Anyone Have An Experience With Covid

An unbelievably patronizing statement where you have demonstrated nothing BUT a lack of understanding!

Nothing in anything you have typed refutes the efficacy of the vaccine. You have blatantly ignored the graph yet again showing the numbers of deaths according to vaccine status!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?attachments/upload_2023-11-23_9-31-27-jpeg.230200/

I love it when a conspiracy theorist talks about the science when clearly they do not remotely understand it. The statement about serious "long term" adverse effects is a complete fabrication! The vast majority of the "serious" effects are reported as being resolved very quickly. Attendance at emergency clinic is one criteria for their designation of serious, yet you are deceptively attributing all reactions as "life threatening"!

Yes, that is correct, you really don't know! If you bothered reading ANY of the sources that quote these serious events you would see that as stated about a dozen times, the very big majority of them are NOT long term and cleared up very quickly.

The irony!

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC
"The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh any potential risks. Severe reactions after COVID-19 vaccination are rare."

Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare. It has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. Anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction, can occur after any kind of vaccination.

Reports of Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination
Multiple factors contribute to reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination, including heightened public awareness of COVID-19 vaccines, requirements under FDA authorization for COVID-19 vaccines that healthcare providers report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS (even if it is unclear whether the vaccine was the cause), and reporting requirements in CDC vaccine provider agreements. 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.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after COVID-19 Vaccination
GBS is a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. GBS has largely been observed among people ages 50 years and older.

Based on an analysis of data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), the rate of GBS within the first 21 days following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination was found to be 21 times higher than after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. After the first 42 days, the rate of GBS was 11 times higher following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. The analysis found no increased risk of GBS after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccination.

Similarly, CDC found higher than expected rates of GBS reported to VAERS after J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination but not after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. These observations contributed to the preferential recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to use mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States.

Myocarditis and Pericarditis after COVID-19 Vaccination
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, and most cases have been reported after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, evidence indicates that the benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risk of myocarditis.

Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) after COVID-19 Vaccination
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been rarely observed after J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination and has occurred in approximately 4 cases per one million doses administered. TTS is a rare but serious adverse event that causes blood clots in large blood vessels and low platelets (blood cells that help form clots).

 

So you don't have the credentials to comment on the "observations" that someone else doesn't have the credentials to comment on?

You just took your own arguments and curb stomped them.

Well done.

If you don't have the qualifications, by your own admission, to point out exactly where the statistical model they used was "absolutely ridiculous" why do you demand anyone take you seriously?

 

That's a presupposition that the vaccine was effective at anything...The presence of SV40 in certain batches of the Pfizer did make it particularly effective at accelerating cancers. If that's what you were after.

 

There is no presupposition about the vaccine was effective. That was tested. Meanwhile, the idea that the vaccine is accelerating cancers is garbage.

 

Yes, the presuppostion was that it was effective.

Where was the control?

Dismissive and baseless accusation. SV40 was present in batches of the Pfizer and it's known to accelerate cancers. End. You have no counter argument so you need to take a dive into the nile





SV40 is an abbreviation for simian vacuolating virus 40 or simian virus 40, a polyomavirus that is found in both monkeys and humans. They are DNA viruses.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/

 

Look up FDA testing.

I'll check it out. Maybe, for the first time in this debate, you guys have managed to get something right.

 

There is nothing in the information above that shows the benefit of mRNA vax outweigh the risk of Serious Adverse Reaction ?
That most folks respond well to myocarditis therapy offers some comfort .. but makes your case not .. and avoids the fact that we are talking about healthy people .. who's benefit is close to zero to begin with -- healthy folks were not at significant risk from "Omicron" .. vaxed or unvaxed .. so where is the benefit ? Quantify the benefit por favor.

Then you cry out " You have blatantly ignored the graph yet again showing the numbers of deaths according to vaccine status!"

No friend - what you have "blatantly ignored" is the fact that I did address your graph .. explaining to you for the third or fourth time now that the graph only applies to unhealthy .. and in fact extremely unhealthy .. Covid was super selective in who it went after and in reality .. even then was not that dangerous.

Don't blame your lack of understanding and lack of scientific aptitude on me friend. I have my facts in order.

1 in 800 Serious Adverse Reaction (SAR) -- explain how you figure this is safe .. as opposed to your 4 per 1 million figure for one kind of SAR ?

1 in 800 is far greater risk than 1 in 250,000.

