5 ms·

So the bulk of this post is… …anecdotes. Testimonies have an obvious selection bias. …conjecture about myocarditis. Which is discussed in multiple sources, bu

So the bulk of this post is… …anecdotes. Testimonies have an obvious selection bias. …conjecture about myocarditis. Which is discussed in multiple sources, but we’ll go with the Science Based Medicine blog. (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/myocarditis-and-covid-19-a-tale-of-two-articles/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/myocarditis-and-covid-19-a-...) …conjecture that the vaccines don’t prevent death or hospitalization, which is so wrong I don’t even know where to start. (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination and https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitali...) …and attacks on Big Pharma being evil, which, while obviously true in some cases (see Aducanumab for a glaringly recent example), does not mean they were evil here. …also “consilience” in this context sure sounds like a fancy word for “cherry-picking evidence to confirm whatever priors I have.” EDIT: …oh, right the VAERS debacle. (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/as-2021-shambles-to-a-close-the-misuse-of-vaers-by-antivaxxers-continues-apace/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/as-2021-shambles-to-a-close...)

MarcoZavala 5y ago
andrewclunn 5y ago
EDIT (The below quote is form the science based medicine blog post linked above). > Dr. Mandrola is right that this trial was not large enough to fully “inform the safety of a vaccine that will be given to many millions”. It was too small to detect rare events, such as myocarditis from the vaccine or serious complications from the virus. However, only the largest trials can detect rare events, and the rarer the event, the larger the trial must be to detect it. The adult vaccine trials, which were about twenty-times larger than the adolescent trials, also did not detect rare events, such as blood clotting with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The inability to detect rare events is a fundamental limitation of clinical trials, not a flaw of this particular trial. Rare events can usually be detected once a vaccine or medication is taken by large numbers of people. This is why post-marketing surveillance, called a phase IV trial, is so crucial. It’s a fact that no serious safety signal emerged during the trial. The authors were not only justified to report this finding, the data from their study required it. They didn’t claim that rare side effects would not emerge once millions of children received the vaccine. All of this makes me wonder. Other than a trial that enrolled hundreds of thousands of adolescents, which would be required to meaningfully detect a rare event such as myocarditis, is there anything a trial could do so Dr. Mandrola wouldn’t feel he had to put “positive” in quotes? Did he make his objections known when the plans for the adolescent vaccine trial were announced or only after it was completed? Has he been similarly critical of other randomized-controlled trials, or is this the only trial he has singled out this way? As he does not feel someone getting COVID-19 is a “clinical outcome”, what would he call it? Why didn’t he inform his readers that the vaccine prevented COVID-19 in adolescents? Would he have been similarly silent had the vaccine been significantly less effective at preventing COVID-19? We can only guess. ... So basically, yeah these clinical trials aren't big enough to catch these side effects, but the motivations of any doctor pointing that out must be suspect!
timr 5y ago
> which is discussed in multiple sources, but we’ll go with the Science Based Medicine blog I read the entire linked article. This is not a neutral summary, and one should not "just go with it". The author is a psychiatrist, and he has a pretty clear bias: most of the words in the article are spent equivocating on severity, despite the author saying that he doesn't have the necessary background to judge: > As a neurologist and psychiatrist, I view the heart as a pump to deliver blood to the brain, so I am a bit out of my territory when discussing whether or not myocarditis can be “mild”. This is the medical version of "IANAL" (which is always followed by legal advice...) For a balanced view on this issue, I like Walid Gelad, who is a professor of medicine at Pitt, an expert in drug regulatory process, and has been vocal on the topic of regulatory approval of booster doses for children: https://twitter.com/walidgellad https://twitter.com/walidgellad
Johnny555 5y ago
attacks on Big Pharma being evil, which, while obviously true in some cases Big Pharma may be evil, but they sure like cash, and they get a lot more cash from developing a safe vaccine than an unsafe one. Look at the J&J vaccine that the CDC is specifically saying to not get if you have Pfizer/Moderna available due to the risk of blood clots. Dangerous vaccines don't sell.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >but they sure like cash, and they get a lot more cash from developing a safe vaccine than an unsafe one. If everybody is mandated to take one and they're immune to liability, they can make it as dangerous as they want as long as it's less dangerous than the other vaccines.
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  Ah, so people have the choice not to take them if they think they'e unsafe? https://www.citizensjournal.us/covid-concentration-camps-for-australians-its-happening/ https://www.citizensjournal.us/covid-concentration-camps-for... The data regarding their vaccine safety is all readily available and not kept secret? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/critics-outraged-by-fda-request-to-hide-pfizer-vaccine-data-for-55-years/ar-AAQUufd https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/critics-outraged-by-fda-re... The companies behind making these are legally accountable for damages if they do harm you, yes? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c... And these are reputable companies that we can trust? https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-ille... I just picked Pfizer fro these examples, but please let me know if you want one for Johnson and Johnson (and I'll be happy to provide).
  - jhanschoo 5y ago
    Without addressing your points, your points and parent's points can both be true, and free market proponents, for example, will say that parent's points are sufficient for Big Pharma to act in the public's interests.
Asooka 5y ago
> conjecture that the vaccines don’t prevent death or hospitalization, which is so wrong I don’t even know where to start. The provided data is just raw numbers, not proper statistics. What is being compared is the mortality in those who chose to be vaccinated vs those who didn't. There is no control for confounding factors like if the first group are generally more health conscious, or if there are disproportionately more young healthy people in the vaccinated group, or even if hospitals are admitting more unvaccinated people under the impression they're more at risk.

MarcoZavala 5y ago

andrewclunn 5y ago

EDIT (The below quote is form the science based medicine blog post linked above). > Dr. Mandrola is right that this trial was not large enough to fully “inform the safety of a vaccine that will be given to many millions”. It was too small to detect rare events, such as myocarditis from the vaccine or serious complications from the virus. However, only the largest trials can detect rare events, and the rarer the event, the larger the trial must be to detect it. The adult vaccine trials, which were about twenty-times larger than the adolescent trials, also did not detect rare events, such as blood clotting with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The inability to detect rare events is a fundamental limitation of clinical trials, not a flaw of this particular trial. Rare events can usually be detected once a vaccine or medication is taken by large numbers of people. This is why post-marketing surveillance, called a phase IV trial, is so crucial. It’s a fact that no serious safety signal emerged during the trial. The authors were not only justified to report this finding, the data from their study required it. They didn’t claim that rare side effects would not emerge once millions of children received the vaccine. All of this makes me wonder. Other than a trial that enrolled hundreds of thousands of adolescents, which would be required to meaningfully detect a rare event such as myocarditis, is there anything a trial could do so Dr. Mandrola wouldn’t feel he had to put “positive” in quotes? Did he make his objections known when the plans for the adolescent vaccine trial were announced or only after it was completed? Has he been similarly critical of other randomized-controlled trials, or is this the only trial he has singled out this way? As he does not feel someone getting COVID-19 is a “clinical outcome”, what would he call it? Why didn’t he inform his readers that the vaccine prevented COVID-19 in adolescents? Would he have been similarly silent had the vaccine been significantly less effective at preventing COVID-19? We can only guess. ... So basically, yeah these clinical trials aren't big enough to catch these side effects, but the motivations of any doctor pointing that out must be suspect!

timr 5y ago

> which is discussed in multiple sources, but we’ll go with the Science Based Medicine blog I read the entire linked article. This is not a neutral summary, and one should not "just go with it". The author is a psychiatrist, and he has a pretty clear bias: most of the words in the article are spent equivocating on severity, despite the author saying that he doesn't have the necessary background to judge: > As a neurologist and psychiatrist, I view the heart as a pump to deliver blood to the brain, so I am a bit out of my territory when discussing whether or not myocarditis can be “mild”. This is the medical version of "IANAL" (which is always followed by legal advice...) For a balanced view on this issue, I like Walid Gelad, who is a professor of medicine at Pitt, an expert in drug regulatory process, and has been vocal on the topic of regulatory approval of booster doses for children: https://twitter.com/walidgellad https://twitter.com/walidgellad

Johnny555 5y ago

attacks on Big Pharma being evil, which, while obviously true in some cases Big Pharma may be evil, but they sure like cash, and they get a lot more cash from developing a safe vaccine than an unsafe one. Look at the J&J vaccine that the CDC is specifically saying to not get if you have Pfizer/Moderna available due to the risk of blood clots. Dangerous vaccines don't sell.

logicchains 5y ago
>but they sure like cash, and they get a lot more cash from developing a safe vaccine than an unsafe one. If everybody is mandated to take one and they're immune to liability, they can make it as dangerous as they want as long as it's less dangerous than the other vaccines.
andrewclunn 5y ago
Ah, so people have the choice not to take them if they think they'e unsafe? https://www.citizensjournal.us/covid-concentration-camps-for-australians-its-happening/ https://www.citizensjournal.us/covid-concentration-camps-for... The data regarding their vaccine safety is all readily available and not kept secret? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/critics-outraged-by-fda-request-to-hide-pfizer-vaccine-data-for-55-years/ar-AAQUufd https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/critics-outraged-by-fda-re... The companies behind making these are legally accountable for damages if they do harm you, yes? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c... And these are reputable companies that we can trust? https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-ille... I just picked Pfizer fro these examples, but please let me know if you want one for Johnson and Johnson (and I'll be happy to provide).
- jhanschoo 5y ago
  Without addressing your points, your points and parent's points can both be true, and free market proponents, for example, will say that parent's points are sufficient for Big Pharma to act in the public's interests.

Asooka 5y ago

> conjecture that the vaccines don’t prevent death or hospitalization, which is so wrong I don’t even know where to start. The provided data is just raw numbers, not proper statistics. What is being compared is the mortality in those who chose to be vaccinated vs those who didn't. There is no control for confounding factors like if the first group are generally more health conscious, or if there are disproportionately more young healthy people in the vaccinated group, or even if hospitals are admitting more unvaccinated people under the impression they're more at risk.