Vaccin mot Covid-19

Diskutera fysik, kemi, biologi, samt direkta tillämpningar såsom teknik och medicin.
manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm
Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Wed 08 Jun 2022, 20:51

dann wrote:
Wed 08 Jun 2022, 20:19
It doesn't have "to be some not known cause from taking the mRNA-vaccine that generates the difference in deaths between the two groups."
Unknown is unknown, which is why I pointed out one likely explanation: age.

No. If "age" is the reason, then the study is flawed.

Is the study flawed?
War is peace.

dann
Posts:2856
Joined:Sun 24 May 2020, 17:18

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by dann » Thu 09 Jun 2022, 12:54

That is what I have been asking you:
dann wrote:
Wed 08 Jun 2022, 06:06
You are the one who needs to quote from the study: Did it consider the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccines, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderna?

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Thu 09 Jun 2022, 18:07

dann wrote:
Thu 09 Jun 2022, 12:54
That is what I have been asking you:
dann wrote:
Wed 08 Jun 2022, 06:06
You are the one who needs to quote from the study: Did it consider the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccines, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderna?
The study is a comparison of all cause-mortality between two types of vaccines. If the selection of sample (vaccinated individuals) is not truly randomized (for "age" included), the data has no statistically secured value = the study is flawed.

Again. Is the study flawed?
War is peace.

dann
Posts:2856
Joined:Sun 24 May 2020, 17:18

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by dann » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:15

That is what I have been asking you:
dann wrote:
Wed 08 Jun 2022, 06:06
You are the one who needs to quote from the study: Did it consider the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccines, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderna?

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:22

dann wrote:
Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:15
That is what I have been asking you:
dann wrote:
Wed 08 Jun 2022, 06:06
You are the one who needs to quote from the study: Did it consider the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccines, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderna?
To my knowledge the study isn't flawed, no.
War is peace.

dann
Posts:2856
Joined:Sun 24 May 2020, 17:18

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by dann » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:38

International recognition of Cuban vaccine Soberana Plus celebrated (Prensa Latina, June 11, 2022)
Research Director at the Finlay Vaccine Institute (IFV), Dagmar Garcia, on Friday celebrated results of clinical trials of the Cuban Covid-19 vaccine Soberana Plus on the magazine The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
This is undoubtedly the foreign publication with the highest impact during the Covid-19 pandemic, the expert said, and shared part of the text that shows how a single dose of the Finlay-FR-1A (Soberana Plus) vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strengthened the preexisting natural immunity with an excellent security profile.
https://www.plenglish.com/news/2022/06/11/international-recognition-of-cuban-vaccine-soberana-plus-celebrated/
Safety and immunogenicity of the FINLAY-FR-1A vaccine in COVID-19 convalescent participants: an open-label phase 2 and double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2b, seamless, clinical trial (The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, June 9, 2022)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00100-X/fulltext
Soberana Plus was originally developed to boost immunity in people who had already had and survived a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it was also used as a booster vaccine after two jabs of Soberana 02. It has also been tested as a booster shot for people who have been vaccinated with other vaccines.

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 22:18

dann wrote:
Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:15
That is what I have been asking you:
dann wrote:
Wed 08 Jun 2022, 06:06
You are the one who needs to quote from the study: Did it consider the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccines, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderna?
No, you have not been asking me if the study is flawed. You have been asking me if the study consider age, as if not doing so in that case is not a flaw in the study.
War is peace.

dann
Posts:2856
Joined:Sun 24 May 2020, 17:18

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by dann » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 01:18

Which is why I asked you if it considered the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccine, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderne. Did it?!

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 18:34

dann wrote:
Fri 17 Jun 2022, 01:18
Which is why I asked you if it considered the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccine, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderne. Did it?!
No. You are asking that as if "age differences" could be a legitimate outcome from the design of the study. My answer is: no, the study is not looking for differences in all cause-mortality between age groups. The study is looking for differences in all cause-mortality between individuals taking one of two types vaccines, mRNA-vaccines vs. adeno-vaccines.

If the difference is explained by differences in "age", the study is accordingly, flawed = the study is not randomized for "age".

And no, to my knowledge the study isn't flawed.

