She’s so sneaky that she hedges by claiming it’s what the experts are saying and she’s just the messenger. This is beyond poor reporting, it’s irresponsible for the NYT to publish it. If they want to do investigative reporting on misinformation, they don’t need to go very far.
Daniel, one of the key lessons from the pandemic is how easily misled the public and the medical profession as a whole could be by deferring to the "experts". Fauci has deep knowledge and expertise in virology and immunology but zero depth in public health policy and in child development. He has never really looked back at his misdeeds. There is not an ounce of humility or ability for self-criticism in his portfolio. He is a great study in tragic figures.
“The question is whether there is a reduction in severe disease, hospitalization and death. This was shown to be the case in randomized trials for the first 2 doses in late 2020 and early 2021. “
If I’m not mistaken, RCTs did NOT show an all-cause mortality benefit for the first two doses. More people in the intervention group does vs. controls...not a hell of a lot more, but more.
If you’re going to question data in this space, you need to be more specific about where there’s an oversight on VPs part. “If I’m not mistaken” doesn’t cut it. We would like to learn from everyone who contributes. My interpretation is that the studies clearly demonstrated decrease in covid specific mortality, and that all cause mortality was not an endpoint. Unlike a cancer drug study, the vaccine is intended to prevent, not treat an existing condition to prolong life.
3. After 3 months there were 15 dead recipients and 14 dead controls.
To summarize, about 40k people participated. After three months you were no more likely to be alive regardless if you received the vaccine.
Yes, there were more “Covid” deaths in the control group. On the other hand, there were more cardiovascular deaths in the treatment group. Overall: no mortality benefit.
I’ll put this back on VP: if there’s a meaningful mortality benefit to the Pfizer shot, for example, I’d like to know where this was demonstrated via RCT (not some BS epidemiology).
Yes, i saw this appendix too. You are correct. Christine stabell benn out of denmark has also been a trustworthy on the topic of vaccines , cv and in general.
With the information emerging from April to Sept 2020 (and even before 2020), we knew several things. 1. The CFR was going to be way less than 1% (not 4%).
2. Over 40% of people had effective T cell immunity from exposure to earlier corona viruses. 3. Vaccines were not going to stop infection or spread.
4. Anyone with a functional immune system was going to be able to cope with this virus. 5. If you had a chronic inflammatory condition (regardless of age) you were at high risk because of the interaction of the virus withTLR4.
These days we now also know about IGg4 class switching and myocarditis which are more reasons not to get repeat vaccinations. Who knows what else will emerge.
That's "the science" irrespective of what Pfizer says.
Jack McJackers’ comment is correct. The endpoint of the trials was the presence or absence of symptomatic disease, confirmed with a positive test. The trials were not powered to differentiate between serious or mild disease, or death, just whether symptoms were present or not.
I’m going from memory, but there were about 200 symptomatic cases in the control arm, and only 10 in the vaccine group. 95% reduction, Yea!
But there were about 15,000 people in each group. Whether it’s 200/15,000 or 10/15,000, the result is pretty close to 0, so the absolute risk of having symptoms was very small.
And that was only for the few month at most it did any good. After that it was either useless or harmful.
This Aproova is not a journalist. She is just a PR agent. She couldn’t think her way out of paper-bag, let alone exercise curiosity. she doesn’t know the difference between an antibody and petri-dish. She could care less. She prides herself on having a platform to burp her insipid/ vapid middle school level unthinking blathering ---gets paid to do it--- for her to act otherwise would cost her job. if you subscribe to this soiled diaper; cancel subscription
What is scary is that this is the message many DOCTORS are also giving out. Yet when you ask what data is there to prove that this booster will protect you - silence or spin.
"She is an opinionated person with no medical training, and a threat to public understanding of science." Actually, CDC/FDA did that by themselves.. All she's doing is parroting *THE* science from CDC/FDA. If you want to kill the snake, you have to cut of its head. Also, there's an old Korean saying..For the downstream to be clean, the upstream has to be clean. W/O firing EVERY "Scientist" at CDC/FDA, there's just no cure. It's too far gone. If trust were a patient, it flatlined a LONG time ago.
And then suddenly it happened. Vinay awoke from his deep liberal sleep and realized The NYT has always had a political agenda that is it does not confine to its editorial pages. He then went down to the clerks's office, registered as a Republican and lived happily ever after.
