COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1 [Clinical Study]

a reply to: Phage

You seem to be saying the study will not be randomized. No?

I am saying as part of the study, the messages will be given randomly... to participants chosen according to specific criteria, i.e., census-based sampling.

The results of the study -- specifically, the analysis of the data revealing the most effective messages -- will be published for anyone and everyone to read.

Among those will be people who will use this information to compare/contrast/adjust for specific regions and demographic, then manipulate and exploit the data, targeting specific people with specific messages.

If you want to continue to disregard the distinctions I am making, you can of course do so... but I'm not saying it again.

I don't know about this, but I did read who will get the vaccine first once it is deemed safe and appropriate.

Health care workers and those most at risk of death from Covid...plus one more group, the people who were given the placebo will get vaccinated first if they choose. That could distort long term side effects and reality checks if all of the test people were then vaccinated, no proof that the vaccine causes side effects a year on down the road. Once the trial is over, all comparison after approval is now not possible in the control group for long term complications.

a reply to: Boadicea

I am saying as part of the study, the messages will be given randomly... to participants chosen according to specific criteria, i.e., census-based sampling.

No.
The members of each group will be chosen randomly. There will not be a group of business owners, for example. That is what randomization means. Read the link I gave you.

Participants are randomized to 1 of 12 arms, with one control arm and one baseline arm.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

That is not a fair assessment. It is nonsense. It was not blinded at all, single, double, or triple.

Okay...

Show me where Fauci made such a claim...

The "double-blind study" report came from The Patch: Henry Ford Health System Defends Study Fauci Called 'Flawed'

The Patch cites The Detroit Press, which actually reports nothing about a "double-blind study":

Health officials should instead rely on the "gold standard" of a randomized, placebo controlled study to determine whether the drug is effective, Fauci told the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.

The Henry Ford Hospital study that was published was a non-controlled retrospective cohort study that was confounded by a number of issues, including the fact that many people who were receiving hydroxychloroquine were also using corticosteroids, which we know from another study gives a clear benefit in reducing deaths with advanced disease," said Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert advising the White House on the coronavirus response.

"So that study is a flawed study," Fauci said after Missouri Republican U.S. Rep. Blaine Leutkemeyer asked him about the trial.

So, my first source mis-reported apparently... and quite frankly, I don't appreciate you being so darn snarky when I'm trying my damnedest to have a reasonable discussion with you, when you refuse to even make yourself clear.

...and read the study yourself. You have the link.

Actually, no, I don't have the link... you provided a link to the lawsuit, not the study. And I'm not inclined to look up another damn thing for this discussion.

Very rough guess why Cov19.

Two resons! Stop trump.
And so Every one has a Vaccination!
$40 to $180 CDC Cost/ Dose
$50 to $230 Private Sector Cost/ Dose

Now how many world wide will be given a Vacc?
7.8 billion world wide. how many get the Vacc?
say half 3,900,000,000 ! * $40!+ Plus.
= $156,000,000,000 Billion dollars Minnium.
at $180 = $702,000,000,000 Billion or more max.

how many people would YOU kill for some of that?

Oh and you can add to that $4.4 billion. us only.
"To date, governments and philanthropic organisations have given over US$4.4 billion to pharmaceutical corporations for research and development for COVID-19 vaccines"
link to info

In the end just how much money will they take?
I wish I had shares in the mask Companies.

a reply to: Boadicea

I don't appreciate you being so darn snarky when I'm trying my damnedest to have a reasonable discussion with you, when you refuse to even make yourself clear.

I don't appreciate "sources" that lie. A source for which you did not provide a link.

Actually, no, I don't have the link...

You do. I gave it to you. Here it is again.www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea
Due to the nature of our legal system, there are tons of attorneys ready to sue for almost any mental or physical injury.

When they know they can win... and that has not been my experience in medical malpractice cases, which has been confirmed by both medical and legal people.

Almost every product or service you purchase contains wording to protect the manufacturer/supplier/seller.

If this vaccine immunity deal is anything like all the other vaccine immunity deals, then it's sealed up pretty damn tight, and it won't be the manufacturer you have to sue, it will be the U.S. government after your claim is denied by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) or something similar.

Let's play nice, please.....

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: Boadicea

Message to everyone, we will all be human Guinea pigs for any vaccine released and the companies releasing them are exempt from liabilities to the harm they cause.

