3 ms·

Lol, no they're not. This is an extremely rare event that was nonetheless detected by scientists who then nonetheless updated dosing guidelines to mitigate it

by estearum 11mo ago

Lol, no they're not. This is an extremely rare event that was nonetheless detected by scientists who then nonetheless updated dosing guidelines to mitigate it as early as February 2022. This has been an active area of focus since before the drugs were even released which is why such events were in fact tracked closely during the 30,000+ participant clinical trials. Those gigantic clinical trials (some of the largest RCTs ever conducted) didn't detect this issue because of its extreme rarity. This is exactly the drug development and post-market surveillance process working correctly. At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone, and slightly weighted toward vaccination for the most SAE-prone group (young men). And that's all assuming COVID doesn't have latent systemic effects like many viruses do (chickenpox, ebola, or measles come to mind). The skeptics have been wrong at every turn. It's even too generous to say a broken clock is right twice a day.

kvnn 11mo ago
> At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone You are a zealot.
- windows_hater_7 11mo ago
  [dead]
pkphilip 11mo ago
It is not rare at all. Fact is, as more and more data comes out we are becoming more and more aware that the Covid vaccines have caused severe damage. Here is the data collated from 125 countries: there were about 31 million excess deaths across the 2020-23 period. Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world (125 countries) during the Covid period 2020-2023 regarding socio-economic factors and public-health and medical interventions https://hal.science/hal-05110349 https://hal.science/hal-05110349 Explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk
- yongjik 11mo ago
  > there were about 31 million excess deaths across the 2020-23 period ...am I missing something, or are you saying there were 31 million excess deaths during which the world had COVID ??? I'd say, yeah that tracks ...?
  - Terr_ 11mo ago
    "At the same time everybody was using umbrellas, lots of people got wet! Clearly, umbrellas are at fault."
    - estearum 11mo ago
      If only there were some method by which we could disaggregate effects like these... Perhaps we could get a huge number of people and then randomly assign some of them to a "treatment" group and then some to a "control" group. We don't tell people which group they're in. Then we measure whether they got wet. Just a thought...
- cthalupa 11mo ago
  The lead "researcher" on that paper is a climate change denier who also claims covid didn't exist. He also used racial slurs against a former colleague. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt He's not a credible source. HAL is not a peer reviewed journal, it is an open archive where you can upload papers regardless of publication status. Meanwhile, we have excellent actual research done by credible researchers in peer reviewed journals like https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2842305 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... that directly dispute this nonsense.
  - youarentrightjr 11mo ago
    > The lead "researcher" on that paper is a climate change denier who also claims covid didn't exist. He also used racial slurs against a former colleague. I invite you to read another important Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well No doubt Denis Rancourt holds false and reprehensible beliefs. But you can defeat his claims without attacking his person.
barbacoa 11mo ago
>Those gigantic clinical trials (some of the largest RCTs ever conducted) didn't detect this issue because of its extreme rarity. You assume good faith on their part. These studies are run by the same companies that stand to make billions based off the study outcomes. For example we know now when a toddler died in the Moderna covid RTC of cardiac arrest after vaccination they reportedly covered it up and didn't report it. This all is starting to sound a lot like what happened with vioxx. Where an increase in heart problems was detected in RTC but covered up. Vioxx would go on to cause an estimated 50000 deaths from heart attack.
- estearum 11mo ago
  > These studies are run by the same companies that stand to make billions based off the study outcomes No they're not. Studies are run by a distributed network of large, medium, and small businesses who are independently following the "recipe" designed by the pharma company. Then this data is submitted back to the pharma company and collated into a report that is given to the FDA. It is effectively impossible to systematically get a couple hundred or couple thousand independent trial sites to misreport safety data. It is possible that the pharma company could manipulate data during collation, but unsurprisingly there is a vast infrastructure to detect this and gargantuan penalties for when they're discovered. > For example we know now when a toddler died in the Moderna covid RTC of cardiac arrest after vaccination they reportedly covered it up and didn't report it. This is literally not true. You can find the death reported in the exact regulatory filing exactly when and where it should have been reported. What happened is that a Substack author found it and has made it seem like it was not reported. Re Vioxx comparison: Sure we should always be vigilant for another Vioxx. The way we do that is through fair and levelheaded analysis of the data we have available. Right now, that analysis lands very clearly on the side of vaccines. At the scale of vaccine rollout, we would not need to squint to see signal of a major problem.

