3G in Restaurants?

3,552 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

FH_pG1KXMAk1Ps9.jpeg.jpg

 

Are you sure the one on the left isn't the human pin-cushion taking a booster every 3 months of a vaccine that doesn't work?

 

Even if your analogy was suitable, the chap in the armour should only be wearing a bit of it over his leg or somewhere.
It. doesn't. stop. you. catching. Covid. or. getting. sick.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eric7 said:

 

Again?
The trial was invalidated after 2 months when they removed the control group.

I agree a proper trial and study should be done.

Let me get this straight , So someone invalidated pfizers vaccine trial.  If so , what purpose you want to achieve by quoting that invalidated study ?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NETWORK OF RIGHT-WING HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IS MAKING MILLIONS OFF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND IVERMECTIN, HACKED DATA REVEALS

 

Quote

A NETWORK OF health care providers pocketed millions of dollars selling hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and online consultations, according to hacked data provided to The Intercept. The data show that vast sums of money are being extracted from people concerned about or suffering from Covid-19 but resistant to vaccinations or other recommendations of public health authorities.

 

America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing group founded last year to promote pro-Trump doctors during the coronavirus pandemic, is working in tandem with a small network of health care companies to sow distrust in the Covid-19 vaccine, dupe tens of thousands of people into seeking ineffective treatments for the disease, and then sell consultations and millions of dollars’ worth of those medications. The data indicate patients spent at least $15 million — and potentially much more — on consultations and medications combined.

 

The Intercept has obtained hundreds of thousands of records from two companies, CadenceHealth.us and Ravkoo, revealing just how the lucrative operation works. America’s Frontline Doctors, or AFLDS, has been spreading highly politicized misinformation about Covid-19 since the summer of 2020 and refers its many followers to its telemedicine partner SpeakWithAnMD.com, which uses Cadence Health as a platform. People who sign up then pay $90 for a phone consultation with “AFLDS-trained physicians” who prescribe treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19. The drugs are delivered by Ravkoo, a service that works with local pharmacies to ship drugs to patients’ doors. Of course, that’s if patients ever get the consultation; many customers told Time they never received the call after paying.

 

The data from the Cadence Health and Ravkoo sites was provided to The Intercept by an anonymous hacker who said the sites were “hilariously easy” to hack, despite promises of patient privacy. It was corroborated by comparing it to publicly available information. The Intercept is not publishing any individual patient data and has taken steps to secure the data. After The Intercept reached out, Cadence Health’s Roque Espinal-Valdez said he shut the platform down, not wanting any part in profiting off of Covid-19 “quackery.”

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jubinjohn said:

The people who put together that document just wanted to make a scientific looking slide by misinterpreting numbers from pfizer white paper, if that is the real one.  

 

I can understand your suspicion of Pfizer vaccine. But that document is not solid enough to validate it.

 

I'm curious how the numbers have been misinterpreted. Can you expand on that a bit?

It is the real document, I linked to the original (and the appendix with the actual numbers) earlier in the thread.
If anything, it looks to me like Pfizer have misrepresented the numbers. 5 additional deaths in the vaccine group were hidden away in the text and not included in the table.

 

I'm very willing to have an actual debate on this as I would like to learn where/how I'm seeing it wrong.
I'm anything but anti-vax and have had all my vaccines (except this one), as has my wife and our son. I'm anti this vaccine because of the data available on it and the lack of anything resembling a real trial.

It's just easier for a lot of people to post memes or shout Querdenker/Anti-vaxxer/Troll while refusing to even consider their government has fed them a load of old shite.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jubinjohn said:

Let me get this straight , So someone invalidated pfizers vaccine trial.  If so , what purpose you want to achieve by quoting that invalidated study ?

 

Pfizer invalidated it themselves when they unblinded the placebo control group after 2 months, offering all the placebo participants the vaccine.
The results after 2 months (2!) were so good that a further controlled trial was unnecessary.
The trial was supposed to run for 3 years.

 

As you seem to be an expert, do you think any trial without a control group can be considered a trial?
Can such a trial be used to effectively assess the safety of a vaccine?
Should any vaccine without an effective trial be mandated?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eric7 said:

 

I'm curious how the numbers have been misinterpreted. Can you expand on that a bit?

It is the real document, I linked to the original (and the appendix with the actual numbers) earlier in the thread.
If anything, it looks to me like Pfizer have misrepresented the numbers. 5 additional deaths in the vaccine group were hidden away in the text and not included in the table.

 

I'm very willing to have an actual debate on this as I would like to learn where/how I'm seeing it wrong.
I'm anything but anti-vax and have had all my vaccines (except this one), as has my wife and our son. I'm anti this vaccine because of the data available on it and the lack of anything resembling a real trial.

It's just easier for a lot of people to post memes or shout Querdenker/Anti-vaxxer/Troll while refusing to even consider their government has fed them a load of old shite.

First and foremost point is in that document (slides with screenshots of pfizer document), that they try to cancel pfizers claims by talking about absolute probability.  The scale of change in absolute probability can be very tedious to identify. Therefore depending on the tasks statisticians condition them. Pfizer states their efficacy by conditioning or normalizing the raw probability. Then the document hides the need for normalizing the absolute probability and easily misuse the chance of absolute probability being intuitive to propagate their ideas

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, that i am not competent enough, or gifted with enough time, to formulate my thoughts in a speech which will make one convincing against his beliefs. Best way, if you want to test your hypothesis is to involve in an actual discussion with some one competent from your opposite view, or listen to arguments which are opposite to yours beliefs and think about them. 

