COVID-19 Research, Drug trials and Pathophysiology

I said Canadian numbers were lower than Swedish ones, not that they are more accurate. Canadian numbers were collected by unionized nurses and doctors working at government hospitals. They had no financial incentive to increase the number of covid deaths.

British Columbia schools were closed in April and May of 2020. Afterwards, they were open. People were never locked down. Borders to the U.S. were closed for travel before the vaccines when Trump was President. Biden opened them early in his Presidency for the vaccinated. In Canada, some major sporting events were carried on without fans, along with restaurants and bars. Some Canadian provinces slowed travel to other provinces before the vaccines.

After 2022, Canada stopped counting covid caused deaths and started counting those dying with covid along with those who died from covid, thus increasing the covid death numbers.

 

Spare me. If you say the canadian numbers are better then you mean that it is a true statement. Hence the numbers are accurate. You should know better than to write that sentence.

 

I can see this is all getting away from you.

 

The more time that passes, the worse the Chinese look.

• 
  How China shut down attempts to uncover COVID-19 origins

BEIJING (AP) — The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

The investigation drew on thousands of pages of undisclosed emails and documents and dozens of interviews that showed the freeze began far earlier than previously known and involved political and scientific infighting in China as much as international finger-pointing. . . .

 

Holy Carp this article this is nonsense propaganda .. the "sin of omission" on hyperbolic steroids. Not .. .. say it isn't so "The China Virus"

Trying to blame China for Covid .. shutting down investigation into Covid Origins .. as if the gain of function research being conducted on "Corona virus" as this is one of two labs in the world authorized for research on "Corona virus" was only being conducted by Chinese .. When in reality is more like 20 nations in the world were conducting this kind of Research .. including the US .. but every big Pharma nation as well .. these folks being deeply involved in the research that created Covid --- if indeed this research came from Wuhan -- which is now the consensus case.

The Chinese assisting in blocking and stonewalling this investigation .. - Doing what Biden and the Fauci crew did - (and other involved nations) and labeled the "Lab Leak" as conspiracy .. shutting down investigation in that direction .. and no surprise that China helped .. being quite happy to support the West Efforts at population control .. mirroring China's efforts with the same problem .. good buddies on that front I guess .. Right Jack !?

U understand now ..the propaganda Right ! .. yes friend .. it exists in the west .. heh heh .. "don't buy the lie"

 

The Canadian numbers are fine .. depending on what is being claimed .. Lang puts up this number of deaths tally for example .. which we can accept as correct .. more unjabbed died than jabbed. (not saying hanky panky in the Can numbers was not possible .. although what there was seems much better than the wonky US numbers .. but this is another story and does not matter for this point)

So OK had more unjabbed die than jabbed using weighted average. The problem .. is that Lang then goes and uses that stat .. say 2 times greater chance of dying.. and claims this applies to the population as a whole .. when it doesn't . Lang doesn't know what the numbers mean .. and refuses to ""get it" despite numerous attempts a explaining..

So here goes again .. The statistic only applies to those that Died - that demographic .. those that fit that demographic. For example .. In the beginning Covid did not even infect children .. never mind dying from the thing . and so no .. the chance of a normal child dying from covid was statistically Zero .. and taking the Jab did not double that chance .. but even if we did double the number .. it is still statistically zero. F-ALL x 2 is still F-ALL

There is simply no reason any child should have been Jabbed .. and it works out the same for every other person who is not .. (Old Sick Obese and near death with 3 + comorbidities and severely compromised immune system) .. and if that was you .. it is probably a good idea to take the Jab .. the risk of harm is not greater than the benefit .. as opposed to everyone else .. where the risk of harm from the Jab is far greater than harm prevented by the Jab .. which is none.

Statistically -- regardless of the data in Lang's link --- the risk of harm from the Jab is off the charts higher than any benefit for a "normal" person "Normal" defined as someone not in the above category .. -- having not just one of the factors but all of them at the same time .. Just because you are old doesn't mean you should have taken the Jab ..

Turns out this "Safe and Effective" experimental treatment .. was neither .. in terms of Safety was 100 times more dangerous than previous vaccines .. such as Swine Flu which had an SAR of 1 in 100,000 Severe Adverse Reaction.. was taken off the market as too dangerous.

