Arnie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2021
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 76
Yes, I did So statistically you have a .000038% chance of dying from a J&J shot. Yes, I certainly can see why the CDC would absolutely steer people away from a J&J shot.
Coronavirus: What questions do you have?
- Thread starter cwbullet
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
Death is not the only adverse reaction from a vaccine or from COVID. All risks must be considered and weighed, not just death.
And the point here is that there are alternative shots that don't carry that risk and are more effective, so there's no reason whatsoever to recommend the J&J shot unless they can't be given to a particular patient.
But as usual, someone is just trolling us because they take pleasure in that sort of thing.
But as usual, someone is just trolling us because they take pleasure in that sort of thing.
Ding, ding, ding - Bingo.
Arnie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2021
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 76
Please show me the numbers that prove from a risk and efficacy viewpoint that the CDC is justified in recommending that a second booster should be Moderna or Pfizer, not a J&J booster.
I’m afraid I don’t have those numbers. It’s a bit outside the limits of my knowledge, I’m afraid.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a brief look around the CDC website or a Google Search would return this data, however.
Here, Let Me Google That For You….
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=pfizer+moderna+covid+vaccine+adverse+reaction+rate
I am not going to spend a bunch of time looking that up for you. I told you why, you can find the data yourself. The bottom line is a lethal rare side effect and the shot does not cover covid as well. mRNA vaccines are safer and less deadly. That is all I need to know. The recommendation has been in place since DEC.
https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...rrow-use-of-johnson-and-johnson-covid-vaccine
COVID is on the rise. One subvariant appears to be taking over BA.5. It is an Omnicron.
Tuesday and Wednesday I was VERY fatigued, My wife said my voice sounded gravelly. Tested Tuesday, negative.
Tested positive Wednesday afternoon, Mild to moderate cold symptoms. The fatigue has lessened.
Congestion and cough mostly. No fever and my apple watch checks my blood O2, usually 97-99%
Had 2 readings of 94%.
I had a tele-health visit with my Dr's office, on her advice I started Paxlovid yesterday.
I was boarder line case for it, BMI of 28%, on blood pressure meds, and 62 YO. I have had 4 Moderna shots.
Her thinking was it was the new BA.5, but it won't change my treatment. Isolate, hydrate, rest, Paxlovid and OTC meds.
She said the 4 shots are the best thing I could have done to have a positive outcome.
So now my question:
Omicron and it's variants seem to be hanging around longer than the other variants did. Are Moderna and Pfizer able to
tweak the vaccine more to the Omicron variant? Or are we looking at a whole new vaccine?
Will I have any boost in protection from future Omicron variants? I'm guessing not.
Thanks
Mark
Tested positive Wednesday afternoon, Mild to moderate cold symptoms. The fatigue has lessened.
Congestion and cough mostly. No fever and my apple watch checks my blood O2, usually 97-99%
Had 2 readings of 94%.
I had a tele-health visit with my Dr's office, on her advice I started Paxlovid yesterday.
I was boarder line case for it, BMI of 28%, on blood pressure meds, and 62 YO. I have had 4 Moderna shots.
Her thinking was it was the new BA.5, but it won't change my treatment. Isolate, hydrate, rest, Paxlovid and OTC meds.
She said the 4 shots are the best thing I could have done to have a positive outcome.
So now my question:
Omicron and it's variants seem to be hanging around longer than the other variants did. Are Moderna and Pfizer able to
tweak the vaccine more to the Omicron variant? Or are we looking at a whole new vaccine?
Will I have any boost in protection from future Omicron variants? I'm guessing not.
Thanks
Mark
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 2,971
Both Pfizer and Moderna are reporting successful results from trials of bivalent vaccines that target both the original as well as Omnicoron variants.
https://www.reuters.com/business/he...odies-against-omicron-subvariants-2022-06-22/
https://investors.modernatx.com/new...ntibody-Response-Against-Omicron/default.aspx
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...nd-biontech-announce-omicron-adapted-covid-19
Both are due out in August / early fall.
Alas, Coronavirus continues to mutate...
Thanks afadeev for information. I'll get the new booster when available.
I had no idea paxlovid existed, luckily my daughter, a MS3, told me to get some.
So far it's been a game changer, within 4-6 hours it alleviated the majority of the worse
symptoms. It's like a mild head cold now.
I know it's on an EA, but so far it's amazing.
My Dr said the 4 shots of Moderna were the best thing I could do for a good outcome, while the vaccine
is not great at stopping Omicron, it does limit the severity.
I had no idea paxlovid existed, luckily my daughter, a MS3, told me to get some.
So far it's been a game changer, within 4-6 hours it alleviated the majority of the worse
symptoms. It's like a mild head cold now.
I know it's on an EA, but so far it's amazing.
My Dr said the 4 shots of Moderna were the best thing I could do for a good outcome, while the vaccine
is not great at stopping Omicron, it does limit the severity.
