site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   3321 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 17, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The VAERS UI and UX designers deserve to be shot.

I note a massive spike from 2021, which I don't particularly consider noteworthy since the total deaths from that period onwards sums up to about 15k. And:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

And the CDC makes no effort to verify every individual claim, let alone actually enforce the nominal legal penalty for false ones.

I expect that given the enormous increase in public awareness about VAERS, that this isn't particularly significant.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37163200/

The RR for overall mortality of mRNA vaccines vs. placebo was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccine RCTs, the RR for overall mortality was 0.37 (0.19-0.70).

Those are some pretty wide 95% CIs to me, but I'm no statistician. All I can conclude from it is that mRNA vaccines do worse than adenoviral ones. Which is fine, a suboptimal choice of vaccine is bad enough by itself.

Clinical trial data also shows increased risk of serious adverse events for mrna vaccines, outweighing risk of severe COVID in younger population groups: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283.

I don't disagree that it's not worth vaccinating paediatric age groups.

I looked around for takes from those better equipped to evaluate such claims than I am:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid19-mrna-vaccines-saved-lives-reducing-risks-infection-severe-covid-19/

First, Benn et al. used RCTs with a small number of deaths, whether from COVID-19 or other causes. Together, the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) RCTs reported 61 deaths out of 74,193 participants (0.0008%), while the AV vaccine (AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) trials reported 46 deaths out of 122,164 participants (0.0003%). When assessing the risk of death, a small number of events is problematic because it leaves the results highly vulnerable to statistical flukes.

Karina Top, a professor in the division of infectious diseases of Dalhousie University, explained that these small numbers of deaths “translated into wide confidence intervals around the point estimates indicating lack of precision in the results”.

Abram Wagner, a professor of epidemiology and global public health at Michigan University, reached the same conclusion. “Together, these studies included 74,193 participants in mRNA vaccine trials, and there were only 61 deaths across vaccinated and placebo groups. Essentially there is not enough statistical power to make any conclusions from these data”, he said.

Statistical power is the ability of an analysis to adequately detect an effect where there is indeed one. In this case, a lack of statistical power due to a small number of deaths means that there’s a high risk of failing to detect mRNA vaccines’ effect on overall mortality when such an effect actually exists. In other words, data on mortality in the mRNA clinical trials reported in Benn et al. are actually inconclusive.

Hmm, I guess my nose is worth something after all, I did consider those CIs sus before I read this.

And:

The fact that there aren’t enough deaths to properly assess the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality isn’t surprising. As Benn et al. acknowledged, the initial clinical trials that led to vaccines’ authorizations primarily focused on preventing symptomatic COVID-19. For example, death from COVID-19 isn’t among the original primary outcomes monitored during the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca clinical trials.

If you have better sources or can point out a reason my reasoning is incorrect, I'd be happy to hear it. My general enthusiasm for technological advances is, at least I'd hope, less overwhelming than my desire to get to the bottom of things.

Thank you for the thoughtful response! When we get to this level of analysis, I am of course willing to admit that there are many unknowns, and that the data is not sufficient for strong and clear conclusions on mRNA vaccine safety, although I would argue that there are clear indications that serious concerns exist. But it is the lack of willingness to investigate these worrying signals from the data and the blind repetition of the "safe and effective" mantra that is my main cause for concern. If you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any, right?

VAERS, the main monitoring system for vaccine safety, indicates a massive, and I mean MASSIVE, concern regarding the relative safety of COVID vaccines. I phrased my comment on VAERS carefully - it's definitely not 100% reliable, but it shows a massive relative difference in reported vaccine-related deaths since the introduction of COVID vaccines. Is this not cause for concern? Even if only 3% of the post-COVID VAERS reports are real and 97% are bogus, COVID vaccines still cause as much death as all other vaccines put together (per year instead of in 30 years combined). So even if 97% of post-COVID VAERS reports are trash (and the "increased awareness" argument is a huge stretch to support such a strong claim), the COVID vaccines are still more dangerous than all other vaccines put together, "just" causing more deaths that all other vaccines put together per year instead of more deaths than all other vaccines in 30 years. And if VAERS is complete and utter trash, as you say, isn't that even MORE cause for concern? In that case, we have NO population-level vaccine safety monitoring system of note at all. If you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any, right?

As for the second study I broguht up (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37163200/), I agree that the clinical trials used to approve the COVID vaccines, which are the only large clinical trials that have been run on them, were not designed to assess all-cause mortality risk from the vaccines, and the sample showing no effect on overall mortality is very small, yes. So where's the follow-up? VAERS is trash, and the trials were not designed to assess overall mortality risk. If you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any, right?

