Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

That’s why I include data showing increases in percentage of vaccinated hospitalized even when vaccination rates are static. We can’t ignore that evidence.

I’ve not claimed vaccination is “failing”. I’m pointing out its unethical to keep trying to convince people they are protected more than they really are by posting these ridiculously false statistics. Of course if 100% of people were vaccinated 100% of people hospitalized would be vaccinated. But when vaccination rates hover around 70% and the hospitalization percentages of vaccinated continue to climb a few percentage points a week we have a problem. A problem temporarily boosting antibodies won’t solve long term.

Sorry my advocacy for TRUTH and ACCURATE reporting of statistics bothers people. I’m not here for “likes” or popularity. I’m here to help people have access to CORRECT information.

 

I did not call phase 3 data a lie. I said I was skeptical of it because it contradicts most of what we knew about vaccines and the immune system previously.

Anyone is free to quote me calling the information from phase 3 trials “lies”. Good luck. I’m very weary of strawman argument.

 

OK, I stand corrected, the articles I read and linked to you too, highlighted it occurring in only one subtype. Apparently there are others that disagree, and are more numerous, so you are correct.

I know you are and I know that you have not, but I said it would be good to add it, for the sake of others who are reading the thread.

Amazing. What an idiot. Apparently she has never heard of transverse myelitis, GBS with permanent sequelae, and there isn't anything more long-term (as in, permanent) than death from, say, TTS. Anyway, I guess, she meant that these permanent, long-term sequelae tend to appear early, after vaccination.

 

Things are reported but people don't pay attention. Right here on PF, often when I talk about organ damage, someone doubts it and asks for evidence. People insist with the death toll and pay little attention to sequelae.

 

True. It doesn’t seem to matter what evidence you present. Good point.

 

Yes, but the number climbing, has ALSO to do with what I said, the pre-selected population, and the longer time between vaccine and hospitalization. Nobody doubts that vaccination protection fades with time, thus the boosters. You may not be claiming that vaccination is "failing" but others reading you, may. I know that your information is accurate, but what I'm saying is, it would be good to also add the other intervening factors (such as time from basic vaccination, pre-selected population, the denominator number, etc.). This would give a more complete picture.

You are saying the truth, but not all the truth. For example, when you say something like "I'm afraid that with subsequent vaccinations, vaccine efficacy will fade like it happens for the flu" you might ALSO add "although the evidence so far doesn't point to that given that boosters are still greatly enhancing protection; although the influenza virus is from a completely different family than the coronavirus so we can't automatically infer something about one, because of something about the other; and although the platforms for making these vaccines are vastly different, so what I'm concerned about maybe won't materialize at all."

That would be the whole truth.

Because the less informed reader, reading what you said, might think "oh my God, vaccine efficacy will drop with subsequent doses; I won't accept a booster if it's like this" when the whole truth points to this, so far, having no indication that it is happening or will happen.

I can't control what you said, but I can add some stuff.

 

Sorry, no strawman argument. Beware of how you phrase things, because a lot of people will be justified in assuming that you are implying that phase 3 results were lies. When you say this: "We were told there was no significant difference in efficacy in the aged after trials concluded. I found this to be unbelievable." And you say "Same with obesity. It was claimed efficacy was the same in the obese after trials. Again this was contradictory to evidence" and then a couple of phrases later you say "what bothers me is the lies" - it is NOT a strawman to highlight that there were no lies in the phase 3 results. No, the data presented were not unbelievable. They were factual, for that point in time. They did not contradict the evidence that was available at the time (as far as mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were concerned).

Things we can't believe and things that people claim but are contradictory to evidence are generally things we call lies... especially when you add two phrases later that it's the lies that bother you. No strawman. Things don't need to be explicitly said as in "they lied to us in phase 3 trial results" to be implied. "Unbelievable... claimed... contradictory to evidence" a.k.a. lies.

Two months after vaccination, it was factual (a.k.a., not lies) that the vaccines were protecting the old and the young; the obese and the fit. Nobody guaranteed that results would last. When asked for how long protection would last, the standard answer was "we don't know yet because not sufficient time has passed for an answer to be in." That's not lying.

