7 ms·

Has anyone published a risk/benefit analysis of the vaccines?

gsibble 5y ago
Not that I'm aware of. They were rushed to market and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.
- teekert 5y ago
  What?? I call bs unless you have some proof.
  - gsibble 5y ago
    Which part? Here's a source on the 75 years: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-...
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      This is an not remotely true: > and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least. They released all of the relevant clinical data right away - weird antivaxxers sued for the full patient records which the FDA will provide after redacting PII, which they estimated would take 75 years given the huge volume of pages they'd have to review and their current staff size / existing workload that they're legally obligated to address. The data "wasn't supposed to remain hidden" it's just never made public because the summary data already addressed everything in the individual patient files. The patient files can be made public after redaction but unless congress gives them a bunch more money to hire new staff, they're only capable of processing 500 pages/month.
      - teekert 5y ago
        Ah yes this sounds logical.
      - gsibble 5y ago
        I find it highly suspicious that removing PII would take 75 years. That's laughable. That's deleting some columns from a database.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        It's not a database - they're literal PDFs of patient charts with doctor notes. They would need to have a human review every page.
        gsibble 5y ago
        I could build software to automate that and it wouldn't take 75 years. 75 years is a joke.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        Okay. Cool. Again, 75 years is just a dumb calculation of the number of pages responsive to the FOIA request divided by their 'free capacity' to review 500 pages per month. They weren't suggesting to actually spend the next 75 years doing it, they were hoping the requester would narrow their request to something relevant. You could just have congress authorize 10 more staff, increase their capacity to 50,000 pages/month and you'd have it in 9 months. There's no technical limitation, there's no conspiracy theory, it's just a question of staff time [they are legally obligated to process FOIAs, including all of the 'regular order' ones, so they can't just drop all of their other work to focus on this one request]
        gsibble 5y ago
        Why is the federal taxpayer paying for removing PII from a Pfizer study? Shouldn't Pfizer pay for it? I'm confused.
    - teekert 5y ago
      What!?, why is that legal??
- doesnotexist 5y ago
  What are you talking about? You do know the vaccines were granted full FDA approval? How do you think that occured? "Full approval is granted when, over time, the FDA has amassed even more scientific evidence to support use of the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that the benefits of the vaccine are greater than its risks, and that the vaccines can be manufactured reliably, safely and with consistent quality." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... Look at this ultra top secret data I found by typing "covid 19 vaccine clinical trials data" into google: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-results https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-resu... wait till you type in "covid-19 vacccine risk benefit analysis" You'll be entered into a secret society with knowledge that has been kept from the sheeple.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    Why are you so eager to take Pfizer's own statements at face value? Don't you think there's a bit of a conflict of interest here? And suddenly regulatory capture doesn't exist either? The clinical data is effectively a secret between the FDA and Pfizer, both orgs which have their own pressures to approve of the vaccine and possibly downplay adverse events. Not to mention Pfizer has been preemptively absolved of legal responsibility for any harm. People are right to be suspicious.
    - doesnotexist 5y ago
      First off, I'm not taking anything at face value. My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google. As to your statements, I'm sorry but that just isn't how any of this works. Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Not to mention competition among companies and academic researchers. Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-anti-vaxxers-stop-talking-about-facts/ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...
- _Microft 5y ago
  It wasn't "supposed to be hidden for 75 years". It would have taken 75 years to properly anonymize the 450,000 pages that some people thought they could just request.
  - gsibble 5y ago
    How would it take 75 years to remove PII? That's deleting some columns from a database. Laughable explanation.
    - _Microft 5y ago
      Identifying what needs to be redacted is the difficult part. They requested full patient records which would have to be looked through in entirety by a human for identifying information.
      - gsibble 5y ago
        And it would take 75 years to build software to do that automatically? We went to the moon in 9 years. I don't think it would take 75 years to figure out how to clear up some PII in PDFs.
mikeyouse 5y ago
That's literally what the vaccine clinical trials addressed.. It's a very easy calculation when you assume the virus is endemic and eventually everyone will catch it.
- Izkata 5y ago
  Pfizer's trial showed higher all-cause mortality in the vaccine group, so probably not the best example. (IIRC it was like 15 vs 18 or 21; not high, but it is enough to question the actual safety IMO)
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Which study? And against which population? Because the all-cause mortality assuming everyone is infected with Covid in both groups is overwhelmingly in favor of the vaccines.
    - Izkata 5y ago
      I said trial, not study. It's the one they got the EUA under; everyone was hyper-focused on the covid-only results and kinda just ignored that part of it.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        I was using the terms interchangeably since they publish the trial results as a study in medical journals but ok. Specifically, which phase of the Pfizer trials? They got the EUA after completing three phases.. Phase 1/2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4.pdf Page 10 shows 0 deaths in the trial with the most severe adverse event being a "disturbed sleep" event. Phase 3: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTools=true https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTo... This was the big RCT trial with 43,400 participants. 2 participants in the medication group died, 4 participants in the control group died, so the vaccine cuts deaths from unrelated causes by 50%! (joking of course) In any case, they didn't even include all cause mortality as an end point. So again - please provide a link to whatever it is you're referring to because "trust me bro, more people died" doesn't really cut it.

