ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 354 of 1878
« First < 254304344350351352353354 3553563573583644044548541354 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Are you going to take the vaccine?
GloryDayz 08:48 AM 12-01-2020
I know I'm going to try to be first in line, but what about the rest of you? I'm not sure if the death count is where the science community wants it to be, plus Birdbrain hasn't been sworn in, so I expect there will be delays, but that's beside the point.

You can be honest.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 10:57 PM 06-22-2021
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
Kavita Patel M.D. needs to surrender the medical license.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:36 AM 06-23-2021
This was posted before regarding AAPS but there's more info such as the claims by the AMA.
Majority of US Physicians Decline COVID Shots, According to Survey [<--their headline, not mine, see below]

Of the 700 physicians responding to an internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), nearly 60 percent said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.

This contrasts with the claim by the American Medical Association that 96 percent of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated. This was based on 300 respondents.

Neither survey represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.
“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”
The AAPS survey also showed that 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe risk of shots exceeds risk of disease,” and 30% said “I already had COVID.”
...
Other reasons for declining the shot included unknown long-term effects, use of aborted fetal tissue, “it’s experimental,” availability of effective early treatment, and reports of deaths and blood clots.
“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”[and that's enough to refuse it.]
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has represented physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto, everything for the patient.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/majori...survey/5748266
Claiming "not-proven" = failure to investigate, intentionally aka criminally negligent
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:39 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
I'm referring to the clinical trials designed by the Pharmaceutical companies.
Pfizer has been charged criminaly in the past. They do hide things in their studies and don't report. There's been WB from their marketing departments in the past. They cannot be trusted. They simply benefit from past views about vaccines whereby there is a knee-jerk reaction by people that they are all automatically successful or safe when this is a new technology and not fully tested.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 07:49 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Pfizer has been charged criminaly in the past. They do hide things in their studies and don't report. There's been WB from their marketing departments in the past. They cannot be trusted. They simply benefit from past views about vaccines whereby there is a knee-jerk reaction by people that they are all automatically successful or safe when this is a new technology and not fully tested.

Right. Under conditions controlled by the Pharmaceutical companies the ARR hovered around 1%.

Obviously as virus recedes due to population immunity, the vaccines themselves you would expect NNV to increase.

Meaning ARR would be lower than clinical trials.

You don't hear the media talking about NNV at all, even though it is a key metric for vaccine efficacy.

Instead, we just get propaganda and celebrities singing songs about how great it all is.
[Reply]
Donger 07:57 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Right. Under conditions controlled by the Pharmaceutical companies the ARR hovered around 1%.

Obviously as virus recedes due to population immunity, the vaccines themselves you would expect NNV to increase.

Meaning ARR would be lower than clinical trials.

You don't hear the media talking about NNV at all, even though it is a key metric for vaccine efficacy.

Instead, we just get propaganda and celebrities singing songs about how great it all is.
Oh, so you are now disputing that the efficacy of Pfizer is ~95%?
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 08:04 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Oh, so you are now disputing that the efficacy of Pfizer is ~95%?
If you understood RRR and ARR you wouldn't ask the question.

Relative Risk reporting alone, without grounding, is one of the easiest ways to lie with stats.

Which is why the Pharmaceutical companies are only letting their robotic supporters access to only that number.

Same way media misuses nutrition studies where red meat increases risk of X by 30%.

If they don't explain the risk increases a microscopic risk, leaving total risk manageable it could have someone overestimate the actual effect.

Thats why they did it. And it worked on you.
[Reply]
Donger 08:07 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
If you understood RRR and ARR you wouldn't ask the question.

Relative Risk reporting alone, without grounding, is one of the easiest ways to lie with stats.

Which is why the Pharmaceutical companies are only letting their robotic supporters access to only that number.

Same way media misuses nutrition studies where red meat increases risk of X by 30%.

If they don't explain the risk increases a microscopic risk, leaving total risk manageable it could have someone overestimate the actual effect.

Thats why they did it. And it worked on you.
A non-answer. Shocking...

It's actually just simple math:

Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group

Can you do the math?

And if BIG PHARMASZ!! is hiding the ARR data, how do you have it?
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 08:12 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
A non-answer. Shocking...

It's actually just simple math:

Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group

Can you do the math?

And if BIG PHARMASZ!! is hiding the ARR data, how do you have it?

It is not hidden. It is there but the media and Pharma bros like yourself will only talk about RRR.

If you discussed ARR or NNV, it is harder to sell people the vaccine.

Your job, as an acolyte, is to stick to the texts the priestly class wants you to look at.
[Reply]
Donger 08:19 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
It is not hidden. It is there but the media and Pharma bros like yourself will only talk about RRR.

If you discussed ARR or NNV, it is harder to sell people the vaccine.