Turns out this mRNA treatment .. --- Using Pfizer and Moderna's own Phase III clinical Trial data .. has an SAR of 1 in 800. And if it is a male 16-30 .. with a 300% higher chance of myocharditis than ave .. the risk for this poor soul is ~ 1 in 300 ..

Now Jab 3 times a year like a good little lad .. for 10 years = 30 jabs = 1 in 10 chance of an SAR.

-- What Lang .. not Deer in Headlights yet again ? .. what got away from you ... such that you are pestering another poster with the same false conclusions I schooled you on so many times ..

what ? --- where is the Rub .. what are we missing Lang .. The Gov't lied to you .. and it sucks I know . especially the healthcare institution lying .. and the mainstream media .. particularly on the Blue Cancel Crew Side .. complete with brown shirt propaganda tactics .. that was the worst .. and most scary thing.. Do you still buy "The Big Lie" friend ?! don't do it .. listen to the Scientist and Subject Matter Expert .. who has crucified your positions so many times it does not appear to hurt anymore .. ?

 

I said the unvaccinated 20% (15% if you don't include children under five) did 47% of the dying from covid.

Very few children under five were vaccinated in Canada.

Your position is not supported by the evidence.

Another claim unsupported claim.

Where's your evidence?

For 50+, you were probably better off getting the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine.

Once again, no support. Numbers without a source.

Are you okay? The boosters are every six months, not four. Where do you get your "facts?"

A scientist would doesn't document his claims.

Now you claim to know about Canada.

 

I know a ton about Canada .. but what does that have to do with your blistering failure to comprehend the data from Canada you posted.
What part of .. it doesn't matter what the stats were 20% 50% 150% ? they only apply to the dead .. do you not understand. ?

What evidence .. evidence for what ? what is the position you want evidence for ? other than you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about .. which has already been demonstrated. .. what numbers without a source ? you were given the source for the Pfizer -Moderna Phase III clinical trials a bunch of times .. what claim did I not document.

Its a post of complete nonsense some had more than 3 Jabs in a year .. but what difference does it make to the numbers of any significance whether it is 2 or 3 jabs a year.. in terms of risk of harm ... as if 1 in 10 is different than 1 in 15 by any statistical measure of safety .. Both are ragingly unsafe.

What part of "The Gov't Lied to you" is not sinking in .. the Jab was not safe.. and who said children under 5 were Jabbed in great numbers . what a nonsense comment .. I said they didn't die Lang .. what part of the nonsense you speak and what was said doesn't add up ? Do you understand Lang .. children did not die .. vaxed ..or unvaxed from Covid in significant numbers .. are you having trouble understanding ? So that children didn't need the Jab..

What part not just children .. but everybody else in the population except (old-near death- many comorb - inmmune compromized) did not die from covid in significant numbers .. is not ringing any bells. ? and what part of your 20%, 50%, 150% only applies to the above nearly dead demographic .. do you not understand ?

Please respond with "I understand or I do not understand" for each time you are questioned.

 

Fact not in evidence.





The unvaccinated 15% of those over five did 45+% of the dying from covid.

I would have more respect for your acumen if you had said, for instance, we haven't accounted for a possible difference between the social distancing and other mitigation efforts of those who vaccinated and unvaccinated.

This makes no sense.

Where's the evidence?

Still nothing from you.

I gave you numbers from Canada because you don't like or trust the U.S. government.

Which means the unvaccinated 15% of those over five did nearly half the dying and had half of the hospitalizations in Canada.

I didn't say children should be vaccinated precisely because they weren't at much risk.

Still nothing from you.

Trying writing in complete sentences.

 

What are you talking about .. "Nothing from You" .. what a completely useless nothing post .. addressing nothing of what was said to you.

The people who died from Covid .. %Vaxed vs % Unvaxed - have nothing to do with the percentages .. risk of harm .. to those that didn't die .. has absolutely nothing to do with the risk of harm to the population as a whole.

So Yes 15% unvaxed did 45% of the dying .. some of which who died prior to the vax being available so your 15% claim is false .. but that matters not a.. as even if it were true ... this has no bearing on the risk of harm to the population as a whole .. and represents this population in no way shape or form..


So .. What is your point ? and what part of .. the Jab did nothing for healthy people .. are you having trouble understanding . .. vs a very high risk of harm.

