Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge

[Res Ipsa]

Both social media and traditional media are full of the stories of people who aren't anti-vaxxers, yet put off getting vaccinated because of doubts raised by exactly the kind of stuff you post here. And that leads directly to unnecessary disease, suffering and death.

And there it is again.

No, Res. This is a continuation of previous insult and accusation which is unfounded. It is beyond the pale. You are absolutely wrong.

I'm puzzled at your accusation of "insult." You've bounced all over the board accusing people of being "bigots" based on the words and images they post here. That's a shorthand way of saying "the words/images you post are hurting people." Are you seriously claiming that we can't talk about the harmful aspects of certain kinds of speech? I mean, the you that portrays yourself as a crusader against bigotry? You certainly don't consider it beyond the pale when you label the things other people post as harmful.

The kind of stuff I post here does not lead to death. Neither are disease, suffering and death exclusively the result of things I post here. So just go to hell with your insults and accusations. Just go.

Your posts on vaccines have been all about causing confusion and misleading people about the risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccines. Spreading that kind of FUD absolutely leads to unnecessary disease, suffering, and death. Just as you claim that posting bigoted words and images is harmful to non-binary folks. I have not claimed that disease, suffering and death are "exclusively" the result of your words. That's a straw man.

And, no. I won't go anywhere. I'm gonna be right here.

There are many reasons that people refuse vaccines, and my posts are probably not leading to anyone on this planet making a decision to not get vaccinated. You certainly have no reason to make that insulting accusation, but you keep doing it. You can keep pretending that things like the Rolling Stone Magazine article, or this crap with Jen, are not eroding credibility. You can pretend that the CDCs everchanging standards and definitions do not erode credibility - while blaming that loss of credibility on me - but it does not change the facts.

This is the Bill O'Reilly gambit. He demonized an abortion doctor for months and months until somebody assassinated the doctor while he was attending church. But, no. Bill O'Reilly can't be held accountable for the effect of his words. I mean, his posts "probably" did not lead to the shooting.

You can't even claim with confidence that your words aren't misleading someone into not getting vaccinated. You have to qualify with "probably." Probably. Probably some guy isn't on a vent right now because he didn't say -- That Cultellus fella might be on to something. Probably some kid isn't an orphan because someone stumbled on your continual pooh poohing of the vaccines and both parents ended up dead. Probably.

Words have consequences. Take responsibility for yours.

Facts don't erode credibility. People erode credibility by asserting false or misleading conclusions from facts. The Rolling Stone article (more than one lately) should affect the credibility of the magazine's reporting. Your unsupported assertions about the article in the Florida paper don't affect the nurse's or the paper's credibility at all. COVID is hell for the people who end up in the ICU. And it's hell for the people who have to treat those patients in overrun ICUs. And it's hell for the families who have to say goodbye to their fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters over face time. That's what the article, and dozens more like it that you've ignored, says. And you've said nothing that refutes any of that.

Res, you are wrong. You are insulting. You are breaking the rules of this forum. You are not being rational. Reasoning with you in this forum, where you control the moderation while hurling insults as intense as saying that I contribute to death, is too damn much. I have followed the proper procedures here, as you already know. You are wrong.

You keep saying I am wrong. Here's your chance to specifically tell me what I am wrong about. Which assertions am I wrong about, and specifically why do you disagree with them?

1. A person vaccinated against COVID is significantly less likely to become infected with, hospitalized for, and/or die of COVID-19
2. The risk of disease or death from COVID far exceeds the risk of disease or death from the vaccine.
3. People are circulating all sorts of false and misleading information about the vaccine.
4. Significant numbers of people are misled by the false and misleading information being circulated about the vaccine and, as a result, are not getting vaccinated.
5. Unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of people being treated in ICUs in the US for COVID.
6. Unvaccinated people are responsible for ICUs in hospitals across the country being unable to care for the sick and injured that come to the hospital.
7. Unvaccinated people are getting sick, requiring hospitalization, and dying who would not have suffered some or all of these consequences had they been vaccinated.
8. Through his posting here, Cultellus is spreading false and misleading information of the type that is leading people not to get vaccinated.

Which rule am I breaking? Which rule is it that says I can't criticize the words you say here? I haven't even gone as far as you have on the issue of "bigotry." You didn't just criticize the words. You called lots of folks bigots.

