User Panel
Quoted: Unless your kid was an immunocompromised cancer patient, I can't see any reason why you would have even considered it. Healthy kids have a statistical zero chance of death or serious problems from covid, which has been known since well before the vaccines even got approved for them. There's literally no benefit, before you even reach the risk side. And the risks were completely unknown early on. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Ya know, this is one thing he doesn’t own. The administrative roll-out was a success, which he can take credit for. No way he should be expected to understand, or be held accountable for, the actual results of the vaccine itself. View Quote A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. The buck stops here. FDJT and his warp speed. Let's get a vaccine in arms ASAP and see if it is safe or effective later. |
|
Quoted: A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. The buck stops here. FDJT and his warp speed. Let's get a vaccine in arms ASAP and see if it is safe or effective later. View Quote Take the guns first, due process later. Kind of a pattern there with Orange Man. |
|
Quoted: First time? You must be new to reading papers. I'm no longer phased by conclusions that are directly contradicted by the data sets. They seem to know ain't nobody got time to read dat shit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Better 18 months late than never? Jack wagons. Someone didn't read the JAMA article. Their conclusion is the vaccines are safe and effective for children ages 3-17. First time? You must be new to reading papers. I'm no longer phased by conclusions that are directly contradicted by the data sets. They seem to know ain't nobody got time to read dat shit. I've been regularly pointing out flaws in these so-called "studies" since this whole disaster started. My observation is that over half of the so-called papers on this subject have been complete crap. Either their conclusions aren't supported by the data (as you point out), they have fundamentally fatally flawed methodology and/or analysis, or they purport to answer a question the design of their study cannot possibly answer. If this is the status of medical research in this country, it's a damning commentary. |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I wonder what caused the abrupt shift in admitted issues. Just last month, this was a conspiracy theory and evil Florida was promoting dangerous misinformation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0313-letter.html Just 2 years ago, the UK was recommending that children under 17 not get boosted. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/07/jcvi-largely-opposed-to-covid-vaccination-for-children-under-16 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/uk-opts-not-to-vaccinate-most-under-18-against-covid-19 https://fee.org/articles/england-refuses-to-offer-covid-shots-to-kids-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-them-who-s-right/ Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. Ludder has the strangest boner right now |
|
Quoted: I wonder what caused the abrupt shift in admitted issues. Just last month, this was a conspiracy theory and evil Florida was promoting dangerous misinformation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0313-letter.html Just 2 years ago, the UK was recommending that children under 17 not get boosted. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/07/jcvi-largely-opposed-to-covid-vaccination-for-children-under-16 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/uk-opts-not-to-vaccinate-most-under-18-against-covid-19 https://fee.org/articles/england-refuses-to-offer-covid-shots-to-kids-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-them-who-s-right/ View Quote Fuckers couldn't lie, deny or hide it any longer... |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote And folks have short memory so they wont even remember the whole thing. Things went back to "normal" for most people, and when that happens they tend to forget any lessons learned. |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I wonder what caused the abrupt shift in admitted issues. Just last month, this was a conspiracy theory and evil Florida was promoting dangerous misinformation. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0313-letter.html Just 2 years ago, the UK was recommending that children under 17 not get boosted. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/07/jcvi-largely-opposed-to-covid-vaccination-for-children-under-16 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/uk-opts-not-to-vaccinate-most-under-18-against-covid-19 https://fee.org/articles/england-refuses-to-offer-covid-shots-to-kids-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-them-who-s-right/ Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. That^ too... |
|
Quoted: Wtf is a safety signal? View Quote It means that a higher percentage of vaccinated people in one or more demographic groups developed a medical problem than would be expected to happen by chance in the absence of the vaccine. This story is interesting because the authors of a study found that the higher incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated people met a standard called statistical significance. If they did their work correctly it probably means there is a real elevated risk of myocarditis for people in that demographic. Read the details. |