The companies developing these vaccines have no problem killing children to sell their vaccines. Despite knowing they're potentially life threatening.

Thank you for posting the links -- I'll check them out.

And it's worth noting that the study didn't seem interested addressing any potential risks or adverse side effects from the vaccinations, though they noted the baseline message would tout the benefits of a vaccine... apparently any vaccine.

a reply to: Phage

I'm going to re-visit this in the morning... when I have more patience and a clearer head.

But while I'm still annoyed, I will say this: We can both do better.

Tomorrow is a new day...

a reply to: Boadicea

We can both do better.

You can certainly learn something about randomization and original sources. I gave you both.

Tomorrow is a new day...

Facts don't change. You believed a lie because you wanted to. And because you didn't want to believe me and ignored what I said.

a reply to: Phage

You can certainly learn something about randomization and original sources. I gave you both.

Okay... gotcha. Loud and clear.

Facts don't change. You believed a lie because you wanted to. And because you didn't want to believe me and ignored what I said.

Wow. There goes your credibility here, Phage. I don't know what's got your goat, and at this point, I don't care.

I didn't even know what the hell you were talking about, because you failed to make a decent point, with scant information, and very limited sources. But I gave it my best shot, trying to figure it out, and I found an article that seemed to include all the highlights that you seemed to be talking about -- the original study, Fauci's criticism, and the response to Fauci's criticism. That was literally the first I'd heard of it. And I then specifically prefaced my response with the qualification "if this is a fair assessment."

And when it's not, you go straight to lying liars? Can't be misinformed? Wrong? Gotta be willful and deliberate lying liars??? Bull.

The most I said I "believed," is that the study's information value was limited, but that it contributed value based on the information it did provide. I didn't believe any "lie," and I didn't want to believe any lie. And YOU are not the final authority on what is REALLY in my mind and heart.

No re-visiting this tomorrow. I'm done with you now.

a reply to: Boadicea

the original study,

Apparently not. Or you would not have missed this:

Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design.

And when it's not, you go straight to lying liars? Can't be misinformed? Wrong? Gotta be willful and deliberate lying liars???

Yes, in this case, blatantly so. Your source lied. Fabricated. Made stuff up. Fauci never said that. No one but your "source" said that. The claim was nonsense, that's what I said. And you quoted it.

The study did not say it was double-blinded. Fauci did not say it was double-blinded.


Look, take my advice. Be a skeptic. Apply some critical thinking. You shouldn't believe anything I say, without looking into it. But please look into it. My sig said this for a long time: “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” It means something, actually.

a reply to: Boadicea

There isn't a vaccine yet, so, there's that.



It's also a bit silly to assume that because there are kooks who think that everything is an attempt to control their minds, it means everyone is like that.

This 'research' is the same as a political poll - to get people's opinions.

Only a few topics back there was someone saying that you can't trust polls. The irony.

LOL

Well, this is an interesting topic to study. Fits in quite well with Bill Gates and others aim of mass vaccinating everyone.

It is a pity the science alone is not strong enough to get everyone vaccinated. It makes sense that other forms of cohesion and manipulation are being investigated to help achieve mass vaccination aims.

Kinda makes sense for Yale university sponsoring this study, home of skull and bones.

Psychological operations against a population is usually in the realms of military and political circles. In some ways it is good that some of this darkness is coming to light when publishing studies like this. Would like to hear how it all goes.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea
The messaging I heard over and over again today was: The vaccine may not be safe. Especially if the distribution is on President Trump's aggressive timetable. Wait until its been in circulation for awhile.

Well, AstraZeneca asked for legal immunity because they were afraid of what could be determined as far out as four years. So..... get back to me in six regarding whether or not I'll take any of these rushed vaccines.

www.insurancejournal.com...

a reply to: Boadicea

For the silly hairless apes liked BS so much : that they elected the most outrageous marketers and salespeople, as their leaders.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Boadicea

There isn't a vaccine yet, so, there's that.

And unless there's been some kind of monumental breakthrough that would be first page news all over the world, providing a path for the first safe and effective vaccine for any corona virus, there will never be one.

Don't get me wrong... there will be a vaccine... but not for COVID-19, for purposes of forwarding their plans for world domination.

I have no clue what purpose the vaccine will server, but it will serve their purpose.