Your job, as an acolyte, is to stick to the texts the priestly class wants you to look at.
95% efficacy sells itself. It's people like you who try to use the ARR as proof that the vaccines are only 1% effective who are selling something, and it's a lie.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 08:33 AM 06-23-2021
Relative vs Absolute risks: Why Relative Risks (Alone) Are Misleading, and How To Communicate Absolute Risks

We see relative risks is the headlines all the time. "Eating X DOUBLES the risk of Y." But they are often misleading: to understand whether a relative risk is actually worth caring about, you need to know the change in absolute risk.

A change from 0.001% to 0.002% is after all, a doubling of risk, but so is a change from 5% to 10%. The first one hardly matters, the second really does!

David explains the difference between the two with some real life examples and provides some best practice tips to communicate absolute risks.


[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 08:49 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
This was posted before regarding AAPS but there's more info such as the claims by the AMA.
Majority of US Physicians Decline COVID Shots, According to Survey [<--their headline, not mine, see below]

Of the 700 physicians responding to an internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), nearly 60 percent said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.

This contrasts with the claim by the American Medical Association that 96 percent of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated. This was based on 300 respondents.

Neither survey represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.
“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”
The AAPS survey also showed that 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe risk of shots exceeds risk of disease,” and 30% said “I already had COVID.”
...
Other reasons for declining the shot included unknown long-term effects, use of aborted fetal tissue, “it’s experimental,” availability of effective early treatment, and reports of deaths and blood clots.
“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”[and that's enough to refuse it.]
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has represented physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto, everything for the patient.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/majori...survey/5748266
Claiming "not-proven" = failure to investigate, intentionally aka criminally negligent
"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is an ultra-right-wing non-profit association that promotes a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism."
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 09:36 AM 06-23-2021

1/ THIS IS NOT OKAY.@cdcgov just posted its myocarditis/pericarditis update. They are now admitting that post-second dose risk in people under 25 could be over 200x the background rate (and that’s not accounting for underreporting).

But the real news is even worse... pic.twitter.com/dP1IH5ZLqs

— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) June 23, 2021

[Reply]
Donger 10:21 AM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
OMG!!!! That's horrifying!!!

It's .005%
[Reply]
Donger 10:32 AM 06-23-2021
Men under 30 make up the bulk of the cases, the CDC said, and most cases appear to be mild. Of the 295 people who have developed the condition and have been discharged, 79% of them have fully recovered, according to the presentation. Nine people were hospitalized, with two in intensive care as of June 11, according to the CDC.
[Reply]
Pawnmower 11:01 AM 06-23-2021
The math is quite simple for both ARR and NNT or NNV.



Neither of them are useful in terms of shedding light on the efficacy of the pfizer vaccine for this simple reason:


They looked at a period for 3 months, and so the math was based on the actual number of people who
got covid ONLY during those three months. But you cant take a 3 month window at the beginning of
the pandemic and apply that to the entire pandemic. Here is why:
if 20,000 people are in in the placebo cohort and 200 people get sick, and 20,000 people are in the vaccine cohort and none get sick, you have a ARR of 1% (200/20000.)
But if you just use a little common sense, you would see that that is meaningless. Why? Because if you
continued to give that group placebos for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years during the pandemic there would be
a large spike where at a certain point in timer more and more people would be getting sick and eventually
most or all of that 20,000 would get the virus. So as time goes on, the ARR goes higher if nothing is done.
Thats why time is a variable in the formula. There are other variables in the formula as well..like RISK.
If you do nothing, and allow the virus to spread unchecked..the risk goes higher and changes the formula.

So you simply cannot look at the one single snapshot in time of the 1st three months of 2020 where
200 people out of 20000 got covid and then make the claim that the "ARR for the vaccine" is 1% or
apply that math to somehow determine the efficacy of the vaccine.
It just doesnt work like that. If you want the actual math , I can provide it but without
coming to a basic understanding of this fact it is pointless to talk math here.

NNT works much the same way, it (like ARR) has its uses, but it only looks at one moment
in a very specific population at a very specific time so its usefullness in predicting or studying
the effectiveness of a vaccine thats literally going to be used for years on billions of people is limited.



Just think about ARR in terms of an entire country like India. Simply put - the ARRwill go UP
(and thus NNT will go down) over time massively as the time and risk variables go up..
as they would with any large population.



Here:


Originally Posted by :
R0 = 1 - e(- x / t)
R1 = 1 - e(- y / t)
ARR = R0 - R1
Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 1 / ARR
(the t is time, x=placebo, y=vaccine)


On the other hand, you CAN apply relative risk reduction stats and make generalizations from it to other populations,
hence why they used relative risk and not ARR / NNT to draw meaningful conclusions.
[Reply]
Page 354 of 1878
« First < 254304344350351352353354 3553563573583644044548541354 > Last »
Up