Not that I'm aware of. They were rushed to market and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.

teekert 5y ago
What?? I call bs unless you have some proof.
- gsibble 5y ago
  Which part? Here's a source on the 75 years: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-...
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    This is an not remotely true: > and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least. They released all of the relevant clinical data right away - weird antivaxxers sued for the full patient records which the FDA will provide after redacting PII, which they estimated would take 75 years given the huge volume of pages they'd have to review and their current staff size / existing workload that they're legally obligated to address. The data "wasn't supposed to remain hidden" it's just never made public because the summary data already addressed everything in the individual patient files. The patient files can be made public after redaction but unless congress gives them a bunch more money to hire new staff, they're only capable of processing 500 pages/month.
    - teekert 5y ago
      Ah yes this sounds logical.
    - gsibble 5y ago
      I find it highly suspicious that removing PII would take 75 years. That's laughable. That's deleting some columns from a database.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        It's not a database - they're literal PDFs of patient charts with doctor notes. They would need to have a human review every page.
        gsibble 5y ago
        I could build software to automate that and it wouldn't take 75 years. 75 years is a joke.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        Okay. Cool. Again, 75 years is just a dumb calculation of the number of pages responsive to the FOIA request divided by their 'free capacity' to review 500 pages per month. They weren't suggesting to actually spend the next 75 years doing it, they were hoping the requester would narrow their request to something relevant. You could just have congress authorize 10 more staff, increase their capacity to 50,000 pages/month and you'd have it in 9 months. There's no technical limitation, there's no conspiracy theory, it's just a question of staff time [they are legally obligated to process FOIAs, including all of the 'regular order' ones, so they can't just drop all of their other work to focus on this one request]
        gsibble 5y ago
        Why is the federal taxpayer paying for removing PII from a Pfizer study? Shouldn't Pfizer pay for it? I'm confused.
  - teekert 5y ago
    What!?, why is that legal??
doesnotexist 5y ago
What are you talking about? You do know the vaccines were granted full FDA approval? How do you think that occured? "Full approval is granted when, over time, the FDA has amassed even more scientific evidence to support use of the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that the benefits of the vaccine are greater than its risks, and that the vaccines can be manufactured reliably, safely and with consistent quality." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... Look at this ultra top secret data I found by typing "covid 19 vaccine clinical trials data" into google: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-results https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-resu... wait till you type in "covid-19 vacccine risk benefit analysis" You'll be entered into a secret society with knowledge that has been kept from the sheeple.
- twofornone 5y ago
  Why are you so eager to take Pfizer's own statements at face value? Don't you think there's a bit of a conflict of interest here? And suddenly regulatory capture doesn't exist either? The clinical data is effectively a secret between the FDA and Pfizer, both orgs which have their own pressures to approve of the vaccine and possibly downplay adverse events. Not to mention Pfizer has been preemptively absolved of legal responsibility for any harm. People are right to be suspicious.
  - doesnotexist 5y ago
    First off, I'm not taking anything at face value. My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google. As to your statements, I'm sorry but that just isn't how any of this works. Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Not to mention competition among companies and academic researchers. Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-anti-vaxxers-stop-talking-about-facts/ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...
_Microft 5y ago
It wasn't "supposed to be hidden for 75 years". It would have taken 75 years to properly anonymize the 450,000 pages that some people thought they could just request.
- gsibble 5y ago
  How would it take 75 years to remove PII? That's deleting some columns from a database. Laughable explanation.
  - _Microft 5y ago
    Identifying what needs to be redacted is the difficult part. They requested full patient records which would have to be looked through in entirety by a human for identifying information.
    - gsibble 5y ago
      And it would take 75 years to build software to do that automatically? We went to the moon in 9 years. I don't think it would take 75 years to figure out how to clear up some PII in PDFs.

mikeyouse 5y ago

That's literally what the vaccine clinical trials addressed.. It's a very easy calculation when you assume the virus is endemic and eventually everyone will catch it.

Izkata 5y ago
Pfizer's trial showed higher all-cause mortality in the vaccine group, so probably not the best example. (IIRC it was like 15 vs 18 or 21; not high, but it is enough to question the actual safety IMO)
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Which study? And against which population? Because the all-cause mortality assuming everyone is infected with Covid in both groups is overwhelmingly in favor of the vaccines.
  - Izkata 5y ago
    I said trial, not study. It's the one they got the EUA under; everyone was hyper-focused on the covid-only results and kinda just ignored that part of it.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      I was using the terms interchangeably since they publish the trial results as a study in medical journals but ok. Specifically, which phase of the Pfizer trials? They got the EUA after completing three phases.. Phase 1/2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4.pdf Page 10 shows 0 deaths in the trial with the most severe adverse event being a "disturbed sleep" event. Phase 3: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTools=true https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTo... This was the big RCT trial with 43,400 participants. 2 participants in the medication group died, 4 participants in the control group died, so the vaccine cuts deaths from unrelated causes by 50%! (joking of course) In any case, they didn't even include all cause mortality as an end point. So again - please provide a link to whatever it is you're referring to because "trust me bro, more people died" doesn't really cut it.