.

What is the context for "needed to treat"? Is that a temporal number? Is that number specific to Israel during the time period where the study was conducted? Would it be the same number in California in January? How about California today? Would it change with high mask compliance? How about if we stopped all mask and social distancing mandates and returned to business as usual? How do you calculate the number of lives saved while allowing children to resume their normal childhood experiences?

If you know the answers to these questions, please enlighten us.

You have an obvious anti-vax agenda. You repeatedly post information designed to paint the COVID vaccines in the most unfavorable light possible. You skew things in order to minimize the threat of COVID and maximize the potential downside of vaccines. For COVID, you ignore all possible long-term impacts and only consider near-term death. We all know that in the short-term that COVID doesn't kill many children. For the vaccines, you ignore that they are extremely effective against COVID and rely on "potential" long-term complications. A very small number (perhaps 4 out of 1100) isn't enough information to support this agenda that the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID, which is what you've said. I believe you said that we should expose children to COVID naturally because that would be better for them. That is a fringe theory, to put it politely. You aren't even remotely doing any sort of apples-to-apples comparison.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would provide a balanced perspective in your anti-vax advocacy.

I support everything you say Unit2 with one small clarification. We know that the original strain of COVID does not kill many children. The new Brazilian P1 strain of COVID is much deadlier to children (as reported in Sunday's NYT), is more contagious and is spreading in the US. The present vaccines under discussion in this thread are relatively effective against the P1 strain of COVID (also as reported in Sunday's NYT).
Those new facts support your conclusions and counter those of Zippergate.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What is the context for "needed to treat"? Is that a temporal number? Is that number specific to Israel during the time period where the study was conducted? Would it be the same number in California in January? How about California today? Would it change with high mask compliance? How about if we stopped all mask and social distancing mandates and returned to business as usual? How do you calculate the number of lives saved while allowing children to resume their normal childhood experiences?

True, so let's consider where we are now. In places like LA, 45% test seropositive. Add in the millions of adults who have been vaccinated and the number of people susceptible to Covid is much lower than it was for the Israeli study during pre-peak for an unvaccinated population--the need-to-treat number goes up. As for masks, there was never good evidence to support the widespread use of cloth masks which is what most people wear. The scientific literature pre-Covid was inconclusive and at least anecdotally mask-mandated jurisdictions did no better than those that did not mandate. Lockdowns? Very poor efficacy despite gargantuan economic, mental health, and other heath impacts. (Cancer diagnoses were down over a million last year. How many increased deaths will that lead to?) Covid spread regardless of these measures. We will certainly have localized spikes in places, but it won't because of asymptomatic children because they don't spread the disease in any meaningful numbers. They could have gone back to normal activities regardless of the vaccines. Perhaps if you acknowledged well-established scientific facts such as these that are detrimental to your case for mass mandatory vaccinations of children, your Fauci-inspired authoritarian, Big Pharma agenda wouldn't be so obvious.

You say I have an anti-vax agenda that overstates the risks and understates the benefits or the vaccines. Fine, you really think I care about your bullying and your name-calling? If you're so satisfied with the safety and efficacy of these things, go ahead vaccinate your whole family. Knock yourself out. Chances are they won't end up in the VAERS system (which has exploded with entries unlike with any previous vaccine). But that isn't what this thread is about. This whole thread is about MANDATORY vaccinations for children and young adults using vaccines that have no long-term safety data and have only emergency approval. If these vaccines are guaranteed to be so safe, why don't they have full approval right now? If they don't have full approval now, what does that tell you? This isn't hard. Like with so many issues today, people like you have no respect for process.





 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.