Then, it turned out later that the old and the obese had faster fading protection. But this couldn't be known at the 2-month mark.

In a time when so many doubt science, it's best to be very precise about these things, and avoid fanning the flames of skepticism regarding the sciences.

 

I thought I knew a bit about influenza before Covid. Turns out I was very ignorant and a lot of what I knew was factually incorrect.

Fair.

I’m too lazy to look them up but I’ve seen several posts on PF claiming adverse effects only occur in under two weeks post vaccination or something. I think it’s safe to say the public has no awareness of the influenza vaccine efficacy problems. I don’t know if that’s by design or not. I have a friend who was a pharmacist. He told me the other day one reason he retired early was over this issue.

 

From my initial post here in this thread on the subject.

 

Influenza is a very underestimated illness. It is way more serious than people realize (and that includes me, too).

I think the jury is still out for the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. We'll see. They're too recent. The flu shot has been with us for decades; the Covid-19 vaccines, for one year.

 

Sure, people have their style. I'm more verbose than you are. Thus, I'd prefer:

"although the evidence so far doesn't point to that given that boosters are still greatly enhancing protection; although the influenza virus is from a completely different family than the coronavirus so we can't automatically infer something about one, because of something about the other; and although the platforms for making these vaccines are vastly different, so what I'm concerned about maybe won't materialize at all."

To:

"This does not mean it will happen with Covid boosters."

 

Yes and I said I kept my mouth shut on the contrary evidence because the platforms were new.

A lie requires giving false information knowing it’s false. I’ve never claimed that is the case with early vaccine data. Just that it was incorrect. And there WAS evidence to the contrary in many other vaccine platforms. That was not publicized.

If you want me to disclose all possibly relevant information then you must also expect the same of those who made the early claims about Covid vaccines. I don’t recall anyone saying “we know vaccines often are less effective in the aged and obese, so we are going to wait and see before claiming there is no difference with these demographics with these vaccines”.

The criticism of me not including all relevant information is valid. I often assume too much and only included information directly related to the topic. But let’s be consistent in that criticism.

 

I’ll try and do better. That’s fair criticism.

Now, does it bother anyone that this information would still be completely unknown to PF if I had not introduced it? Why am I required to be verbose when this information has not been shared at all by anyone else previously? Why is incomplete information worse than NO information?

 

It's not worse. I'm just trying to prevent people who aren't as informed as you are, from misinterpreting what you say.
You know that I've always praised you for accurate information. I'm just saying, it would be nice to include the caveats and the intervening factors even when presenting accurate information.

And I'm not implying that people should be verbose like I am. I consider my verbosity a shortcoming. I'm just highlighting a different style between you and me.

 

No, your verbosity is great! You are a teacher. You have that talent. I don’t. I realize my deficiency in that regard and have often appreciated you following up my posts with a teacher’s perspective.

 

Hm, no, there was always a preoccupation with looking into whether or not these new vaccines would be good in the elderly. That is actually built in when you go through phases I, II, and III. To minimize risk and loss of human life in case of catastrophic reactions, phase I typically only includes a few dozen young and healthy people who are less likely to succumb to a bad reaction. Phase II includes a more diverse population, and phase III includes significant number of other demographics including the elderly and those with co-morbidities. So, by design, we are worried about it, and we do look into it. That's precisely why Sanofi withdrew their vaccine. Their phase III showed that the young people were getting good immunogenicity but the old ones were getting pretty much zero, so Sanofi said, we can't launch a vaccine in the market that will fail the elderly. They went back to the drawing board. But that wasn't the case with the Pfizer and the Moderna, which showed good results in the elderly.

Now, what happened was the issue of Emergency Use Authorization. As the name indicates, it's for emergencies. So the pandemic was raging and killing lots of people including and preferentially the elderly. Therefore, EUA applications were filed, and given the emergency, only 2 months of data were required. The vaccines looked very good at 2 months including for the elderly and the obese, so the EUA was granted and the vaccines were rolled out, and did save a lot of lives including among the elderly and the obese.

