4 ms·

Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy. If you c

Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy. If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling. And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself. Please prove me wrong. Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one). I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.

azan_ 4mo ago
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
- trimethylpurine 4mo ago
  Seriously? There is only one study that the FDA cited to claim that it was safe and effective submitted by Pfizer. But let me help then. Let's ignore the fact that the head of the FDA was fired and replaced because he refused to say so. Let's just look at the research directly. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Love to hear your input here. Check the math carefully. > "Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives." I'm convinced you didn't get this idea from honestly reading research.
  - azan_ 4mo ago
    Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
    - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
      27% had a bad reaction to the treatment. Name another vaccine (pre COVID definition) that has a similar statistical outcome. Pre-COVID routine vaccines have a 1/500,000 or less negative rate. Hell, even 1/10,000 would be reasonable in an emergency (should be optional at that rate though). 1/3 is not okay. That's far worse than the disease it's supposed to treat. You need to have horns and a tail to call 1/3 safe. There is no justification for that. And look what happened as a result. People stopped trusting their govt and vaccines altogether and we have outbreaks of things we never saw in our lifetime.
      - azan_ 4mo ago
        Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.
        trimethylpurine 4mo ago
        The Democrats killing people point is about the NIH investment in illegal research in Wuhan, covering it up, releasing it, and preemptively pardoning it, robbing the public of a fair trial and justice. You're conflating two separate points. To the point you're ignoring, this study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. And nearly all conditions of COVID are also very much reversible so that's not a good comparison point in favor of the treatment anyway. I don't get from you that you're reading in good faith. Be a scientist. Read it critically. Poke holes in it, like you would a lab partner or a student. Remember, this was not peer reviewed! The reviewers are the researchers. The study itself doesn't meet the basic threshold for scientific rigor as it is. YOU need to review it. This wasn't a no big deal incidence rate. Find another approved vaccine with a number that high. You can't. Pull the CDC data into any SQL server and see if any treatment in history has anywhere near the number of negative reactions. These are not "got a red spot" or "said ouch" incidents. These are cases of permanent paralysis, heart attacks in unusually young patients, strokes, and death. Just filter for those specifically and you'll see that the rate of incidence is 100s of times greater than other vaccines. You simply can't explain that. Can you?

azan_ 4mo ago

But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.

trimethylpurine 4mo ago
Seriously? There is only one study that the FDA cited to claim that it was safe and effective submitted by Pfizer. But let me help then. Let's ignore the fact that the head of the FDA was fired and replaced because he refused to say so. Let's just look at the research directly. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Love to hear your input here. Check the math carefully. > "Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives." I'm convinced you didn't get this idea from honestly reading research.
- azan_ 4mo ago
  Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
  - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
    27% had a bad reaction to the treatment. Name another vaccine (pre COVID definition) that has a similar statistical outcome. Pre-COVID routine vaccines have a 1/500,000 or less negative rate. Hell, even 1/10,000 would be reasonable in an emergency (should be optional at that rate though). 1/3 is not okay. That's far worse than the disease it's supposed to treat. You need to have horns and a tail to call 1/3 safe. There is no justification for that. And look what happened as a result. People stopped trusting their govt and vaccines altogether and we have outbreaks of things we never saw in our lifetime.
    - azan_ 4mo ago
      Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.
      - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
        The Democrats killing people point is about the NIH investment in illegal research in Wuhan, covering it up, releasing it, and preemptively pardoning it, robbing the public of a fair trial and justice. You're conflating two separate points. To the point you're ignoring, this study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. And nearly all conditions of COVID are also very much reversible so that's not a good comparison point in favor of the treatment anyway. I don't get from you that you're reading in good faith. Be a scientist. Read it critically. Poke holes in it, like you would a lab partner or a student. Remember, this was not peer reviewed! The reviewers are the researchers. The study itself doesn't meet the basic threshold for scientific rigor as it is. YOU need to review it. This wasn't a no big deal incidence rate. Find another approved vaccine with a number that high. You can't. Pull the CDC data into any SQL server and see if any treatment in history has anywhere near the number of negative reactions. These are not "got a red spot" or "said ouch" incidents. These are cases of permanent paralysis, heart attacks in unusually young patients, strokes, and death. Just filter for those specifically and you'll see that the rate of incidence is 100s of times greater than other vaccines. You simply can't explain that. Can you?