|
Quoted: Take the guns first, due process later. Kind of a pattern there with Orange Man. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: A commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. The buck stops here. FDJT and his warp speed. Let's get a vaccine in arms ASAP and see if it is safe or effective later. Take the guns first, due process later. Kind of a pattern there with Orange Man. Pretty sure even that bitch Birx said in her book that both she and Fraudci lied and misled Trump to get him to do what they wanted him to. Kinda hard to make good command decisions when you're being fed a bunch of BS from so-called experts. |
|
Quoted: You're the only one making that claim, you're arguing against something I've never claimed. You're also using this kind of research incorrectly, as you generally can't use such non-rigourous data for anything definitive. Hence the method, as that's where you find all sorts of interesting and unique deal breakers preventing any real analysis past identifying a safety signal. You can keep harping on whatever you want, but that's where we're currently at. FDA has identified a safety signal as of a few weeks ago. Current guidance is to continue vaccinating children. Other Countries identified the same safety signal in 2021 and stopped recommending boosters for their youth. All of these are unambiguous facts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. LOL. That's not how safety signals work. It simply means it's hit their arbitrary decision point for real research. If you were actually curious about their validity, or even possible relative risk, you'd have read their methodology that I so helpfully linked. Alternatively, you could have just looked at the divergence in guidance between the US and UK and ask why other countries have decided the risk isn't worth the reward, but the US hasn't. We're over 2 years behind some countries. I just presented factual details from the study you posted. I didn't imply any interpretation or try to explain anything. Not sure what you are going on about. The study you posted said "Of the 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis among children aged 12 to 17 years" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population." I just repeated it here in plain English. You're the only one making that claim, you're arguing against something I've never claimed. You're also using this kind of research incorrectly, as you generally can't use such non-rigourous data for anything definitive. Hence the method, as that's where you find all sorts of interesting and unique deal breakers preventing any real analysis past identifying a safety signal. You can keep harping on whatever you want, but that's where we're currently at. FDA has identified a safety signal as of a few weeks ago. Current guidance is to continue vaccinating children. Other Countries identified the same safety signal in 2021 and stopped recommending boosters for their youth. All of these are unambiguous facts. What part of "I'm just posting details from the article you linked" do you not understand? I didn't make any claims. I didn't use the research for anything because I made no claims or interpretations of it. I simply copied and pasted from the article you linked. Since you seem irritated about something and seem to want to engage me. What is the actual question the study was looking at? I'll copy and paste for you. Question: Does active monitoring detect potentially elevated risk of health outcomes after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years? That's all the study was designed for, to see if active monitoring can detect health problems after the Pfizer vaccine. It was not designed to be a rigorous safety test of the vaccine. That did provide their data on the number of cases found, which comes out to "an average incidence of 39.4 cases per million doses administered in children aged 5 to 17 years within 7 days after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination." The study author's also make the claim that "It should be noted that either myocarditis or pericarditis is a rare event" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.". If you have a problem with the author's claims then why did you post the study? |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted: What part of "I'm just posting details from the article you linked" do you not understand? I didn't make any claims. I didn't use the research for anything because I made no claims or interpretations of it. I simply copied and pasted from the article you linked. Since you seem irritated about something and seem to want to engage me. What is the actual question the study was looking at? I'll copy and paste for you. Question: Does active monitoring detect potentially elevated risk of health outcomes after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years? That's all the study was designed for, to see if active monitoring can detect health problems after the Pfizer vaccine. It was not designed to be a rigorous safety test of the vaccine. That did provide their data on the number of cases found, which comes out to "an average incidence of 39.4 cases per million doses administered in children aged 5 to 17 years within 7 days after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination." The study author's also make the claim that "It should be noted that either myocarditis or pericarditis is a rare event" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.". If you have a problem with the author's claims then why did you post the study? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. LOL. That's not how safety signals work. It simply means it's hit their arbitrary decision point for real research. If you were actually curious about their validity, or even possible relative risk, you'd have read their methodology that I so helpfully linked. Alternatively, you could have just looked at the divergence in guidance between the US and UK and ask why other countries have decided the risk isn't worth the reward, but the US hasn't. We're over 2 years behind some countries. I just presented factual details from the study you posted. I didn't imply any interpretation or try to explain anything. Not sure what you are going on about. The study you posted said "Of the 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis among children aged 12 to 17 years" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population." I just repeated it here in plain English. You're the only one making that claim, you're arguing against something I've never claimed. You're also using this kind of research incorrectly, as you generally can't use such non-rigourous data for anything definitive. Hence the method, as that's where you find all sorts of interesting and unique deal breakers preventing any real analysis past identifying a safety signal. You can keep harping on whatever you want, but that's where we're currently at. FDA has identified a safety signal as of a few weeks ago. Current guidance is to continue vaccinating children. Other Countries identified the same safety signal in 2021 and stopped recommending boosters for their youth. All of these are unambiguous facts. What part of "I'm just posting details from the article you linked" do you not understand? I didn't make any claims. I didn't use the research for anything because I made no claims or interpretations of it. I simply copied and pasted from the article you linked. Since you seem irritated about something and seem to want to engage me. What is the actual question the study was looking at? I'll copy and paste for you. Question: Does active monitoring detect potentially elevated risk of health outcomes after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years? That's all the study was designed for, to see if active monitoring can detect health problems after the Pfizer vaccine. It was not designed to be a rigorous safety test of the vaccine. That did provide their data on the number of cases found, which comes out to "an average incidence of 39.4 cases per million doses administered in children aged 5 to 17 years within 7 days after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination." The study author's also make the claim that "It should be noted that either myocarditis or pericarditis is a rare event" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.". If you have a problem with the author's claims then why did you post the study? You didn't quote the good response, SAD. You're quite literally sitting here arguing against the FDA's own methodology and research for identifying safety signals. If this is a lack of faith in the FDA as an institution, I'm happy to hear you out, but otherwise, the results are still the same. There's unambiguously a safety signal, per their own research, which is statistically valid. Now, relative rates and everything, should be completed in followup studies and investigation. Our CDC and as you've so helpfully pointed out, the UDSA / FDA, currently recommend youths be boosted. Other Countries, as of 2021, do not recommend boosting their youth due to noticing the same safety signal. Nothing More, nothing less. If you don't understand the issue with our government taking over 2 years to officially identify the same signal that many other countries noticed (While sharing all of the data amongst themselves) then I'm not entirely sure what to say. |
|
Quoted: Well he does take credit and support it. --- SNIP --- View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. --- SNIP --- Please kindly, take your Trump Derangement Syndrome elsewhere. |
|
|
I ignored everything in this article after the first 25 words. There were never 3+ million kids 5-17 years old “enrolled” in any study ever.
Entire family is Pureblood. |
|
Quoted: You're literally sitting here, saying that the FDA's own procedures for identifying safety signals is invalid and it's a giant nothing burger. If that's the standard, I'm happy to roll with that, but for fucks sake, what counts as valid then? Corresponding Author: Steven A. Anderson, PhD, MPP, Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993 ([email protected]). View Quote Be honest. Where did you see this article posted? I'm going with a Facebook group or Twitter. |
|
Quoted: It means that a higher percentage of vaccinated people in one or more demographic groups developed a medical problem than would be expected to happen by chance in the absence of the vaccine. This story is interesting because the authors of a study found that the higher incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated people met a standard called statistical significance. If they did their work correctly it probably means there is a real elevated risk of myocarditis for people in that demographic. Read the details. View Quote I got nothing. |
|
Well… At least the circuit breakers are starting to trip.
