German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

These products are experimental and untested. That is not a claim.

Again with the thread drift to try and back up your asinine claims.

These products are experimental and untested. Potentially hazardous and one of the reasons why the nurse acted the way she did.

If you know the medium and long term effects let is know. If not then you are admitting you don't which makes the products what they are: Experimental and untested.

The nature of these products is related strongly to the decisions taken by this nurse.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

These products are experimental and untested. Potentially hazardous and one of the reasons why the nurse acted the way she did.

You've been proven wrong here many times, please post your medical proof that the vaccine is experimental and untested, as there is plenty of data already posted showing this.
Like I've posted before, I've linked to data about the vaccine as many others have, you just refuse to see it because of your denial and cognative bias.

The nature of these products is related strongly to the decisions taken by this nurse.

The Nurse made a decision against her code of conduct and was struck off for it. You can't seem to accept that?

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

These products are experimental and untested. Potentially hazardous and one of the reasons why the nurse acted the way she did.

You've been proven wrong here many times, please post your medical proof that the vaccine is experimental and untested, as there is plenty of data already posted showing this.
Like I've posted before, I've linked to data about the vaccine as many others have, you just refuse to see it because of your denial and cognative bias.

The nature of these products is related strongly to the decisions taken by this nurse.

The Nurse made a decision against her code of conduct and was struck off for it. You can't seem to accept that?

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

The vaccine is experimental and untested.
I am not the one who has to prove the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. There is a requirement for the vaccines to be safe and effective and they need to approved by the FDA to be distributed to the general population. It's a must. They came out with an emergency authorisation. They haven't passed the major checkpoints.

If they are safe and effective then do you know the medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? What about the short term effects?

The answer is no you don't know the above and hence the safety and effectiveness has not been established. It's a scandal.

The nurse knew very well that there are serious issues with this vaccine and issues with its safety and effectiveness.

And so do many other professionals who have spoken against them and they are asked for the products to be removed from the market immediately.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again your assumptions are incorrect.
There's plenty of proof that the vaccine was tested on humans even though you at first claimed it wasn't then flip flopped and claimed it was rushed.

joint committee on vaccination and immunisation UK

Membership
Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (UK Health Security Agency)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (UK Health Security Agency)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)

oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk...
www.research.ox.ac.uk...

Today University of Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers present a pooled analysis of Phase 3 trials of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 across two different dose regimens, resulting in an average efficacy of 70.4%.

Researchers show overall vaccine efficacy of 70.4% from a pooled analysis of two-dose regimen
No hospitalisations or severe disease observed in the vaccinated groups from three weeks after first dose
Efficacy results are based on data taken from 11,636 volunteers across the United Kingdom and Brazil
Data are first Phase 3 trial results of a coronavirus vaccine to be published in peer-review literature

www.thelancet.com...(20)32661-1/fulltext

Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.

So it wasn't tested on humans????
Again you're attempting to cause the thread to drift (your usual tactic.)

The Nurse in this story we both agree on acted incorrectly. She deserverd to be struck off as she was going against her code of practice and against her employers and patients wishes.
Your assumptions on the Judges reasons for not jailing her, are just that, assumptions. We don't know the fine details of the case and how much evidence there was to prove or disprove if she did it more than once as she claims or if she was a first time offender.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again your assumptions are incorrect.
There's plenty of proof that the vaccine was tested on humans even though you at first claimed it wasn't then flip flopped and claimed it was rushed.

joint committee on vaccination and immunisation UK

Membership
Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (UK Health Security Agency)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (UK Health Security Agency)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)

oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk...
www.research.ox.ac.uk...

Today University of Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers present a pooled analysis of Phase 3 trials of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 across two different dose regimens, resulting in an average efficacy of 70.4%.

Researchers show overall vaccine efficacy of 70.4% from a pooled analysis of two-dose regimen
No hospitalisations or severe disease observed in the vaccinated groups from three weeks after first dose
Efficacy results are based on data taken from 11,636 volunteers across the United Kingdom and Brazil
Data are first Phase 3 trial results of a coronavirus vaccine to be published in peer-review literature

www.thelancet.com...(20)32661-1/fulltext

Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.

So it wasn't tested on humans????
Again you're attempting to cause the thread to drift (your usual tactic.)

The Nurse in this story we both agree on acted incorrectly. She deserverd to be struck off as she was going against her code of practice and against her employers and patients wishes.
Your assumptions on the Judges reasons for not jailing her, are just that, assumptions. We don't know the fine details of the case and how much evidence there was to proof or disprove if she did it more than once as she claims or if she was a first time offender.

I am correct. You have misunderstood what testing is just as many others who think testing is.


If you knew what testing is then you wouldn't ask me whether these products were tested or not.
And there is no need to use lengthy paragraphs from some links as they don't prove anything in relation to testing.

Testing is a lengthy process and not just injecting humans and waiting to see if they have an injury response. Given that there was no time for such a lengthy process the Phase3 clinical trial never happened and the products are untested.

If there was testing we would have known if it prevented transmission and infection, the short, medium and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio in all ages groups before these products released on the market. Hence no testing.

The nurse apparently has had some information about all the matters discussed above as well as some knowledge of the short term effects such as myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure,etc.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you knew what testing is then you wouldn't ask me whether these products were tested or not.
And there is no need to use lengthy paragraphs from some links as they don't prove anything in relation to testing.

Testing is a lengthy process and not just injecting humans and waiting to see if they have an injury response. Given that there was no time for such a lengthy process the Phase3 clinical trial never happened and the products are untested.

As you can see from the data I posted that you obviously haven't read that it had been tested. Are you flip flopping again to say it hasn't been test or it was rushed?
Again, just your assumptions, denial, misunderstanding and attempts at thread drifting...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you knew what testing is then you wouldn't ask me whether these products were tested or not.
And there is no need to use lengthy paragraphs from some links as they don't prove anything in relation to testing.

Testing is a lengthy process and not just injecting humans and waiting to see if they have an injury response. Given that there was no time for such a lengthy process the Phase3 clinical trial never happened and the products are untested.

As you can see from the data I posted that you obviously haven't read that it had been tested. Are you flip flopping again to say it hasn't been test or it was rushed?
Again, just your assumptions, denial, misunderstanding and attempts at thread drifting...

That's not testing.
Testing is a lengthy process as I said above that has plenty of requirements as described numerous times. The flip flopping argument is just a strawman you use as you don't understand what testing is given that you have admitted you don't have a background in science or medicine (which also shows in what you are saying)

The nurse knew about this fact and so do many other professionals who are against the use of these products. She also knew about the possible short term effects such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and heart failure or blood clots.

There is no point in arguing the same as you will get the same answers.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

That's not testing.
Testing is a lengthy process as I said above that has plenty of requirements as described numerous times. The flip flopping argument is just a strawman you use as you don't understand what testing is given that you have admitted you don't have a background in science or medicine

You 100% wrong here on all accounts.
Testing is evidenced by the paper supplied, also you moving the goal posts and flip flopping to suit your arguement isn't a strawman, also I have admitted to no such thing and as you've refused to speak about your qualifications when asking others for theirs, I'd say thats proof of your lack of a background in any medical profession. Again you're trying to infer incorrect assumptions onto your arguement.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That's not testing.
Testing is a lengthy process as I said above that has plenty of requirements as described numerous times. The flip flopping argument is just a strawman you use as you don't understand what testing is given that you have admitted you don't have a background in science or medicine

You 100% wrong here on all accounts.
Testing is evidenced by the paper supplied, also you moving the goal posts and flip flopping to suit your arguement isn't a strawman, also I have admitted to no such thing and as you've refused to speak about your qualifications when asking others for theirs, I'd say thats proof of your lack of a background in any medical profession. Again you're trying to infer incorrect assumptions onto your arguement.

Testing is a lengthy process and not just injecting humans and waiting to see if they have an injury response. Given that there was no time for such a lengthy process the Phase3 clinical trial never happened and the products are untested, unsafe and potentially hazardous.

If there was testing we would have known if it prevented transmission and infection, the short, medium and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio in all ages groups before these products released on the market. Hence no testing happend and the Phase3 clinical trial never happened.

The nurse and as it seems many other professionals were aware about the above as well as the short term effects which could be really unpleasant and very serious. So she acted the way she acted.

The person who is wrong is you for once more.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The trial and testing results have been posted by all involved and are easy to find if you took the time to look without your cognative bias.
You've flip-flopped from not tested to rushed testing, trying to move the goal posts because you knew you were wrong.

You do seem to get very upset.
The Nurse was stuck off and given a suspended sentence because of her actions, if "many other professionals" were aware, don't you think they would have shown there support for her case and been at the court???

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The trial and testing results have been posted by all involved and are easy to find if you took the time to look without your cognative bias.
You've flip-flopped from not tested to rushed testing, trying to move the goal posts because you knew you were wrong.

You do seem to get very upset.
The Nurse was stuck off and given a suspended sentence because of her actions, if "many other professionals" were aware, don't you think they would have shown there support for her case and been at the court???

Testing is a lengthy process that has plenty of requirements as described above. The flip flopping argument is just a strawman you use as you don't understand what testing is given that you have admitted you are not relevant in any scientific and medical field.

The nurse knew about the lack of testing and so do many other professionals who are against the use of these products. They were also aware of the very unpleasant side effects which could be serious and range from myocarditis and pericarditis to strokes and heart attacks and several other.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Testing is a lengthy process that has plenty of requirements as described above. The flip flopping argument is just a strawman you use as you don't understand what testing is given that you have admitted you are not relevant in any scientific and medical field.

You just keep repeating yourself because you are driven by your bias here.
Which is it? No testing on humans or rushed testing?
Your understanding of what a strawman arguement is incorrect and is wrongfuly being used here?!?!
Again, you show your anger and incorrect assumptions, I've stated no such thing about my experience to you. Perhaps thats you reflecting your inexperince here???

Please post the evidence you have of what the Nurse said during her case or are you just assuming that??

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Testing is a lengthy process that has plenty of requirements as described above. The flip flopping argument is just a strawman you use as you don't understand what testing is given that you have admitted you are not relevant in any scientific and medical field.

You just keep repeating yourself because you are driven by your bias here.
Which is it? No testing on humans or rushed testing?
Your understanding of what a strawman arguement is incorrect and is wrongfuly being used here?!?!
Again, you show your anger and incorrect assumptions, I've stated no such thing about my experience to you. Perhaps thats you reflecting your inexperince here???

Please post the evidence you have of what the Nurse said during her case or are you just assuming that??

Indeed! No testing in humans. If you knew what testing is then you wouldn't ask me or ask rhetorical questions.

I see that it bothers you as you have emotionally invested in them just as many left-wing individuals who want something to believe in.

The nurse knew about the lack of testing and so do many other professionals who were against the use of these products. They were also aware of the very unpleasant side effects which could be serious damage and death.

I think you are wasting your time trying to convince the audience on this site.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Indeed! No testing in humans. If you knew what testing is then you wouldn't ask me or ask rhetorical questions.

Are you now flip flopping again? Because before you said the testing was rushed???

I see that it bothers you as you have emotionally invested in them just as many left-wing individuals who want something to believe in.

Please post where I've stated I'm left-wing, because I assure you, you won't find such a thing?? I see a typical response from someone failing in their arguement and trying to make up all kinds of claims to afirm their cogative bias. Such ashame.

The nurse knew about the lack of testing and so do many other professionals who were against the use of these products. They were also aware of the very unpleasant side effects which could be serious damage and death.

Did the Nurse know? I don't see the evidence you posted backing up your claims?? I think you forgot to post her coversations from the court??

I think you are wasting your time trying to convince the audience on this site.

Thats your incorrect assumption as usual, but there's nothing new there...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Indeed! No testing in humans. If you knew what testing is then you wouldn't ask me or ask rhetorical questions.

Are you now flip flopping again? Because before you said the testing was rushed???

I see that it bothers you as you have emotionally invested in them just as many left-wing individuals who want something to believe in.

Please post where I've stated I'm left-wing, because I assure you, you won't find such a thing?? I see a typical response from someone failing in their arguement and trying to make up all kinds of claims to afirm their cogative bias. Such ashame.

The nurse knew about the lack of testing and so do many other professionals who were against the use of these products. They were also aware of the very unpleasant side effects which could be serious damage and death.

Did the Nurse know? I don't see the evidence you posted backing up your claims?? I think you forgot to post her coversations from the court??

