Carlton player Liam Jones refusing vax - Update: Jones retires from AFL

[Ice-Wolf]

Anyway stripping the ridiculous semantics from the conversation the fact is the vaccines do not modify your dna, they produce an immune response to stimulate antibody creation.

Liam Jones is proof you don’t have to be anything more than a dribbling Neanderthal to play football.

Come on mate no need to disparage Neanderthals by comparing them to professional footballers.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

We should be doing what Austria have done. Good on them the best way to do it. Be interesting to see how it goes there

We effectively are at 90% 12+ DD.

Enjoy the last few days before you're locked out of things Antivaxxers, better get that last minute shopping in before it's too late

 

[BlueE]

I see you're back BlueE! Couple of things: Can you point me to which of our current vaccines stop infection?
Also: Still waiting for you to show me where Merck gave their formula away or that Indian trials on the drug halted for "safety reasons" and not the reason I found above.

I'm starting to think that you haven't just missed my posts but actually can't provide any proof of these questions. Would that mean that you're prone to telling mistruths?

Are you talking about real vaccines that stop infection like smallpox, rather than the COIVD vaccines that don't? The definition of a vaccine has changed three times since 2015, from preventing infection pre 2015, to providing immunity 2015-2021 to protecting from infection in 2021. I'm old enough to remember pre 2015 when a vaccine stopped infection and is the way herd immunity is achieved without the recovered, being a significant factor.

Accept your point that Merck did not give their Molnupiravir formula away but entered into agreements to produce at a low price, which was a lazy use of words by me. But that's where the problems for Merck have arisen, with two companies in India applying to terminate their trials of the drug in their testing.

Reuters reports "Two Indian drugmakers have requested permission to end late-stage trials of their generic versions of Merck & Co’s promising experimental oral antiviral drug molnupiravir to treat moderate COVID-19, a week after Merck said its own trial had succeeded for mild-to-moderate patients."

"Merck earlier this year suspended its own development of molnupiravir as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients”

It’s accepted that research projects may be terminated for reasons including unacceptable side effects, the drug being shown not to be effective, or it works and does not need any further investigation.

It's either not effective or has serious side effects for moderate and hospitalised patients, or both. The only other trials I'm aware of that terminated a therapeutic was for safety and efficacy problems. Not being "significantly effective" is something you calculate at the end of a trial not terminate a trial for.

"A source with the Drug Controller General of India said the pill has not shown "significant efficacy" against moderate COVID-19, though it was having success against mild cases."

"An Aurobindo spokesperson did not comment on the effectiveness of the drug in its trial. The spokesperson said the company had "faced challenges in patient recruitment at this juncture" for its trial in moderate COVID-19 patients, adding "we are evaluating the further course of action."

Your posts are a dogs breakfast of vague statements, yet you want anyone that posts to write a line by line annotated essay.

 

[Gruffles]

Are you talking about real vaccines that stop infection like smallpox, rather than the COIVD vaccines that don't? The definition of a vaccine has changed three times since 2015, from preventing infection pre 2015, to providing immunity 2015-2021 to protecting from infection in 2021. I'm old enough to remember pre 2015 when a vaccine stopped infection and is the way herd immunity is achieved without the recovered, being a significant factor.

Accept your point that Merck did not give their Molnupiravir formula away but entered into agreements to produce at a low price, which was a lazy use of words by me. But that's where the problems for Merck have arisen, with two companies in India applying to terminate their trials of the drug in their testing.

Reuters reports "Two Indian drugmakers have requested permission to end late-stage trials of their generic versions of Merck & Co’s promising experimental oral antiviral drug molnupiravir to treat moderate COVID-19, a week after Merck said its own trial had succeeded for mild-to-moderate patients."

"Merck earlier this year suspended its own development of molnupiravir as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients”

It’s accepted that research projects may be terminated for reasons including unacceptable side effects, the drug being shown not to be effective, or it works and does not need any further investigation.

It's either not effective or has serious side effects for moderate and hospitalised patients, or both. The only other trials I'm aware of that terminated a therapeutic was for safety and efficacy problems. Not being "significantly effective" is something you calculate at the end of a trial not terminate a trial for.

"A source with the Drug Controller General of India said the pill has not shown "significant efficacy" against moderate COVID-19, though it was having success against mild cases."

"An Aurobindo spokesperson did not comment on the effectiveness of the drug in its trial. The spokesperson said the company had "faced challenges in patient recruitment at this juncture" for its trial in moderate COVID-19 patients, adding "we are evaluating the further course of action."