All they have to do is throw around terms like "antibodies", "subvariants" etc. and the article seems legit to so many people. In today's SF Chronicle Aidin Vaziri writes "As the US emerges from another summer of COVID 19 wave, authorities have a clearer picture of who the coronavirus has affected most...." and then she goes on to say a study by the CDC reveals "older adults"....LMAO. I couldn't believe it. We are being told this fact on year 4 when most of us knew this on year 1. How stupid they all think we are.
And all NYTimes journalists are certified Wellness Bitches. The real damage is that we closed down because 65% are obese. And the close down meant printing $ trillions . Same with 911. We had to cover up our failure to stop the terrorists in the first place. Israel has the same issue. The CDC lied, but they will escape once Ozempic is in a pill. But the economy will not recover.
Apoorva is not a threat to public understanding of science. NY Times is.
If a sales rep or a marketing rep gives you wrong info about a product, you don't punish that person. You punish the company they represent by rejecting that product.
Excellent analysis, Vinay. "Science writers" are a curious lot and really should be interested in dissenting views. This individual shows no interest in hearing from those who dissent. Most physicians read the news and journals superficially and still have not figured out how a brilliant virologist/immunologist like Fauci could have been so wrong on so many issues and have violated ethical norms and conflict of interest tenets while hiding them from the public.
This piece really echoed through many circles I'm around. What a terrible way to downplay people's concerns, especially when many of them came out to be true. In fact, this is medical misinformation that could have seriously deadly or harmful consequences, especially when myocarditis is probably much more prevalent than thought given how hard various pseudoscientific PR firms such as NYT, Scientific American, and other gee whiz pop science mags downplayed it.
How confusing that would make it -- how would people know when to seek help if there is an actual reaction?
I get people wanting to prosecute for misinformation now. Too bad I have principles.
She’s so sneaky that she hedges by claiming it’s what the experts are saying and she’s just the messenger. This is beyond poor reporting, it’s irresponsible for the NYT to publish it. If they want to do investigative reporting on misinformation, they don’t need to go very far.
Daniel, one of the key lessons from the pandemic is how easily misled the public and the medical profession as a whole could be by deferring to the "experts". Fauci has deep knowledge and expertise in virology and immunology but zero depth in public health policy and in child development. He has never really looked back at his misdeeds. There is not an ounce of humility or ability for self-criticism in his portfolio. He is a great study in tragic figures.
I still know a lot of people who believe this type of reporting like it’s their bible.
Plenty of them here in Australia too.
“The question is whether there is a reduction in severe disease, hospitalization and death. This was shown to be the case in randomized trials for the first 2 doses in late 2020 and early 2021. “
If I’m not mistaken, RCTs did NOT show an all-cause mortality benefit for the first two doses. More people in the intervention group does vs. controls...not a hell of a lot more, but more.
Bad oversight by VP.
If you’re going to question data in this space, you need to be more specific about where there’s an oversight on VPs part. “If I’m not mistaken” doesn’t cut it. We would like to learn from everyone who contributes. My interpretation is that the studies clearly demonstrated decrease in covid specific mortality, and that all cause mortality was not an endpoint. Unlike a cancer drug study, the vaccine is intended to prevent, not treat an existing condition to prolong life.
Daniel, fair points all around.
1. Pfizer’s RCT as originally published in NEJM.
2. Ignore the write up; open the appendix.
3. After 3 months there were 15 dead recipients and 14 dead controls.
To summarize, about 40k people participated. After three months you were no more likely to be alive regardless if you received the vaccine.
Yes, there were more “Covid” deaths in the control group. On the other hand, there were more cardiovascular deaths in the treatment group. Overall: no mortality benefit.
I’ll put this back on VP: if there’s a meaningful mortality benefit to the Pfizer shot, for example, I’d like to know where this was demonstrated via RCT (not some BS epidemiology).
Yes, i saw this appendix too. You are correct. Christine stabell benn out of denmark has also been a trustworthy on the topic of vaccines , cv and in general.
With the information emerging from April to Sept 2020 (and even before 2020), we knew several things. 1. The CFR was going to be way less than 1% (not 4%).
2. Over 40% of people had effective T cell immunity from exposure to earlier corona viruses. 3. Vaccines were not going to stop infection or spread.
4. Anyone with a functional immune system was going to be able to cope with this virus. 5. If you had a chronic inflammatory condition (regardless of age) you were at high risk because of the interaction of the virus withTLR4.