 

That is not true. The study that you are referring to by Fraiman reported the results of a reanalysis of safety data from two clinical trials that led to the emergency authorization of the vaccines.

Nobody died in these trials as far as I know.

Has any real world data replicated these findings? There are hundreds of research articles that say otherwise.

The ‘Science’ does not say 1 in 800 people taking the jab end up having life threatening experience and/or serious long term adverse effects or both — the Fraiman article is limited to two clinical trials and can’t be extrapolated to other populations. The “science” has not replicated Fraiman’s analysis so one should really look at other findings and determine where consensus lies. Cherry picking one article doesn’t represent “science”.

 

Posts misrepresent Health Canada statement on DNA in Covid vaccines | Fact Check (afp.com)
"While the virus itself is associated with cancer, there is no conclusive evidence that tumors in humans were caused by the polio shots -- and the pathogen itself has not been present in any vaccines since 1963, according to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (archived here).

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine does not contain simian virus 40 (SV40)," Health Canada told AFP in an October 27 statement. "The presence of the SV40 promoter enhancer sequence is not the same as the presence of the whole virus itself."

Barry Pakes, a public health physician at the University of Toronto, added in an October 31 email that there is "no truth whatsoever that an SV40 genome sequence can have an impact on human DNA, even theoretically.""

Now, since we all know you are not in any way qualified in any of this, kindly withdraw your batshit claim.

 

Wow, that is one of the most bizarre non sequiturs I've seen in a while. None of my post set out to achieve that! It explains quite clearly how you are deceptively exaggerating the severity and numbers!

It is a fact that negates your useless claim! It is not a matter of "some folks" responding well, it is everything to do with nearly all of them being afflicted with an extremely mild case!

Total bullshit. It applies to people who have died from the virus and people who have survived because they have been vaccinated.

7 million dead - an utterly clueless statement. That doesn't include survivors with severe problems.

Already explained. You are deceptively conflating the severity of reactions!

 

The covid vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations.

Anyway, you're overstating the risk.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Your numbers are too high. This is reported by Canada:

• "A total of 99,034,764 vaccine doses have been administered in Canada as of September 10, 2023, including 9,611,886 bivalent doses. Adverse events (side effects) have been reported by 57,436 people. That’s about 6 people out of every 10,000 people vaccinated who have reported 1 or more adverse events.
  • Of the 57,436 individual reports, 46,205 were considered non-serious (0.047% of all doses administered) and 11,235 were considered serious (0.011% of all doses administered).
    • Of the 57,436 individual reports, 947 were following a bivalent vaccine. 692 were considered non-serious (0.007% of bivalent COVID-19 doses administered) and 255 (0.003% of bivalent COVID-19 doses administered) were considered serious.
  • Most adverse events are mild and include soreness at the site of injection or a slight fever.
  • Serious adverse events are rare, but do occur. They include anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction), which has been reported 775 times (1 report per 100,000 doses administered) for all COVID-19 vaccines across Canada. That’s why you may need to wait for a period of time after you receive a vaccination so that you can receive treatment in case of an allergic reaction."

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/summary.html

You're wrong.

 

I am not wrong .. and citing hospital logged incidents is a joke .. as they did not record many incidents as related to the Vax.

I gave you the results of the "Phase III Clinical Trials" .. what part of the above Data does not compare - in any way shape or form - to the Phase III Clinical Trials are you having trouble understanding ?

1 in 800 - SAR .. and we are not talking "Adverse events" .. we are talking Serious Adverse Reactions for which you did not provide numbers. .

What part of Phase III clinical Trials did you not understand friend ? Serious Adverse Reactions 1 in 800.

Vs what benefit to healthy people ? the vax did not save any significant number of healthy peoples lives .. what on earth are you talking about .. Omicron did not endanger healthy people to begin with.

You are the wrong one in this equation.

 

1) Yes we are referring to the Fraiman Journal Article .. which presented the results of the Phase III clinical trials by Moderna and Pfizer .. and it was not state that someone died in this study .. but people do die of SAR's ..

The results of this study showed 1 in 800 taking the Jab ended up with an SAR .. Defined by the Canadian Health site posted previously by Langley if you care to look it up as was defined when I posted "Life threatening .. real and not hypothetical danger .. and so on and/or other nasty things listed

And yes .. this is exactly what the Science Says .. "Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated"

The conclusion from The Science - The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.

and of course this data can be extrapolated to other populations -- why would it not like any other Phase III clinical Trial ?

