General Corona Virus Discussion

[Uwe]

Mother of Crasher (82) has had all four jabs and still caught Covid,

You know, if I got my dog four distemper shots over a period of not much more than a year and she still came down with distemper, I'd be asking some questions...

-Uwe-

 

[rks]

Mother of Crasher (82) has had all four jabs and still caught Covid

Do you have invested in the funeral business to spread your opinion all day long? If we would play Quartett, you would have already lost.

VP of Pfizer arrested after #pfizerdocuments get released

Rady Johnson, the executive Vice President of Pfizer, has been arrested at his home and charged with multiple counts of fraud.

vancouvertimes.org

Fake news? Would be too nice if not... would like to see the profiteers without conscience being arrested too. E.g. doctors who jab 7 year old kids.

 

[Uwe]

Fake news?

Yes, that is indeed Fake News. However the docs, are, shall we say, "interesting".

-Uwe-

 

[rks]

What a pity...

 

[DV52]

Yet @Crasher seems to think it would keep his "friend who has serious health issues and his girlfriend (who is NHS staff)" from having caught it or catching it again.

-Uwe-

Uwe: I will of course bow to your better knowledge of how to interpret @Crasher words given that (I assume) he is a friend and you are both countrymen.

However, and regardless of the "friends'" misunderstanding of the purpose of COVID vaccines, the fact is that the medicine should help ease the path of the virus through its various infection stages and it should reduce the chance of more serious complications.

There are NO proven medicines that will stop COVID infection in its current incarnation and the sad truth is that there may never be such vaccines. This doesn't mean that COVID vaccines have failed - because they were NEVER designed for infection control. As I have said, COVID vaccines are design for disease control; meaning that their purpose is to reduce the severity of the infection - both on a personal level (by reducing the effects of the virus) and on a community level (by reducing the resulting stress of the pandemic on the public medical infrastructure that is needed to deal with serious cases of the disease)

In the example that @Crasher has quoted - clearly for reasons unknown (i.e. lifestyle, genetics, or both), the couple are prone to repeat infections. Even if the two individuals are aware that COVID vaccines don't stop infection/re-infection - I would have thought that anyone in this situation would have seen an obvious and compelling advantage in taking the medicine!!!

To be brutally blunt (and with no offense intended to either @Crasher, or his friends) - how many times does the dice need to be rolled before the house (read, the grim reaper) wins? Given the revised numbers of COVID related deaths in the WHO findings and past history of @Crasher friends - I know what decision I would make (even if I thought that the vaccine was ineffectual, or that there might be as yet unproven and unknown side effects from the medicine)!!

Don

 

[DV52]

One is vreihen himself, one is our own Eric, and I probably should know who the third person is, but I'm drawing a blank.

-Uwe-

Again my apology to @vreihen, @Eric and "third person" for the lapse in recognition!!

@vreihen: Since you have shown me yours - I will show you mine (I'm the one with the dodgy complexion)!!

 

[DV52]

That's the difference between public perceptions and manufacturers claims - which, as is usually the case, are not the same.

Dave: I agree 101%. However, the disparity between fact and public perception should be viewed as a reason for better education - it should/can not be a reason for accepting public misunderstandings as fact!!

Don

 

[DV52]

You know, if I got my dog four distemper shots over a period of not much more than a year and she still came down with distemper, I'd be asking some questions...

-Uwe-

hmm....... yes, after 4 x distemper shots which were unsuccessful - I would take the time to read the manufacturer's literature about the purpose of the medicine (in fact, I would do this after the first unsuccessful shot)!!

If the manufacturer's data says that the medicine is designed to STOP infection and the dog already has said infection - then you are using the wrong medicine to treat the current complaint.

Again, I repeat (tautology intended for emphasis) COVID vaccines are designed for disease control - they are not designed for infection control!!

Now, if you want to argue that COVID vaccines are not effective as disease control medicine - then that's an entirely different matter, but the 2 aspects of vaccinations shouldn't be confused!!

Yes, that is indeed Fake News. However the docs, are, shall we say, "interesting".

hmmm........no, the docs are NOT "shall we say "interesting""!! They are in actual fact fake!

 

[Crasher]

Do you have invested in the funeral business to spread your opinion all day long? If we would play Quartett, you would have already lost.

Sorry, I don’t understand your statement

 

[Uwe]

the docs are NOT "shall we say "interesting""!! They are in actual fact fake!

So these documents are fake?

Pfizer's Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency

Documents with a large file size are provided in a .zip file and will need to be uncompressed after download.

phmpt.org

If so, Pfizer has a lot more 'splaining to do, because those documents were released by order of a court, and I do not think the court would be amused if Pfizer was releasing fake documents.

You may recall that Pfizer and the FDA only wanted to release them at a glacial pace, which would have taken over 50 years...

-Uwe-

 

[Uwe]

[Crasher] and you are both countrymen.