Your posts are a dogs breakfast of vague statements, yet you want anyone that posts to write a line by line annotated essay.

Do you think you've posted facts here, or do you see that you've posted a tonne of speculation?

You've said that it's accepted that research projects may be terminated for "the drug being shown to not be effective", then go on to say that it was either not effective, has serious side effects, or both (so meaning not effective is an option), but then say that effectiveness is something that is calculated at the end of a trial and not what you may terminate a trial for.

Then you proceed to post quotes that support that the trial was halted due to lack of effectiveness and one that says they didn't have enough patients recruited to carry it out. Where is the information that says it was for safety reasons (apart from you only being aware of other trials being terminated for safety problems)?

It's interesting that you declare my posts to be a dogs breakfast and vague. Also, I've never asked anyone to write a line by line annotated essay, so I'm not sure where you have fished that from.

At least you acknowledged that you misrepresented Merck's licensing agreement. Kudos there.

 

[BlueE]

What is the vaccine effect on reducing transmission in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant?
COVID-19 vaccines that have obtained WHO emergency use listing appear to have high efficacy against severe disease and death, but lower efficacy against non-severe infections, and emerging evidence suggests that protection against non-severe disease declines faster following vaccination than...
www.thelancet.com

"They report that peak viral loads showed a faster decline in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people, although peak viral loads were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated people."

"This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant."

check. mate.

Secondary attack rates (SAR) among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases (25%; 95% CI 15–35) was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%; 15–31).

Infectiousness of breakthrough infections can be measured by viral densities. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral density in the upper airways of people infected with the virus are thought to increase transmission to household members.

If vaccines reduce viral density in those who do become infected despite vaccination, it would probably lead to lower infectiousness and less onward transmission. Hence, the authors compared the viral kinetics in breakthrough delta variant infections in vaccinated people with delta variant infections in unvaccinated people.

They report that peak viral loads showed a faster decline in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people, although peak viral loads were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated people.

Reducing transmission is necessary to reduce virus circulation, reach herd immunity and end this tragic pandemic. This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant. However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation.

 

[BlueE]

Not going to acknowledge the mistake in your quote?

I think I'll take the clarification from Bayer over your interpretation of what was said. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy.

What the conversation is about here is that the development of the vaccines are pushing forward the progress in gene therapy research areas as they are using similar technology. Not all mRNA-based treatments are the same, not all are gene therapies, some are vaccines. Just because you read the article on Nature.com and see the words "mRNA vaccine" and "gene therapy" in said article does not mean that mRNA vaccines are gene therapies.

The issue with the statement is that gene therapy involves the implementation/replacement of DNA sequence in the host. The vaccines do not do this, just because they involve mRNA does not mean they are interacting with the hosts DNA. Calling these vaccines gene therapies is just outright scare mongering for people who are making a decision as to whether to get one, as they will now think "OMG it's going to change my DNA!".

This approach to the discussion I find so ridiculous as one of the many arguments that pop up is that people are critical of governments scare mongering in terms of how they present covid data. What you are doing here is the exact thing many who agree with you criticise.

Actually, both Pfizer and Moderna have their mRNA products registered by the FDA as gene therapy products.

This was disclosed separately by both of them in SEC filings.

This is where regularity problems have arisen. in that the FDA have approved gene therapy as vaccine products, to a standard vaccine check list and not the higher gene therapy standards usually used.

Moderna SEC filing: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." pg 70.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm

Pfizer SEC filing: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." pg 23.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000119312519241112/d635330df1.htm

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So has Germany, more will follow it’s the logical solution, got to get them motivated and vaccinated.

****, Dan Andrews sure has some global reach.

 

[Chief]

What do you think would happen at 100% vaccination rates?
Media would probably implode with no bogeyman anymore.

You think all of these companies LIKE the economic and human damage done by this pandemic?

 

[Chief]

Get vaccinated.

People who go to hospital with Covid are 15 times more likely to be unvaccinated.

 

[Gruffles]

Ironic post, again! Calling a different use of words where I said Merck gave their formula to be reproduced cheaply for in people poor countries to being a misrepresentation of Merck selling a licensing agreement to be reproduced cheaply for people in peer countries, so you can claim superiority is hardly an important to score points over!

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise giving someone credit for admitting that they'd been lazy (your own words) in their wording, which could pretty easily lead to misrepresenting what had actually happened was some kind of superiority or point scoring play. It's OK to admit that you made a mistake and it's OK for me to give you credit for that.

You described their licensing agreement as a "magnanimous gesture" of giving away their formula. They entered a licensing agreement... that's very different to giving it away. But it's OK. We've established that now. I won't give you kudos for it seeing as you don't seem to like kudos.

The point in question was the trials were reported terminated for not being "significantly effective".

Aurobindo and MSN are continuing to conduct studies of molnupiravir in patients with mild COVID-19 who have not been hospitalized, according to trial documents and the website of the Indian drug regulator's internal expert committee. (taken from your own quoted Reuters article). Why would they continue the trial on mild covid cases if they were so concerned about safety. The trial on moderate cases ceased because it just wasn't working very well.

Merck had already terminated their hospital trial, and said it was effective in treating moderate COVID-19, only a week before the two Indian developers said it wasn't.

Just on this point, and once again taken from the Reuters article:
Merck spokesperson Melissa Moody said Merck and the Indian companies had defined “moderate” disease differently.
Merck's trials are based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration definitions, which for moderate COVID-19 describe blood oxygen levels as no lower than 93%. It defines blood oxygen levels for severe COVID-19 as 93% or lower.
The trials in India define moderate COVID-19 blood oxygen levels as 90% to 93%, according to the trial documents for the two companies.

So there is an explanation as to why Merck and the Indian company had different outcomes.

In any case, this conversation is going nowhere fast and I'm sure others in the thread are getting sick of it. It will be clear to anyone reading this conversation that your conclusions are all based on your own speculation rather than anything else. People can choose to accept your speculation if they like, or people can choose to take what has been reported on face value. I choose the latter.

 

[kingswood71]

When has that ever happened before the end of a trial? Serious question, as it hasn't unless there have been serious safety issues as well.

"Among the 344 unapproved agents, the clinical development for 195 (57%) failed for lack of efficacy"
"In this study of investigational drugs entering late-stage clinical development between 1998 and 2008 with follow-up through 2015, we found about half of the experimental medicines failed during or after pivotal clinical trials. Most of these development failures were attributable to inadequate evidence of efficacy"

Publication of Drug Failures in Late-Stage Clinical Development

This study assesses factors associated with regulatory approval or reasons for failure of investigational therapeutics in phase 3 or pivotal trials and rates of publication of trial results.

jamanetwork.com

 

[bing181]

BlueE has no idea what he's talking about. (I'm being generous).

 

[Gruffles]

Moderna SEC filing: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." pg 70.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm

Pfizer SEC filing: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." pg 23.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000119312519241112/d635330df1.htm

Here is the full paragraph for those that are short of time or not inclined to click on a link:
Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict.

Just as an addition, both documents also contain the following statement as one of the challenges they may face:
safety or efficacy concerns regarding our product candidates may result from any concerns arising from nonclinical or clinical testing of other therapies targeting a similar disease state or other therapies, such as gene therapy, that are perceived as similar to ours

For those playing at home, I encourage you to read these and make your own interpretation of what is being said here rather than basing your understanding on one sentence.

 

[faible]

Hahaha

I quote one of the most respected science resources in the world and you quote a Reuters pimply factchecker. Reuters, where the CEO is on the board of Pfizer.

Nice bit of spin by Moderna.

1 Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.

Protein synthesis is the translation of the mRNAs copy of the spike protein.

I'll back Nature.com over Moderna's spin.

I wasn't on here again until this morning, but looks like Gruffles and co have covered this off.

Not gene therapy seems to have been the consensus.

 

[Jibroni]

I definitely learnt to be patient and tolerant. I didn't necessarily expect to drive a little section of discussion with my post earlier!

I've mentioned before that I'm a teacher but part of my role is working with students with a range of issues, the absolute hardest have been working with students that have personality disorders (and there's been a few). My all time greatest challenge was a boy with antisocial personality disorder coupled with strong narcissism and an unbelievably intelligent mind. He would destroy people in arguments and even took a police liason officer to task after a serious incident at the school. Patience and tolerance was the best technique to disarming him as he didn't know how to react to that, he thrived on confrontation. He would fling insults at me to try and get me to bite... and be so annoyed when I didn't and instead replied with logic and reasoning.

I guess from that experience I approach most conversations online in the same way as, who knows... you may be talking to someone with a personality disorder.

Not to be personal but may I ask what your view is on the mandation of teachers requiring vaccination? My neighbour is a German teacher who does not want to be vaccinated and is taking legal action as it was announced yesterday in Adelaide that all teachers require vaccination.

