Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[mentalgongfu2]

Thanks Dr. Evil for providing relevant context.

It's a shame that so many individuals and organizations who claim to be fighting misinformation about Covid... constantly lie by omission and misleading framing. Kinda makes it hard to trust them. But I guess that's just me.

[mentalgongfu2]

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57928647

"A mysterious marketing agency secretly offered to pay social media stars to spread disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines," reports the BBC.

"Their plan failed when the influencers went public about the attempt to recruit them."
An influencer marketing agency called Fazze offered to pay [Mirko Drotschmann, a German YouTuber and journalist] to promote what it said was leaked information that suggested the death rate among people who had the Pfizer vaccine was almost three times that of the AstraZeneca jab. The information provided wasn't true. It quickly became apparent to Mirko that he was being asked to spread disinformation to undermine public confidence in vaccines in the middle of a pandemic. "I was shocked," says Mirko "then I was curious, what's behind all that?" In France, science YouTuber Léo Grasset received a similar offer. The agency offered him 2000 euros if he would take part.

Fazze said it was acting for a client who wished to remain anonymous...

Both Léo and Mirko were appalled by the false claims. They pretended to be interested in order to try to find out more and were provided with detailed instructions about what they should say in their videos. In stilted English, the brief instructed them to "Act like you have the passion and interest in this topic." It told them not to mention the video had a sponsor — and instead pretend they were spontaneously giving advice out of concern for their viewers... Since Léo and Mirko blew the whistle at least four other influencers in France and Germany have gone public to reveal they also rejected Fazze's attempts to recruit them.

But German journalist, Daniel Laufer, has identified two influencers who may have taken up the offer.

But who's behind the mysterious influencer marketing agency?
Fazze is a part of AdNow, which is a digital marketing company, registered in both Russia and the UK. The BBC has made multiple attempts to contact AdNow by phone, email and even a letter couriered to their Moscow headquarters, but they have not responded. Eventually we managed to contact Ewan Tolladay, one of two directors of the British arm of AdNow - who lives in Durham. Mr. Tolladay said he had very little to do with Fazze — which he said was a joint venture between his fellow director — a Russian man called Stanislav Fesenko — and another person whose identity he didn't know... Both the French and German authorities have launched investigations into Fazze's approaches to influencers. But the identity of the agency's mystery client remains unclear.

There has been speculation about the Russian connections to this scandal and the interests of the Russian state in promoting its own vaccine — Sputnik V.

French YouTuber Léo Grasset believes we'll see more attempts to manipulate public opinion, especially young people — apparently because it's incredibly easy.

"Just spend the same money on TikTok creators, YouTube creators," they tell the BBC. "The whole ecosystem is perfectly built for maximum efficiency of disinformation right now."

[DrEvil]

Thanks Dr. Evil for providing relevant context.

It's a shame that so many individuals and organizations who claim to be fighting misinformation about Covid... constantly lie by omission and misleading framing. Kinda makes it hard to trust them. But I guess that's just me.

You're not the only one. Just seeing "childrenshealthdefense" in that screengrab made me go check it out because I already knew they were probably being dishonest in some way, which is both depressing and supremely ironic, coming from self-proclaimed champions of truth. All they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot.

[Harvey]

Christ. You're taking your gruel from the BBC now?

[mentalgongfu2]

Christ. You're taking your gruel from the BBC now?

I knew this exact type of comment was coming. How predictable and irrelevant. No wonder we as a species are double-plus-ungood fucked.
Are you so dumb you think everything reported by the BBC is made up?
Are you taking your gruel from "childrenshealthdefense?"

You can find the same story at loads of other sites, all more legitimate than many cited on the other hundreds of pages on this thread. Perhaps you should consider whether the reported facts are accurate rather than whether you have a hard-on for hating the MSM.