Do you not look at the locations next to posts? Crasher is in the UK. I am in the USA.

yes, after 4 x distemper shots which were unsuccessful - I would take the time to read the manufacturer's literature about the purpose of the medicine

OK, let's have a look at this Pfizer press release dated November 18, 2020. The very first bullet point says:

Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19

How exactly did they expect people to interpret, "95% effective against COVID-19"?

It also quotes Pfizer's CEO as saying:

"The study results mark an important step in this historic eight-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic."

The only way it can help end the pandemic is if it prevents people from getting infected, no? Yet it clearly does not do that very well, and if it does it at all, it is certainly nowhere near 95% effective at doing so.

Yet this is how it was "sold", not by an over-optimistic press, or over-optimistic public health officials, but by Pfizer themselves!

Now, would you care to guess which US State currently has the highest infection rate? And whether this is a State with a high or low vaccination and booster rate?

-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

Did DV52 accuse me of being a yank? How dare he!

 

[DneprDave]

My wife and I both caught Covid from her sister, who is in an assisted living facility. She is vaccinated and had minor flu like symptoms, she recovered fully.
Sister's son called us to tell us that Sister had Covid. We tested ourselves with home testing kits and it came up positive for both of us. We have had all our shots, including the booster. We isolated ourselves for 10 days and never had symptoms, our doctor says we are no longer contagious.

I'd say the vaccine works as advertised.

 

[DV52]

Did DV52 accuse me of being a yank? How dare he!

Crasher: yeah.....I must have had a brain fart!!

I agree - it's a thoroughly scurrilous and inexcusable accusation (but I'm not quite sure for which nationality!!

Don

 

[DV52]

Do you not look at the locations next to posts? Crasher is in the UK. I am in the USA.

Yes, my bad (and my apology)

OK, let's have a look at this Pfizer press release dated November 18, 2020. The very first bullet point says:

How exactly did they expect people to interpret, "95% effective against COVID-19"?

It also quotes Pfizer's CEO as saying:

The only way it can help end the pandemic is if it prevents people from getting infected, no? Yet it clearly does not do that very well, and if it does it at all, it is certainly nowhere near 95% effective at doing so.

Yet this is how it was "sold", not by an over-optimistic press, or over-optimistic public health officials, but by Pfizer themselves!

Uwe: We are both aware of the foibles of selective quotes from individual information sources.

As a fellow forum colleague (rather than in your guise as the Benevolent Dictator) - I consider you to be the most capable of us. So I'm surprised that we are having this discussion

Personally, I read the Pfizer material as I believe that it was intended to be read; in the context of the role of nearly all vaccines as disease control medicines. But, like you - I would of course never limit my education on such matters by relying solely on any one document. And, for the document in question - I would always take care in interpreting the words with the knowledge that this is marketing speak (yes, even Pfizer is prone to hyperbole).

Now, would you care to guess which US State currently has the highest infection rate? And whether this is a State with a high or low vaccination and booster rate?

I didn't know the answers to your questions - so I found them on Google!!

So if my perfunctory research is correct - California has had 9.29Million infection cases and their vaccination rate is 83.9% (single dose) - 72.1% (fully vaccinated). The data source for these stats quotes the Californian infection rate as being 235,131/million citizens (or about 23.5 %)

At the other extreme, I believe that Tennessee has the lowest fully vaccinated rate (54.6%) and their infection rate is 290,816/million citizens.

As we both know - drawing broad conclusions from stats like these is extremely courageous- given the environmental complexity of the infection mechanism and the differences between these States.

No offense, but I'm not sure how these numbers advance your point - which I believe is about vaccine efficacy, rather than infection versus disease control (I think)!!

 

[Uwe]

yes, even Pfizer is prone to hyperbole

They are prone to far more than hyperbole.

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from...

www.justice.gov

But wait, there's more. Much more:

