That's the key phrase there. The one highlighted. "As a result". Which is what a lot of these folks seems to ignore.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Covid-19 vaccine
- Thread starter x65943
- Start date
- Views 186,852
- Replies 3,769
- Likes 10
It's not some extraordinary claim or conspiracy theory that heart disease causes heart attack and stroke which is why I can't in good conscience entertain your feigned ignorance/mind games or whatever it is on the matter.
It is an extraordinary, conspiratorial, and unsubstantiated claim that the COVID-19 vaccines increase the frequency of heart attacks.
Cool, then you should just be able to provide a link. Why is that so hard for you to do? This is a very simple request. If what you are saying is true, then there should be at least one link that you can provide
You'd have to try the urine. More specifically, Christopher Key's urine. Otherwise, you can say "as far as we don't know...", or "we don't think it works". Saying it is "false" or, more specifically, saying "it doesn't work" is a hypothesis. I want to know about those test results.
I never claimed that about science and you are misrepresenting my point. I understand your skepticism about drinking urine to cure Covid. I don't believe it is works. However, when someone knows "it doesn't work", then I am curious about how they know. Do they drink (Christopher Key's) urine every day and still catch covid? Maybe they caught Covid, but thanks to drinking (Christopher Key's) urine the symptoms were less dangerous.
If the urine could be patented, then maybe it could be just as effective (and profitable) as a fourth boost.
I’m still waiting for your Personal review on how your urine taste.
It should could as no great shock that I'm uninterested in arguing the semantic difference between "as far as we know" and "as far as we don't know," lol.
This is a consideration I have wondered about. There are several studies associating heart damage with the spike protein itself whether the virus is present or not, but we were initially assured this didn't apply to the spike protein produced by the vaccines as it would mainly stay localized to the injection site and lymphatic system, never entering circulation.
The first hints this might have been off were the myocarditis cases. There was some thinking that maybe this only occurred in cases where injections accidentally hit veins instead of muscle tissue.
Then there was a Japanese study on Pfizer biodistribution which showed that this isn't the case and it does in fact enter circulation and ends up producing spike protein in several major organs. That was the one about the ovaries. If all of this is accurate then the spike protein from both the virus and the vaccine would be capable of causing vascular damage and perhaps more.
They cause myocarditis which is a very serious heart condition. I know the media makes it sound like mild inflammation that resolves and that's that, but it's dead heart tissue. There's a lot more to it that can kill in its initial onset or develop into chronic heart disease. Reading up more on the condition itself, I'm actually a bit shocked and aghast that it's seemingly even worse than I initially made it sound.
Last edited by Glyptofane,
So that's the dealbreaker when it comes to serving the greater community and taking the shot? Why so selfish? As far as I know, it tastes delicious.
Well the real focus was on the difference between "unsubstantiated", "inconclusive", and "false", but it isn't surprising seeing as subtlety tends to break your script. Someone at the daily beast drank piss (and then caught Covid).
Last edited by tabzer,
I am not reading that because your claims with literally no sources.
Yeah not source. Provide an actual study.
At some point, you have to use some critical thinking and common sense, and sources are not a prerequisite (although they increasingly seem to be - I wonder if that's due to a generation that's become too reliant having Google at their fingertips at all times).
I can safely say, without needing sources, there is no way urine contains anything that can prevent or cure Covid19.
I can also just as safely say, without needing sources and based on decades of experience (not just my own) with pharmaceutical drugs, that some people have suffered heart attacks as a result of pretty much every drug ever produced - and therefore mRNA vaccines too. It's obviously not a high number (in this particular case, although it *was* for certain past medicines) for there to be much concern at this point. I also don't believe it would be trivial to prove a direct connection so doubt anyone is going to have that information available.
I think the reason there is all of this debate in the first place is because they were not transparent from the beginning. The best way to minimise conspiracy theories is to give people all the information instead of letting them fill in the blanks.
I can safely say, without needing sources, there is no way urine contains anything that can prevent or cure Covid19.