A day late, the house already burnt down. |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote You're probably not wrong. It served its purpose, and now it can be used against him. The "trust the science" bros will fear the actual science as much as they did the fauxi science. |
|
|
Quoted: You're literally sitting here posting an article that states the vax is safe for kids. Be honest. Where did you see this article posted? I'm going with a Facebook group or Twitter. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You're literally sitting here, saying that the FDA's own procedures for identifying safety signals is invalid and it's a giant nothing burger. If that's the standard, I'm happy to roll with that, but for fucks sake, what counts as valid then? Corresponding Author: Steven A. Anderson, PhD, MPP, Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993 ([email protected]). Be honest. Where did you see this article posted? I'm going with a Facebook group or Twitter. You're the only one screeching about the safety and efficacy or relative risks for children. I've never brought that up nor is that even the point of the thread. You have to be purposefully obtuse at this point. The FDA has finally noticed the same safety signal that other countries had noticed years ago and they still have differing guidance than other countries. Our near–real-time monitoring results for 20 prespecified health outcomes in the pediatric population provide reassuring real-world evidence of the safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents. The signal detected for myocarditis or pericarditis is consistent with that reported in peer-reviewed publications demonstrating an elevated risk of myocarditis or pericarditis following mRNA vaccines, especially among younger males aged 12 to 29 years.11-13 It should be noted that either myocarditis or pericarditis is a rare event, with an average incidence of 39.4 cases per million doses administered in children aged 5 to 17 years within 7 days after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination.14,15 We did not detect a signal for myocarditis or pericarditis in younger children (aged 5-11 years), which is consistent with reports from other surveillance systems.16,17 Funder/Support: The US Food and Drug Administration provided funding for this study. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The US Food and Drug Administration contributed as follows: led the design and conduct of the study; contributed to the coordination of collection, management, and analysis of the data; led the interpretation of the data; reviewed and approved the manuscript; and submitted the manuscript for publication. Corresponding Author: Steven A. Anderson, PhD, MPP, Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993 ([email protected]). I do appreciate being triggered enough to go look through the data, because I was able to find this gem. Since you appear to enjoy hypotheticals, how about this one? IF IT WERE ME, I'd have been a fair bit more alarmist describing the safety signal. I'd personally go as far as calling it does dependent. Look at the jump from Shot 1 to Shot 2. If it wasn't you'd expect to see the same rate across both, or even much less. Like, if you take a vaccine and get serious complications, you're not going to continue with the series. I mean, I wouldn't. They'd be dropped from the dataset for not completing the vaccination course. Maybe the 17 year olds needing to complete the series to get into job / college / etc were the only clean dataset? Supplement 1: |
|
Quoted: Please kindly, take your Trump Derangement Syndrome elsewhere. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. --- SNIP --- Please kindly, take your Trump Derangement Syndrome elsewhere. |
|
I would support firing squads for all those who mandated and e courage’s this poison. Legally of course. Without remorse.
|
|
Quoted: You didn't quote the good response, SAD. You're quite literally sitting here arguing against the FDA's own methodology and research for identifying safety signals. If this is a lack of faith in the FDA as an institution, I'm happy to hear you out, but otherwise, the results are still the same. There's unambiguously a safety signal, per their own research, which is statistically valid. Now, relative rates and everything, should be completed in followup studies and investigation. Our CDC and as you've so helpfully pointed out, the UDSA / FDA, currently recommend youths be boosted. Other Countries, as of 2021, do not recommend boosting their youth due to noticing the same safety signal. Nothing More, nothing less. If you don't understand the issue with our government taking over 2 years to officially identify the same signal that many other countries noticed (While sharing all of the data amongst themselves) then I'm not entirely sure what to say. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. LOL. That's not how safety signals work. It simply means it's hit their arbitrary decision point for real research. If you were actually curious about their validity, or even possible relative risk, you'd have read their methodology that I so helpfully linked. Alternatively, you could have just looked at the divergence in guidance between the US and UK and ask why other countries have decided the risk isn't worth the reward, but the US hasn't. We're over 2 years behind some countries. I just presented factual details from the study you posted. I didn't imply any interpretation or try to explain anything. Not sure what you are going on about. The study you posted said "Of the 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis among children aged 12 to 17 years" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population." I just repeated it here in plain English. You're the only one making that claim, you're arguing against something I've never claimed. You're also using this kind of research incorrectly, as you generally