Opinions about Covid vaccines, immunity, side effects and immunology

[Robob]

to tell absolutely anything with incredible aplomb, there is no need to say, you are the best.

Just like you in another area.

on the contrary, I try to keep scientific rigor in ALL fields, but there are not many like that ...

You are the one who confuses scientific rigor with having a blind belief in everything that scientists say - obviously in this way you will be more often right than wrong, because scientists are more often right than wrong ... but not always.

In front of you, you have people who take as a principle that scientists are always wrong, which is obviously even less justified.

Your problem is exactly that: having blind faith in everything that is said certains scientists.
As the press peddles what these scientists say all the time, believe them without even verifying it.
As the press denigrates and defames some other scientists, consider that they are lying without even verifying it.

Example:

The CDC is doing a study in a Kentucky nursing home to debunk the so-called fake news on the network that it is catha in retirement homes despite vaccination.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7017e2.htm
From this study it appears that the vaccine is effective:
Efficacy among residents against symptomatic covid 86.5%, efficacy against hospitalization 94.4%, efficacy on deaths 94.4%.
Conclusion of the study: "It is essential to continue to focus on the vaccination of populations of SNF, to reduce the risk of introduction, transmission and severe course of SARS-CoV-2."

Of course in France:
Point : https://www.lepoint.fr/sante/un-variant ... 319_40.php
"The study also offers an edifying comparison of the vulnerability of infected people, depending on whether or not they were vaccinated. Among infected residents, for example, only a third of those vaccinated suffered from symptoms, against 83% of those who were not. vaccinated. And only 11% of those vaccinated had to be hospitalized when this was the case for two thirds of the unvaccinated. Finally, only one in 18 vaccinated residents succumbed to the virus. Among the unvaccinated, six in number, two lost their lives. "
Le Figaro : https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/etats- ... n-20210422
Same spiel ...
BFMTV: https://www.bfmtv.com/international/ame ... 20186.html
The same...
Le Parisien: https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/sante ... XXAPUU.php
Always the same propaganda.
Capital: https://www.capital.fr/economie-politiq ... es-1401085
France24news: https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2021/04/l ... tucky.html
LCI: https://www.lci.fr/international/covid- ... 84129.html
20 minutes : https://www.20minutes.fr/monde/3026711- ... 0-vaccines
ETC .... I stop there it is to vomit.

This is what I call propaganda. It is even worse, according to the figures of this retirement home, it is murderous to advertise the vaccine which is totally ineffective and counterproductive.

But for that, you have to look at the study, look at the numbers and compare them. None of the newspapers cited above have done so, yet their job is precisely to verify, to investigate. The CDC (center for disease control) and the motherfuckers who spawned this shit should even take a lawsuit for posting this kind of shit: they're guilty.

Yet anyone with a baccalaureate level, some data gleaned from the Net and a spreadsheet can demystify this rag in 30 minutes.

So ABC / pedro / izentrop your "scientific" opinion on this study, are we kidding? Go on a little math, show me if the calculated efficiency is good, it's not complicated ...

For the moment, I give you my figures:
Efficacy among residents against symptomatic covid -68% (yes it is negative and shows what Professor Raoult says: more cases among vaccinated), efficacy against disease 34.8%, efficacy on deaths 28.6%.
And that is with very very pro-vax assumptions.

As I am nice, I give you a tip by citing one of the limits given in the study: "The state of health of residents who refused vaccination may have differed from those who consented to the vaccination."

[ABC2019]

Just like you in another area.

on the contrary, I try to keep scientific rigor in ALL fields, but there are not many like that ...

You are the one who confuses scientific rigor with having a blind belief in everything that scientists say - obviously in this way you will be more often right than wrong, because scientists are more often right than wrong ... but not always.

In front of you, you have people who take as a principle that scientists are always wrong, which is obviously even less justified.

Your problem is exactly that: having blind faith in everything that is said certains scientists.
As the press peddles what these scientists say all the time, believe them without even verifying it.
As the press denigrates and defames some other scientists, consider that they are lying without even verifying it.

I don't know who you're talking to, but that's not my case, I never say so-and-so is right or wrong on principle, and certainly not from what the press says. I look at the facts that support the opinions, that's all. Moreover on the climate, I do not swallow ready-made speeches even if they are widely relayed by the press, and I do not swallow the speeches of all climate skeptics, some of whom can also say bullshit.

