|
|
|
Elephant in the Covid room
- Thread starter Wingboy
- Start date
- Status
Sure why not they told you the first shot was safe and now they say the second shot is safe if you had the first shot. It's like if you don't get food poisoning from the first bite just keep eating , You'll most likely be fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Odds of VITT after first dose were low. They are much lower after second dose. Still unsure why there is no discussion from gov't on Covishield vs AZ having an order of magnitude different complication rate. Probably still more focussed on being culturally sensitive than paying attention to science or health. Wankers, all of them.
JTR
Well-known member
It will also be pushed back 3 times that day
JTR
Well-known member
The speed with which it was developed s of little concern. That is typical, and like you send with endless money etc, it was no doubt going to develop fast. The concern is the batteries of testing, which had to be bypassed in order to get out quickly.Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.
COVID-19 vaccine: How was it developed so fast?
With vaccine approvals underway, MNT spoke with medical experts about how COVID-19 vaccines were designed so quickly without compromising safety.www.medicalnewstoday.com
So, it's not exactly all as "new and untested" as many perceive. And it's also a great example of what science can do when all of a sudden theres unending billions of dollars and limitless supplies provided to the scientists.
Will Covid ever go away completely? Increasingly it's seeming unlikely. But that doesn't mean it's all for naught right now - the science continues learning and the next mountain is treatment in addition to continued vaccines. If Covid is here to stay it'll matter a whole lot less in a year or two when those who catch it anyways can just head to a pharmacy and pickup a pill that reduces the symptoms to little more than a cold, or maybe a mild flu. A few days down at worst, and you're on your way.
Well I’m still here and it’s been a few weeks now....so I knew the risk going in.
Still alive
2 arms
2 eyes
2 legs
1 penis
Science based?? Come on PP you know we don't go in for a lot of that weird sciencey stuff here. You trying to start a fight?Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.
COVID-19 vaccine: How was it developed so fast?
With vaccine approvals underway, MNT spoke with medical experts about how COVID-19 vaccines were designed so quickly without compromising safety.
So, it's not exactly all as "new and untested" as many perceive. And it's also a great example of what science can do when all of a sudden theres unending billions of dollars and limitless supplies provided to the scientists.
Will Covid ever go away completely? Increasingly it's seeming unlikely. But that doesn't mean it's all for naught right now - the science continues learning and the next mountain is treatment in addition to continued vaccines. If Covid is here to stay it'll matter a whole lot less in a year or two when those who catch it anyways can just head to a pharmacy and pickup a pill that reduces the symptoms to little more than a cold, or maybe a mild flu. A few days down at worst, and you're on your way.
What's next? You gonna go around spouting the truth?
Out of the couple of dozen mRNA therapeutics to go to trial, name a single one that passed proper trials to determine risk factor? Just one?
Right, there isn't one, only two that got anywhere are Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID vaccines getting EUA's.
Which your article doesn't even mention. Why? Probably the same reason why they don't disclose how much advertising revenue they generate from pharmaceutical companies, and don't have proper disclosures about the site or their staff.
Interesting point @Dimitri I wonder if there is any correlation between the bad press that AZ is getting and no others are getting.
Could it be simply the big boys paying off any negative press to their vaccine? Or are they just not causing any issues at all?
As I understand it AZ was created by a non profit and costs a fraction of the mRNA options.
Could it be simply the big boys paying off any negative press to their vaccine? Or are they just not causing any issues at all?
As I understand it AZ was created by a non profit and costs a fraction of the mRNA options.
What's your definition of a proper trial? As the years have gone by the length of time between invention and sales has increased hugely. A lot of it has been sheer bureaucracy. There are calls to put a halt on some of that as it increases the price of pharmaceuticals and enriches the trials and associated industries at the cost of patients.
While you think about your response...I teach this stuff to undergrads and have run debates on this very topic.
AstraZeneca is $2.30 a dose, Pfizer and Moderna are $20+ a dose. With Pfizer already talking about increasing the price to $150 a dose.
AstraZeneca developed a cheap mass market product with their vaccine and even paid Oxford to study an off patent inhaler that reduces the risk of COVID's severe symptoms.
AstraZeneca's failure has been PR, as they didn't invest millions into marketing for a near free vaccine, unlike others, so they haven't pushed a consistent message. While being caught in the middle of UK's and the EUs spat over Brexit.
However, as far as corporate responsibility goes, that cute thing companies like to brag about, being good corporate citizens, AstraZeneca is by far living up to that standard during this pandemic.
I have zero problem with shorting trials. If the medication is not novel.
So will I take a jab of AstraZeneca's adenovirus-based vaccine, that multiple other vaccines are based on and have been previously approved? In a heart beat.
Will I take a drug or vaccine that is based on something that's never been approved, after a very short, and very flawed trial like Pfizer's mRNA shot? Not a chance.
As for bureaucracy, let's not forget why drug trials have been consistently been increased over the years. Because drug companies have pushed drugs through, that have led to disasters. Such as Thalidomide, or more recently with Pfizer, the experiment they conducted with meningitis drugs on African children.
In what way was the Pfizer trial flawed?
Thalidomide caused drug companies to look at chiral entities as separate products. That’s not the issue here.
Clinical trials are commonly performed in a relatively small number of countries where the legal environment allows for high throughput. Those countries are the UK, Mexico and Canada among others. If you want to get rich...work in the clinical trials business.
Lastly...if aspirin was developed today it would not make it to market due to the FDA mandated trials regulations. Do you know what the most successful drug of all time is?
ifiddles
Well-known member
Some interesting numbers here, especially in the world table regarding percentage of population vaccinated
www.ctvnews.ca
Coronavirus vaccination tracker: How many people in Canada have received shots?
Canada has administered 86,063,579 doses of COVID-19 vaccines so far, in a landmark effort against the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
www.ctvnews.ca
For one they were not only not actively testing to see if anyone catches it unlike Oxfords trial, the trial group miraculously decided if they developed symptoms they didn't need to get tested.
So Pfizer eliminated 3,410 people from their study, who developed symptoms but never got a PCR test. And they hid that from their beautifully edited study summery. If you make the opposite assumption, that without a negative PCR test, it's a positive, their vaccine's efficiency drops to a dismal 29%.
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data - The BMJ
On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 [...]More...
blogs.bmj.com
For one they were not only not actively testing to see if anyone catches it unlike Oxfords trial, the trial group miraculously decided if they developed symptoms they didn't need to get tested.
So Pfizer eliminated 3,410 people from their study, who developed symptoms but never got a PCR test. And they hid that from their beautifully edited study summery. If you make the opposite assumption, that without a negative PCR test, it's a positive, their vaccine's efficiency drops to a dismal 29%.
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data - The BMJ
On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 [...]More...blogs.bmj.com
29%...that’s a drastic figure likely supported by a peer reviewed journal article since it’s so incredible. Where is that?
Trials..how many millions have now had the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines now?
If Pfizer can assume no PCR test, no COVID, then one can assume the opposite. Especially since the CDC among other watchdogs are claiming colds and flus disappeared last year.
Since the data is right from the FDAs report on the vaccine, and Pfizer never published it in their report preferring to bury it, and the BMJ published it. The only thing that is incredible is that Pfizer thought they'd get away with it.
What do you mean thought? How many million doses have they sold? A potential retraction in the future will be buried on page 20 and of no commercial consequence.
The BMJ published an opinion. Opinions in journals aren’t peer reviewed. You need one of those before what you assume is the truth is actually the truth in scientific circles.
Again..how many millions have now had an mRNA vaccine and how many adverse effects have been reported?
- Status
|
|
|
|
|