Just because the only source isn't a misleading headline from a weird blog by a source whose agenda is less nuanced and just as or more corrupted doesn't make it auto-false, FFS. (BBC: Reports Earth is a sphere; Harvey: becomes flat-earther. BBC: Reports Olympic Games have started; Harvey: nu-uh!)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/25/influencers-say-russia-linked-pr-agency-asked-them-to-disparage-pfizer-vaccine

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/business/pfizer-vaccine-disinformation-influeners.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-pfizer-covid-disinformation-serebryanskaya-murky-vaccine-influencers/31277170.html

https://thehill.com/policy/international/555446-france-probing-whether-russia-involved-in-campaign-against-pfizer

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2021/05/31/act-like-you-have-the-passion

[Harvey]

I expected such a response to my reply. And your next two after that. Don't bother.

[mentalgongfu2]

I expected such a response to my reply

As well you should. Garbage in, garbage out. When your comment is just a mindless insult, you really shouldn't expect more, though I had hoped a long-time poster like you might have more substantial inputs than "BBC=bad."

If you read the thing, it's not even an anti anti-vax story... but alas, even on RI I guess the battle lines are drawn and because I disagree with some things someone believes, I am now the enemy, as exhibited by other recent posts.

[Harvey]

You compound irrelevance with false accusation, splendid. Carry on then.

[Grizzly]

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/full-version-dr-vernon-coleman-live-speech-london-world-wide-rally-for-freedom_NvdDbvEIyk5sGRc.html
FULL VERSION - DR VERNON COLEMAN LIVE SPEECH @ LONDON WORLD WIDE RALLY FOR FREEDOM


Bonus..

https://deadline.com/2021/07/anthony-fauci-cnn-state-of-the-union-jake-tapper-wuhan-lab-research-funding-1234799663/
Dr. Anthony Fauci Tells CNN Funding China’s Wuhan Lab Research Was Necessary

wot roh...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dr-anthony-fauci-tells-cnn-173641890.html

wtf is this under entertainment??

Foo Pfizer's! eh?

[alwyn]

Couldn't get further than the alphabetic index of medicines. After that: file not found.

Jack, I was able to peruse the site, and the links worked for me....dunno why, but i did click through to the indivdual vaccines

Still having the same outcome as Harvey. This may be due to different browsers?

In any case, Alwyn, you say when you access these reports, you don't see death numbers at all? But the other numbers are in line? Perhaps it can be deciphered yet... Or maybe you could even upload the files here?

.

apparently this site is the European equivalent of VAERS in the US.

A European friend sent me this.

"Carlos Sancho
Alwyn L'hoir, it is not easy to reach. In https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html you have to go to each covid vaccine, go the last tab ("line listing") download the dataset (export to excel), open it and sort by the Yes or No death column, to be able to count how much deaths has been reported.
Vaers is the same system of vigilance of vaccines, but in US. There is an easier interface to the data, called Openvaers.com, where you will see the US reports, that are quite similar to the EU ones."

the person who texted me is of good repute.

[stickdog99]

I expected such a response to my reply

As well you should. Garbage in, garbage out. When your comment is just a mindless insult, you really shouldn't expect more, though I had hoped a long-time poster like you might have more substantial inputs than "BBC=bad."

If you read the thing, it's not even an anti anti-vax story... but alas, even on RI I guess the battle lines are drawn and because I disagree with some things someone believes, I am now the enemy, as exhibited by other recent posts.

I read it. From the face of the story, it appears that one corporation was trying to influence public sentiment against a rival corporation using astroturf influencers.

[stickdog99]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dr-anthony-fauci-tells-cnn-173641890.html

wtf is this under entertainment??

Fauci: "I Didn't Do It, and In Any Case, It Would Have Been Totally Irresponsible For Me Not To Have Done It!"

[Belligerent Savant]

...alas, even on RI I guess the battle lines are drawn and because I disagree with some things someone believes, I am now the enemy, as exhibited by other recent posts.