Just an update on vaccines:
I just returned from a Vaccine conference with some updates.
The under 50 years of age second booster is on hold for Omnicron boosters. We expect a bivalent COVID vaccine this fall that will immunize against both Omicron and the original. I would suspect that everyone will be eligible for a booster this fall if the vaccine is available in enough quantity.
Novavax’s Covid vaccine is due for approval (?EUA). It took longer to develop because it uses standard technology, and they had a few hick-ups. It is a protein or antigen-based vaccine that induces your body to make antibodies against the foreign protein. I do not see it being widely used, but who knows.
The Army's vaccine is finally coming to the end of the trial. It is very novel and has taken longer to finish the human trials. The vaccine is a ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. It is very novel. Duke University took their idea (borrowed) and started a similar vaccine project. They may be bested to the market. The good news is that even if the Army vaccine never sees widespread use. The efforts to make a Pan-COVID vaccine that covers all variants have inspired 8 other COVID vaccine projects.
I just returned from a Vaccine conference with some updates.
The under 50 years of age second booster is on hold for Omnicron boosters. We expect a bivalent COVID vaccine this fall that will immunize against both Omicron and the original. I would suspect that everyone will be eligible for a booster this fall if the vaccine is available in enough quantity.
Novavax’s Covid vaccine is due for approval (?EUA). It took longer to develop because it uses standard technology, and they had a few hick-ups. It is a protein or antigen-based vaccine that induces your body to make antibodies against the foreign protein. I do not see it being widely used, but who knows.
The Army's vaccine is finally coming to the end of the trial. It is very novel and has taken longer to finish the human trials. The vaccine is a ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. It is very novel. Duke University took their idea (borrowed) and started a similar vaccine project. They may be bested to the market. The good news is that even if the Army vaccine never sees widespread use. The efforts to make a Pan-COVID vaccine that covers all variants have inspired 8 other COVID vaccine projects.
Since, as I understand it, many colds and flu are carried by a Coronavirus core, an effective Pan-Covid vaccine may have that effect.
An effective cold vaccine (that would prevent/mitigate colds due to either coronaviruses or rhinoviruses) would be great.
Pre-covid, I would get 2-3 colds per year, presumably infected mostly by my school aged kids or my wife who works with kids, and less likely due to transmission at my office. These colds were an annoyance because I take about a week to clear a cold and often have sinus issues for another week after. They were not worrisome in any way, just a pain to deal with.
I haven't had a cold since late 2019 due to distancing, masking, switch to in home remote work, etc. I was a bit surprised I didn't get one last fall when the kids went back to school, and particularly the spring term this year when masking was no longer required. My wife maintains masking at her job though.
I'm on a vacation now, and am assuming I may well get COVID or a cold or flu because I'm at a resort with unmasked folks of all ages and the airports were packed and lots of travellers no longer wear masks. The country I'm in requires visitors to be vaxxed against COVID, but of course current variants spread easily enough even to vaxxed folks.
Once FDA approved, I would likely get a cold vaccine if the research looked good and it was wide-spectrum enough to be useful.
Pre-covid, I would get 2-3 colds per year, presumably infected mostly by my school aged kids or my wife who works with kids, and less likely due to transmission at my office. These colds were an annoyance because I take about a week to clear a cold and often have sinus issues for another week after. They were not worrisome in any way, just a pain to deal with.
I haven't had a cold since late 2019 due to distancing, masking, switch to in home remote work, etc. I was a bit surprised I didn't get one last fall when the kids went back to school, and particularly the spring term this year when masking was no longer required. My wife maintains masking at her job though.
I'm on a vacation now, and am assuming I may well get COVID or a cold or flu because I'm at a resort with unmasked folks of all ages and the airports were packed and lots of travellers no longer wear masks. The country I'm in requires visitors to be vaxxed against COVID, but of course current variants spread easily enough even to vaxxed folks.
Once FDA approved, I would likely get a cold vaccine if the research looked good and it was wide-spectrum enough to be useful.
I've read that a pan flu vaccine is in the works as well.
But will it protect against this...
Attachments
I would take that shot for sure!
Question for Chuck.
I see the Novavax shot has been approved for adults by the CDC. Since many of the holdouts on getting vaccinated cite their reason as the "new and unproven" mRna technology of the Pfizer and Moderna shots, do you see these people finally getting vaxxed with the (older technology) Novavax shot? Or are their minds set?
I see the Novavax shot has been approved for adults by the CDC. Since many of the holdouts on getting vaccinated cite their reason as the "new and unproven" mRna technology of the Pfizer and Moderna shots, do you see these people finally getting vaxxed with the (older technology) Novavax shot? Or are their minds set?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 9,008
- Reaction score
- 3,549
Zamfir's no Kitaro, that's for sure.
Hi @cwbullet ,
On another forum I haunt, this article was recently posted as "evidence that ivermectin works great and the MSM has been lying to us for years..."
