Covid Vaccine. Your plans?


Covid Vaccine  

228 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, potpest said:

The small studies which you seem to cherry pick, are not conclusive. It even states that and indicates the main limitations of the evidence are risk of bias and imprecision.

I can assure you that I am not cherry picking. Statements were made earlier in this thread by several people that Hydroxycholoquine was an entirely ineffective treatment for coronavirus.

If anyone considers 164 seperate studies, carried out across 15 x countries and the subsequent data provided (which has been roundly ignored)  as nothing, well then there is not much else to say on the matter.

I do appreciate your participation though, this should be an open discussion of facts not an attempted shutdown of discourse,. which it certainly has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 571
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

cigar smokers talking about adverse health results of a vaccine ....  Only in 2020.  Can't wait for this dumpster fire of a year to be over. 

I was vaccinated today.  No issues with me, or anyone else at my hospital who has been vaccinated.    

In a key sense, this is absolutely true: prevention and treatment are fundamentally different approaches to managing an epidemic. Invariably both are used whenever possible (e.g. STD's). A vaccine is

I can assure you that I am not cherry picking. Statements were made earlier in this thread by several people that Hydroxycholoquine was an entirely ineffective treatment for coronavirus.
If anyone considers 164 seperate studies, carried out across 15 x countries and the subsequent data provided (which has been roundly ignored)  as nothing, well then there is not much else to say on the matter.
I do appreciate your participation though, this should be an open discussion of facts not an attempted shutdown of discourse,. which it certainly has been.
It has been found to be an entirely ineffective treatment, that's what the clinical trials have shown.

Randomised Control Trials are the only valid design to evaluate therapeutic efficacy.

The strengths of RCTs include the development of a prospective study protocol with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, a well-defined intervention, and predefined endpoints.

All of those are usually absent or defined in observational studies, which makes the interpretation of the results difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Peekay said:

I can assure you that I am not cherry picking. Statements were made earlier in this thread by several people that Hydroxycholoquine was an entirely ineffective treatment for coronavirus.

If anyone considers 164 seperate studies, carried out across 15 x countries and the subsequent data provided (which has been roundly ignored)  as nothing, well then there is not much else to say on the matter.

I do appreciate your participation though, this should be an open discussion of facts not an attempted shutdown of discourse,. which it certainly has been.

The reference to "164 studies and 15 countries" metric that keeps appearing in your posts seems to stem from information posted here: https://hcqmeta.com/ which as the site states is simply a "meta analysis of 164 studies". The authors, which aren't named, fail to include the criteria used to select the studies that appear in their analysis. Please take note of this claim:

Quote

Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.27-0.46].

How do you achieve 100% when there are numerous studies that do not conclude that Hydroxycholoquine is an effective treatment? It would seem they've purposely been omitted from this analysis. The authors of this article have narrowed their scope of studies for inclusion to those that only fit their narrative.

Unnamed authors, a complete lack of methodology that could be used to understand how they analyzed each of the 164 studies, and no criteria for inclusion in the analysis - I'd hardly call this a credible source.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Why's the discussion on Hydroxycholoquine anyway, that's a conversation point from April?

  Dexamethasone has been widely used as a proven, significantly effective treatment since June, the debate ended back then when it was adopted along with C-PAP if possible

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-coronavirus-treatment-approved-for-nhs-use-by-government

 

Seems a strange hill to die on

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fungi said:

The reference to "164 studies and 15 countries" metric that keeps appearing in your posts seems to stem from information posted here: https://hcqmeta.com/ which as the site states is simply a "meta analysis of 164 studies". The authors, which aren't named, fail to include the criteria used to select the studies that appear in their analysis. Please take note of this claim:

How do you achieve 100% when there are numerous studies that do not conclude that Hydroxycholoquine is an effective treatment? It would seem they've purposely been omitted from this analysis. The authors of this article have narrowed their scope of studies for inclusion to those that only fit their narrative.

Unnamed authors, a complete lack of methodology that could be used to understand how they analyzed each of the 164 studies, and no criteria for inclusion in the analysis - I'd hardly call this a credible source.

 

Sure bud, its cleared for use and is being used in multiple countries for no reason at all, just a bit of a prank possibly?

Italian doctors demanded its use for Covid because they were bored? along with Spain, Brazil, Mexico, France, US, Germany, Canada, UK and Japan....

http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

Thats enough now. I've not the slightest interest in its exact efficacy, that was never my point.

Give it a few more weeks, as only time will answer these questions. Certainly not you or I.

Have a great Xmas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a hydroxychloroquine salesman?  What does this have to do with the tea in China?  Are you saying no to a vaccination in favor of taking an antibiotic designed for urinary tract and sinus infections in conjunction with a controversial drug?  I guess I just don’t understand why this is a topic here.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peekay said:

Sure bud, its cleared for use and is being used in multiple countries for no reason at all, just a bit of a prank possibly?

Italian doctors demanded its use for Covid because they were bored? along with Spain, Brazil, Mexico, France, US, Germany, Canada, UK and Japan....

http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/italy-council-state-says-yes-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19

Thats enough now. I've not the slightest interest in its exact efficacy, that was never my point.