 

I use this method sometimes on politics. Wealth tax was the last one i tried

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jubinjohn said:

First and foremost point is in that document (slides with screenshots of pfizer document), that they try to cancel pfizers claims by talking about absolute probability.  The scale of change in absolute probability can be very tedious to identify. Therefore depending on the tasks statisticians condition them. Pfizer states their efficacy by conditioning or normalizing the raw probability. Then the document hides the need for normalizing the absolute probability and easily misuse the chance of absolute probability being intuitive to propagate their ideas

 

I'll concede that the absolute probability is irrelevant if you consider that everyone will be exposed to the virus eventually. At that point, a relative risk reduction becomes the actual risk reduction. The part that bothered me was how it was presented to the public. Like I wrote before though, even now, 2 years later, less than 10% of people in Germany have officially tested positive and the efficacy figures bandied about at the beginning have since been shown to be nonsense in any case.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jubinjohn said:

First and foremost point is in that document (slides with screenshots of pfizer document), that they try to cancel pfizers claims by talking about absolute probability.  The scale of change in absolute probability can be very tedious to identify. Therefore depending on the tasks statisticians condition them. Pfizer states their efficacy by conditioning or normalizing the raw probability. Then the document hides the need for normalizing the absolute probability and easily misuse the chance of absolute probability being intuitive to propagate their ideas

 

Any thoughts on the all-cause illness/deaths?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eric7 said:

 

Any thoughts on the all-cause illness/deaths?

I am not a health care expert. I identify patterns in numbers. I could see the fault in that document from a numbers guys point of view. Rest i have to read and understand, just like you

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jubinjohn said:

I must say, that i am not competent enough, or gifted with enough time, to formulate my thoughts in a speech which will make one convincing against his beliefs. Best way, if you want to test your hypothesis is to involve in an actual discussion with some one competent from your opposite view, or listen to arguments which are opposite to yours beliefs and think about them.

 

:D me neither, but if I can just get 1 person to question things just a little bit then it's all good.

 

I'd love to see some actual hard data arguing the other side - the company making billions telling me their product is great just doesn't cut it for me.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jubinjohn said:

I am not a health care expert. I identify patterns in numbers. I could see the fault in that document from a numbers guys point of view. Rest i have to read and understand, just like you

 

Fair enough! I think we can agree on the ARR/RRR issue. The numbers would have been a lot closer had the trial run for the full 3 years.

 

No ratios or probability etc:

Vaccine group - 20 dead
Placebo group - 14 dead
End the trial

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eric7 said:

 

The only things you can trust are the cold, hard, facts.

Something a majority of governments know little about.

Some people believe the covid vaccines work, some are more sceptical, others believe they may be more harmful to their health than condition they are designed to prevent.

Some people even believe that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin will prevent them getting covid and/or cure them if they do.

Facts, regardless of how hard or cold they may be,  never  prevail against even the most stupid and illogical faith or belief.:(

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

Some people even believe that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin will prevent them getting covid and/or cure them if they do.

 

I'm not going to comment on that except to say people will do what they want to do. I haven't really looked into them and certainly wouldn't take them without doing that first.

I'd definitely be interested and would research those drugs thoroughly if the use of them was being mandated though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eric7 said:

 

Fair enough! I think we can agree on the ARR/RRR issue. The numbers would have been a lot closer had the trial run for the full 3 years.

 

No ratios or probability etc:

Vaccine group - 20 dead
Placebo group - 14 dead
End the trial

I wish things are as simple as that. But they are not. One need to consider the following factors

1. People in placebo might want a vaccine once its efficacy is proven. It is very immoral to think about them as labrats

2. Vaccine is supposed to save as much life as possible. Companies should not wait until a clear answer is obtained, which never will be.  Considering average human life of 83 years, ideal time will be to wait 50 years considering average age of volunteers as 30. That is not possible either

3. There is never time for perfect solutions, the most sensible one available at the time is always chosen

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jubinjohn said:

I wish things are as simple as that. But they are not. One need to consider the following factors

1. People in placebo might want a vaccine once its efficacy is proven. It is very immoral to think about them as labrats

2. Vaccine is supposed to save as much life as possible. Companies should not wait until a clear answer is obtained, which never will be.  Considering average human life of 83 years, ideal time will be to wait 50 years considering average age of volunteers as 30. That is not possible either

3. There is never time for perfect solutions, the most sensible one available at the time is always chosen

 

 

 

1. It was a blind trial so the people in the placebo group didn't know they were in the placebo group.
2. Fair enough but I feel 2 months into the trial isn't long enough to obtain any significant data.
3. Or the most profitable one

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eric7 said:

I'm anything but anti-vax and have had all my vaccines (except this one), as has my wife and our son. I'm anti this vaccine because of the data available on it and the lack of anything resembling a real trial.

Dear bot, please update your software database. After 4 billion people got 2 doses of the vaccine you are still writing about clinical trials on 40000 people? You should now write that the vaccine is not effective at all, ask @Jonny for the recent update information. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

Dear bot, please update your software database. After 4 billion people got 2 doses of the vaccine you are still writing about clinical trials on 40000 people? You should now write that the vaccine is not effective at all, ask @Jonny for the recent update information. 

 

So, I'm a bot again now? Jolly good.


The clinical trails are still relevant because there is no controlled data for the 4 billion people so they are all we have.

If you have some actual data for those 4 billion people, I'd love to see it.


The vaccine was initially effective at reducing infection but surely no-one is arguing that's still the case?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eric7 said:

The vaccine was initially effective at reducing infection but surely no-one is arguing that's still the case?

 

Of course it's still the case! Latest data shows probability of death vs Omicron is 6x lower if vaccinated and 60x lower if boosted.

Get the basic facts right! Otherwise you sound some avatar created by someone just to keep the posts flowing!

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now