And yes, the difference is statistically significant, where all cause-mortality for individuals taking mRNA-vaccines are dramatically higher than that for individuals taking adeno-vaccines = avoid mRNA-vaccines until further notice?

Looks like it.
War is peace.

Nemesis
Posts:3422
Joined:Thu 12 Oct 2006, 22:04
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by Nemesis » Sat 18 Jun 2022, 15:04

FDA advisers endorse 1st COVID-19 shots for kids under 5

The first COVID-19 shots for U.S. infants, toddlers and preschoolers moved a step closer Wednesday.

The Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisers gave a thumbs-up to vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer for the littlest kids.

The outside experts voted unanimously that the benefits of the shots outweigh any risks for children under 5 — that’s roughly 18 million youngsters. They are the last age group in the U.S. without access to COVID-19 vaccines and many parents have been anxious to protect their little children.

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-politics-health-us-news-368ca7b4ab393dc48ffa04b5a3171d5b
"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed." - Marcus Aurelius

dann
Posts:2856
Joined:Sun 24 May 2020, 17:18

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by dann » Sun 19 Jun 2022, 10:08

manifesto wrote:
Fri 17 Jun 2022, 18:34
dann wrote:
Fri 17 Jun 2022, 01:18
Which is why I asked you if it considered the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccine, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderne. Did it?!
No. You are asking that as if "age differences" could be a legitimate outcome from the design of the study. My answer is: no, the study is not looking for differences in all cause-mortality between age groups. The study is looking for differences in all cause-mortality between individuals taking one of two types vaccines, mRNA-vaccines vs. adeno-vaccines.

If the difference is explained by differences in "age", the study is accordingly, flawed = the study is not randomized for "age".

And no, to my knowledge the study isn't flawed.

And yes, the difference is statistically significant, where all cause-mortality for individuals taking mRNA-vaccines are dramatically higher than that for individuals taking adeno-vaccines = avoid mRNA-vaccines until further notice?

Looks like it.
Really?! The study seems to be more than usually flawed 'to my knowledge':
Danske forskere sår tvivl om effekten af mRNA-vacciner - Men uvildige forskere advarer mod at tillægge deres studie betydning. (Videnskab.dk, May 6, 2022)
Alt for mange usikkerheder gør det ifølge flere uvildige kilder, som Videnskab.dk har talt med, usandsynligt, at danske forskere fra Syddansk Universitet (SDU) reelt er kommet på sporet af en overraskende effekt ved nogle corona-vacciner. Noget, de ellers selv antyder på sociale medier.
(...)
Flere uafhængige forskere er skeptiske
Studiet fra SDU er ikke læst og kvalitetstjekket af fagfæller. Det er endnu ikke accepteret af et videnskabeligt tidsskrift.
(...)
Studiet bliver alligevel gengivet uden videre forbehold i et meget delt indlæg skrevet af statistik-professor Martin Kulldorf, der er videnskabelig direktør for Brownstone Institute i USA.
https://videnskab.dk/krop-sundhed/danske-forskere-saar-tvivl-om-effekten-af-mrna-vacciner
And as I have been saying and repeating the whole time, manifesto:
Aldersforskel påvirker dødstal
I en tråd på Twitter nævner Santiago E. Sanchez en tredje svaghed ved studiet: Der kan være forskel på de mennesker, der har deltaget i de store kliniske forsøg med de forskellige vacciner. Derfor kan man ikke holde dødstal fra de forskellige forsøg op mod hinanden.
Hvis deltagerne i et af forsøgene i gennemsnit eksempelvis er ældre end deltagerne i et andet forsøg, kan det være alder - ikke vacciner - der har påvirket antallet af døde
.
Risikoen for at dø for eksempel af hjertekarsygdomme stiger som bekendt med alderen.
»Når vi ser på demografien i forsøgene med adeno versus mRNA, har de fleste adeno-forsøg en meget lavere gennemsnitsalder,« skriver Santiago E. Sanchez.
So to my knowledge, manifesto, the study is definitely flawed. Why isn't it flawed to your knowledge?
(You should have tried to answer my question the first time I asked it! I recommend that you read the rest of the article. You need to learn how to read studies (and articles about studies) like this one.)

