Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

If you're looking for some entertaining exchanges, find the live feed from any day. Scroll through it until you find conversations between the judge and attorneys. It will undoubtedly be the judge trying to teach the DA about the law. I'm sorry! You must have been sick the day that taught law at law school!

[Mike]

and no political capital left.

Oh my... I hadn't even thought of that.

[Cody_Russell]

Oh geez… NYC …
Not that it matters, but what’s with the NYC Rs literally nominating a Bond villain as their candidate? Lmao.
I love animals, but come on man.

[foxhopper]

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

[Tom W]

Oh geez… NYC …
Not that it matters, but what’s with the NYC Rs literally nominating a Bond villain as their candidate? Lmao.
I love animals, but come on man.

Hey, Sliwa was also the Founder of the "Guardian Angels" way back in the 80s. That just makes it more bizarre.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

I'm interested but also skeptical. Two reasons:

(1) the actual serious side effects to the Pfizer vaccine in trials were 0.6% in the vaccine arm and 0.5% in the placebo arm. Is this finding based on flawed data? My reading of the linked report above doesn't involve study outcomes but rather various safety processes that were being compromised to get to the end result - EUA approval for the Pfizer vaccines.

(2) On the ground or actual serious side effects reported after the vaccines were given EUA and administration began in the December, 2020 time frame show an exceedingly low occurrence rate of serious side effects out of the millions of doses administered. From the very thorough study published in the BMJ I read on post EUA occurrence, it's impossible to interpret the results to a single objective number - say 0.1% or less than 1 serious side effect per 100K shots given. That's because the study I looked at measured reports of distinct sets of adverse events, e.g myocardial infarction. Reading the study supported my view that actual reported serious adverse side effects of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA) are so low as to be inconsequential in assessing their safety and benefits versus risks https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2784015

Although foxhopper doesn't say it the objective in making this post almost certainly has to be a means to cast doubt on the safety of the Pfizer vaccine. I'll just assume he wants to be fair, objective and balanced. But if you read his linked BMJ report carefully, it is based on the documents received by this organization from a fired employee whose firing occurred as a result of her going directly to the FDA to complain that no one in the independent company tasked with running the Pfizer trials were listening to a litany of complaints from employees involving reports of by-passing safety and process standards to get results more quickly.

Deserves more scrutiny before we jump to the obvious conclusion that the Pfizer vaccines are dangerous.

[Kapture1]

yTWVsJfZ.jpg

[Kapture1]

Just because they fudged the numbers and falsified the data, then fired the whistleblower doesn't mean it's dangerous lol

[Kapture1]

too late for that

5IxEAyjI.png

[Kapture1]

a4Qy9smN.jpg

[lineygoblue]

Is that a real tweet, or something from Babylon Bee?

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm interested but also skeptical. Two reasons:

(1) the actual serious side effects to the Pfizer vaccine in trials were 0.6% in the vaccine arm and 0.5% in the placebo arm. Is this finding based on flawed data? My reading of the linked report above doesn't involve study outcomes but rather various safety processes that were being compromised to get to the end result - EUA approval for the Pfizer vaccines.

(2) On the ground or actual serious side effects reported after the vaccines were given EUA and administration began in the December, 2020 time frame show an exceedingly low occurrence rate of serious side effects out of the millions of doses administered. From the very thorough study published in the BMJ I read on post EUA occurrence, it's impossible to interpret the results to a single objective number - say 0.1% or less than 1 serious side effect per 100K shots given. That's because the study I looked at measured reports of distinct sets of adverse events, e.g myocardial infarction. Reading the study supported my view that actual reported serious adverse side effects of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA) are so low as to be inconsequential in assessing their safety and benefits versus risks https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2784015

Although foxhopper doesn't say it the objective in making this post almost certainly has to be a means to cast doubt on the safety of the Pfizer vaccine. I'll just assume he wants to be fair, objective and balanced. But if you read his linked BMJ report carefully, it is based on the documents received by this organization from a fired employee whose firing occurred as a result of her going directly to the FDA to complain that no one in the independent company tasked with running the Pfizer trials were listening to a litany of complaints from employees involving reports of by-passing safety and process standards to get results more quickly.

Deserves more scrutiny before we jump to the obvious conclusion that the Pfizer vaccines are dangerous.

Jeff, for one, the only goal Foxhopper and Kapture have is to find anything they can grasp at to claim the vaccines are dangerous. Kapture previously has claimed your DNA will mutate if you get the shot.

In addition to what you said, if you read the report carefully, the subcontractor in question in the article operated just 3 sites out of 155 total that were used to test the vaccine. So even if you think there were serious problems at those 3 sites, what about the other 152?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Is that a real tweet, or something from Babylon Bee?

It's a satirical troll account.

[CGVT]

It's a satirical troll account.

that won’t stop the rubes from posting it as if it were gospel

[Kapture1]

that won’t stop the rubes from posting it as if it were gospel

boy that went right over you head