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111...ictly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects
TL/DR: volunteers who took ivermectin were less likely to come down with covid, and a lot less likely to die of it, than people who didn't volunteer to take it. Folks who took it regularly did a bit better than folks who took it irregularly.
I would be interested in your take on the article, if you have an interest to read it. It's an observational trial rather than RCT, so we don't know what other factors are involved, though the article touts its matching algorithms. I mean, someone who volunteers to take the medicine might be more interested in their health and more likely to mask up or wash their hands... we have no way of knowing. But other than the non-randomized, non-blinded aspect of it being prospective observational, do you have any comments?
Thanks
On another forum I haunt, this article was recently posted as "evidence that ivermectin works great and the MSM has been lying to us for years..."
https://www.cureus.com/articles/111...ictly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects
TL/DR: volunteers who took ivermectin were less likely to come down with covid, and a lot less likely to die of it, than people who didn't volunteer to take it. Folks who took it regularly did a bit better than folks who took it irregularly.
I would be interested in your take on the article, if you have an interest to read it. It's an observational trial rather than RCT, so we don't know what other factors are involved, though the article touts its matching algorithms. I mean, someone who volunteers to take the medicine might be more interested in their health and more likely to mask up or wash their hands... we have no way of knowing. But other than the non-randomized, non-blinded aspect of it being prospective observational, do you have any comments?
Thanks
Marc: Cureus has issued a correction showing that several of the authors have associations with an Ivermectin manufacturer or organizations which promote Ivermectin as a treatment for covid.
https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/original_article/pdf/82162/20220325-21063-4532ry.pdf
I suspect that more info will come out as the study undergoes more scrutiny.
That must be embarrassing.
More info on the preprint that came out in Dec. on the Itajai study:https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/s...support-ivermectin-as-treatment-for-covid-19/Politifact calls the study flawed.
Excerpt:
Insufficient Evidence from Flawed Study
The second study Campbell presents in his video is a prospective, observational study done in the Brazilian city of Itajaí. Its authors include Dr. Pierre Kory, one of the strongest advocates of ivermectin in the U.S., and researchers in Brazil, Canada and Colombia — some of them also part of Kory’s pro-ivermectin nonprofit, called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. The study concludes that the use of ivermectin reduced infections by half and reduced COVID-19 mortality and hospitalizations by 70% and 67%, respectively.“70% reduction in mortality in this study. I mean, this is just huge. And this is with a tiny dose of ivermectin every fortnight acting as a prophylactic, you know, why are people not talking about this?” Campbell says in his video. “The evidence just seems so powerful, present and overwhelming. I mean, 70%, how do you argue with a number like that?”
But the study is not a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, and it has multiple limitations. Health Feedback fact-checked stories published by the Gateway Pundit, Zero Hedge and the Blaze about an earlier draft of the study that was posted as a preprint in December.
“The study contained multiple methodological flaws that call the reliability of its conclusions into question. For example, there are indications that many people assigned to the ivermectin treatment group didn’t take the drug consistently, or stopped taking it after a while. It is therefore unclear whether any observed effect in this group can be reliably attributed to ivermectin treatment,” Health Feedback concluded.
In a Twitter thread on Dec. 15, epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz detailed some of the study’s problems, including conflicts of interest and lack of controls for important confounders, such as variables that could increase the risk of getting COVID-19.
The study was then peer-reviewed and published on Jan. 15 in Cureus, an open access online medical journal that allows researchers to publish studies for free and faster than the traditional peer-reviewed journals — 11 days in this case. But some of the problems remain, as PolitiFact.com explained.
The study analyzed data of a citywide COVID-19 prevention program using ivermectin in Itajaí, Brazil, from July to December 2020, when vaccines were not available. The whole population of the city was offered ivermectin, to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days. Out of 159,561 residents, 113,845 used ivermectin and 45,716 did not. But according to a statement released by the city of Itajaí in January 2021, the numbers of voluntary users fell with time — 138,216 took the first dose; two weeks later 93,970 took the second and third doses, and only 8,312 took the fourth and fifth. “That is, there was no biweekly continuity of the use of ivermectin, as recommended,” the statement said.
A list of the authorized studies in Brazil using ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 — provided to the Brazilian fact-checking coalition Comprova by the Brazilian National Research Ethics Commission — said the study “was registered with a sample of 9,956 participants.”
As we said, results of multiple large clinical trials on the safety and efficacy of the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 will be available in the coming months. They will provide a more definitive answer as to whether ivermectin is beneficial, or not, in treating COVID-19 patients. But for now, studies haven’t found the drug to be beneficial, and health officials have warned people not to self-medicate.
This is hilarious, our would be if it weren't people's lives at risk. You can't make this stuff up! Well, apparently the authors can...
I'm planning to get one within the next week or two.
Good for you. I'm getting jabbed tomorrow.
Where did you get it?
- Status