As for practical consequences, I will try to avoid having to choose between Pfizer/Moderna and J&J/AZ by getting the Cuban jabs instead:
How to get a Cuban COVID jab in 1,000 easy steps - The story of how I finally got my made-in-Cuba booster in Havana (AlJazeera, March 26, 2022)
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/26/how-to-get-a-cuban-covid-jab-in-1000-easy-steps
$45 is very cheap, in my opinion. It's a long way to go to get vaccinated, but it's an excellent excuse for going to Cuba. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBZ4znOMgFk (with subtitles in English)

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Sun 19 Jun 2022, 14:31

dann wrote:
Sun 19 Jun 2022, 10:08
manifesto wrote:
Fri 17 Jun 2022, 18:34
dann wrote:
Fri 17 Jun 2022, 01:18
Which is why I asked you if it considered the age of people who got the two kinds of vaccine, either J&J/AZ or Pfizer/Moderne. Did it?!
No. You are asking that as if "age differences" could be a legitimate outcome from the design of the study. My answer is: no, the study is not looking for differences in all cause-mortality between age groups. The study is looking for differences in all cause-mortality between individuals taking one of two types vaccines, mRNA-vaccines vs. adeno-vaccines.

If the difference is explained by differences in "age", the study is accordingly, flawed = the study is not randomized for "age".

And no, to my knowledge the study isn't flawed.

And yes, the difference is statistically significant, where all cause-mortality for individuals taking mRNA-vaccines are dramatically higher than that for individuals taking adeno-vaccines = avoid mRNA-vaccines until further notice?

Looks like it.
Really?! The study seems to be more than usually flawed 'to my knowledge':
1. Sigh. Again. You asked me if differences in "age" between the two groups could explain the result. Again, if so, the study have to be flawed.

2. Again. No, to my knowledge the study isn't flawed = to my knowledge differences in "age" can not explain the result.

3. Again. You asked as if difference in "age" could be a legitimate outcome of the study.

Danske forskere sår tvivl om effekten af mRNA-vacciner - Men uvildige forskere advarer mod at tillægge deres studie betydning. (Videnskab.dk, May 6, 2022)
Alt for mange usikkerheder gør det ifølge flere uvildige kilder, som Videnskab.dk har talt med, usandsynligt, at danske forskere fra Syddansk Universitet (SDU) reelt er kommet på sporet af en overraskende effekt ved nogle corona-vacciner. Noget, de ellers selv antyder på sociale medier.
(...)
Flere uafhængige forskere er skeptiske
Studiet fra SDU er ikke læst og kvalitetstjekket af fagfæller. Det er endnu ikke accepteret af et videnskabeligt tidsskrift.
(...)
Studiet bliver alligevel gengivet uden videre forbehold i et meget delt indlæg skrevet af statistik-professor Martin Kulldorf, der er videnskabelig direktør for Brownstone Institute i USA.
https://videnskab.dk/krop-sundhed/danske-forskere-saar-tvivl-om-effekten-af-mrna-vacciner
Of course lots of people are going to critique the study. Hundreds of billions of dollars are on the table.

Cite the science, if any.

And as I have been saying and repeating the whole time, manifesto:
Aldersforskel påvirker dødstal
I en tråd på Twitter nævner Santiago E. Sanchez en tredje svaghed ved studiet: Der kan være forskel på de mennesker, der har deltaget i de store kliniske forsøg med de forskellige vacciner. Derfor kan man ikke holde dødstal fra de forskellige forsøg op mod hinanden.
Hvis deltagerne i et af forsøgene i gennemsnit eksempelvis er ældre end deltagerne i et andet forsøg, kan det være alder - ikke vacciner - der har påvirket antallet af døde
.
Risikoen for at dø for eksempel af hjertekarsygdomme stiger som bekendt med alderen.
»Når vi ser på demografien i forsøgene med adeno versus mRNA, har de fleste adeno-forsøg en meget lavere gennemsnitsalder,« skriver Santiago E. Sanchez.
No. You have been suggesting that differences in "age" can explain the results from the study. I have categorically and consistently answered that if so, the study is flawed and that to my knowledge the study is not flawed.