I can also just as safely say, without needing sources and based on decades of experience (not just my own) with pharmaceutical drugs, that some people have suffered heart attacks as a result of pretty much every drug ever produced - and therefore mRNA vaccines too. It's obviously not a high number (in this particular case, although it *was* for certain past medicines) for there to be much concern at this point. I also don't believe it would be trivial to prove a direct connection so doubt anyone is going to have that information available.
I think the reason there is all of this debate in the first place is because they were not transparent from the beginning. The best way to minimise conspiracy theories is to give people all the information instead of letting them fill in the blanks.
A study on what? Are you disagreeing with something I said?
If it's of no consequence, it wouldn't matter if you are right or wrong. Naturally, it is safe to say.
But scientifically it is an unsubstantiated claim. Two unsubstantiated claims doesn't make one wiser. People aren't okay with not knowing something that they have to label everything T or F. I would think that by the ambiguity expressed over one's own genitals and gender that nuance could be appreciated.
Last edited by tabzer,
"Severe myocarditis weakens the heart so that the rest of the body doesn't get enough blood. Clots can form in the heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352539
FDA saying it's "possible" (page 16): https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download
Reports of heart attacks submitted to VAERS sorted by days to onset: https://openvaers.com/covid-data/cardiac
The key there is "days to onset" which establishes a temporal association. Obviously if 90% of the population has already been vaccinated then anyone who has a heart attack for any reason is roughly 90% likely to have been vaccinated already, so it's unremarkable if they happened to be vaccinated. Similarly, anyone who gets food poisoning is going to be someone who eats food, but the temporal closeness of the poisoning to mealtime is what allows us to associate it with a particular meal.
The burden is to prove new drugs are safe, not unsafe.
Normally phase 3 trials must be completed before a drug can be deemed safe and marketed -- Pfizer's isn't due to finish until 2024: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
Actually it will never finish since the placebo group had to be given the treatment for ethical reasons -- letting them get exposed to Covid for research purposes when there is a vaccine available, is considered unethical (and justifiably so imo). Many countries are 90%+ vaccinated now so we might not ever see a large enough placebo group.
"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
(Doesn't prove causation between treatment and mortality, but doesn't bode well for proving safety if the treatment group is expected to have less deaths).
Conflict of interest & had to be taken to court to release their trial data.
Personally I would be willing to overlook all of this if informed consent was still a thing, and I also believe it's virtuous to volunteer to participate in a clinical trial.
____________________________________________________
Now assuming the burden is to prove the vaccines are UNsafe and caused people to die, I would presume you are already aware of VAERS mortality reports and hold the position that VAERS data is of insignificant value. But:
"VAERS is the frontline system of a comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring program in the United States. It is one of several systems CDC and FDA use to help ensure vaccines used in the United States are closely monitored for safety."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html
“Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS...Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.” https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html
“After initial licensure or approval of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, initial reports may be too few to allow for data mining immediately. As the data mature, PRR and Empirical Bayesian data mining can then be used.”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/VAERS-v2-SOP.pdf
"Vaccine safety experts review all reports of serious adverse events submitted to VAERS...when VAERS staff members investigate a report of a serious adverse event, they ask for the patient’s medical records related to the serious adverse event to learn more about what happened"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html
"VAERS accepts and analyses reports of possible health problems...VAERS scientists review the reports, identify any duplicates, and attach them to the original submission."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
“It is generally acknowledged that adverse events are under-reported around the world, with estimates that 90-95% of adverse events are not reported to regulators”
https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/new-web-service-helps-consumer-reporting-side-effects
“In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%).”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16689555/
“Underreporting is a limitation common to passive surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that monitors the safety of U.S.-licensed vaccines...VAERS sensitivity for capturing anaphylaxis after seven different vaccines ranged from 13 to 76%; sensitivity for capturing GBS after three different vaccines ranged from 12 to 64%. For anaphylaxis, VAERS captured 13–27% of cases after the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, 13% of cases after influenza vaccine, 21% of cases after varicella vaccine, 24% of cases after both the live attenuated zoster and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (4vHPV) vaccines, 25% of cases after the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and 76% of cases after the 2009 H1N1 inactivated pandemic influenza vaccine. For GBS, VAERS captured 12% of cases after the 2012–13 inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine, 15–55% of cases after the 2009 H1N1 inactivated pandemic influenza vaccine, and 64% of cases after 4vHPV vaccine.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20312548
Here is a paper which tackles the questions:
1. Is the increase in VAERS reports due to the increase in the number of vaccinations?
2. Is the increase in VAERS reports due to what public health officials refer to as “stimulated reporting,” meaning that people are reporting more due to increased awareness of the existence of VAERS and/or increased fear surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines due to media exposure of adverse events, awareness of the reporting system, mobilization by vaccine critics, etc.
