Jump to content

Tim Newton Today - Controversial Thai vaccine study, PM Prayut one week to go?


george
 Share

Recommended Posts

Who would trust this vax survey unless replicated by foreign bodies? not me. Tims new channel is worth watching more than the dreadful Thaiger!

Edited by proton
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The preprint website itself states this should not be regarded as conclusive clinical guidance or be reported in news media as established fact.

 

That said its worth noting for now, to see what the peer reviews say and any amendments made to it before its published if its ever published that is.

 

My personal view on covid vaccines for young people is that it should be down to the parents to decide in light of the vast changes in severity from the variant evolution to the Omicron strains. In Denmark where they have stopped it for under 18's there is still the provision for vaccinating those under 18 who are at high risk or whose parents ask for it. Probably the way to go.

 

Regards this paper however, its important to note the clear disclaimer at the top of the Covid papers section: Anyone ignoring this is being reckless imo

image.png.0c6288f8458e97627151ddc69e9a309f.png

 

The paper has currently had zero official comments by readers on the site and the current average of preprints that are actually then published in peer reviewed journals is just 10% 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This 226 per 100,000 number is not the "chance of having myocarditis after getting covid". It is a conditional probability - it's the chance if hospitalized.
The (bad*) estimate for the actual number is 4 paragraphs above the image at 40 per million, also known as 4 per 100,000.

If, like me, you're wondering why they didn't just put this in the chart since its at the core of the main claim (covid-19 is more dangerous for you heart than mRNA vaccines), you're welcome to speculate.

*The 4 per 100,000 is a 'bad' estimate because it's only for "people who test positive for COVID-19".

spacer.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually gets worse. If you scroll down to footnote 10, which links to Jason P Block's data, you arrive here:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7114e1.htm?s_cid=mm7114e1_w

 

Under the 'Discussion' section:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations....SARS-CoV-2 infections were not captured if testing occurred in homes, schools, community sites, or pharmacies."

Oh.

That would be a very big number. On top of another big number for those with Covid-19 but didn't test for whatever reason. Whats 40 divided by [a million plus two very large numbers]. Is it still 4 per 100,000?

What a darn minute. Could it be that if you actually properly counted those who got whatever strain of Covid that the 4 per 100,000 figure may actual drop towards or even below (?!) the (supposed) 2 per 100,000 figure for the vaccine-induced heart conditions. The real-time cohort study from Thailand suggests the true figure is MANY MAGNITUDES HIGHER - when you actually bother to constantly monitor kids with proper equipment after their vaccinations.

It really blows the mind how widely trusted respected authorities such as the NIH feels its completely okay with the quality of the Q&A article above. Shameless editorializing with no sign of disclaimers about the underlying data. They should know better.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Thailand study referred to in the OP:
 

Abstract

Cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis.


 

3.2. Cardiovascular findings

Cardiovascular adverse events observed during the study were tachy-cardia (7.64%), shortness of breath (6.64%), palpitation (4.32%), chest pain(4.32%), and hypertension (3.99%).

Fifty-four patients had abnormal electro-cardiograms (predominantly sinus tachycardia or sinus arrhythmia) after vaccination.


https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bkk Brian

Do you routinely counsel such abundance of caution when data comes out in support of vaccine effectiveness or safety? Please correct me if you have done and I missed it.

Second, would it be off-topic for me to give dozens of examples of the US CDC citing not-yet peer-reviewed pre-prints in their communications?

And finally, what on earth is the relevance of this?

"The paper has currently had zero official comments by readers on the site and the current average of preprints that are actually then published in peer reviewed journals is just 10% "

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Scott, with the utmost respect, and recognition for your typically balanced, fact-based, non-partisan Covid-19 posts across a long span of time....

1. Can you not see the pathetic editorializing in this Q&A article from nih.gov - there's tons of it in both the text and the graphic. It's quite blatant.

2. When a very rare real-time cohort study of vaccine side-effects purportedly shows risk to the heart is many, many magnitudes bigger than prior studies using aggregate data, I would hope the more informed posters on here will do more than imply "but the US NIH concluded otherwise over a month ago."

The results of this "controversial" (says who?!) study should be so alarming that I actually hope they find some serious fraud going on. Would be miles better than the alternative truth.
 

Until this is carefully peer-reviewed, I will remain skeptical.  The interaction between the vaccine (and Covid-19) has been covered in numerous studies.  It was reported quite a while ago.  

 

Thailand had reduced the dosage to 1/2 for teen boys, as I recall.  There is a lot of data missing.  What dosage was given, is one example.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

Until this is carefully peer-reviewed, I will remain skeptical.  The interaction between the vaccine (and Covid-19) has been covered in numerous studies.  It was reported quite a while ago.  

 

Thailand had reduced the dosage to 1/2 for teen boys, as I recall.  There is a lot of data missing.  What dosage was given, is one example.  

There is a very good reason for why this data is "out-of-sync" with prior studies. Tim Newton even mentioned it in the Youtube clip.