Seems to me that this Sanchez guy are saying that he has gone through the differences in "age" between the two groups and found a flaw in the design. If so, I would like to se his scientific report showing this.

So to my knowledge, manifesto, the study is definitely flawed. Why isn't it flawed to your knowledge?
(You should have tried to answer my question the first time I asked it! I recommend that you read the rest of the article. You need to learn how to read studies (and articles about studies) like this one.)
See above.

As for practical consequences, I will try to avoid having to choose between Pfizer/Moderna and J&J/AZ by getting the Cuban jabs instead:
How to get a Cuban COVID jab in 1,000 easy steps - The story of how I finally got my made-in-Cuba booster in Havana (AlJazeera, March 26, 2022)
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/26/how-to-get-a-cuban-covid-jab-in-1000-easy-steps
$45 is very cheap, in my opinion. It's a long way to go to get vaccinated, but it's an excellent excuse for going to Cuba. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBZ4znOMgFk (with subtitles in English)
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Explain.


Edit. If you scroll to the bottom of your cited article, the critique is rebutted, point by point by Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzers, one of the authors of the study.
War is peace.

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Sun 19 Jun 2022, 16:58

En rättelse. Jag skrev:
The study is looking for differences in all cause-mortality between individuals taking one of two types vaccines, mRNA-vaccines vs. adeno-vaccines.
Det verkar som att endast Johnson&Johnson av de två adeno-vaccinerna med statistisk signifikans skiljer sig från de två mRNA-vaccinerna. För AstraZeneca gäller tydligen endast en (svagare) indikation på samma skillnad.

Som sagt, until further notice...
War is peace.

manifesto
Posts:11338
Joined:Wed 24 Dec 2008, 22:10
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by manifesto » Tue 05 Jul 2022, 23:41

Nemesis wrote:
Sat 18 Jun 2022, 15:04
FDA advisers endorse 1st COVID-19 shots for kids under 5

The first COVID-19 shots for U.S. infants, toddlers and preschoolers moved a step closer Wednesday.

The Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisers gave a thumbs-up to vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer for the littlest kids.

The outside experts voted unanimously that the benefits of the shots outweigh any risks for children under 5 — that’s roughly 18 million youngsters. They are the last age group in the U.S. without access to COVID-19 vaccines and many parents have been anxious to protect their little children.

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-politics-health-us-news-368ca7b4ab393dc48ffa04b5a3171d5b
Varför godkänner FDA vaccinationer av barn under 5 års ålder inom ramarna för EUA och därmed skadeståndsimmunitet för tillverkarna av vaccinerna, om de är nu är helt riskfria?

Vet du det?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-rush-for-toddler-vaccines-covid-pandemic-children-fda-pfizer-moderna-medicine-evidence-11656951993
War is peace.

Nemesis
Posts:3422
Joined:Thu 12 Oct 2006, 22:04
Location:Stockholm

Re: Vaccin mot Covid-19

Post by Nemesis » Thu 07 Jul 2022, 19:10

manifesto wrote:
Tue 05 Jul 2022, 23:41
Nemesis wrote:
Sat 18 Jun 2022, 15:04
FDA advisers endorse 1st COVID-19 shots for kids under 5

The first COVID-19 shots for U.S. infants, toddlers and preschoolers moved a step closer Wednesday.

The Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisers gave a thumbs-up to vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer for the littlest kids.

The outside experts voted unanimously that the benefits of the shots outweigh any risks for children under 5 — that’s roughly 18 million youngsters. They are the last age group in the U.S. without access to COVID-19 vaccines and many parents have been anxious to protect their little children.

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-politics-health-us-news-368ca7b4ab393dc48ffa04b5a3171d5b
Varför godkänner FDA vaccinationer av barn under 5 års ålder inom ramarna för EUA och därmed skadeståndsimmunitet för tillverkarna av vaccinerna, om de är nu är helt riskfria?

Vet du det?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-rush-for-toddler-vaccines-covid-pandemic-children-fda-pfizer-moderna-medicine-evidence-11656951993
Mitt tips till dig: Inhämta din information från vetenskapliga källor. WSJ är inte en bra källa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Science
"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed." - Marcus Aurelius

Post Reply