can't use such non-rigourous data for anything definitive. Hence the method, as that's where you find all sorts of interesting and unique deal breakers preventing any real analysis past identifying a safety signal. You can keep harping on whatever you want, but that's where we're currently at. FDA has identified a safety signal as of a few weeks ago. Current guidance is to continue vaccinating children. Other Countries identified the same safety signal in 2021 and stopped recommending boosters for their youth. All of these are unambiguous facts. What part of "I'm just posting details from the article you linked" do you not understand? I didn't make any claims. I didn't use the research for anything because I made no claims or interpretations of it. I simply copied and pasted from the article you linked. Since you seem irritated about something and seem to want to engage me. What is the actual question the study was looking at? I'll copy and paste for you. Question: Does active monitoring detect potentially elevated risk of health outcomes after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years? That's all the study was designed for, to see if active monitoring can detect health problems after the Pfizer vaccine. It was not designed to be a rigorous safety test of the vaccine. That did provide their data on the number of cases found, which comes out to "an average incidence of 39.4 cases per million doses administered in children aged 5 to 17 years within 7 days after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination." The study author's also make the claim that "It should be noted that either myocarditis or pericarditis is a rare event" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.". If you have a problem with the author's claims then why did you post the study? You didn't quote the good response, SAD. You're quite literally sitting here arguing against the FDA's own methodology and research for identifying safety signals. If this is a lack of faith in the FDA as an institution, I'm happy to hear you out, but otherwise, the results are still the same. There's unambiguously a safety signal, per their own research, which is statistically valid. Now, relative rates and everything, should be completed in followup studies and investigation. Our CDC and as you've so helpfully pointed out, the UDSA / FDA, currently recommend youths be boosted. Other Countries, as of 2021, do not recommend boosting their youth due to noticing the same safety signal. Nothing More, nothing less. If you don't understand the issue with our government taking over 2 years to officially identify the same signal that many other countries noticed (While sharing all of the data amongst themselves) then I'm not entirely sure what to say. Are you drunk or high? I never mentioned the FDA, CDC, or USDA. I simply posted direct statements from the article you posted in the OP. I've quoted the full response. You must be responding to the wrong person. |
|
Oh look someone who recently joined this site solely for posting schizo shit.
|
|
Quoted: You're literally sitting here posting an article that states the vax is safe for kids. Be honest. Where did you see this article posted? I'm going with a Facebook group or Twitter. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You're literally sitting here, saying that the FDA's own procedures for identifying safety signals is invalid and it's a giant nothing burger. If that's the standard, I'm happy to roll with that, but for fucks sake, what counts as valid then? Corresponding Author: Steven A. Anderson, PhD, MPP, Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993 ([email protected]). Be honest. Where did you see this article posted? I'm going with a Facebook group or Twitter. I'm not sure he even knows what he posted since he is arguing against all the direct statements that I copied and pasted from his own article. |
|
Quoted: Wait, 27 cases out of over 3 million subjects? View Quote It'd depends on how long they were following the individual for, as well as what specific database query you're looking at. For the below:
Rough back of the napkin math to normalize it out. 144 cases / 296,930 Person Days = 0.000487994 Normalized out would be 4.879938033 Cases Per 10,000 Person-Days. So, for every 10,000 people followed for a day, you'd expect to expect 4.8 cases. |
||||||
|
|
Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. View Quote Was going to say, the numbers presented were very few, but they then used large percentage numbers which is what drew the attention. It says something like it of the case, 27 of them 73%, and i think most people saw the 3 million number then skimmed and saw 73% and thought that was the percentage that had heart issues. |
|
Quoted: Are you drunk or high? I never mentioned the FDA, CDC, or USDA. I simply posted direct statements from the article you posted in the OP. I've quoted the full response. You must be responding to the wrong person. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. LOL. That's not how safety signals work. It simply means it's hit their arbitrary decision point for real research. If you were actually curious about their validity, or even possible relative risk, you'd have read their methodology that I so helpfully linked. Alternatively, you could have just looked at the divergence in guidance between the US and UK and ask why other countries have decided the risk isn't worth the reward, but the US hasn't. We're over 2 years behind some countries. I just presented factual details from the study you posted. I didn't imply any interpretation or try to explain anything. Not sure what you are going on about. The study you posted said "Of the 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis among children aged 12 to 17 years" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population." I just repeated it here in plain English. You're the only one making that claim, you're arguing