Pfizer Covid Study

"THE SINGLE DOSE COVID-19 VACCINE STUDY For unvaccinated adults and adolescents 12 years and older who have previously tested positive for COVID-19. Now enrolling"

You are confounding the death rate of a population with the death rate from a specific cause. These are two completely different entities and have different uses for public health.

The CDC's "Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2022. gives the death data and causes of death of the entire population. However, if you want to know how deadly a specific cause of death is, you have to use the number of people who have the condition in the denominator, not the total population. For example, rabies only kills 0.000000606% of the population, but it is 100% fatal. Dividing the number of people who have died (1174570) from Covid by the total number of cases (108288061) is what gives the death rate (0.01085, or 1.085%).

I purposely use the term "death rate" rather than "case fatality rate." That is because a case fatality rate cannot be determined definitively without knowing the outcomes of all cases. Whenever I look at the Covid data, I can enter number of cases and number of deaths into my spreadsheet, but I do not know how many active cases there are or what their outcome will be. Hence, I avoid using the term "case fatality rate."

Anecdotes are not data. Anyone can say an anecdote and there is no way to confirm the story. In addition, anecdotes tell nothing about the incidence or likelihood of a condition. Data is collected through careful scientific inquiry. Was the person definitively diagnosed by a qualified physician using CLIA-certified laboratory testing? Was the outcome of that person's diagnosed condition compared to the outcomes of other people who have the same diagnosis? Was the sample size of people with this condition large enough to extrapolate from them to the general population of others with that condition? Etc. The results of such scientific inquiry range from case studies (which discuss one or a few patients in detail for the education of other physicians and scientists) to large scale clinical studies to population level analysis.

You object to the terms I use to describe those who create and spread antivax and antiscience misinformation. Okay. Those who create antivax/antiscience propaganda usually do have a scientific education, but they purposely misrepresent the science and use it to promote concepts that contradict the conclusions of the people who designed, conducted, and analyzed the research. For example, they might wave around a paper that discusses myocarditis cases following vaccination to "prove" how dangerous vaccines are. But those papers are merely case descriptions written so that other physicians have an idea of what to expect should they come across a case. The deception in such use of scientific data comes in the failure of the antivax charlatans to provide any context. They will never show you this paper, Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination which found 79 cases of myo-and peri-carditis among 4,694,765 vaccine recipients, for an incidence rate of 0.00168%. They also will not divulge that the CDC found that People receiving COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to die from COVID-19 and its complications and are at no greater risk of death from non-COVID causes, than unvaccinated people. The charlatans phrase the misinformation in language that appeals to conservatives because they are very good at conning people and the best way to hoodwink someone is to appeal to their passions. It's what they've done for over 200 years. They get away with this because those they target are unlikely to read the scientific/medical literature, look up and analysis the statistical data, or read things like FDA decision memoranda.

I will not use terminology to describe the creators of antivax/antiscience propaganda that in any way implies that they are legitimate scientists. Cherry-picking data and presenting it out of context in order to scare and manipulate people is NOT the work of a legitimate scientist.

My, what inflammatory and unscientific language.

Are you being paid to post such things in conservative venues? I see “questions” using similar language posted on Quora all the time; it is obvious someone is paying trolls to try to influence people through the use of emotional diatribes.

When I got my five Covid vaccinations, I did not volunteer for a clinical trial nor was I informed of my rights or the risks and benefits of participation as required by law for subjects of human experiment. I was taking an FDA approved drug. Once a drug is FDA approved, it is no longer experimental and those who take it are not part of a “test group.”

Here is an explanation of what an EUA is, compared to full approval: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/what-does-eua-mean

Here is the FDA’s page on the Pfizer Covid vaccine. It links to all of the decision memoranda leading to approval. Some of those links contain links to the analyzed data that the FDA used in its decision making process.

I don’t know why you keep mentioning Jim Jones. He was a communist kook who, to my knowledge, never designed or researched a drug. And he was dead long before Covid, anyway.

--- Vocabulary -- "antivax/antiscience propaganda, charlatans, conning people, to hoodwink, cherry-picking, out of context...."

Not the parlance of "a legitimate scientist." Haven't read this sort of veriage in any journal. Or research paper.

FR is an anonymous forum, and you are as anonymous to me as am I to you. We both might have completed terminal degrees. Perhaps done post-doctoral work? We both might be simply opinionated folk. The last statement is very likely.

As I had written last comment, I write again in this: "I think our conversation is at an end. '"Charlatan' and 'pseudo' when flying in the face of sourced definitions is not a best strategy to convince."

No. What you call a COVID-19⁸⁴ "vaccine" is still experimental and is NOT what the FDA approved. Comirnaty is NOT what you took and you should have been informed you were in fact partaking in a clinical trial. As I stated in my previous post, the FDA approved the Jim Jones Jab under an Emergency Use Authorization. Pfizer and Moderna have intentionally kept it under that status to avoid liability for all the people who have died or were injured.

The Comirnaty they filed for approval with the FDA is a different chemical compound. They filed only to give them protection from others copying the technology that applies to both, not to get the chemical compound approved which would open them up to liability.

https://brownstone.org/articles/is-pfizers-fda-approved-comirnaty-vaccine-available-in-the-us/

Let’s put it this way. No doubt you have read all kinds of stuff on antivax/antiscience websites. But I am a scientist. I get information from credible scientific/medical resources. Don’t expect me to know the content of antivax/antiscience websites, because my only reason for ever visiting such a website is to try to track down the source of a specific piece of misinformation so that I can debunk it.

Along these lines, you cannot just post someone’s name and expect those reading it to know who that person is and what you expect people to infer from that name.

Of course, I have internet search engines, so it was fairly straightforward to enter his name and find out that he was FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019 and that he was appointed by Trump. I expect of someone like Trump to nominate the best person for the job, and Gottlieb’s credentials and experience certainly indicate that he was very qualified to head the FDA. Even though he was only in that position for two years, he accomplished quite a lot. He fought opiate abuse, tried to make tobacco products safer, and tried to streamline approval processes among his many accomplishments.

I have no idea what you are trying to infer by posting Gottlieb’s name, but you did cause me to read about someone whose accomplishments dwarf those of most people in the medical/scientific research fields.

COMIRNATY

Hmm, looks like a whole bunch of FDA approval memos are linked there. Along with study data and package inserts.

I will also provide you with this excerpt from the package insert provided with the vaccine, since the fear-mongers love to tell you that the ingredients of the vaccines are being kept secret for 75 years:

Each 0.3 mL dose of COMIRNATY (2023-2024 Formula) is formulated to contain 30 mcg of a nucleosidemodified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant lineage XBB.1.5 (Omicron XBB.1.5).
Each 0.3 mL dose of COMIRNATY also includes the following ingredients: lipids (0.43 mg ((4- hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate),
0.05 mg 2-(polyethylene glycol 2000)-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide,
0.09 mg 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and 0.19 mg cholesterol), 0.06 mg tromethamine,
0.4 mg tromethamine hydrochloride, and 31 mg sucrose.

This package insert is available on the FDA website as well as from any pharmacy that administers Comirnaty. Whenever I get a vaccine or other drug, I always ask for the package insert. That's because I like reading all of the technical data.

I will continue to debunk antiscience and antivax claims. Since people can die from actions they take based on antiscience/antivax misinformation, I have an ethical and moral obligation to do so.

There is no legal or ethical requirement to call people who create and spread antiscientific nonsense anything other than charlatans or quacks. They are not legitimate scientists. Scientists have an ethical professional obligation to only provide genuine information from reputable sources. Since charlatans and those who spread antivax/antiscience propaganda do not adhere to the ethical requirements of my profession, I will continue to use these descriptive terms.

In the words of Dr. Fauci beginning around 20:13 in this video, "...it is less likely for a red state to get vaccinated against COVID, than it is for a blue state, and deaths among COVID are more in red states than they are in blue states. That is terribly tragic. That a political ideology is going to be responsible for whether or not you are healthy or not, sick or not, or dead or not." (Emphasis mine.)

As long as you post misinformation that I feel is egregious enough to need debunking, I will debunk it.

Nothing you say is scientifically plausible.

People who have disease-induced immunity typically do not have an optimal immune response and can and do get Covid again. Each bout of Covid adds to the damage caused by previous bouts.

If “everyone” you know who was vaccinated got Covid and went on to die from it, then I can only surmise that you know a lot of people whose immune systems didn’t work, either because of age, disease, or immune-suppressing drugs. It is rare for vaccinated people with normally functioning immune systems to die from severe Covid; the probability that you would personally know three such people is astronomically low.

My husband and I were quadruple vaccinated and our son was triple vaccinated when my son exposed himself to high doses of virus from a symptomatic Covid case for several hours. From this heavy exposure, my son caught Covid. We were quarantined together in the same room for several days. Because my son’s immune system had been trained by the vaccines, it fought the Covid well and his mild symptoms were gone within five days. Hubby and I never got sick. We did all mask up during quarantine and told our son to stay away from us (but we still love him), which also probably helped us to avoid getting sick.

There is no reason for scientists to recommend or for physicians to prescribe medications that are proven ineffective for treating Covid.

Regarding your claim that your son was cured in just 3 hours with Ivermectin, I seriously doubt he had Covid. First, not even approved antivirals that are designed to fight Covid work that fast. Second, ivermectin doesn’t even work that fast to cure parasitic worm diseases which it is designed to treat. Was your son having allergies that you self-diagnosed as Covid?

As I mentioned in a previous post, mRNA contained within a nanoliposome is protected from destructive enzymes. There is a property called "associative constant" which tells us how much of two molecules will actually attach to each other at various concentrations. For example, if both molecules are present at 50% concentration, 25% of them might attach to each other, leaving the other 25% unbound. But if both molecules are present at 5% concentration, only 0.1% of them might attach, leaving 4.9% still free-floating. These kinds of calculations are called kinetics. I do not know the specific kinetics of mRNA-containing nanoliposomes to the cells in the lymph nodes, but if it is anything like the kinetics of liposome attachment to cells in culture, it is probably rather inefficient. Those vaccine particles that do not attach immediately will eventually attach, but how long that will take can vary. This would explain continued PP-spike protein production. In theory, this would help to reinforce the immune response since that PP-spike protein remains to keep activating the immune system.

Associative constants are equilibrium quantities, and are therefore concerned with thermodynamics, not kinetics; the concentration bound "when all is said and done".

Kinetics have to do with the rate at which the molecules react under different conditions, how long it takes a solution to reach the equilibrium condition.

I thought you had Calculus.

Dingbat.

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.