I think you are wasting your time trying to convince the audience on this site.

Thats your incorrect assumption as usual, but there's nothing new there...

Testing never happened.
That's why they didn't know about myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths etc. If there testing then we would have known these short term effects.

The nurse knew about the lack of testing and so do many other professionals who are against the use of these products as they knew what was going on. They were also aware of the very unpleasant side effects which could be serious and range from myocarditis and pericarditis to heart attacks, strokes, and even sudden death.

All those left-wing and left-leaning ideologists in the absence of personal knowledge and experience try to believe in a fee things. They invest emotionally in vaccines and other causes. Then when the house of cards falls they are left with nothing.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Testing never happened.
That's why they didn't know about myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths etc. If there testing then we would have known these short term effects.

The nurse knew about the lack of testing and so do many other professionals who are against the use of these products as they knew what was going on. They were also aware of the very unpleasant side effects which could be serious and range from myocarditis and pericarditis to heart attacks, strokes, and even sudden death.

There's ton's of evidence out there showing testing happened, You just choose to ingone it and live in denial because of your bias.

Again please post this evidence you have of the Nurse knowing about this "lack" of testing or are you making assumptions to support your denial here?
There are lots of medical professionals who support the opposite of what you're saying here and know that all medications and vaccines cause a small number of people to suffer adverse reations, which is what we're seeing here.

All those left-wing and left-leaning ideologists in the absence of personal knowledge and experience try to believe in a fee things. They invest emotionally in vaccines and other causes. Then when the house of cards falls they are left with nothing.

You really do like to label people to support your cognative bias and personal agenda don't you?
You really are upset and seem to be the one who's emotionally invested here, trying to defend this Nurses actions and views, even though she was sacked, struck off and given a suspended sentence for her actions...

a reply to: Kurokage

If you claim and support the idea they testing has happened then you should tell the audience what are the medium and long term effects.

I am sure you will find a list with the less serious and more serious adverse reactions.

Also what is the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups?

The nurse and other professionals didn't seem to know these effects but only some of the short term effects such as myocarditis, stroke, and heart attacks.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here you go...
www.thelancet.com...(20)32661-1/fulltext

This interim analysis of the efficacy and safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across three countries: COV001 (phase 1/2; UK), COV002 (phase 2/3; UK), COV003 (phase 3; Brazil), and COV005 (phase 1/2; South Africa). The interim efficacy is being assessed by a prespecified global pooled analysis combining data from COV002 and COV003. The safety of the vaccine is being assessed using data from all four studies (appendix 1 pp 3–4). Three of the studies are single blind and one is double blind (COV005). Primary efficacy was assessed in participants who received two doses of the vaccine. All four studies included participants who received two doses, with a booster dose incorporated into the three trials6 that were initially designed to assess a single-dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 compared with control (COV001, COV002, and COV003) after review of the antibody response data from COV001.
Despite minor differences across the studies, there is sufficient consistency to justify the proposal for pooled analysis of data, which will provide greater precision for both efficacy and safety outcomes than can be achieved in individual studies and provides a broader understanding of the use of the vaccine in different populations. Once the studies were underway, a statistical analysis plan for the global pooled analysis of these studies was developed before data lock on Nov 4, 2020, and analysis, and was finalised with extensive feedback from national and international regulators (including the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [UK] and the European Medicines Agency [EU]), including justification for including groups receiving different vaccine doses in the analysis (see statistical analysis plan for further details; appendix 2 pp 2–73). All participants in the four trials provided written informed consent.

All participants were given an emergency 24-h telephone number to contact the on-call study physician for the duration of the study to report any illnesses. Serious adverse events were recorded throughout the study and reviewed at each study visit, with causality assigned by the site investigator. Events were clinically coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.

Flip flop all you like

a reply to: Kurokage


Still the same question: if there was testing what are the medium and long term effects?

The links you provided say nothing about the medium and long term effects?

I think the nurse was aware of this situation and decided to act this way.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So you never read the link then?

Long term is the same with any new vaccine, it wil be contined to be updated as time passes, but that doesn't conform to you cognative bias does it and is a poor attempt at trying to steer the thread away from your flip flopping and defence of the Nurse and causes of her actions..