Posted on 04/27/2021 12:36:08 PM PDT by BeauBo
(President Trump's Operation Warp Speed Update)
(A big drop (half speed) in the number of shots given - No J&J yet - Cases and Hospitalizations now heading distinctly downward at the National level)
Total Vaccine Doses Delivered: 297,543,635 (17,642,250 J&J)
Administered: 232,407,669 (8,097,650 J&J)
People Vaccinated, At Least One Dose: 141,751,857
Fully Vaccinated: 96,747,454
(Excerpt) Read more at covid.cdc.gov ...
The Marseilles study was a retrospective, not a trial. Huge difference. Before anyone puts any stock in it, I highly recommend they review the study, particularly the age and health of the HCQ group vs the non-HCQ group. In short, the non-HCQ group were older, sicker, and had far more co-morbidities than the HCQ group. There are many other problems with the retrospective study. Studies can be designed to succeed just as easily as fail, and Didier Raoult was not exactly a neutral party.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315163/
Apologies for not reading your thread on VAERS data regarding strokes following vaccines, but have three questions. If these are addressed i your post just let me know and I will actually read it...
Did you normalize results between vaccines based on number delivered? Your snip of VAERS shows numbers for COVID and zoster, which are shingles vaccines I believe. Seems like a lot more people have got COVID vaccines than shingles, and maybe we should be concerned about the latter...
Is VAERS data confirmed causation or a reporting system to capture all potentially associated events used for potential trend identification and additional follow up (e.g, find a 1 in a million signal that warrants follow up)?
Third question, eh, never mind, was going to ask something about the value of bloggers misrepresenting data sets and statistics as it relates to actually finding answers but realized that was a bit absurd.
Take care.
The analysis was retrospective. The treatment itself was in real time. Anyway, even with 3700 people it’s probably too small for a disease that 99% of people are going to survive anyway and some large % are never going to experience any symptoms. If a test is going to be that small then you should test it on the most vulnerable patients to see an effect - and in this case because the drugs themselves have a long safety record with minor contraindications there is little risk in doing so. France prohibited the use of the drug except in hospitalized settings so the Marseilles clinic would admit people for a day, then send them home with prescriptions. A formality. This is all too much politics in medicine but I digress.
The VA put out a retrospective study too, said HCQ didn’t work. Gave it to hospitalized people. Didn’t say why they were hospitalized. But by the time people are hospitalized these treatments probably won’t work. I think it’s pretty axiomatic that the sooner you treat any ailment, the greater the likelihood of a positive outcome.
I don’t know what works. I just wish they would study these things. India cancelled Ivermectin outpatient use a few months ago. Sure it’s just anecdotal, a snapshot in time, but look now. Cases and deaths through the roof. India is complicated of course, with the caste system and large population and different regions. But they just this week changed policies in New Delhi to go back to Ivermectin for outpatient at any sign of symptoms, even before a positive test, as they really have little hope to vaccinate 1.4 billion people anytime soon. They do have their own home-made vaccine, Covaxin. They also have a fairly active pharmaceutical industry especially among generic drugs.
Apologies for not reading your thread on VAERS data regarding strokes following vaccines, but have three questions
~~~~~~~~~~~~
ransomnote: Apology not accepted. You want to critique and you start by saying you haven’t read it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you normalize results between vaccines based on number delivered? Your snip of VAERS shows numbers for COVID and zoster, which are shingles vaccines I believe. Seems like a lot more people have got COVID vaccines than shingles, and maybe we should be concerned about the latter...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ransomnote: Those vaccines are the top 5 with the most records of stroke in VAERS.
Given that less than 1% of the actual results for any vaccine adverse events are ever reported to the CDC, and given that the CDC has entered far less than 25% of the reports it has already received for Covid-19 vaccines, I think the problem is that it’s reasonable to estimate that Covid-19 vaccines have triggered more reports of stroke than all other vaccines combined in the database in the past 30 years.
The fact that Zoster has so many reflects poorly on Zoster.
The fact that Covid-19 vaccines have so many reflects poorly on Pfizer, AstraZenecca, Moderna, Fauci, the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, Biden’s fake administration and our enemies in China.
Who is 1776thefounders ??
That poster hasn’t posted in 20 years, and....that’s where YOUR screen name directs to, when clicking on “In Forum”, on your profile.
Yet....you both have different sign up dates.....yours is 9/12/2001 and 1776thefounders is 8/4/2001.
Also, when you search 1776 or !1776! as a user, in FR search.....it automatically takes you to 1776thefounders.
What’s up with that?
I wonder if such treatments that have significant, but low. efficacy don’t help the virus mutate (there’s a name for this process but can’t think of it now).
Shame India discontinued Ivermectin at that time. Now we have to wait for studies to determine the effect.
Vaccine has a 90+% efficacy, blocking mutability.
Someone Tested Positive for Troll........Hmmmmm
Which goes to show that the American people are smarter than the derp state gives us credit for.
Vaccine hesitancy = Vaccine refusal. And this is a good thing.
The nurse put a bandage on my injection site for the 2nd Pfizer injection but not the first. I’ll file my VAERS report in the morning. Somethings fishy.
With your record of dishonesty no one will read your posts.
Nor the idiots that follow you.
Perhaps it’s time to end the “Qanon” thread’s immunity.
Though many there are just looking for honest facts, the leaders of the thread aren’t.
Now, this is how it needs to go folks. A vaccine is available to all. Governor Lee is doing what should happen everywhere in the US.
https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1387153183923900416
What an embarrassing mess of a post, that was.
Drunk posting?
Sorry to hear that, Chase. Whatever you do, don't let 'em put you on a ventilator. Those things are death traps.
LOL....especially for n00b, China Flu pest trolls.
I doubt any sober person would find it a “mess” Jane.
You shouldn’t be such a dedicated follower of a liar.
Covid-19 vaccines do not reduce your risk by 95% or anything close to that. By hyping the 95%+ efficacy value, the CDC is being deceptive and unethical because they know that most people will interpret 95% efficacy as being 95% safe from covid-19. In other words, believing that you are 95% safe from covid-19 after taking the vaccines is completely wrong.
The absolute risk reduction (ARR) of Pfizer or Moderna is 0.4%-0.7%
ARR is the metric that attempts to capture how much a vaccine reduces the overall risk to an individual to get the disease.
The usual suspects are reporting vax efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (RRR) without mentioning ARR. RRR is always higher than the ARR.
E.g., if 5% of the control group gets sick and 1% of the test group gets sick, the ARR is 5% - 1% = 4%. RRR is calculated differently. In this example the RRR is 4%/5% = 80%
It is deceptive and unethical to report/publicize the RRR without the context provided by the ARR. Especially when employing experimental/emergency treatments that require higher standard of informed consent than approved treatments.
But since in this case the vax manufacturers nor the government can be sued or otherwise help accountable, violating informed consent rules is no big deal I guess.
I wonder why they do it? I guess “95% efficacy” sounds better to the ear than “less than 1% risk reduction.”
“Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.