Give it a few more weeks, as only time will answer these questions. Certainly not you or I.

Have a great Xmas!

Whether or not Hydroxycholoquine is used, or is cleared for use, wasn't the claim you originally made - its effective use was.  You've provided a source which makes extraordinary claims about the effective use of Hydroxycholoquine and I very clearly laid out why that source should be viewed with skepticism.

If Hydroxycholoquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19, I would expect to see it outlined in an overwhelming number of treatment protocals for Covid-19 put forth by the health agencies associated with the countries you listed. I'm only familiar with the United States and you can find theirs here. Spoiler alert: Hydroxycholoquine is not included and they recommend against it here. Canada recommends against it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents

We have surgeons on here who were up to their necks in covid treatment during the worst of it.  They can chime in if they wish. 

This thread was not about Hydroxycholoquine.  There is always a balance that members need to take into account when determining in what direction (and how far) to take a thread.  keep that in mind. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habana Mike said:

Curious, is there a block feature on this site? Can't find one....

Couldn't find it either, until Pres confirmed it was there. It's called Ignored Users (click on your profile in the top right and it's under settings).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VKUTT said:

I'm not an "anti-vaxxer", but when talking about vaccinating children, I am very anti- when it comes to overloading kids with the insane amount of vaccines we are giving them now. Children in the US are getting 10 to 40 percent higher amounts of vaccines than we were when I was a child in the early 70s. 

Probably because there’s a whole host of diseases which weren’t vaccinated for in the US in the early 70s that are now:

Hep A - 1995
Hep B - 1981
Rotavius - 2006
Pneumococcal - 1980s
Hib - late 1970s
chickenpox - mid 1980s

Thats for kids under 2.

That’s a lot of very young kids not coming down with preventable diseases.  Sucks if you’re the exception to the general response, but statistically one is more likely to have significant issues with the diseases being vaccinated for than the vaccines themselves.   

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Yes, but adverse reactions are rare. The majority of people would only have a minor reaction to a vaccine, if at all. The reason for rejecting a vaccine should be based on diagnosed medical grounds, not just because or for whatever reasons.

 

Well... I'm not taking the thing because there are no long term studies to demonstrate the safety of said vaccine, and that's good enough for me!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plan to wait for two reasons, to see the data, and also to ensure that more at risk people then myself get it. I am very blessed to have a living wage job I can do from home, and while I do get quite bored being home all the time, i am safe and uh a bit fatter. lol.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Gents
We have surgeons on here who were up to their necks in covid treatment during the worst of it.  They can chime in if they wish. 
This thread was not about Hydroxycholoquine.  There is always a balance that members need to take into account when determining in what direction (and how far) to take a thread.  keep that in mind. 


I apologise. I never wanted to make it about that or take it that far and did tried to bow out. It touched a nerve.

I certainly don't come here for this, I come here for our shared interests.















  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s acceptable to walk away. Or if discussion is veering far from the original topic and becomes more than a simple asked and answered scenario, send PM’s to one another to continue the discussion if need be. It looks much cleaner for all involved. Just be prepared to agree to disagree and stay away from @Fuzz‘s Hammer. Let’s all enjoy Habanos and not a forum vacation. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very topical and interesting thread (in the main). I have seen some comments that people are concerned because of the lack of long term impact studies. It’s my understanding that in the normal development of a vaccine long term effects are assessed as the vaccine is being used rather than as a hurdle that must be overcome before introduction. It appears that no steps in the vaccine development have been missed or shortcuts taken and we are at the normal widespread introduction stage of a vaccine albeit that we have got to this point quicker due to a number of factors. Can anyone on here more qualified in this subject comment and substantiate or correct my understanding? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It’s my understanding that in the normal development of a vaccine long term effects are assessed as the vaccine is being used rather than as a hurdle that must be overcome before introduction.

Both, but different procedures. In the „normal development“, as you say, strict emphasis is given to the pre-release scrutinizing.

And I think it is important to point out that different to the UK or US, as per current news, the EU decided to not follow the path of an emergency use authorization or a rolling-review-process. Meaning that’ll be a regular approval (envisaged for about Dec 23) in full compliance with current standard procedures.

EMA will speed up the process as much as possible, but keep to current standards to foster acceptance and safety, despite the current situation being critical. A weighting of risks and wider acceptance for sure.

As per their current prospect, it will take about a year anyway to vaccinate all high-risk groups and front-line personnel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Meaning that’ll be a regular approval (envisaged for about Dec 23) in full compliance with current standard procedures.

Yes, correct and I just heard it in the news here that latest Dec. 23rd the approval will be granted by EMA.

PS : Breaking News now here in Germany - approval will be 21st December.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just in case anyone is interested, here are all the ingredients of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/09/1013538/what-are-the-ingredients-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine/?truid=*|LINKID|*&utm_source=coronavirus&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=coronavirus.unpaid.engagement&utm_content=*|DATE:m-d-Y|*

What are the ingredients of Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine?

We asked experts to help us decode the contents.

December 9, 2020
 

Facebook said on December 3 that it would remove posts with false claims or conspiracy theories about what’s in the covid-19 vaccines that everyone’s counting on.