Your position on the severe adverse events risk study is not entirely clear to me based on your response. It's not about pediatric populations, it's that they found a greater increase in severe vaccine-related side-effects (that land you in the hospital) than the reduction in severe COVID events compared with the control group. The COVID vaccines cause more hospitalization-level adverse events than the hospitalizations they prevent from COVID, according to that study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283). The authors call for a harm-benefit analysis for mRNA COVID vaccines, which has never been done. But if you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any, right?

Finally, we have the Nature article finding that the mRNA vaccines produce random proteins. Which ones? What are their effects? Surely Pfizer and Moderna tested whether their vaccines were actually producing what they were supposed to, at some point? Or was this a total surprise, and we "could not have known at the time"? Of course, if you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any.

You requested other sources, so here's the BMJ (top medical journal) desperately calling for follow-up studies on COVID vaccine safety: https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2527?fbclid=IwAR3e8Rv7UdOUjx60Vf7CnrtZAcM7rCVxl5IRpT76ngyTokkALHVCbiO3Naw

And I wonder how long the spike protein produced by COVID vaccines keeps being produced? Here's a study finding that it's still being produced 60 days after vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8786601/ I thought the vaccine cleared out in a week or two, as I was told? Does it keep producing (these random) proteins longer than 60 days? How long are these vaccines active in the body? Who knows! If you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any.

Here's COVID vaccines causing myocarditis (perhaps because production of random proteins by the vax causes an autoimmune response in the heart in those unlucky to have the wrong random proteins produced by the vax?): https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/24/2234/7188747?login=false

Here's COVID vaccines causing vaginal bleeding: https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2023-074778 How? Why? Who knows! There's plenty more studies like this showing worrying signals. Modifying immune response in unknown ways for unclear reasons? Sure: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296354v1.full.pdf Causing seizures in children? Yup: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.13.23296903v1.full.pdf

Yes, you can pick apart any of these studies. They are all limited at least by being fairly small given the relative rarity of these events. None of them are proper clinical trials. But that's because these studies are the only ones that have been done. If you also dismiss population-level monitoring systems like VAERS, you can claim that there is no clear evidence, sure. If you refuse to look for problems, you won't find any. But we do now know that vaccines remain active for 60+ days and that they produce random proteins they are not supposed to (these are lab studies on how the vax works). And various data sources, flawed as they are, indicate strong safety concerns. Nevermind that this should have been investigated before giving these vaccines to billions (or coercing people into taking them). The companies are shielded from liability, and politicians will point to the medical community missing or ignoring these issues and say "we could not have known" (although scientists previously considered credible tried to raise concerns, but were sidelined or ostracized). But could we not at least look carefully at the potential issues NOW, before continuing to use this technology that was never deployed in humans before?

Anyway, I hope I've offered some insight on the anti-COVID vax position here. I'll shut up now unless there's something I really need to respond to, since this is the small-scale questions thread :)

The issue with VAERS is both that it doesn't vet data, had massive signal boosting, and more importantly, was signal boosted heavily in the vaccine-skeptical crowd. I expect a great deal more spurious claims, both because of intentional and disingenuous reporting, as well as people being on edge and willing to attribute a natural death or one from COVID itself to the vaccine that preceded it.

I mean, it's both possible for people to be irrationally averse to vaccination in general or the COVID one in particular and the vaccine to be dangerous (or at least worse than the disease), it's just unlikely.

Yes, you can pick apart any of these studies. They are all limited at least by being fairly small given the relative rarity of these events. None of them are proper clinical trials. But that's because these studies are the only ones that have been done.

I'm not against better studies, but until they happen, I reserve judgement, or at least hold the null hypothesis. There's publication bias both from the vaccine manufacturers and their pharma affiliates who would prefer not to demonstrate harm and hundreds or thousands of small-time researchers who would love to make a name by demonstrating clear and obvious harm. The latter aren't deplatformed, you did link to multiple weak/inconclusive studies after all.

But we do now know that vaccines remain active for 60+ days and that they produce random proteins they are not supposed to (these are lab studies on how the vax works)

"Random proteins" aren't really that big a deal. The human body handles probably quadrillions of misfolded proteins or even those produced by point/frameshift mutations every day. When the original study you cited makes no claim that it causes harm, I expect more evidence to back up that claim, including obvious increases in all cause mortality that can be retroactively attributed to mRNA vaccines.

In the specific case of children, my point is that the CFR for them is so minuscule that it wouldn't be worth vaccinating them even if the vaccine was perfectly safe. Certainly not when vaccine stocks were short of requirements in the early/middle pandemic.

Here's my attempt to parse VAERS data, so the next poor soul doesn't have to.

/images/17029894385891418.webp

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats