Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: nonspecific
I would also add that a historian cannot directly affect the health choices and implications of people.

It's not the best comparison in this case.


a reply to: Overseeall

Agree with you again, to a point. Yes, the comparison is loose, but historical events can shape an individual's decisions. How many times have we heard about being doomed to repeat past events if we don't learn from it. In some instances, taking history into account has led into decisions that have resulted in the deaths of millions.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I see that you guys are desperately trying to attack him at a personal level which is proves the absence of any valid and good arguments from your side. It's exactly what you find when matters of science are blended with politics and instead of vaccines and public health we get vaccine ideology promoters.

But his personal views and leanings are surely reason to view his opinion piece, and thats all it is, a biased opinion piece because there's no real data in it and he does sell books on diet.

This is the conclussion..

This article highlights the importance of addressing metabolic health to reduce chronic disease and that insulin resistance is also a major risk factor for poor outcomes from COVID-19.

I think you are mistaken in your conclusion of what the conclusion of the study is.

Here it is again in case you are not sure, which seems to be the case.

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.


What you have posted is the last bit i.e the contributions of this paper.

I don't think you have read it not that you know what you are talking about.

It's clear if you read it though.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

Ah I see! Now your argument has been upgraded again!

Now it isn't a study or research.
Hence everyone who is a pedestrian or even a little more relevant can go and publish whether they think in a journal...

These are desperate argument showing lack of understanding of how peer reviewed is conducted and what it is.

The arguments trying to 'attack' Dr Malhotra have become even more absurd in the last few replies!

Oh dear!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

Ah I see! Not your argument has been upgraded again!

Now it isn't a study or research.
Hence everyone who is a pedestrian or even a little more relevant can go and publish whether they think in a journal...

These are desperate argument showing lack of understanding of how peer reviewed is conducted and what it is.

It seems to be you who doesn't understand what this is.

Proper reasech tends avoid personal anecdotes, contains actual data and doesn't present personal opinion as fact.

There is an obvious bias throughout the entire article.

I'm not a professional so I apologise if this in incorrect and hope someone can clarify but this is a review article and not original research so its more of a collection of and opinion on other works.

I think I've got that right at any rate.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

Ah I see! Not your argument has been upgraded again!

Now it isn't a study or research.
Hence everyone who is a pedestrian or even a little more relevant can go and publish whether they think in a journal...

These are desperate argument showing lack of understanding of how peer reviewed is conducted and what it is.

It seems to be you who doesn't understand what this is.

Proper reasech tends avoid personal anecdotes, contains actual data and doesn't present personal opinion as fact.

There is an obvious bias throughout the entire article.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you have read it not that you know what you are talking about.

And here we are with the typical "insult the person because they don't agree with me" it didn't take you long did it!

You lose any argument straight away.

a reply to: nonspecific

Basically a narrative review is someone's summary of what research says.

However because there is no methodology in this type of review its highly subject to bias as they effectively select what they want to talk about.

Narrative reviews aren't always bad but this one has a lot of obvious bias throughout.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

Ah I see! Not your argument has been upgraded again!

Now it isn't a study or research.
Hence everyone who is a pedestrian or even a little more relevant can go and publish whether they think in a journal...

These are desperate argument showing lack of understanding of how peer reviewed is conducted and what it is.

It seems to be you who doesn't understand what this is.

Proper reasech tends avoid personal anecdotes, contains actual data and doesn't present personal opinion as fact.

There is an obvious bias throughout the entire article.

You have made a range of claims and let me remind them to you.

1) Dr Malhotra expressing his personal opinions and hasn't published any work.

This isn't true though. You can see the study.

2) The work published isn't peer reviewed. That's not true either as the paper was submitted back in June and published in September after going through peer review.

3) Dr Malhotra is biased and he states personal opinions without any evidence. That's not true either as it wouldn't have gone through a peer review.

4) This is not research or study!!! So what exactly was published and peer reviewed in this paper? Any thoughts?! It seems anyone can walk into an immunology journal and publish whatever gets in his/her mind.

5) Now you are claiming that this isn't proper research!!! Can you give me the definition of proper research?

Let me guess the next pylon upon which these arguments are based.

Maybe the peer review process is biased too?

I wouldn't continue this conversation if I was you. I mean you are keep making false claims and expanding the argument in all directions. You try to find something to hold on but it's impossible.

A these because the paper contradicts the vaccine ideology and the proponents of mass and mandatory vaccinations as well as the belief that all vaccines are effective and safe at all times.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you have read it not that you know what you are talking about.

And here we are with the typical "insult the person because they don't agree with me" it didn't take you long did it!

You lose any argument straight away.

What insult? I don't think you have read it though. No insults are here. It has taken me long enough about 13 pages where in the last 3-4 I keep refuting a range of unsubstantiated claims such as the ones above

You have claimed that the contributions are conclusions and I have shown you that this isn't the case. Clearly you haven't read the paper

Here are the conclusions again:

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.



.

The paper you refer to is a review article and as such contains no new data or findings is that not correct?

If so then its not a study is it.

It is a paper using other studies and as such no research has been made or published?

As I said I'm not a academic so please correct and clarify if what I have said is incorrect.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

Ah I see! Not your argument has been upgraded again!

Now it isn't a study or research.
Hence everyone who is a pedestrian or even a little more relevant can go and publish whether they think in a journal...

These are desperate argument showing lack of understanding of how peer reviewed is conducted and what it is.

It seems to be you who doesn't understand what this is.

Proper reasech tends avoid personal anecdotes, contains actual data and doesn't present personal opinion as fact.

There is an obvious bias throughout the entire article.

You have made a range of claims and let me remind them to you.

1) Dr Malhotra expressing his personal opinions and hasn't published any work.

This isn't true though. You can see the study.

2) The work published isn't peer reviewed. That's not true either as the paper was submitted back in June and published in September after going through peer review.

3) Dr Malhotra is biased and he states personal opinions without any evidence. That's not true either as it wouldn't have gone through a peer review.

4) This is not research or study!!! So what exactly was published and peer reviewed in this paper? Any thoughts?! It seems anyone can walk into an immunology journal and publish whatever gets in his/her mind.

5) Now you are claiming that this isn't proper research!!! Can you give me the definition of proper research?

Let me guess the next pylon upon which these arguments are based.

Maybe the peer review process is biased too?

I wouldn't continue this conversation if I was you. I mean you are keep making false claims and expanding the argument in all directions. You try to find something to hold on but it's impossible.

A these because the paper contradicts the vaccine ideology and the proponents of mass and mandatory vaccinations as well as the belief that all vaccines are effective and safe at all times.

originally posted by: nonspecific
The paper you refer to is a review article and as such contains no new data or findings is that not correct?

If so then its not a study is it.

It is a paper using other studies and as such no research has been made or published?

As I said I'm not a academic so please correct and clarify if what I have said is incorrect.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

Ah I see! Not your argument has been upgraded again!

Now it isn't a study or research.
Hence everyone who is a pedestrian or even a little more relevant can go and publish whether they think in a journal...

These are desperate argument showing lack of understanding of how peer reviewed is conducted and what it is.

It seems to be you who doesn't understand what this is.

Proper reasech tends avoid personal anecdotes, contains actual data and doesn't present personal opinion as fact.

There is an obvious bias throughout the entire article.

You have made a range of claims and let me remind them to you.

1) Dr Malhotra expressing his personal opinions and hasn't published any work.

This isn't true though. You can see the study.

2) The work published isn't peer reviewed. That's not true either as the paper was submitted back in June and published in September after going through peer review.

3) Dr Malhotra is biased and he states personal opinions without any evidence. That's not true either as it wouldn't have gone through a peer review.

4) This is not research or study!!! So what exactly was published and peer reviewed in this paper? Any thoughts?! It seems anyone can walk into an immunology journal and publish whatever gets in his/her mind.

5) Now you are claiming that this isn't proper research!!! Can you give me the definition of proper research?

Let me guess the next pylon upon which these arguments are based.

Maybe the peer review process is biased too?

I wouldn't continue this conversation if I was you. I mean you are keep making false claims and expanding the argument in all directions. You try to find something to hold on but it's impossible.

A these because the paper contradicts the vaccine ideology and the proponents of mass and mandatory vaccinations as well as the belief that all vaccines are effective and safe at all times.

This is a peer reviewed scientific research paper..

The idea this isn't a study or proper research as claimed above by someone else it is just outrageous.

In case you have any doubts you can ask the journal to retract it on the basis of what you have been discussing here.

That is not what I said.

I said that the it is a review article and clearly states that on the journal.

Can you explain to me what a review article is please.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you have read it not that you know what you are talking about.

And here we are with the typical "insult the person because they don't agree with me" it didn't take you long did it!

You lose any argument straight away.

What insult? I don't think you have read it though. No insults are here. It has taken me long enough about 13 pages where in the last 3-4 I keep refuting a range of unsubstantiated claims such as the ones above.

not that you know what you are talking about.

Really? You're not trying to be insulting?
You're the typical anti-vaxer, you must all believe what I post with an opinion piece that doesn't have any actual data, then when people question you on it, you become insulting.
I read it and found it lacking any real data.

a reply to: Kurokage

You won't find any as its a review article.

Unless I'm shown how I've got that wrong and no ones done that of yet.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

People can read the article and judge for themselves.

It contains no research and is full of bias, personal anecdotes and subjective opinions.

originally posted by: nonspecific
That is not what I said.

I said that the it is a review article and clearly states that on the journal.

Can you explain to me what a review article is please.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

A review i.e a re-analysis of accumulated existing data and of the scientific literature. Either evidence from randomised trails or real-world data of the Covid vaccines and especially the BionTech/Pfizer vaccine. Given that there is much more evidence now that existed at the start of the vaccination program.

Not to forget that Dr Malhotra is a cardiologist and some of these adverse reactions to these vaccines are: myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, etc.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

People can read the article and judge for themselves.

It contains no research and is full of bias, personal anecdotes and subjective opinions.

I think nobody reads papers here apart from myself. In addition the claim you made repeatedly i.e that he is biased is only your personal opinion which is unsubstantiated.

If you really have some good arguments write to the Journal and argue that they should retract it. You need to give very good reasons and reference real world data as well as the peer reviewed papers from other authors.

Just by stating that he is biased and his work isn't good enough as it doesn't fit your narrative and beliefs, isn't great to be honest.

a reply to: Overseeall

Do historians frame their historical account of events along certain ideologies, beliefs, biases, or restrictions to ensure their publication?

Yes, yes they do. Or, at least if they want to be published by a reputable company that wouldn't shred their reputation be mere association.

Pre-ice age settlement of the US, the holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, pre-dynastic Egypt. You tow the line, or you go to some back street publisher where the guy running the print shop has a swastika tattooed on his forehead, and you kiss your brand goodbye.

I'd never get anything past peer review if I so much as hinted that a staggeringly large percentage of Israel's population made aliyah to escape either poverty or communism, rather than persecution for their faith.

So why have you repeatedly said it was a research paper when its not?

Did you not know or realise or did you purposefully misrepresent what it was?


a reply to: Asmodeus3