>If an intervention is shown to be effective in treating COVID-19, the design allows the replacement of the placebo group with the effective intervention.
Is't that kind of bad?
Say, if by pure chance, there is an intervention that is equally effective as Ivermectin, wouldn't it cause the whole thing to zero out, or show very little benefit for the Ivermectin?
EDIT:
They also say..
> It would not take much of a clinical trial to know whether that was true or not, and almost every physician would be able to spot really quickly whether there was a drug that miraculously was helping people. But we’re not getting that feedback from physicians
Isn't that the exact kind of feedback that is being neglected right now?
Yes. Most of these vaccines are live virus or toxoids. All COVID vaccines are mRNA or chimeric replication incompetent viruses that don't have the same risks.
A vaccine that cant replicate is as risky as one thats a weakened version of the live virus? Or an injection of the toxin that causes symptoms?
Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you.
"We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses.
You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
>They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky.
>If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision
I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
It's really not. It's like mandatory reporting for diseases like whooping cough and west Nile virus. Something only gets on the list if it has known risks.
Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
>You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not.
Quite frankly, that is not the case.
In almost all communication that try to promote covid vaccines, they include a statement that amounts to "All healthcare professionals are required by law to report adverse events...".
And this table kind of prove that to be a lie, and you also seem to agree, at least with respect to that point.
Where does it say that? I've never seen it. And if it's required, does it have to be on this list? I don't see why it matters if vaccine is on some random list or not. How is it a lie if they have to report adverse effects and it's not on the list? There's plenty of things they have to report that aren't on any lists
>In the current pandemic, these reports are being used to monitor the occurrence of both known adverse events, as providers of COVID-19 vaccines are required to report serious adverse events to VAERS.
By the way, this also blows your main argument out of the water.
> Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)],
It's not on the pdf because it's either outdated or because COVID vaccines are on emergency authorization. There's not a giant conspiracy because something isn't on a random pdf, like I was saying
Yes. I was wrong. But there's also not conspiracy which is what I was trying to rationalize. There's so much BS on the internet these days that are the modern day versions of astrology. Trying to find patterns in randomness to justify crazy beliefs. Most anti vax "information" is such
Making asserting statements when you don't have any evidence for such assertion is also BS, which sadly adds up to the already existing BS on the internet.
90% of this guy's posts are akin to, "Believe the television people".
Nothing to see here, while he shifts goalposts, and distracts people from the actual discussion.
How about we get to the heart of the matter, is this vaccine safe to use? The answer is, there are NO long term studies (obviously) and that this is pretty much a game of Russian Roullette.
The media spent years gaslighting the public to associate anti-vax with idiot suburban moms and rednecks. Now they are cashing in on that label to brand all evidence to the contrary as anti-vax hysteria, when in fact, this "vaccine" is the first of its kind to leverage this new method of delivery, and there is no way to know whether it is safe to use.
The VAERS data on its own is enough to warrant SERIOUS investigation, yet somehow, the unsafest vaccine in the history of the planet - at least by this metric - is heralded and protected, and any opposing views are silenced in true orwellian fashion.
I however have come to believe that this is the first time the majority of the population are starting to see through the lies.
You can see it in the way the threads now have active engagement, and people are willing to risk their safety (yes, literally we have to RISK our own livelihood to engage ANYWHERE online), to step up and voice their concerns.
So, ultimately, lets not pretend that YOU have the answer to whether this "vaccine" (literally labeled as poison by the Australian government) is safe to use, or not, as in the absolute best case of your position, you would be able to say only: We don't know if its safe, there are 0 long term studies.
All references to "You" in this comment are in reference to "boredprograming".
Please look at the VAERS data yourself: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html. The combined number of adverse reactions for all vaccines under the sun in 2019 is 48,444. The same number in '21 is 316,929. The difference is due to COVID-19 vaccines. I'm getting it, because the benefits outweigh the risks, but let's be real about both sides of the equation.
19 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 48.0 ms ] threadIs't that kind of bad?
Say, if by pure chance, there is an intervention that is equally effective as Ivermectin, wouldn't it cause the whole thing to zero out, or show very little benefit for the Ivermectin?
EDIT:
They also say..
> It would not take much of a clinical trial to know whether that was true or not, and almost every physician would be able to spot really quickly whether there was a drug that miraculously was helping people. But we’re not getting that feedback from physicians
Isn't that the exact kind of feedback that is being neglected right now?
I keep seeing this stuff being pushed by anti vaxxers on Facebook as an alternative to getting vaccinated.
Do we see drugs being pushed for smallpox or measles? No. Because the vaccine is cheap and more effective.
Get vaccinated.
Can you give me a good reason why Covid vaccines are not included here in "The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law"
https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
So does not make sense to exclude them (in law) from being reported.
Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you.
"We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses.
You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky.
>If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision
I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
Please provide citation for this claim.
If that's true, it seems backwards. It should be that they should be on the list by default until they are proven to not have risks.
But then again, every medical treatment has risks, so they should probably be on the list.
Quite frankly, that is not the case.
In almost all communication that try to promote covid vaccines, they include a statement that amounts to "All healthcare professionals are required by law to report adverse events...".
And this table kind of prove that to be a lie, and you also seem to agree, at least with respect to that point.
>Where does it say that? I've never seen it.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi...
>In the current pandemic, these reports are being used to monitor the occurrence of both known adverse events, as providers of COVID-19 vaccines are required to report serious adverse events to VAERS.
By the way, this also blows your main argument out of the water.
> Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)],
It's not on the pdf because it's either outdated or because COVID vaccines are on emergency authorization. There's not a giant conspiracy because something isn't on a random pdf, like I was saying
So why not stop adding to it.
90% of this guy's posts are akin to, "Believe the television people".
Nothing to see here, while he shifts goalposts, and distracts people from the actual discussion.
How about we get to the heart of the matter, is this vaccine safe to use? The answer is, there are NO long term studies (obviously) and that this is pretty much a game of Russian Roullette.
The media spent years gaslighting the public to associate anti-vax with idiot suburban moms and rednecks. Now they are cashing in on that label to brand all evidence to the contrary as anti-vax hysteria, when in fact, this "vaccine" is the first of its kind to leverage this new method of delivery, and there is no way to know whether it is safe to use.
The VAERS data on its own is enough to warrant SERIOUS investigation, yet somehow, the unsafest vaccine in the history of the planet - at least by this metric - is heralded and protected, and any opposing views are silenced in true orwellian fashion.
I however have come to believe that this is the first time the majority of the population are starting to see through the lies. You can see it in the way the threads now have active engagement, and people are willing to risk their safety (yes, literally we have to RISK our own livelihood to engage ANYWHERE online), to step up and voice their concerns.
So, ultimately, lets not pretend that YOU have the answer to whether this "vaccine" (literally labeled as poison by the Australian government) is safe to use, or not, as in the absolute best case of your position, you would be able to say only: We don't know if its safe, there are 0 long term studies.
All references to "You" in this comment are in reference to "boredprograming".