Yet anyone with a baccalaureate level, some data gleaned from the Net and a spreadsheet can demystify this rag in 30 minutes.

what you show above all is that anyone with a baccalaureate level, some data gleaned from the Net and a spreadsheet can believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else and turn to conspiracy. Does it ever cross your mind that it is you who can misinterpret the data?

[Robob]

Does it ever cross your mind that it is you who can misinterpret the data?

Before you imply that I'm misinterpreting the data, what if you tried to interpret it yourself?

I just gave you in link a study, simple, on a retirement home in Kentucky. I affirm that this study relayed by all the press is false to see criminal.

It's not you who for over a year has been telling us about "Raoult bogus these studies", as well as the verse on evidence-based medicine? So read the study and come back to tell me what you think about it, whether or not it is a reliable clue in favor of the Pifzer vaccine. Then we talk about it if you want.

Because showing Israel's curve to pretend the vaccine works is a bit like showing the Seychelles curve to prove otherwise. Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper and there, well you'll see, you turn "conspirator" in 95% of cases (is this figure is not a relative efficiency).

[VetusLignum]

For the moment, I give you my figures:
Efficacy among residents against symptomatic covid -68% (yes it is negative and shows what Professor Raoult says: more cases among vaccinated), efficacy against disease 34.8%, efficacy on deaths 28.6%.

The misinterpretation that I see is the failure to take into account the confidence interval, which is, given the small sample, very large.
For example, instead of saying "Efficacy in residents against symptomatic covid 86.5%", he should have said"Efficacy in residents against symptomatic covid between 65.6% and 94.7%, with 5% chance of being wrong".

Is there anything else I can't see?

[ABC2019]

Does it ever cross your mind that it is you who can misinterpret the data?

Before you imply that I'm misinterpreting the data, what if you tried to interpret it yourself?

I just gave you in link a study, simple, on a retirement home in Kentucky. I affirm that this study relayed by all the press is false to see criminal.

well yes "you" affirm, and you would be the only one to affirm it? why wouldn't you screw up?

It's not you who for over a year has been telling us about "Raoult bogus these studies", as well as the verse on evidence-based medicine? So read the study and come back to tell me what you think about it, whether or not it is a reliable clue in favor of the Pifzer vaccine. Then we talk about it if you want.

I'm not going to read the study on your order. If you post something rational explaining where the technical error in the study is, why the results are wrong, in terms that make me think you know what you are talking about and that you know how to interpret the data, with if possible more technical references, written by other serious authors, yes I will see more closely what it is.

For the moment I haven't seen anything like it, I just saw that you posted that the study was completely bogus and that even someone who only has the bac and a spreadsheet could notice it.

But if you were right, it would therefore be very unlikely that you would be the only one to know how to demonstrate it, given the importance and the firepower of the "anti-vaxx" camp: so please give me references where others have demonstrated, and the answers that have been eventually provided, it will allow me to appreciate how much it is worth spending time on that.

Because showing Israel's curve to pretend the vaccine works is a bit like showing the Seychelles curve to prove otherwise. Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper and there, well you'll see, you turn "conspirator" in 95% of cases (is this figure is not a relative efficiency).

indeed the Seychelles curve seems to show that the vaccine is not very effective ... but they used the Chinese vaccine a lot.

[Robob]

I'm not going to read the study on your order. If you post something rational explaining where the technical error in the study is, why the results are wrong, in terms that make me think you know what you are talking about and that you know how to interpret the data, with if possible more technical references, written by other serious authors, yes I will go see more closely what it is.

Ok.

Study control group: unvaccinated residents. We have 8 people of which 6 will be positive, 5 symptomatic, 4 hospitalized, 2 dead.
Control group positivity rate: 6/8 = 75%
percentage of patients: 5 out of 8 = 63%
deceased: 2 in 8 = 25%

Is this group representative?

I don't have the US figures but they must be similar to the French figures provided by sante publique France:
- The worst positivity rate observed in France for 80-89 year olds or 90+ is in November, for 80-89 year olds, or 15%. Control group above 75%.
- the number of patients in the control group 63%: still in France, taking all patients in EHPAD over two months, the worst period is between November and December 2012 when 13% of residents in EHPAD were sick.
-Deaths: taking all the deaths in nursing homes over 2 months, the worst period was March / April 2020 when we reached 2% of deaths.