That's a misframing. I can only speak for myself, though I imagine others here would agree, that the commentary you may be referencing did not categorize you (or broadly, those that subscribe to the standard narratives on covid) as an "enemy", but -- at least in my phrasing -- as complicit, wittingly or not, in the continued affronts to our lives, livelihoods, and whatever civil liberties/rights we may have had prior to 2020.

So long as the majority continue to subscribe -- largely without scrutiny -- to the dominant storylines, the majority (including those in opposition, rightly, to these storylines) will suffer.*

*more are questioning the narratives, however. With time, others will begin to question. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Those currently responsible for the damage done can only succeed so long as the many remain in a trance or refuse to assess the data soberly, without fear or pretense.

That's not to say anyone here has it all figured out. To the contrary, we're all here attempting to make sense of it all. But it starts with acknowledging that egregious lies are being told. And if we continue to passively accept these lies, things will get worse, markedly.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Anyone that submitted to the Moderna or Pfizer shots should have been provided the following info as part of informed consent (or otherwise they should have took it upon themselves to have looked it up), but in the -- probable -- event this didn't happen:

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.or ... -vaccines/

Here's the info for Moderna, as an example:

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine:
Short-Term Efficacy & Safety Data


1. WHAT IS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE?

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) is made from synthetic genetic material that is immersed in fatty substances, including cholesterol and polyethylene glycol (PEG). More specifically, modified RNA molecules that encode for a mutated spike (S) protein antigen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that can cause COVID-19, are immersed in lipid nanoparticles. The drug is administered in two intramuscular 100 mcg doses, 28 days apart.1

2. HOW WAS THE VACCINE STUDIED PRIOR TO OBTAINING EUA?

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine obtained emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Dec. 18, 2020, and is currently investigational.2 The vaccine was studied through nonclinical data from rats, mice, hamsters, and nonhuman primates, and clinical data from humans.3 The EUA was based on a human clinical trial comparing approximately 15,000 subjects who received the vaccine with 15,000 subjects who did not receive the vaccine (Table 1).1 The trial included a median observation period of nine weeks; 53.6% of subjects were followed up for about two months after the second dose.1 The FDA states that due to the length of the clinical trial’s observation period, “it is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2 months.”1

3. DOES THE VACCINE PREVENT HOSPITALIZATIONS AND DEATHS?

Since only 10 hospitalized cases and one death of COVID-19 were observed, the clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to accurately measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent hospitalizations or deaths from COVID-19.1,4 The vaccine may be only 13% effective against hospitalized COVID-19 cases. See Table 1. The FDA states, “A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”1

4. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE VACCINE IN ADULTS AND THE ELDERLY?

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated by observing the vaccine status of 196 COVID-19 cases, where a COVID-19 case was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 test together with the presence of at least either one COVID-19 respiratory symptom or two non-respiratory symptoms, at least 14 days after the second dose. In subjects 18 to 64 years old, the vaccine was 91%–98% effective over a two-month observation period.8 However, since there were only 33 COVID-19 cases observed in subjects 65 years or older, the clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to accurately measure the vaccine’s effectiveness in that age group. The vaccine may be only 61% effective in subjects 65 years or older and 0% effective in subjects 75 years or older.5 See Table 1. Subjects 65 years or older comprise about 80% of all COVID-19 deaths, and subjects 75 years or older comprise about 60% of all COVID-19 deaths.6



5. IS THE VACCINE EFFECTIVE IN CHILDREN?

Safety and efficacy data was not collected for children younger than 18 years old.1 See Table 1.



6. IS THE VACCINE EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING INFECTION WITH SARS-COV-2 OR THE SPREAD OF COVID-19?