I don't control the moderation. I don't moderate reports of my own posts. I don't moderate reports about posts made by others as part of a conversation or argument I am in. And the person who actually controls moderation is Shades.

Whether the posts you have expressed objection to are moved to Spirit Prison or not makes no never mind to me. I can express myself there just as well as I can here. Better maybe, cuz I can cuss there.

I am vaccinated. I am not an anti-vaxxer. If the dialogue regarding vaccines, credibility, integrity, safety and reasonable expectations improves, that will help people make informed decisions. Calling people right-wing antivaxxers, when they are not, has the opposite effect of what you seem to want. But you and your posse can just carry on, it is fine.

I have not called you an anti-vaxxer, and your personal vaccination status is your concern. But nothing you have done here has improved the dialog over "vaccines, credibility, integrity, safety and reasonable expectations." All you've done is raised a bunch of insinuations and stated misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. If you want to improve the dialog, then start.

Close out my report. I am done with this. Congratulations. All the best.

I'm not closing out anything. Reports are confidential. If someone reports something I posted, someone not named Res Ipsa will handle it.

[Gadianton]

I have found the wording "immunity" on the CDC website. It might have been changed one place, but it wasn't changed everywhere.

I can see how people might think immunity is black or white. Maybe "protection" is a better way to communicate to the average person. But "immunity" isn't inaccurate. How could you ever simultaneously get sick, and also have an immune system?

Immunity: especially : a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products

Resistance doesn't guarantee victory.

[canpakes]

I have found the wording "immunity" on the CDC website. It might have been changed one place, but it wasn't changed everywhere.

I can see how people might think immunity is black or white. Maybe "protection" is a better way to communicate to the average person. But "immunity" isn't inaccurate. How could you ever simultaneously get sick, and also have an immune system?

Immunity: especially : a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products

Resistance doesn't guarantee victory.

In fact, it doesn’t guarantee much of anything.

Here’s an image of a tomato resisting a knife.



If only the folks who are trying to make something out of the CDC’s update would take the time to better understand the definition of certain words.

If they don’t, then who is responsible for changing that?

If they do, but are trying to sow suspicion anyway, then what morality are they respecting?

I’m not seeing either willful ignorance or disingenuousness as desirable qualities.

[Jersey Girl]

This is the entire article. Putting it here because I need it to be here.

Moderna's vaccine is the most effective, but Pfizer and J&J also protect well, CDC-led study says

(CNN)A head-to-head study of all three authorized coronavirus vaccines in the United States finds the Moderna vaccine is slightly more effective than Pfizer's in real-life use in keeping people out of the hospital, and Johnson & Johnson's Janssen vaccine comes in third, but still provides 71% protection.

Pfizer's vaccine provided 88% protection against hospitalization, and Moderna's was 93% effective.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention led a nationwide study of vaccination involving more than 3,600 adults hospitalized for Covid-19 between March and August.

"Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11- August 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%)," the team wrote in the CDC's weekly report on death and disease, the MMWR.

"Although these real-world data suggest some variation in levels of protection by vaccine, all FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization."

They found that the biggest difference between the vaccine made by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNtech's vaccine was driven by a decline that started about four months after people were fully vaccinated with Pfizer's vaccine.

"Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech versus 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis," the team wrote.

"Vaccine effectiveness for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 91% at 14 -120 days after receipt of the second vaccine dose but declined significantly to 77% at more than 120 days," the team wrote.

Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines both use genetic material called messenger RNA to deliver immunity, but they use differing doses and slightly different formulations. The Janssen vaccine uses an inactivated common cold virus called adenovirus -- a viral vector -- to carry genetic instructions into the body.

"A single dose of the Janssen viral vector vaccine had comparatively lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalizations," the team said. "Understanding differences in vaccine effectiveness by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization."

CDC worked with researchers across the country to study 3,689 patients at 21 hospitals in 18 states for the study. They also looked at antibodies in the blood of 100 healthy volunteers after they had been vaccinated with one of the three available vaccines.

"These real-world data suggest that the two-dose Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine regimens provide more protection than does the one-dose Janssen viral vector vaccine regimen. Although the Janssen vaccine had lower observed vaccine effectiveness, one dose of Janssen vaccine still reduced risk for COVID-19-associated hospitalization by 71%," they wrote.