How could we say with confidence that a new product is safe if its users have no reliable way of reporting adverse events? Why do most developed countries have these reporting systems if they are of insignificant value?
Last edited by NoobletCheese,
Vaccine-caused myocarditis and pericarditis, which are extraordinarily rare side effects to begin with, almost always clear up with rest and/or treatment. I have found no evidence that anyone has suffered heart attacks as a result, we have seen no increase in the frequency of heart attacks since COVID-19 vaccination began, and I definitely haven't seen any evidence that anyone has died as a result of the mRNA vaccines.
Myocarditis caused by an mRNA vaccine has not been shown to increase one's chances of a heart attack. Telling me what myocarditis can do in other cases is irrelevant.
Saying something is "possible" isn't the same as saying something actually happens or is actually likely to happen.
VAERS is an important reporting tool, and it points scientists in the right direction regarding what to study, but it is not a source itself of actual vaccine side effects. Anyone can report anything, and when you have a majority of the population vaccinated, you're going to see a lot of things reported that were going to happen anyway and are not related to the vaccine. Regarding heart attacks, the number matches what we would expect if the vaccines didn't cause them, so we can can conclude the vaccines do not increase one's chances of having a heart attack.
It is important to show that new drugs are safe, yes, but the claim "X causes Y" is actually a positive claim that carries the burden of proof. If a person is going to claim the mRNA vaccines cause heart attacks, for example, that needs to be demonstrated.
There is no evidence the mRNA vaccines cause heart attacks, and there's evidence they don't cause heart attacks, so we can say the claim is false.
You're right that we are dealing with two separate issues. The claim that anybody's urine is an effective COVID-19 treatment is unsubstantiated. We also know a thing or two about urine and COVID-19 that suggest the claim is also false.
As far as I could tell the tweet wasn't a suggestion. It was an excuse to talk about drinking urine. Thanks for making a quarter of the distance.
Sucks that you don't seem to see that you are erring in favor of a pharmaceutical company's bottom line though. Even if unsubstantiated or inconclusive, it doesn't make the claims false.
It was, at the very least, the false suggestion that urine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
I'm erring in favor of scientific evidence.
Whether or not something just so happens to also be in a pharmaceutical company's best financial interest is irrelevant. Selling insulin is in a pharmaceutical company's best financial interest, but that doesn't mean insulin doesn't work. You don't appear to have given a lot of thought to your argument here.
No, but like I've said a couple times now, we understand what urine is, and we understand how COVID-19 works. We can use these understandings to reach the conclusion that the claim about urine being an effective treatment for COVID-19 is likely false.
imo when people are forced or coerced to take a drug without informed consent, the standard of scientific proof of its safety and efficacy should be higher than usual. The usual standard of proof seems to be completion of a phase 3 trial in order to get approval, although the exact requirements vary by country. It seems FDA accepts epidemiological data in lieu of phase 3 completion since Pfizer hasn't actually completed phase 3.
And I don't understand why FDA approved Comirnaty but left Pfizer-BioNTech under EUA even though they are the same formulation:
Why not just approve both, or better yet why not just leave them both under EUA until phase 3 is complete? Everyone would still have access to them.
Re: efficacy
Pfizer CEO says 2 doses gives "limited protection if any" against Omicron, which sounds like <50% which if true would mean FDA's primary efficacy endpoint isn't being met and I can't see how 2-dose mandates would be justified.
Last edited by NoobletCheese,
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
@
Skelletonike:
I'll be picking up my Zelda LE after work. <3+1
The store did not let me down this time
. -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Skelletonike:
Pondered about the switch, but had bought the pokemon one not long ago and I don't really need two switches (gave my previous one to a cousin).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