kvnn 11mo ago

> At every point (and even still) the risk calculus is heavily weighted toward vaccination for nearly everyone You are a zealot.

windows_hater_7 11mo ago
[dead]

pkphilip 11mo ago

It is not rare at all. Fact is, as more and more data comes out we are becoming more and more aware that the Covid vaccines have caused severe damage. Here is the data collated from 125 countries: there were about 31 million excess deaths across the 2020-23 period. Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world (125 countries) during the Covid period 2020-2023 regarding socio-economic factors and public-health and medical interventions https://hal.science/hal-05110349 https://hal.science/hal-05110349 Explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkKBqpLjAk

yongjik 11mo ago
> there were about 31 million excess deaths across the 2020-23 period ...am I missing something, or are you saying there were 31 million excess deaths during which the world had COVID ??? I'd say, yeah that tracks ...?
- Terr_ 11mo ago
  "At the same time everybody was using umbrellas, lots of people got wet! Clearly, umbrellas are at fault."
  - estearum 11mo ago
    If only there were some method by which we could disaggregate effects like these... Perhaps we could get a huge number of people and then randomly assign some of them to a "treatment" group and then some to a "control" group. We don't tell people which group they're in. Then we measure whether they got wet. Just a thought...
cthalupa 11mo ago
The lead "researcher" on that paper is a climate change denier who also claims covid didn't exist. He also used racial slurs against a former colleague. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt He's not a credible source. HAL is not a peer reviewed journal, it is an open archive where you can upload papers regardless of publication status. Meanwhile, we have excellent actual research done by credible researchers in peer reviewed journals like https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2842305 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... that directly dispute this nonsense.
- youarentrightjr 11mo ago
  > The lead "researcher" on that paper is a climate change denier who also claims covid didn't exist. He also used racial slurs against a former colleague. I invite you to read another important Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well No doubt Denis Rancourt holds false and reprehensible beliefs. But you can defeat his claims without attacking his person.

barbacoa 11mo ago

>Those gigantic clinical trials (some of the largest RCTs ever conducted) didn't detect this issue because of its extreme rarity. You assume good faith on their part. These studies are run by the same companies that stand to make billions based off the study outcomes. For example we know now when a toddler died in the Moderna covid RTC of cardiac arrest after vaccination they reportedly covered it up and didn't report it. This all is starting to sound a lot like what happened with vioxx. Where an increase in heart problems was detected in RTC but covered up. Vioxx would go on to cause an estimated 50000 deaths from heart attack.

estearum 11mo ago
> These studies are run by the same companies that stand to make billions based off the study outcomes No they're not. Studies are run by a distributed network of large, medium, and small businesses who are independently following the "recipe" designed by the pharma company. Then this data is submitted back to the pharma company and collated into a report that is given to the FDA. It is effectively impossible to systematically get a couple hundred or couple thousand independent trial sites to misreport safety data. It is possible that the pharma company could manipulate data during collation, but unsurprisingly there is a vast infrastructure to detect this and gargantuan penalties for when they're discovered. > For example we know now when a toddler died in the Moderna covid RTC of cardiac arrest after vaccination they reportedly covered it up and didn't report it. This is literally not true. You can find the death reported in the exact regulatory filing exactly when and where it should have been reported. What happened is that a Substack author found it and has made it seem like it was not reported. Re Vioxx comparison: Sure we should always be vigilant for another Vioxx. The way we do that is through fair and levelheaded analysis of the data we have available. Right now, that analysis lands very clearly on the side of vaccines. At the scale of vaccine rollout, we would not need to squint to see signal of a major problem.