The study had limitations. "This analysis did not consider children, immunocompromised adults, or vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization," the team wrote. Plus, the volunteers were only followed for 29 weeks -- just over six months.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/health/m ... index.html

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m glad his Bill of Rights protected him from a dangerous and infectious disease. -_- Until it didn’t.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

Dusty Graham started the GoFundMe page from the intensive care unit two days after his wife's death, AL.com reported. The page has raised about $23,000 to help the couple's two children cover medical and funeral costs.

Darwin.

[Jersey Girl]

More information at the link.

FDA vaccine advisers vote to recommend booster doses of Covid-19 vaccine in people 65 and older and those at high risk


(CNN)Vaccine advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration voted Friday to recommend emergency use authorization of a booster dose of Pfizer's vaccine six months after full vaccination in people 65 and older and those at high risk of severe Covid-19.

The decision came after members of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee rejected a broader application to approve booster doses of Pfizer's vaccines in everyone 16 and older six months after they are fully vaccinated. Members of the committee expressed doubts about the safety of a booster dose in younger adults and teens, and complained about the lack of data about the safety and long term efficacy of a booster dose.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/health/f ... index.html


I do know that one of our major chain grocery stores has supply for boosters. You have to show up and show your vax card? <--information came to me second hand. It happens to be the same chain where I was vaxxed.

I'm a little confused as to why they aren't going further down the tier system. Is this to fend off supply shortages?

[Res Ipsa]

More information at the link.

FDA vaccine advisers vote to recommend booster doses of Covid-19 vaccine in people 65 and older and those at high risk


(CNN)Vaccine advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration voted Friday to recommend emergency use authorization of a booster dose of Pfizer's vaccine six months after full vaccination in people 65 and older and those at high risk of severe Covid-19.

The decision came after members of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee rejected a broader application to approve booster doses of Pfizer's vaccines in everyone 16 and older six months after they are fully vaccinated. Members of the committee expressed doubts about the safety of a booster dose in younger adults and teens, and complained about the lack of data about the safety and long term efficacy of a booster dose.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/health/f ... index.html


I do know that one of our major chain grocery stores has supply for boosters. You have to show up and show your vax card? <--information came to me second hand. It happens to be the same chain where I was vaxxed.

I'm a little confused as to why they aren't going further down the tier system. Is this to fend off supply shortages?

I think the explanation is right there in the quote. JMO, but I think Biden may have jumped the gun on the booster issue. There was concern about falling antibody levels, but antibody levels always fall after vaccination. That doesn't mean that the immune system isn't primed to take on the virus.

For those who are at greatest risk, a booster may make sense. But we don't have good data on how much good a booster will do in general and whether there are any additional risks.

[Jersey Girl]

More information at the link.




https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/health/f ... index.html


I do know that one of our major chain grocery stores has supply for boosters. You have to show up and show your vax card? <--information came to me second hand. It happens to be the same chain where I was vaxxed.

I'm a little confused as to why they aren't going further down the tier system. Is this to fend off supply shortages?

I think the explanation is right there in the quote. JMO, but I think Biden may have jumped the gun on the booster issue. There was concern about falling antibody levels, but antibody levels always fall after vaccination. That doesn't mean that the immune system isn't primed to take on the virus.

For those who are at greatest risk, a booster may make sense. But we don't have good data on how much good a booster will do in general and whether there are any additional risks.

I guess, right? Do you plan to get the booster if made available to you or are you going to wait for more data based information?

[Res Ipsa]

I think the explanation is right there in the quote. JMO, but I think Biden may have jumped the gun on the booster issue. There was concern about falling antibody levels, but antibody levels always fall after vaccination. That doesn't mean that the immune system isn't primed to take on the virus.

For those who are at greatest risk, a booster may make sense. But we don't have good data on how much good a booster will do in general and whether there are any additional risks.

I guess, right? Do you plan to get the booster if made available to you or are you going to wait for more data based information?

Right now, it's academic for me, as I got the Moderna vaccine and this EUA is for Pfizer. If an EUA was granted for a Moderna booster on the data available today, I'd probably read the latest literature. If Moderna applies for and is granted an EUA after there is more developed research, I'd get the booster.

The Pfizer EUA still has two more steps, I think. A recommendation by the CDC vaccine group and a final vote by the FDA.