29 ms·

Unvaxxed here. Lost my job due to it. Couldn't attend a close friend's wedding. So - it is not a casual decision I made. mRNA "vaccines" are not as tested a

by desine 5y ago

Unvaxxed here. Lost my job due to it. Couldn't attend a close friend's wedding. So - it is not a casual decision I made. mRNA "vaccines" are not as tested as the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. They've been in development for years and had serious issues. The mainstream media has severe conflicts of interest, financially, with regard to Pfizer. There are smaller conflicts of interest with regard to J&J and Moderna. The Asch conformity experiments are one example of many that show that even experts can be manipulated. If I do happen to have a bad reaction to the shot, I have no recourse to get compensation for my medical bills. I have very, very low risk of complications from the SARS-Cov-2 virus itself. The risk analysis does not justify the shot, for me.

random314 5y ago
What data did you use to perform the risk analysis? I performed my own risk analysis and it should positive results for the vaccine for every population cohort.
- desine 5y ago
  If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment. I deduced, for me, that the best bet was to avoid the disease as much as possible, and not risk a novel medicine for something that was low risk anyways. Risk of me having major complications from Covid: Very, very low. Less than a hundredth of a percent, IIRC. Rate of drugs recalled by FDA: Shockingly high. Rate of fraud and abuse by large pharmaceutical companies: Also very high. Effectiveness of the vaccine: I have an admittedly non-expert level understanding of statistics, but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. I assume some modeling was applied, but I found that to be rather opaque. IIRC again - it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.
  - random314 5y ago
    > If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment. I take it that you did not look at odds ratio. This is probabilistic analysis not if-then-else. With no use of risk analysis this is an emotional judgement, not a logic based one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio > but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. ???!! What part of the analysis did you disagree with? It was super straightforward. > it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment. These numbers are straight up false. The placebo group had at least 10X more infections than treatment group.
    - desine 5y ago
      Odds Ratio can only factor in known risks. I very specifically mentioned in my comment I was concerned about the unknown risks. If my numbers were wrong, I apologize. I mostly remember not being impressed enough
      - random314 5y ago
        How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis? Btw, the idea behind a multi stage RCT is to identify the unknown risks in a stage wise manner. The odds ratio does just that. At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind, and there is really no conversation to be had. 94% efficacy is actually extremely fucking impressive. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 "Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001)." Your own memory reflects your unconscious bias > it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.
        desine 5y ago
fauciisaliar 5y ago
[flagged]

by desine 5y ago

random314 5y ago

What data did you use to perform the risk analysis? I performed my own risk analysis and it should positive results for the vaccine for every population cohort.

desine 5y ago
If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment. I deduced, for me, that the best bet was to avoid the disease as much as possible, and not risk a novel medicine for something that was low risk anyways. Risk of me having major complications from Covid: Very, very low. Less than a hundredth of a percent, IIRC. Rate of drugs recalled by FDA: Shockingly high. Rate of fraud and abuse by large pharmaceutical companies: Also very high. Effectiveness of the vaccine: I have an admittedly non-expert level understanding of statistics, but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. I assume some modeling was applied, but I found that to be rather opaque. IIRC again - it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.
- random314 5y ago
  > If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment. I take it that you did not look at odds ratio. This is probabilistic analysis not if-then-else. With no use of risk analysis this is an emotional judgement, not a logic based one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio > but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. ???!! What part of the analysis did you disagree with? It was super straightforward. > it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment. These numbers are straight up false. The placebo group had at least 10X more infections than treatment group.
  - desine 5y ago
    Odds Ratio can only factor in known risks. I very specifically mentioned in my comment I was concerned about the unknown risks. If my numbers were wrong, I apologize. I mostly remember not being impressed enough
    - random314 5y ago
      How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis? Btw, the idea behind a multi stage RCT is to identify the unknown risks in a stage wise manner. The odds ratio does just that. At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind, and there is really no conversation to be had. 94% efficacy is actually extremely fucking impressive. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 "Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001)." Your own memory reflects your unconscious bias > it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.
      - desine 5y ago

fauciisaliar 5y ago

[flagged]