"Cherry Picking One Article" you say .. ?? What a joke .. it is the Phase III Clinical trial Results .. can you suggest something Better ? talk about grasping at straws in desperate flounder.

1 in 800 SAR is the Average in the Sample ... males 16-30 have been shown to have a 300% higher incidence of myocharditis .. .. clock that portion of the population up for 1 in 300 chance of an SAR.

and you are just happy to play that game of Russian Roulette because the gain to a healthy person from taking the Jab is what ? vs a whole lot of danger on the other side .. with this experimental drug .. as you state .. not properly tested.

 

Perhaps, you might want to review what exactly the Fraiman study was about. It was not show that vaccines cause serious adverse events nor was it an association study. Fraiman simply took data from two phase 3 trials and reanalyzed it and made the suggestion that due to his reanalysis, serious adverse events should be investigated more fully.

My point about cherry-picking was that you chose a study that supports your belief that vaccines are harmful and you conflated the results into a statement of causation. What is better than two phase 3 studies, that’s easy — millions upon millions of vaccines that have been given and all the studies looking at association between reported adverse events and the vaccines.

Perhaps rather than posting snarky comments you might want to understand what an ‘Adverse Event of Special Interest’ is. What it isn’t is a ‘side-effect’ of the vaccine. Adverse events are unintended/unfavourable events that happen after a vaccination. To make any causative statements related to a reported adverse event, it must be confirmed that the vaccine directly caused the adverse event. Once an adverse event is confirmed as being caused by a vaccine, then and only then does it become a definite side-effect of the vaccine.

Are you aware that the Fraiman and the other authors included adverse events in their reanalysis like going bald, psychosis, pregnancy, mania, abscesses. Did Fraiman ever investigate if his possible adverse events actually occurred because of the vaccine, or some other cause? You can’t conflate possible unproven adverse events into vaccines actually caused the adverse events. What Fraiman was stating that adverse events are possibly associated with vaccines and this needs to be more fully investigated.

There is no game of Russian roulette when it comes to getting the covid vaccines. This is what anti-vaxxers have convinced themselves of by misunderstanding what studies are actually evaluating and, in this case, conflating that vaccines actually cause the severe adverse events.

I believe the fact that the vaccines are, in fact, not experimental drugs has been discussed on a few threads on the forum.

Again, the Fraiman study did not suggest causation and did not look at if vaccines caused the serious adverse events. It simple reanalyzed data and suggested a further need to study serious adverse events. There has been a lot of research into what side-effects the vaccines actually cause and from that research it is obvious that the vaccines have a safe profile.

Researchers looked at 27 studies related to covid vaccine side-effects and overall it was found that immunizations were safe with very few or no side-effects. Definite side-effects associated with the vaccines were localized arm pain from the injection as well as fatigue, muscle pain, fever and headache. They discussed certain instances of adverse responses have been observed in the various studies but any relationship with the covid-19 immunization had not been determined.

Another systematic review — https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/review_article/pdf/90184/20220426-2703-14c65bv.pdf — again shows that vaccine benefits outweigh the risks.

Vaccines do have side effects and the most common ones are very mild. There are some very rare serious side-effects but that goes for every single medication that is on the market.

 

Your claim that the Fraiman study did not suggest causation is completely false - and the studies looked at by your article did not include the Phase III Clinical Trials ??

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

It was the study you presented which did not establish causation .. does not appear to look at affects much past 2 days (maybe a week) .. and does not come up with one example of a serious adverse event of special interest - and did not include the Phase III Clinical Trial ?? speaking of cherry picked nonsense.

The idea that every single medication on the market has a SAR as high as 1 in 800 is false as is the claim that 1 in 800 is rare.

The Study you put up infers that the vax prevents transmission which is completely false indicating the folks putting this study together were jaded or clueless.

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated (verywellhealth.com)

 

You are running around claiming that Phase III clinical Trials can not be extrapolated to the greater population which is false.

You then put up the above Chart .. the information within not extrapolatable to the general population .. thus your claim about that is false as well. The Study only looks at Hospitalized and Dead - and thus only includes the seriously immune compromised - who are likely Old, morbidly obese and have 3 co morbidities.

The Chart does not prove effectiveness of the Jab for anyone whose is not extremely unhealthy - something you have ignored for more than the 5th time.

 

Say that again without all the layered negatives, are you saying that only the ones likely to die are protected?

 

Proving that you absolutely do not understand statistics!