The Moderna clinical trial was not designed to observe asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 or the effect of the vaccine on the spread (transmission) of COVID-19. Consequently, the FDA states that “it is possible that asymptomatic infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections” and “data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.” Furthermore, “additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.”1 Approximately 40% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic.7

To try to address the limitations above, Moderna performed an analysis of a few cases that tested positive but reported no symptoms. However, the analysis still lacked statistical power to produce an accurate measurement, and the vaccine may be only 20% effective in preventing asymptomatic cases.4



7. WHAT IS THE RISK OF A SEVERE SIDE EFFECT FROM THE VACCINE?

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial found the overall incidence of severe adverse events during the two-month observation period to be 2% or 1 in 50 in vaccinated subjects between 18 and 64 years old and 1.2% in the unvaccinated group, resulting in a vaccine risk of 0.8% or 1 in 125 vaccinated subjects. The incidence of severe adverse events was 1.7% or 1 in 59 in vaccinated subjects 65 years or older and 0.8% in the unvaccinated group, resulting in a vaccine risk of 0.9% or 1 in 111 vaccinated subjects.1 Consequently, subjects who received the vaccine had nearly double the risk of a severe adverse event occurring in the two-month observation period compared to subjects who did not receive the vaccine. See Table 1. A severe adverse event was one that persisted for longer than a week and either prevented the ability to perform daily activities and required medical intervention, or required hospitalization.1,8

Additionally, as there were only 7,500 subjects 18 to 53 years of age who received the vaccine,1 and since as of March 23, 2021, about 1 in 13,000 people 18 to 39 years of age contracted a fatal case of COVID-19 in the U.S.,6 the clinical trial does not have sufficient data to determine safety in subjects who are 18 to 39 years of age. Per the FDA, “There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 18 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals.”1 And, because all subjects were observed for only two months, the long-term safety of the vaccine for any age group is not known. The FDA states, “Long-term safety and long-term effectiveness are areas the Sponsor [Moderna] identified as missing information.”1



8. IS THE COVID-19 VACCINE EFFECTIVE AND SAFER THAN COVID-19?

The extent to which the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is effective and safer than COVID-19 is not known. The clinical trial indicates that in subjects 65 years or older, the vaccine may be only 61% effective, and in subjects 75 years or older, the age group that comprises about 60% of all COVID-19 deaths, the vaccine may be 0% effective. The clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and the trial had limited data to assess whether the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infection or spread (transmission) of the virus.

Severe adverse events in the vaccine group occurred in 1 in 50 subjects between 18 and 64 years old and in 1 in 59 subjects 65 years or older in the Moderna clinical trial. Those subjects were unable to perform normal daily activities for more than seven days and required medical attention. Furthermore, for people 18 to 39 years of age, the clinical trial did not include enough subjects to be able to show that the vaccine is safer than the disease, and because the clinical trial observation period lasted only two months, the incidence of long-term side effects from the vaccine for any age group is not known.


REFERENCES

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing document: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: December 17, 2020: 5, 13, 17, 21, 24, 29, 30, 36-38, 46-49. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download.
Hinton, Denise M. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). Letter to: Carlota Vinals (ModernaTX, Inc.). 2021 Feb 25. https://www.fda.gov/media/144636/download.
ModernaTX, Inc. MRNA-1273 sponsor briefing document: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; meeting date: 17 December 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144452/download.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE): Moderna COVID-19 vaccine; [cited 2021 Mar 24]. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/ ... ccine.html.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing document: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: December 17, 2020. Table 17: final scheduled efficacy analysis, primary endpoint, COVID-19 starting 14 days after the second dose per adjudication committee assessments, per-protocol set; 29. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Weekly updates by select demographic and geographic characteristics: provisional death counts for coronavirus disease (COVID-19); [cited 2021 Mar 23]. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... #AgeAndSex.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. COVID-19 pandemic planning scenarios; [updated 2020 Sep 10; cited 2021 Jan 13]. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html.
ModernaTX, Inc. A phase 3, randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in adults aged 18 years and older; protocol mRNA-1273-P301, amendment 6. 2020 Dec 23. https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default ... ec2020.pdf

[Harvey]

New York will require city workers to be vaccinated or tested weekly by mid-September: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/26/nyre ... rkers.html