against something I've never claimed. You're also using this kind of research incorrectly, as you generally can't use such non-rigourous data for anything definitive. Hence the method, as that's where you find all sorts of interesting and unique deal breakers preventing any real analysis past identifying a safety signal. You can keep harping on whatever you want, but that's where we're currently at. FDA has identified a safety signal as of a few weeks ago. Current guidance is to continue vaccinating children. Other Countries identified the same safety signal in 2021 and stopped recommending boosters for their youth. All of these are unambiguous facts. What part of "I'm just posting details from the article you linked" do you not understand? I didn't make any claims. I didn't use the research for anything because I made no claims or interpretations of it. I simply copied and pasted from the article you linked. Since you seem irritated about something and seem to want to engage me. What is the actual question the study was looking at? I'll copy and paste for you. Question: Does active monitoring detect potentially elevated risk of health outcomes after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years? That's all the study was designed for, to see if active monitoring can detect health problems after the Pfizer vaccine. It was not designed to be a rigorous safety test of the vaccine. That did provide their data on the number of cases found, which comes out to "an average incidence of 39.4 cases per million doses administered in children aged 5 to 17 years within 7 days after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination." The study author's also make the claim that "It should be noted that either myocarditis or pericarditis is a rare event" and "These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.". If you have a problem with the author's claims then why did you post the study? You didn't quote the good response, SAD. You're quite literally sitting here arguing against the FDA's own methodology and research for identifying safety signals. If this is a lack of faith in the FDA as an institution, I'm happy to hear you out, but otherwise, the results are still the same. There's unambiguously a safety signal, per their own research, which is statistically valid. Now, relative rates and everything, should be completed in followup studies and investigation. Our CDC and as you've so helpfully pointed out, the UDSA / FDA, currently recommend youths be boosted. Other Countries, as of 2021, do not recommend boosting their youth due to noticing the same safety signal. Nothing More, nothing less. If you don't understand the issue with our government taking over 2 years to officially identify the same signal that many other countries noticed (While sharing all of the data amongst themselves) then I'm not entirely sure what to say. Are you drunk or high? I never mentioned the FDA, CDC, or USDA. I simply posted direct statements from the article you posted in the OP. I've quoted the full response. You must be responding to the wrong person. I'd really appreciate an apology for the personal attacks. You're attacking me over what YOU started and brought up. I never made any claim regarding the below. You're the only person continuously talking about the safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines. Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. You've spent multiple pages attacking me, without ever refuting the entire point of this thread. The FDA has finally noticed the same safety signal that other countries had noticed two years ago. |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote And they wouldn’t be wrong. |
|
Quoted: You've spent multiple pages attacking me, without ever refuting the entire point of this thread. The FDA has finally noticed the same safety signal that other countries had noticed two years ago. View Quote I didn't make any claims for against the point of this thread. I simply posted some of the details from your article and you started going off on me about it. |
|
Quoted: Was going to say, the numbers presented were very few, but they then used large percentage numbers which is what drew the attention. It says something like it of the case, 27 of them 73%, and i think most people saw the 3 million number then skimmed and saw 73% and thought that was the percentage that had heart issues. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. Was going to say, the numbers presented were very few, but they then used large percentage numbers which is what drew the attention. It says something like it of the case, 27 of them 73%, and i think most people saw the 3 million number then skimmed and saw 73% and thought that was the percentage that had heart issues. If they managed to do that, then they definitely need a wrangler. I don't understand how people are getting nice percentages from out of this. One of the rates is 144.9 Cases / 296,930 Person Days for Dose 2 (12-15) That doesn't easily turn into nice percentages and numbers unless you deep dive how they built their data. |
|