If we were not in the middle of a raging pandemic, therefore with no need for emergency actions, the FDA would have required much longer observation (at least 6 months if not longer) and we'd have better noticed the fading effect among certain demographics.

Again, the info WASN'T incorrect (you have just repeated this assertion, again). All that the info diffused was that the vaccines delivered good protection to the elderly and the obese, AT TWO MONTHS. That's not incorrect. That is factual, which can be easily seen by consulting any of the final papers on phase III that got published in major journals.

NOBODY implied that this protection would be forever - at least, not in the scientific community. If some isolated health officials here and there or politicians implied otherwise, that's on them, not on the scientists.

Some papers mentioned hopes of long-lasting immunity, but every time, it was highlighted that these hopes were unconfirmed, and they had to be, given that the vaccines haven't existed for long. It turns out that the hopes did not materialize. Immunity does fade. Unfortunately we may need a booster every 6 months until better solutions arise.

 

To be consistent with the criticism of my lack of information, the press releases at the end of phase 3 trials would have had to include information not only on the CURRENT efficacy observed, but also a long caveat including information on how reduced efficacy in the aged and obese etc. is the norm, and efficacy in these demographics is observed to almost always decrease over time at higher rate than the young and healthy.

 

I don't really go by press releases; I go by the published (as in, scientific papers) results of phases I, II, and III trials. That's science. Corporate press releases are business tools. All corporations in any capitalist country in the world present their products in the best possible glowing lights with golden frames. If you go by what the business side of corporations say of their products, it's all perfect, nothing ever breaks down, it's all very superior to whatever the competition is able to put together, etc.

 

I just read Pfizer’s published results of P3 in NEJM. It states the study was too underpowered to make definitive claims about efficacy in subgroups like elderly and obese.

No caveat including information on how reduced efficacy in the aged and obese etc. is the norm, and efficacy in these demographics is observed to almost always decrease over time at higher rate than the young and healthy in the NEJM published study either.

I’ve had my say. The last word I’d yours on this issue.

 

Look again at what they said: "the point estimates of efficacy for subgroups based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, body-mass index, or the presence of an underlying condition associated with a high risk of Covid-19 complications are also high.

Why should they make projections for the future with no data? That's not how scientific studies are written. We don't speculate. We present the data. The data referred to follow-up up to that point. No data existed at that point to predict if the efficacy would be reduced with time, so this was not part of the conclusions.

It is common, though, to say that not enough subjects were seen, inviting further research with bigger numbers.

 

Since when did I ever say I cared about people who are unvaccinated by choice ? . That’s you’re made up story. I only care that they are more likely spread the disease to those I do care about. I’m also tired of they putting a drag on the healthcare system so those with ligit concerns can’t get on time appointments.
They should be identified so I can avoid them.

 

I don’t remember that “ any-situation” comment. I remember being told that if we were around others who were vaccinated as well and at family gatherings it was and still is reasonable to be unmasked. If you’re around people whose situation is unknown , you should mask up and keep social distances.

No advice is revoked. It’s all situational. And as the information changes, like the more contagious strains come on board, more precautions should be taken.

 

Oh you don't get to pretend you are worried about your social systems like healthcare getting flooded or over run while at the same time are not concerned or pissed off at the piss poor handling of security at the southern border that's flooding in tens of thousands of migrants each month to flood all of our social systems. Including health care.

But beyond that...nearly everyone in the hospital is there due to avoidable ailments brought on from piss poor life choices. That's just reality.

So dont look now but your hypocrisy is showing.

 

(from post #21)

The long term effects of the boosters are yet to be seen. Start watching this at the 00:50 time mark.

Vaccine Load, Shedding, Side Effects Differ: WHY?
https://rumble.com/vmu7ph-vaccine-load-shedding-side-effects-differ-why.html

 

Of course they have. We’ve been using this same technique for boosters and regular vaccines for flu shots since the mid 80s.

How long term term do you need ? 40 years enough ?