Luckily though, they WERE vaccinated!
"Among five people who were hospitalized in the outbreak, four were fully vaccinated. No deaths were reported in the outbreak."

 

Bolded mine for emphasis.

One must also look at the entire volume of data and say, if there is a concerted effort for some evil intent, which the "giftedone" user doesn't actually define! - why the hell don't these "evil ones" simply doctor the data!

 

Actually .. being a research Scientist and SME in areas related to the Pandemic - I do have an understanding of statistics. What statistic did you think was not understood ?

You cry out "No deaths were Reported" ..but I did not claim there were any deaths in the study .. so what are you talking about ? you are way off the page as the point of the study was that the Jab does not prevent Transmission .. not about how many deaths ..

The point is that the authors of the Study you presented are either Jaded or clueless --- claiming that the vax prevents transmission.

What is also interesting is that 80% of those hospitalized were vaxed .. so Not so lucky to be vaxxed right ?

 

That 76% of a total where 84% are vaccinated is hardly damn well significant! It's also an isolated incident that involved a mass gathering of people. See bolded question below!

I didn't cry it out. I quoted the bit you probably deliberately left out!

I don't care whether you did or not, nobody died.

I wasn't aware that there are any vaccinations in any field that prevent transmission. The idea is to create a herd immunity.

The sick irony is that it is people like YOU preventing such herd immunity.

Your opinion is noted and disregarded.

Wrong, none of them died. Once again proving you don't understand statistics. 80% of an 84% total vaccinated.

But here's a question for you - try not to ignore it!

Since most people who receive full vaccinations rightly trust the process, do you think it more likely that they would attend a mass gathering such as this one (with more confidence) and that those non-vaccinated would probably think it prudent not to!?

Your answer to that will define what level of honesty you operate at. It is totally obvious that that observation is likely, so increasing the percentage of people within the infected group, way beyond the total fully vaccinated. The "study" has not taken that into account at all.

Has anyone argued the case that vaccines will stop infection? Otherwise you are building a big strawman and missing the point! It makes your immune system better capable of dealing with the virus.

 

You are now backtracking on your earlier statements, one of which was:

You were referring to the Fraiman study which you falsely claimed that Fraiman et al stated that 1 in 800 people getting the covid vaccine end up having either life-threatening experiences and or serious long term adverse effects or both. That is a causal statement that totally misrepresents the Fraiman study.

I didn’t say that the Fraiman study did not ‘suggest’ causation. I said that the Fraiman study was not a causal study like you falsely stated earlier. Researchers are free to suggest possible causation or association as part of their study discussion, it’s a part of most research to suggest possibilities for further study.

For your information — in order to establish causality, you have to show three things. In terms of the vaccines, it would be (1)that the vaccine came before some named adverse event, (2)that any observed relationship between the vaccine and some named adverse event didn’t happen by chance alone, and (3)there is nothing else that accounts for the vaccine > adverse event.

The most Fraiman could do was to suggest there might be some kind of correlation between the vaccine and serious adverse events but he did NOT directly study causality. He actually relied on subjective opinions to support his statements.

What Fraiman did was prepare blinded Serious Adverse Events tables — SAE types without results data. Then he had two clinician reviewers independently judge whether each Serious Adverse Event type was likely to be caused by a vaccine-induced Adverse Event of Special Interest. If consensus could not be reached, a third clinician reviewer was used to create a majority opinion. Do you get it yet? Reviewers having opinions does not demonstrate causation and generally represents bad methodology as well as p-hacking.

The Pfizer trial involved 43K participants, the Moderna trial involved 30K participants.
Why is Fraiman using data from 3 years ago when 12 billion doses have been given since then which would include any adverse events that didn’t show up during the trials or show that adverse events had been mis-identified. Actual real-world safety and efficacy of Covid Vaccines should be determined from the most recent data.

How about taking a look at the credibility of Fraiman. He is an emergency medicine doctor in New Orleans. He has been associated with Covid-19 minimization since the beginning of the Pandemic. He has made numerous disparaging comments about actual experts and he embraces the irrelevant Great Barrington Declaration. I guess this is why he had to rely on subjective opinions because he is obviously biased and had to present ‘data’ that fit his reanalysis.

Many experts have pointed out potential p-hacking in the study. P-hacking involves the manipulation of data analysis to make results look statistically significant when they are not.

