• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

COVID vaccination

Mr_Pot said:
I came across this publication which may be of interest.....
Click to expand...
Very informative. Thank you for sharing this. It was interesting to see that neither Pfizer nor the AstraZenica vaccines used eggs for propagation, I also saw a typo in the storage instructions where they wrote refrigerate at +8 to _80oC where the deg is denoted by lower case O without superscript. Was definitely a *** moment for a short while.

Seems to be what I would have expected, but a little worrying where it talks about unregistered (non HCP) personnel being allowed to provide the patient-facing aspect. The legal liability for these operatives passes to their employers and not to any regulatory body as would be the case with registered HCP.

There is a special Yellow Card system in place for reporting adverse events. It seems to be voluntary so can be circumvented and relies mainly on the patient self-reporting.
 
bulkbiker said:
You are about the only one left who does then.. It has been shown to be unfit for the purpose it is currently being used for multiple times.
Click to expand...
Without supporting evidence from a reliable source, this comment of yours is mere conjecture.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1808.full.pdf

And a commentary from another site that I do not recognise, but explains in simple terms the main tests being offered at the moment and their weaknesses. We also have the Abbott quickie SMBG test that is not reliable, but I would be surprised if this was what was used in the trial since it has only just been launched (i.e.after the Stage 3 trials began)
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-test-types
 
Last edited:
Oldvatr said:
Without supporting evidence from a reliable source, this comment of yours is mere conjecture.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1808.full.pdf

And a commentary from another site that I do not recognise, but explains in simple terms the main tests being offered at the moment and their weaknesses. We also have the Abbott quickie SMBG test that is not reliable, but I would be surprised if this was what was used in the trial since it has only just been launched (i.e.after the Stage 3 trials began)
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-test-types
Click to expand...

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
 
Not convinced. This is not a body I know anything about, but they seem to be critiquing the original Chinese paper on SARS-2 released in Jan 2020, which describes mainly 'in silico' based research, which I believe is what I recognise as 'in vitro' as opposed to 'in vivo' Thus their beef seems to be that all the testing and vaccine development is based on theoretical sequencing based on this one paper. That I do not buy, It may be a start but others also took it apart before this lot did, and it is unlikely that any product is based solely on the original research.

I get the general drift of this paper where it goes into elaborate detail of typo's and spelling mistakes in the original paper - they get quite anal in one section.

I downsize this report even tho it has some 'science 'in it since the teams working on the test supply and vaccine work were pooled from worldwide academic research where the principles of their work were established years before Covid arrived. The authors of your paper seem to be very academic, and Eurocentric. I bet they are all professors. Edit: there are only a couple of people on the author list who would appear to be involved in relevant careers or relevant speciality. There is a microbiologist, and a virology professor, and the ex-Head chemist of Pfizer. One is mentioned in the profile as holding a patent on PCR, so presumably does have knowledge.

Edit: Just read the small print, and there is a retraction request from the main authors against their own paper,
 
Last edited:
Oldvatr said:
Not convinced. This is not a body I know anything about, but they seem to be critiquing the original Chinese paper on SARS-2 released in Jan 2020, which describes mainly 'in silico' based research, which I believe is what I recognise as 'in vitro' as opposed to 'in vivo' Thus their beef seems to be that all the testing and vaccine development is based on theoretical sequencing based on this one paper. That I do not buy, It may be a start but others also took it apart before this lot did, and it is unlikely that any product is based solely on the original research.

I get the general drift of this paper where it goes into elaborate detail of typo's and spelling mistakes in the original paper - they get quite anal in one section.

I downsize this report even tho it has some 'science 'in it since the teams working on the test supply and vaccine work were pooled from worldwide academic research where the principles of their work were established years before Covid arrived. The authors of your paper seem to be very academic, and Eurocentric. I bet they are all professors. Edit: there are only a couple of people on the author list who would appear to be involved in relevant careers or relevant speciality. There is a microbiologist, and a virology professor, and the ex-Head chemist of Pfizer. One is mentioned in the profile as holding a patent on PCR, so presumably does have knowledge.

Edit: Just read the small print, and there is a retraction request from the main authors against their own paper,
Click to expand...

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1764/6018217
 
Oldvatr said:
Think this is relevant to the Pfizer Trials
https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf


The visit details that tests for efficacy were all done by blood sample draw and laboratory analysis, which is what I would have expected. The immunogenetic analysis will test for antibodies being present, not for the virus being active and infectious,
Click to expand...

But if the trial subject resented with COVID symptoms a swab would be used..?
Screenshot 2020-12-06 at 16.07.05.png
So COVID would be diagnosed using a PCR test by the looks of it?
 
bulkbiker said:
But if the trial subject resented with COVID symptoms a swab would be used..?
View attachment 46032
So COVID would be diagnosed using a PCR test by the looks of it?
Click to expand...
This allows them to diagnose any ER or hospital admissions outside the routine Trial monitoring e.g., where Covid symptoms have appeared. Note that this is a follow up on a prior test, so is the second confirmation, PLUS an extra nasal swab to be sent away for proper lab analysis at the central lab, which is the confirmation test, not the normal hospital test. So belt and braces. 3 strikes and you are in (*hospital), Not the standard routine or roadside check.

So in a way you are correct. First have symptoms, then 3 consecutive positives.
 
bulkbiker said:
Which is a grand of 10 days worth of deaths that happen anyway.. over 150,000 people die every single day globally.
It simply isn't that big a deal.
Context has been completely lost during the reporting of this virus.
View attachment 45982
Click to expand...

unless you are directly involved with a death that probably came earlier than it needed to be......
 
hankjam said:
unless you are directly involved with a death that probably came earlier than it needed to be......
Click to expand...

Indeed every death is awful to those close to the deceased.. however it happens all the time but for the most part we don't ever stop to think about it.

The context of the numbers here seems to have been completely lost when looking at COVID because everyone concentrates on solely that.
 
Back
Top