In the face of rumors suggesting that Bill Gates has installed tracking microchips in the shots, or that the inoculations contain luciferase, a glowing chemical from fireflies whose name makes some people think of the devil, the company suggested it would be policing such claims by making reference to the “official vaccine ingredient list.”

What’s actually on the official ingredient list? This week an elderly UK woman became the first person outside of a trial to get the newly approved vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, and the US could greenlight the same inoculation as soon as Thursday, December 10. Along with the regulatory actions over the last week have come the most detailed disclosures yet of the new vaccine’s makeup.

Here, for instance, is what the US Food and Drug Administration says is in Pfizer’s vaccine:

  • Active Ingredient
    • nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2
  • Lipids
    • (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis (ALC-3015)
    • (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide (ALC-0159)
    • 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine (DPSC)
    • cholesterol
  • Salts
    • potassium chloride
    • monobasic potassium phosphate
    • sodium chloride
    • basic sodium phosphate dihydrate 
  • Other
    • sucrose

Reading the ingredient list is like looking at the side of a cereal box, except that you need a degree in organic chemistry to understand it. We got help from various scientists and biotech entrepreneurs to understand what each of the ingredients does and make some educated guesses about others.

The mRNA

Pfizer’s vaccine is the first on the market that consists of actual genetic information from a virus in the form of messenger RNA, or mRNA, a type of molecule whose usual job is to transport copies of genetic instructions around a cell to guide the assembly of proteins. Imagine an mRNA as a long ticker tape carrying instructions. It's fairly delicate stuff, and that's why Pfizer's vaccine needs to be kept at around -100 °F (-73 °C) until it's used.

The new vaccine, delivered as a shot in the arm muscle, contains an RNA sequence taken from the virus itself; it causes cells to manufacture the big “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which the pathogen uses to glom onto a person’s cells and gain entry. On its own, without the rest of the virus, the spike is pretty harmless. But your body still reacts to it. This is what leaves you immunized and ready to repel the real virus if it turns up.

The mRNA in the vaccine, to be sure, isn’t quite the same as the stuff in your body. That’s good, because a cell is full of defenses ready to chop up RNA, especially any that doesn’t belong there. To avoid that, what’s known as “modified nucleosides” have been substituted for some of the mRNA building blocks.

But Pfizer is holding back a little. The spike gene sequence can be tweaked in small ways for better performance, by means that include swapping letters. We don’t think Pfizer has said exactly what sequence it is using, or what modified nucleosides. That means the content of the shot may not be 100% public.

The lipids

The Pfizer vaccine, like one from Moderna, uses lipid nanoparticles to encase the RNA. The nanoparticles are, basically, tiny greasy spheres that protect the mRNA and help it slide inside cells.

These particles are probably around 100 nanometers across. Curiously, that’s about the same size as the coronavirus itself.

Pfizer says it uses four different lipids in a “defined ratio.” The lipid ALC-0315 is the primary ingredient in the formulation. That’s because it’s ionizable—it can be given a positive charge, and since the RNA has a negative one, they stick together. It's also a component that can cause side-effects or allergic reactions. The other lipids, one of which is the familiar molecule cholesterol, are “helpers” that give structural integrity to the nanoparticles or stop them from clumping. During manufacturing, the RNA and the lipids are stirred into a bubbly mix to form what the FDA describes as a “white to off-white” frozen liquid.

Salts

The Pfizer vaccine contains four salts, one of which is ordinary table salt. Together, these salts are better known as phosphate-buffered saline, or PBS, a very common ingredient that keeps the pH, or acidity, of the vaccine close to that of a person’s body. You’ll understand how important that is if you’ve ever squeezed lemon juice on a cut. Substances with the wrong acidity can injure cells or get quickly degraded.

Sugar

The vaccine includes plain old sugar, also called sucrose. It’s acting here as a cryoprotectant to safeguard the nanoparticles when they’re frozen and stop them from sticking together.

Saline solution

Before injection, the vaccine is mixed with water containing sodium chloride, or ordinary salt, just as many intravenously delivered drugs are. Again, the idea is that the injection should more or less match the salt content of the blood.

No preservatives

Pfizer makes a point of saying its mixture of lipid nanoparticles and mRNA is “preservative-free.” That’s because a preservative that’s been used in other vaccines, thimerosal (which contains mercury and is there to kill any bacteria that might contaminate a vial), has been at the center of worries around over whether vaccines cause autism. The US Centers for Disease Control says thimerosal is safe; despite that, its use is being phased out. There is no thimerosal—or any other preservative—in the Pfizer vaccine. No microchips, either.

The vaccine is still known by the code name BNT162b, but once it’s authorized, expect Pfizer to give it a new, commercial name that conveys something about what’s in it and what it promises for the world.

We thank the following people for explaining the vaccine ingredients: Jacob Becraft and Aalok Shah, Strand Therapeutics; Yizhou Dong, Ohio State University; Jason Underwood, Pacific Biosciences; Andrey Zarur, Greenlight Biosciences; Charles L. Cooney, MIT; and the communications staffs of Pfizer and Moderna Therapeutics.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.