Completely ineffective at preventing transmission - infection - hospitalization and death in normal people .. with a very high risk of Harm .. all of which has been validated by the the CDC and the Phase III Clinical Trial data .. and you cry out "Nothing .. nothing from you " what a joke mate. What about the CDC Report and the Phase III Clinical Trial Data ..

 

A lot of your posts don't even make sense.

Case in point.

The claim is not false. From Statista:

"As of September 25, 2022, there have been around 10,800 confirmed deaths due to COVID-19 among unvaccinated Canadians since the start of the national vaccination campaign in December 2020. In contrast, just 3,821 (16.8%) COVID-19 deaths were reported among those who were fully vaccinated during the same time period. This statistic illustrates the number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Canada from December 14, 2020 to September 25, 2022, by vaccination status."​

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1257040/number-covid-deaths-canada-by-vaccination-status/

The shot today provides limited protection against infection for a couple of months and reduces the severity of symptoms for a longer period.

 

I didn't say the above stats were false so why are you pretending otherwise. You were shown that for the average healthy person the Jab is neither effective nor safe and that the Gov't lied to you. This lying by Gov't and health care institutions is difficult to accept I know .. especially coming from beloved Genocide Joe.

Your claim is not supported by the Data you posted .. which is kind of ridiculous given you were provided Data from the CDC which shows your claim of protection for the average person is false.

 

Still nothing to support your position. Odd for a "scientist."

I wonder why you keep it up. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I thought I would add a little more information to balance out some of the crap that gets posted.

The reanalysis of the Phase III trials which was dodgy due to methodological issues showed that when considering both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines together, the absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest was 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated individuals. What does this mean? Does it mean that the vaccine causes 12.5 per 10,000 or 1 in 800 people to have serious adverse events. No, it does not and to state that is disingenuous at best.

Let’s break this down a bit. The focus of the reanalysis (Fraiman et al) of the Phase III trials which is where the 1 in 800 comes from was based on “absolute risk” when evaluating the vaccine compared to a placebo.

“Absolute risk” refers to the actual probability or rate of an event occurring within a specific group. It represents the raw number of subjects who experience an adverse event out of the total population studied. Absolute risk is expressed as a percentage or per a specific number of individuals. It does not convey causation. It simple conveys the number of serious adverse events of special interest reported by subjects in the vaccine group or the placebo group. Whether the SAE was actually caused by the vaccine, we do not know especially when the placebo group was experiencing the same serious adverse events.

Note, some of the serious adverse events of special interest that Fraiman used included diarrhea, schizoaffective disorder, any type of chest pain, anything related to the heart, and multiple sclerosis etc. Also note again that the Phase III trials were not assessing causation and the appearance of SAE’s in the vaccine group is not necessarily related to the vaccine. For example, they included non-cardiac chest pain which could be a pulled muscle and totally unrelated to the vaccine which is why SAE’s of special interest also occur in the placebo group. Somebody might have had a stomach upset from food poisoning and this would have been included. Obviously, a vaccine doesn’t cause schizoaffective disorder or multiple sclerosis but it’s still included. Best not to assume that every report of an SAE is related to the vaccine in the vaccine group. So the oft quoted 1 in 800 occurrence of serious adverse events does not mean that the vaccine caused the SAE, it means that the SAE was reported by a subject in the vaccine group. The same SAE’s were reported by the placebo group at a lower number so obviously SAE’s causation is variable.

Combining the two studies, the absolute risk increase (ARI) of the vaccine group was 12.5 minus 17.6 (placebo group) results in a net difference of 5.1 adverse events per 10,000 individuals.

The reanalysis really doesn’t apply anymore because the vaccines have now been administered to millions worldwide and real world data does not reflect Fraiman’s results. The real-world data collected includes adverse events, effectiveness, unexpected outcomes, captures a broader population which includes people with various health conditions and diverse demographics. The biggest conclusion from real-world data is that while serious adverse events are rare, they can still occur. The real-world data basically helps identify any unexpected patterns or rare events that might not have been evident in the small phase III trials. Instead of treating the reanalysis as a be-all-and-end-all study, the phase III trials only provided a foundation, but real-world data complements and refines the understanding of vaccine safety. If you consider available data, vaccines are safe, SAE’s are rare.

A few more points to consider regarding the ‘reanalysis’.

The original trials were designed with specific protocols, endpoints, and participant characteristics. The reanalysis changed some of the definitions of severe adverse effects, used different protocols to decide what was included/excluded as an SAE of special interest, and didn’t possess all the data as individual subject data hadn’t been released yet, and they also used different statistical tests which has been compared to p-hacking (using statistics to get the results you want).

Because the reanalysis didn’t have access to individual participant data, they couldn’t do a more detailed subgroup analyses to better understand the vaccine effects across different populations. The results of the reanalysis only apply to the whole population of each group.

The Phase III trials included various vaccine types and combining data from different vaccines might have introduced heterogeneity and affected the validity of comparisons

For a comprehensive evaluation non-serious adverse events should have been included.

The reanalysis ignored relative risk which means they ignored the absolute risks between the vaccine group and placebo group which tells us how the chances of an event in one group relate to those in another. In other words, the relative risk quantifies the impact of the vaccine on the outcome probability.

For example, Freiman gave the following results for myocarditis/percarditis:

Vaccine group — 2 subjects
Placebo group — 1 subject
Vaccine events per 10,000 subjects = 1.1
Placebo events per 10,000 subjects = 0.5
Difference in events per 10,000 = 0.5

You can’t just say that 2 of the subjects in the vaccine group developed myocarditis/pericarditis from getting the vaccine if one subject in the placebo group developed myocarditis/pericarditis which was obviously from other causes. None of this was considered by Fraiman. We have no idea what kind of impact the vaccine had on the outcome probability.

One also has to consider millions of vaccines have been given and the chances of developing myocarditis is extremely small and generally the myocarditis is not serious and disappears after a few days.

I wouldn’t consider anything that Giftedone says as truth because most of it is exaggeration, fear mongering, or misinformation.

 

Your analysis does not balance out "some of the crap that gets posted" it adds to the crap portion .. 1) What the Phase III Clinical Trial means is that 1 in 800 in that trial had a "Serious Adverse Event" over and above placebo. This a fact from the trial data .. You claiming otherwise is the disingenuous part.

Of course the Phase III Trial data still applies .. and is far more valid that "Real World Data" .. .as opposed to your nonsense comment on steroids that it does not apply anymore. In other words .. if you have real world data saying one thing .. and the Phase III trial saying another .. you default to the Phase III Trial

You have no idea if what you are saying has any basis if fact or reality.

 

And you still don't present data or sources.

You're a scientist? I don't think so.

 

Well explain how artificial intelligence (2 different ones) searched all the relevant information related to the Fraiman study and came up with the information that I paraphrased from the results. This was from unbiased searches based on research studies, research results, gleaned from more information you could ever consider. The questions were:

Is it true that the phase 3 trials for the Covid vaccines found a 1 in 800 rate of serious adverse events?
In Freiman’s reanalysis of the phase III trials what were the serious adverse events of special interest?
Can you name the serious adverse events of special interest named in the reanalysis of the phase III trials?
What does 'placebo baseline' refer to in a research paper?
Can you explain in simple terms what the following statement means "The absolute risk increase was 10.1 per 10,000 vaccinated individuals over the placebo baseline (which was 17.6 per 10,000)".
In the Freiman’s reanalysis of the two phase III trials why can you only consider absolute risk and what is "absolute risk".
What were some criticisms of Freiman's reanalysis of the two phase III trials?
How many studies have shown that the covid vaccines are not safe?
In research what is absolute risk and relative risk?
Which is more relevant, the two covid vaccine phase III trials or more recent studies using real-world data?

I knew the answers to these questions but I wanted to make sure I got it absolutely right and I left out my sources on purpose. Each question I asked provided multiple sources. My impression of you is absolutely correct — you provide incorrect information, you engage in fear mongering, you provide misinformation peppered with baseless insults. I think that is obvious to most people now.

 

The questions are still being fought out.
How an article estimating deaths from hydroxychloroquine use came to be retracted


An article estimating how many people might have died during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitals was retracted in August after advocates for the drug launched a campaign criticizing the study.

French media have reported criticism of the retraction as inappropriate, and speculation the journal caved to pressure from hydroxychloroquine advocates.

In a statement to Retraction Watch, the journal stood by its decision to retract the article due to “some clear fatal flaws” identified in letters to the editor, which it said it declined to publish due to their tone it deemed “not suitable for publication in a scientific journal.”

Continue reading

 

It is. All the old people I know, some I'd be worried about because they have health problems, got their covid shots and had mild cases.