Quoted: Here's some learning for you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055643/ TLDR, you look at any and all datasets you have available and try to spot any trends to identify possibly risks and adverse effects without having to wait 3+ years for actual causational trials to be completed. IDEALLY, you leave the windows open for as long as possible to bias capturing any issues, instead of arbitrarily missing some. Here's a little snippet of history: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/13/archives/swine-flu-prograrm-is-halted-in-9-states-as-3-die-after-shots.html Safety Signal was: two weeks after they began nationally, after the deaths of three elderly persons who received the vaccine yesterday at a clinic in Pittsburgh. All three patients are known to have had heart disease, health officials said. and autopsies showed that two died of heart attacks. No Evidence Shots Caused Them At a news conference at the agency's headquarters in Atlanta, Dr. David J. Sencer, director of the center, said there was no evidence to suggest that the deaths had been caused by the vaccinations. Further, he said he knew of no reason for other communities to suspend their programs. In response: In nine states, however, health officials shut down swine flu vaccination programs until information about the Pittsburgh deaths could be clarified. These are Maine, Vermont, Illinois, Wisconsin, Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico and Alaska. The New York City health authorities, meanwhile, pressed ahead with the immunization program, as did those in New Jersey and Connecticut. But New York State officials asked upstate areas to delay using any of the vaccine from the batch used in Pittsburgh. [Page 53]. View Quote The NIH will redefine whatever they need to make it safe. |
|
Quoted: I didn't make any claims for against the point of this thread. I simply posted some of the details from your article and you started going off on me about it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You've spent multiple pages attacking me, without ever refuting the entire point of this thread. The FDA has finally noticed the same safety signal that other countries had noticed two years ago. I didn't make any claims for against the point of this thread. I simply posted some of the details from your article and you started going off on me about it. My guy, you've spent 2 pages attacking me over the safety and efficacy of covid vaccines. You're the one that has repeatedly personally attacked me. You've called me crazy, belittled me, and insinuated I'm a drunk. All because you missed the point and went off on a tangent All I want is an apology for your behavior. It's not my fault you missed the point. I even gave you an exact citation of the actual rates; There was no reason to holocaust math like this. Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. |
|
Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. View Quote Under Trump it was entirely voluntary. It was the fascists Joe Biden who made it mandatory. |
|
Quoted: Under Trump it was entirely voluntary. It was the fascists Joe Biden who made it mandatory. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Just a thought, but it starts with D and ends with onald Trump. Before long, this will be 100% his vaccine. If he wins the primary, I can basically assure you they will flood the public with stories of how toxic the vaccine is and how rushed it was, hanging it all on the neck of Trump. Under Trump it was entirely voluntary. It was the fascists Joe Biden who made it mandatory. |
|
i wish there was a Nuremburg type trial for all involved in this shit.
|
|
|
Quoted: My guy, you've spent 2 pages attacking me over the safety and efficacy of covid vaccines. You're the one that has repeatedly personally attacked me. You've called me crazy, belittled me, and insinuated I'm a drunk. All because you missed the point and went off on a tangent All I want is an apology for your behavior. It's not my fault you missed the point. I even gave you an exact citation of the actual rates; There was no reason to holocause math like this. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You've spent multiple pages attacking me, without ever refuting the entire point of this thread. The FDA has finally noticed the same safety signal that other countries had noticed two years ago. I didn't make any claims for against the point of this thread. I simply posted some of the details from your article and you started going off on me about it. My guy, you've spent 2 pages attacking me over the safety and efficacy of covid vaccines. You're the one that has repeatedly personally attacked me. You've called me crazy, belittled me, and insinuated I'm a drunk. All because you missed the point and went off on a tangent All I want is an apology for your behavior. It's not my fault you missed the point. I even gave you an exact citation of the actual rates; There was no reason to holocause math like this. Quoted: BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vaccine. The article talks about 153 cases out of over 3 million kids age 12-17. That is 0.005% that developed myocarditis or pericarditis for any reason. The study goes on to claim that proves the vaccines are safe for kids. I never mentioned the FDA, CDC, USDA, nor did I personally say anything about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. I never said you were crazy. I didn't go off on any tangent because I never made a statement or claim for or against the vaccines or their safety. I simply posted direct statements from the article you posted in your OP. |
|
Quoted: Vaccine wasn't approved before Trump lost. The FFC waited until after the election to hurt Trump. We dont know what Trump would have done. He certainly pushed for government shutdowns that cost millions of jobs and 100's of thousands of small businesses. He still supports the clot shot and says he deserves all the credit for it. View Quote I would have to go back but pretty sure he said take precautions but the retarded states are the ones that did the lockdowns. Many of the smarter ones were done with the stupidity by the end of summer, others are still stupid. The biggest difference in my area was pretty much take out only at restaurants and the mask mandates. The only other things were stores like walmart that put all the arrows on the floors and the plexiglass at checkout counters. Many of these were company wide policies because they covered multiple states that had strict rules on this stuff. |
|
FDA spreading misinformation. Either misinformation now, or misinformation before.
Proposed new thread title: BREAKING: FDA Suddenly Identifies Myocarditis Safety Signal in Vaccinated Children. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.