Wait. I thought that’s what science is, right? It expires when you find out there’s a better way or you’ve been wrong the whole time. I think the enormous problem is (esp since nearly every dr lost their minds these past four years and counting) that there’s been a protocol forced on everyone and it was killing people and it’s not been stopped. I think they’re still pushing the gene therapy and calling it a safe and effective vax. I give up.
Vinay -- Good observations and commentary, but I would like to point out that your analysis of "vaccine vs virus" misses a major flaw of those who minimize the harms of the vaccine:
The comparison is really "vaccine vs no vaccine (those who get placebo)". A valid study of vaccine harms should measure serious outcomes of the entire cohort of vaccine recipients to the serious outcomes of the entire cohort of non-recipients. Remember that only a fraction of non-recipients get covid. Naturally, this fraction depends on the duration of the study and incidence of covid that subjects face during the study period. Stated in the language of probability, untoward outcomes of the vaccine are a simple probability: x chance of a bad effect using all recipients as a denominator. For placebo recipients the risk of an untoward outcome is conditioned on the risk of actually getting the disease, a mere fraction. Therefore, the correct denominator includes everyone receiving placebo, not the much smaller one of those who get the disease.
This comparison can be easily illustrated by Venn diagrams.
Using real data: the original Pfizer mRNA vaccine study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/) was for about three months during the original outbreak when covid was widely circulating. Even so, fewer than 1% of placebo recipients got covid. (roughly 162/22,000) Stated alternately, the vast majority -- > 99% -- of the placebo group had zero risk of any outcome from either the vaccine or disease. Even extending the period of study to years, there would still be a residual group of non-vaccine recipients with neither vaccine risk or disease risk. Of course, as you noted, over the long run the vaccine group would be subject to many doses of vaccine, and most of these would have gotten ill with covid anyway.
The assumption that not getting the vaccine is the same as getting the disease is plainly wrong, and must be challenged on the grounds that a simple probability is not comparable to a conditional probability.
I continue to doubt that what is called medical evidence is not quite up to snuff to begin with. It is only evidence if it advances big pharma's profit margins and bottom line and lines the doctor's pockets. After reading "How We Do Harm", by Otis Brawley, I rest my case. And this was 15-30 years ago...I imagine it's a 100 times worse now.
Majority of the world population, almost 99.5% had immune memory from previous Coronavirus exposure. The blood collected before 2020 has shown it and everybody after exposure to Covid-19 or after the vax produced IgG and not IgM, which is the response from Immune memory and not exposure to any novel virus. I find it quite not palatable you advising this vaccine even for vulnerable as antibodies in the blood doesn't protect from respiratory virus. Doctors for Covid Ethics, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is highlighting these facts from the beginning.
Regarding the rapid response teams. Not only is it important to measure outcomes for the individual patient, it is important to determine how these teams may affect other patients in the hospital. On units I’m assuming the care that is normally provided in the hour plus of a code is halted. Does the rapid response team indirectly help the whole ward? Or are there just more people standing around “just in case?”
Thanks for this. The hoops/metrics that we are told to jump through, based on questionable data make little sense much of the time and don't age well either. They are difficult remove once in place, distort incentives, don't necessarily benefit and may harm patients, encourage treating everyone the same regardless of patient specific factors that might warrant a different approach
Wait. I thought that’s what science is, right? It expires when you find out there’s a better way or you’ve been wrong the whole time. I think the enormous problem is (esp since nearly every dr lost their minds these past four years and counting) that there’s been a protocol forced on everyone and it was killing people and it’s not been stopped. I think they’re still pushing the gene therapy and calling it a safe and effective vax. I give up.
Exactly, science isn't a certain endpoint but a method or process of constantly questioning and testing.
Yes! What you said. lol. Soooo much better than my snarky comment
Vinay -- Good observations and commentary, but I would like to point out that your analysis of "vaccine vs virus" misses a major flaw of those who minimize the harms of the vaccine:
The comparison is really "vaccine vs no vaccine (those who get placebo)". A valid study of vaccine harms should measure serious outcomes of the entire cohort of vaccine recipients to the serious outcomes of the entire cohort of non-recipients. Remember that only a fraction of non-recipients get covid. Naturally, this fraction depends on the duration of the study and incidence of covid that subjects face during the study period. Stated in the language of probability, untoward outcomes of the vaccine are a simple probability: x chance of a bad effect using all recipients as a denominator. For placebo recipients the risk of an untoward outcome is conditioned on the risk of actually getting the disease, a mere fraction. Therefore, the correct denominator includes everyone receiving placebo, not the much smaller one of those who get the disease.
This comparison can be easily illustrated by Venn diagrams.
Using real data: the original Pfizer mRNA vaccine study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/) was for about three months during the original outbreak when covid was widely circulating. Even so, fewer than 1% of placebo recipients got covid. (roughly 162/22,000) Stated alternately, the vast majority -- > 99% -- of the placebo group had zero risk of any outcome from either the vaccine or disease. Even extending the period of study to years, there would still be a residual group of non-vaccine recipients with neither vaccine risk or disease risk. Of course, as you noted, over the long run the vaccine group would be subject to many doses of vaccine, and most of these would have gotten ill with covid anyway.
The assumption that not getting the vaccine is the same as getting the disease is plainly wrong, and must be challenged on the grounds that a simple probability is not comparable to a conditional probability.
I continue to doubt that what is called medical evidence is not quite up to snuff to begin with. It is only evidence if it advances big pharma's profit margins and bottom line and lines the doctor's pockets. After reading "How We Do Harm", by Otis Brawley, I rest my case. And this was 15-30 years ago...I imagine it's a 100 times worse now.
Majority of the world population, almost 99.5% had immune memory from previous Coronavirus exposure. The blood collected before 2020 has shown it and everybody after exposure to Covid-19 or after the vax produced IgG and not IgM, which is the response from Immune memory and not exposure to any novel virus. I find it quite not palatable you advising this vaccine even for vulnerable as antibodies in the blood doesn't protect from respiratory virus. Doctors for Covid Ethics, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is highlighting these facts from the beginning.
Regarding the rapid response teams. Not only is it important to measure outcomes for the individual patient, it is important to determine how these teams may affect other patients in the hospital. On units I’m assuming the care that is normally provided in the hour plus of a code is halted. Does the rapid response team indirectly help the whole ward? Or are there just more people standing around “just in case?”
Thanks for this. The hoops/metrics that we are told to jump through, based on questionable data make little sense much of the time and don't age well either. They are difficult remove once in place, distort incentives, don't necessarily benefit and may harm patients, encourage treating everyone the same regardless of patient specific factors that might warrant a different approach