Of course, the control group must be representative of the US SNF population and the covid statistics of these retirement homes which are certainly close to those of France. But we can see that we are not within 5%.

In other words, the control group is a total scam. And this is not the only one of course.

You can take a closer look now: I'm impatiently awaiting your conclusions.
Then we do the Israeli study if you wish.
And then you will be a conspirator, like all those who scratch the surface a little.

[ABC2019]

I'm not going to read the study on your order. If you post something rational explaining where the technical error in the study is, why the results are wrong, in terms that make me think you know what you are talking about and that you know how to interpret the data, with if possible more technical references, written by other serious authors, yes I will go see more closely what it is.

Ok.

Study control group: unvaccinated residents. We have 8 people of which 6 will be positive, 5 symptomatic, 4 hospitalized, 2 dead.
Control group positivity rate: 6/8 = 75%
percentage of patients: 5 out of 8 = 63%
deceased: 2 in 8 = 25%

Is this group representative?

I don't have the US figures but they must be similar to the French figures provided by sante publique France:
- The worst positivity rate observed in France for 80-89 year olds or 90+ is in November, for 80-89 year olds, or 15%. Control group above 75%.
- the number of patients in the control group 63%: still in France, taking all patients in EHPAD over two months, the worst period is between November and December 2012 when 13% of residents in EHPAD were sick.

uh..I'm not sure I understand there ... you compare instantaneous rates of positivities at the time of a particular contamination event, in a particular nursing home, with a national rate calculated over 2 months over the entire population?

[izentrop]

I had quoted a page from the Decoder of the World about the fake site vitemadose.fr, or was broadcast an antivaxx video of Velot du CRIIGEN.
This video has been removed with an explanation

Dr Christian Vélot has never said, for example, that “RNA could modify our genome” and specifies on the contrary that this cannot happen. Likewise, he never said that “vaccines will turn us into GMOs”. Anyone who takes the care to watch the video or read the writings of Dr. Vélot will not be able to fail to notice the false nature of these allegations, and that there is nothing made hostile to vaccines. It is simply put forward, in particular, the risk of the appearance of recombinant variants linked to genetic vaccination, and the fear of the immune leak that could result from it in a context of mass vaccination in a pandemic period.

On the other hand, immune leakage is also a conspiracy theory https://factuel.afp.com/le-risque-devas ... accination

And to think that we still give credit to this rotten association.

Anti GMOs, antivaxx, even conspirators

[ABC2019]

On the other hand, immune leakage is also a conspiracy theory https://factuel.afp.com/le-risque-devas ... accination

by saying it like that, you seem to say that immune leakage is impossible and is a far-fetched theory, but that's not what your link says;

If the risk that a virus strengthens and "escapes" vaccines exists, it can be avoided by a massive vaccination campaign and does not justify stopping current vaccination campaigns, according to specialists interviewed by AFP. In addition, all viruses mutate, but do not systematically become more infectious or more dangerous. ...

Scientists are interested in this risk, in particular with the problem of the number of doses of vaccines injected and the lapse of time between the two. In a study published on March 9, 2021 by a team of researchers at Princeton University, available in full here, scientists explain that "if the administration of a single dose of a two-dose vaccine against SARS- CoV-2 tends to reduce infections in the short term if it produces a strong immune response, it may increase the potential of the virus to "escape" longer term therapies if the immunity to the vaccine at a dose is low ".

To overcome this risk, the researchers stress the need for rapid deployment of the vaccine. Unlike Geert Vanden Bossche, they do not advocate stopping vaccination campaigns: they encourage their acceleration.

It is therefore a little more subtle than that: the risk exists, but scientists think rather that the vaccination campaign must be accelerated to avoid it.

[izentrop]

Ok, the variant risk is greater in the absence of vaccination.
I should have quoted the full sentence: "the risk of the appearance of recombinant variants linked to genetic vaccination, and the fear of the immune leakage which could result from it in a context of mass vaccination during a pandemic"

Does the word "genetics" seem ambiguous to you?