These days we now also know about IGg4 class switching and myocarditis which are more reasons not to get repeat vaccinations. Who knows what else will emerge.
That's "the science" irrespective of what Pfizer says.
Jack McJackers’ comment is correct. The endpoint of the trials was the presence or absence of symptomatic disease, confirmed with a positive test. The trials were not powered to differentiate between serious or mild disease, or death, just whether symptoms were present or not.
I’m going from memory, but there were about 200 symptomatic cases in the control arm, and only 10 in the vaccine group. 95% reduction, Yea!
But there were about 15,000 people in each group. Whether it’s 200/15,000 or 10/15,000, the result is pretty close to 0, so the absolute risk of having symptoms was very small.
And that was only for the few month at most it did any good. After that it was either useless or harmful.
This Aproova is not a journalist. She is just a PR agent. She couldn’t think her way out of paper-bag, let alone exercise curiosity. she doesn’t know the difference between an antibody and petri-dish. She could care less. She prides herself on having a platform to burp her insipid/ vapid middle school level unthinking blathering ---gets paid to do it--- for her to act otherwise would cost her job. if you subscribe to this soiled diaper; cancel subscription
What is scary is that this is the message many DOCTORS are also giving out. Yet when you ask what data is there to prove that this booster will protect you - silence or spin.
Or you are called an anti-vaxxer....
"She is an opinionated person with no medical training, and a threat to public understanding of science." Actually, CDC/FDA did that by themselves.. All she's doing is parroting *THE* science from CDC/FDA. If you want to kill the snake, you have to cut of its head. Also, there's an old Korean saying..For the downstream to be clean, the upstream has to be clean. W/O firing EVERY "Scientist" at CDC/FDA, there's just no cure. It's too far gone. If trust were a patient, it flatlined a LONG time ago.
And then suddenly it happened. Vinay awoke from his deep liberal sleep and realized The NYT has always had a political agenda that is it does not confine to its editorial pages. He then went down to the clerks's office, registered as a Republican and lived happily ever after.
"Apoorva only talks to experts who support her bizarre worldview."
I'm not convinced she's talking to anyone. More and more it sounds like she's just making shit up.
All they have to do is throw around terms like "antibodies", "subvariants" etc. and the article seems legit to so many people. In today's SF Chronicle Aidin Vaziri writes "As the US emerges from another summer of COVID 19 wave, authorities have a clearer picture of who the coronavirus has affected most...." and then she goes on to say a study by the CDC reveals "older adults"....LMAO. I couldn't believe it. We are being told this fact on year 4 when most of us knew this on year 1. How stupid they all think we are.
Covid wave? Did I miss it?
LOL, right? good point
It’s Malpractice at this point.
Realize she’s not a doctor.
Science, where art thou?
It’s so awful! Thank you for reporting on all this! So many people read this garbage.
And all NYTimes journalists are certified Wellness Bitches. The real damage is that we closed down because 65% are obese. And the close down meant printing $ trillions . Same with 911. We had to cover up our failure to stop the terrorists in the first place. Israel has the same issue. The CDC lied, but they will escape once Ozempic is in a pill. But the economy will not recover.
Apoorva is not the problem. NY Times is.
Apoorva is not a threat to public understanding of science. NY Times is.
If a sales rep or a marketing rep gives you wrong info about a product, you don't punish that person. You punish the company they represent by rejecting that product.
Excellent analysis, Vinay. "Science writers" are a curious lot and really should be interested in dissenting views. This individual shows no interest in hearing from those who dissent. Most physicians read the news and journals superficially and still have not figured out how a brilliant virologist/immunologist like Fauci could have been so wrong on so many issues and have violated ethical norms and conflict of interest tenets while hiding them from the public.
Courtesy of Intellectual Froglegs, Joe Dan “watching corporate news to stay informed is like drinking raw sewage to stay hydrated”
This piece really echoed through many circles I'm around. What a terrible way to downplay people's concerns, especially when many of them came out to be true. In fact, this is medical misinformation that could have seriously deadly or harmful consequences, especially when myocarditis is probably much more prevalent than thought given how hard various pseudoscientific PR firms such as NYT, Scientific American, and other gee whiz pop science mags downplayed it.
How confusing that would make it -- how would people know when to seek help if there is an actual reaction?
I get people wanting to prosecute for misinformation now. Too bad I have principles.