For Fraiman to count the number of Adverse Events of Special Interest associated with the Covid vaccines, he would have needed to determine which Serious Adverse Events recorded in the clinical trials of the vaccines corresponded with the Adverse Events of Special Interest listed in the Brighton document. This determination was based on opinion of 2 to 3 clinicians as I already pointed out. It seems the adverse events Fraiman chose to analyze was the result of cherry-picking and subjective opinion rather that objective research methodology.

Fraiman disregarded the fact that one person can suffer multiple adverse events — for example if a person reported diarrhea, abdominal pain and colitis as adverse events, each event was treated as a separate event not tied to one person so therefore adverse events would be over-counted related to actual number of subjects.

There are quite a few flaws in Fraiman’s study and his results do not support the claim that vaccines cause more serious adverse events than the benefits they provide.

Basically, you are ignoring the rest of the huge amount of literature related to the COVID-19 vaccines in favour of a one flawed analysis based on subjective opinion. You have exaggerated the risks of vaccination based on this study and rather than admit it you change the goal posts.

Fact — you have misrepresented the Fraiman study.
Fact — you have misrepresented what I have said and I have corrected that.
Fact — the Fraiman study is biased and doesn’t show what it claims.

That’s all. My expectation is that you will likely ignore what I have pointed out and stick to posting the misinformation produced mainly on social media by Tik Tok and Instagram graduates rather than rely on real replicated research by experts.







.

 

I did not backtrack nor misrepresent anything. Your claim Fraiman does not state 1-800 SAR is completely false Your claim that the study is biased is ridiculous nonsense on steroids .. given the data was directly from the Phase III Clinical Trials done by Moderna and Pfizer ..

Of course Fraiman's study shows what is claimed .. ?? but it is not the Fraiman Study Claiming 1-800 SAR .. that is the Data from the Phase III Clinical Trials .. not from Fraiman. and has nothing to do with subjective Opinion .. Serious Adverse Reactions of Special interest is a clearly defined metric .. as per the definition given you .. which was not mine .. but from a link posted previously by Langley

You said "You were referring to the Fraiman study which you falsely claimed that Fraiman et al stated that 1 in 800 people getting the covid vaccine end up having either life-threatening experiences and or serious long term adverse effects or both. That is a causal statement that totally misrepresents the Fraiman study."


The study states that not that 1 in 800 end up with SAR - Serious adverse reaction .. defined as Death or life threatening and or serious long term effects. as that is that the Data Stated .. they did end up with SAR .. not that people taking the vax would end up with SAR .. You are confusing present with the Past .. and the reason Fraiman is using 3 year old Data is because that is when the Phase III Trial was done ?

You seem to be confused as to the source of the Data.. The source of the data is not Fraiman .. but the Phase III clinical Trials done by Moderna and Pfizer .. as that is what is being assessed .. and was those trials where the 1 in 800 SAR comes from.

 

You clearly stated in a previous post that 1 in 800 people who get the covid vaccine will have a life threatening experience and/or serious long term adverse effects or both .. sometimes resulting in death. You referred to this as ‘The Science’. ‘The Science’ turned out to come from Fraiman’s reanalysis which you misrepresented as a paper dealing with causation.

Anybody following this thread can see your continuing misrepresentations.

For anyone who is actually interested in the critiques of Fraiman’s reanalysis there are some good articles. Many of the articles mention Peter Doshi who is a co-author on the Fraiman reanalysis.


This video provides a direct example of p-hacking in the Fraiman reanalysis along with a succinct explanation of how they manipulated the data from Pfizer and Moderna to get statistically significant results. If anything this video clearly demonstrates how and why Fraiman’s paper was clearly biased.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...ms-about-benefits-risks-covid-19-vaccination/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/statistical-shenanigans/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-do-this/

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/06/29/peter-doshi-vs-covid-19-vaccines-the-latest-round/#

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...of-special-interest-in-randomized-trials.html

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/

If one views the video and reads the information in the links I provided, it is clear that Fraiman’s reanalysis is absolutely useless and has not produced any statistically significant information nor should it be used as a vehicle to suggest that vaccines cause life threatening events in 1 out of 800 people or serious long-term adverse effects or death. That is a total misrepresentation used by anti-vaxxers to try to state that vaccines are dangerous and so on. The information I have provided is a means of looking beyond the misinformation to provide a broader analysis of the Fraiman article.

I wonder if @Giftedone can actually address the critiques with a critique why they are wrong or will there be more of the same misquotes, not understanding what was said, and statements that don’t directly address any of the criticisms.

There are clearly significant problems with Fraiman’s reanalysis.

 

@Giftedone May we all have an answer?