Prior studies are based on retrospective aggregated data. While there's plenty of it, there's massive challenges related to the data itself and statistical inference procedures.

The NIH Q&A link can hide behind language like "the most intensive safety monitory in US history" (link below) but anyone clued in will immediately recognize that trying your best to do a statistical analysis on historical after-the-fact, incomplete, often voluntary, data is miles apart from what the Thailand team bothered to do - apparently with all the latest medical equipment.

This Thai study doesn't require kids to feel sick enough to see a doctor, or even sick enough to notice something is wrong with their heart. They tracked them stringently straight after vaccination.
 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/reporting-systems.html

Edited by Atlantis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me where is Moderna and Pfizer in all of this?

- Why did it take until mid-2022 for a team of Thai doctors to carry out a real world cohort study on cardiovascular effects?

I thought Big Pharma are legally required by the FDA to carry out fund such follow-up studies once vaccines were broadly rolled out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

I thought Big Pharma are legally required by the FDA to carry out fund such follow-up studies once vaccines were broadly rolled out.

oh boy ........  funded my Big Pharma !    i am sure those would be honest and unbiased !

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, proton said:

Who would trust this vax survey unless replicated by foreign bodies? not me. Tims new channel is worth watching more than the dreadful Thaiger!

Yeah, I agree with you. The only reason I’m still subscribed to the Thaiger is to get Jett’s news. Otherwise I’m done with them as well. #TNT4me

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, proton said:

Who would trust this vax survey unless replicated by foreign bodies? not me.

Agreed. Why on earth trust a vaccine study from a place that never made the vaccine and bought it in, you would seriously have to question their capacity in the field

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Atlantis said:

@Bkk Brian

Do you routinely counsel such abundance of caution when data comes out in support of vaccine effectiveness or safety? Please correct me if you have done and I missed it.

Second, would it be off-topic for me to give dozens of examples of the US CDC citing not-yet peer-reviewed pre-prints in their communications?

Only  small ones where the author themselves state in the report:

 

"Although cardiovascular events have been reported with the COVID-19 vaccine, causality has yet to be established, because such cardiovascular adverse events are also common among the general public who do not receive the intervention [13]."

 

Yes pre-prints have a purpose, they are given a unique DOI number so they can be cited by anyone including CDC, with the normal caveats, your point being? If a pre-print was published on one of the Thailand based vaccines they have in development I would exercise the exact some caution until peer reviewed by professionals.

5 hours ago, Atlantis said:

And finally, what on earth is the relevance of this?

"The paper has currently had zero official comments by readers on the site and the current average of preprints that are actually then published in peer reviewed journals is just 10% "

There are now comments, things move on. However my note on just 10% of pre-prints actually gets published remains very relevant.

 

The study's introduction acknowledges the need for controlled studies in order to say anything conclusive about causality and yet the authors made no attempt to conduct a controlled study.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Agreed. Why on earth trust a vaccine study from a place that never made the vaccine and bought it in, you would seriously have to question their capacity in the field

I am waiting of one from Wuhan, they should know what they are doing there!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised this made it to the stage of preprint, the sort of study you would expect to see on a Facebook post it’s so limited. The very least they could have done with such as small sample group is to have an equal number tested in the same way that had not been vaccinated.

 

Good for YouTube clicks and ad revenue but I  doubt this will ever be touched by peers and published for that reason alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Scott, with the utmost respect, and recognition for your typically balanced, fact-based, non-partisan Covid-19 posts across a long span of time....

1. Can you not see the pathetic editorializing in this Q&A article from nih.gov - there's tons of it in both the text and the graphic. It's quite blatant.

2. When a very rare real-time cohort study of vaccine side-effects purportedly shows risk to the heart is many, many magnitudes bigger than prior studies using aggregate data, I would hope the more informed posters on here will do more than imply "but the US NIH concluded otherwise over a month ago."

The results of this "controversial" (says who?!) study should be so alarming that I actually hope they find some serious fraud going on. Would be miles better than the alternative truth.
 

So seems that comments, in this new news 'program', are not to be taken as anywhere near conclusive. Just what we don't need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, connda said:

Be safe.  Get your boosters!

For Chiang Mai members; my understanding is that free boosters (Moderna) are available for Thai and foreigners at Airport Plaza on Saturdays and Sundays.

 

Can someone please confirm whether this is correct.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karma80 said:

The Thaiger has descended into a pure multi channel marketing garbage machine and I don't follow it much anymore. I agree, Jett is the only person I can abide watching. I'm happy to subscribe to Tim's new channel, which is I find more personal and honest as someone else living in Phuket.

Gone down hill since Tim left and you can see why he did, they have the begging bowl out every time you click on something. The owner with the $100 mil business must have a few bills to pay.😁 Much nicer atmosphere on here.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If one person says something or produces a report and a thousand repeat it, it doesn't make it fact.

 

The findings do, however, raise some interesting questions, which I hope will be further investigated in a deeper review of the methodology used for this trial and possibly some additional research. 

 

 

Edited by onthedarkside
quote and response to hidden post removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...