• In 1991, the federal government fined Pfizer, a then-record $3.1 million for violating the Clean Water Act at its former plant in Easton, Pennsylvania.
• In 1992, Pfizer agreed to pay between $165 million and $215 million to settle lawsuits arising from the fracturing of its Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valve, which at the time had resulted in nearly 300 deaths, and by 2012 had resulted in 663 deaths.
• In 1994, Pfizer agreed to pay $10.75 million to settle Justice Department claims that the company lied to get federal approval for a mechanical heart valve that has fractured, killing hundreds of patients worldwide.
• In 1996, Pfizer administered an experimental drug during a clinical trial on 200 children in Nigeria but never told the parents that their children were the subjects of an experiment. Eleven of the children died and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure.
• In 2002, Pfizer agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the drug company defrauded the federal government and 40 states by charging too much for its cholesterol treatment Lipitor.
• In 2004, Pfizer agreed to plead guilty to two felonies and paid $430 million in penalties to settle charges that it fraudulently promoted the drug Neurontin for unapproved uses.
• In 2008, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies.” Pfizer delayed the publication of negative studies, spun negative data to place it in a more positive light, and controlled the flow of clinical research data in order to promote it’s epilepsy drug Neurontin.
• In 2009, Pfizer paid $750 million to settle 35,000 claims that its drug, Rezulin, was responsible for 63 deaths and dozens of liver failures.
• In 2010, Pfizer was ordered to pay $142.1 million in damages for violating federal anti-racketeering law by its fraudulent sale and marketing of Neurontin for uses not approved by the FDA.
• In 2010, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Pfizer Gives Details on Payments to Doctors”. Pfizer admitted that it paid about $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009. Pfizer also paid $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials in the same period. The disclosures were required by an agreement that the company signed to settle a federal investigation into the illegal promotion of drugs for off-label uses.
• In 2010, Blue Cross Blue Shield filed a lawsuit against Pfizer accusing the pharmaceutical giant of illegally bribing 5,000 doctors with lavish Caribbean vacations, golf games, massages, and other recreational activities in order to convince doctors to use Bextra for off-label use.
• In 2010, leaked cables between Pfizer and US officials in Nigeria showed that Pfizer had hired investigators to unearth evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general in order to blackmail him to drop legal action over the controversial 1996 Trovan trial involving children with meningitis.
• In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Pfizer Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) when its subsidiaries bribed doctors and other health care professionals employed by foreign governments in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia in order to win business.
• In 2012, Pfizer had paid $1.2 billion to settle claims by nearly 10,000 women that its hormone replacement therapy drug, Prempro, caused breast cancer.
• In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle criminal charges of failing to warn patients and doctors about the risks of kidney disease, kidney injury, kidney failure, and acute interstitial nephritis caused by its proton pump inhibitor, Protonix.
• In 2013, Pfizer set aside $288 million to settle claims by 2,700 people that its drug, Chantix, caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders. The FDA determined that Chantix is probably associated with a higher risk of a heart attack.
• In 2014, Pfizer paid $35 million to settle a lawsuit accusing its subsidiary of promoting the kidney transplant drug, Rapamune, for unapproved uses, including bribing doctors to prescribe it to patients.
• In 2016, Pfizer was fined a record £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS for its anti-epilepsy drug, Phenytoin, by 2,600 percent (from £2.83 to £67.50 a capsule), increasing the cost to UK taxpayers from £2 million in 2012 to about £50 million in 2013.

Am I the only one here who detects a pattern of egregious behavior by this company?

So if my perfunctory research is correct

It isn't. My question wasn't "has had", it was "currently has".

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

They are prone to far more than hyperbole........................
Am I the only one here who detects a pattern of egregious behavior by this company?

Uwe: I don't mean to excuse the behavior in your list of documents, but I'm sure that you could pull-up a similar number of like documents for any mega-company that has the global reach of an international conglomerate like Pfizer.

Anyhow, for the sake of moving forward - let's agree that Pfizer is "egregious" (as you say) - How does our agreement impact on the point of our debate about infection versus disease control? And if you are asserting that the egregiousness of Pfizer has extended to deliberate misinformation about the intent of their vaccines- why would any sane individual rely on just this single information source for their education?

It isn't. My question wasn't "has had", it was "currently has".

hmm.... Ok if I re-do my research (from HERE) - I suspect that you are referring to your down-home State of Pennsylvania with 1,609 daily infections and a full vaccination rate of 69%. Again, what does this prove about the vaccine (efficacy, rather than Stopping the infection)? Nebraska has a full vaccination rate of 64%, but it's daily infection count is a mere 140. As I have already said - "drawing broad conclusions from stats like these is extremely courageous" and again, we are talking about vaccine efficacy here

 

[Uwe]

I'm sure that you could pull-up a similar number of like documents for any mega-company that has the global reach of an international conglomerate like Pfizer.

Really? You think you can find a decades long pattern of criminal behavior that led directly to quite a few deaths in other companies and other industries?

let's agree that Pfizer is "egregious" (as you say) - How does our agreement impact on the point of our debate about infection versus disease control? And if you are asserting that the egregiousness of Pfizer has extended to deliberate misinformation about the intent of their vaccines-

Yes, it is my contention that they knew that it wouldn't work nearly as well as they claimed when they applied for the EUAs; that they knew what efficacy there was would wane rather quickly, and they knew the product wasn't anywhere near as "safe" as they held it out to be. In other words, that they deliberately misrepresented it so they could make a fortune selling it, because very few people would have taken it if they had been honest.

Ok if I re-do my research (from HERE) - I suspect that you are referring to your down-home State of Pennsylvania with 1,609 daily infections and a full vaccination rate of 69%.

Nope.

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

Nope.

@Uwe: hmm........ I could try again to guess your meaning. However, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I have been bested!!

So, rather than risk a likely third attempt failure - maybe a more efficient way forward for this intriguing matter might be for you to provide the answer (perhaps)?

Don

 

[Uwe]

maybe a more efficient way forward for this intriguing matter might be for you to provide the answer (perhaps)?

Hint: Find the US State with the highest vaccination (and boosting) rate and have a look at the current infection rate in that state.

ETA: Make it the top three US states by vax rate. Those are also the top three by case rate per 100,000 residents.



-Uwe-