I have said previously that I am against people being coerced into a COVID vaccination against their will and deserve the freedom to choose their own medical treatment/way of life.

 

[theyellowsash]

Here is the full paragraph for those that are short of time or not inclined to click on a link:
Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict.

Just as an addition, both contain the following statement as one of the challenges they may face:
safety or efficacy concerns regarding our product candidates may result from any concerns arising from nonclinical or clinical testing of other therapies targeting a similar disease state or other therapies, such as gene therapy, that are perceived as similar to ours

Feel free to read these and make your own interpretation of what is being said here rather than basing your understanding on one sentence.

i take that to mean that because its a newly approved technology which doesn't have a specific category and were uncertain how to classify it, but since it's somewhat related to gene therapy they classified it as one for the simple bureaucratic purpose of assigning it a classification. Also they way they describe it makes it seem likely it will get it's own category at some point, since they describe if being fundamentally different in a number of ways.

 

[theyellowsash]

Not to be personal but may I ask what your view is on the mandation of teachers requiring vaccination? My neighbour is a German teacher who does not want to be vaccinated and is taking legal action as it was announced yesterday in Adelaide that all teachers require vaccination.

I have said previously that I am against people being coerced into a COVID vaccination against their will and deserve the freedom to choose their own medical treatment/way of life.

thats where the distinction lies though. theyre not being forced to take the vaccine, liam jones certainly shows that not taking it is a very real and legitimate option. however the vaccine will be a prerequisite for some jobs based on either government mandates or the businesses private oh&s policies.

given that school aged children (0-19) make up approx 30% of our total known cases, and schools have proven to be hubs for causing the wide spreading of the disease (al taqwa collece twice and the glenroy primary/kinder being 2 obvious examples), it makes sense that teachers would be in a group where vaccination would be a requirement.

 

[Gruffles]

Not to be personal but may I ask what your view is on the mandation of teachers requiring vaccination? My neighbour is a German teacher who does not want to be vaccinated and is taking legal action as it was announced yesterday in Adelaide that all teachers require vaccination.

I have said previously that I am against people being coerced into a COVID vaccination against their will and deserve the freedom to choose their own medical treatment/way of life.

Not personal at all. I'm fine with education being one of the industries mandated to get vaccinated. I see it slightly differently in terms of why healthcare workers should be vaccinated as part of their role in treating vulnerable patients.

From my perspective, having children attending school rather than staying home is integral to keeping the state operating as close to "open" as possible. Keeping teachers as protected as possible from covid infection or serious illness is integral in keeping schools open. Coupled with that is the serious limitations in large scale remote learning (teaching Science without being able to do any practical experiments was just horrendous), and doing this for an extended period of time would have significant impact on a student's overall understanding.

So, essentially, vaccinating teachers allows schools to remain open, which supports the best learning environment for the students and the State's ability to get closer to opening up, as parents do not need to supervise their children all day and can concentrate on their employment.

I see the value and importance in mandating vaccination of teachers, I don't really see the value and importance in mandating vaccination of retail staff. Outside of the industries I think are important to mandate, I think we'd reach our vaccine targets without mandating other industries.

EDIT - just to add here, I was vaccinated when it was recommended that teachers be vaccinated (meaning we then had access to it), which was before they made it a mandate. To add to this, I was actually surprised that it took them that long to recommend it and then even longer to mandate it because I saw schools reopening as a high priority in moving forward.

 

[Gruffles]

i take that to mean that because its a newly approved technology which doesn't have a specific category and were uncertain how to classify it, but since it's somewhat related to gene therapy they classified it as one for the simple bureaucratic purpose of assigning it a classification. Also they way they describe it makes it seem likely it will get it's own category at some point, since they describe if being fundamentally different in a number of ways.

I'd like to give you full marks but you need to fix up some grammar errors. A (resubmit with your corrections and you may just get that A+!)

 

[faible]

i take that to mean that because its a newly approved technology which doesn't have a specific category and were uncertain how to classify it, but since it's somewhat related to gene therapy they classified it as one for the simple bureaucratic purpose of assigning it a classification. Also they way they describe it makes it seem likely it will get it's own category at some point, since they describe if being fundamentally different in a number of ways.

Like many things, people inclined to conspiracy like to read it as something nefarious.

Similar to the updating of the definition for vaccination on a number of the major websites e.g. WHO and CDC. It doesn't actually mean we've changed what a vaccine does or is defined it, it's just that a lot more people who don't really know what they're meant to do or are defined as, were reading those websites all of a sudden, and misunderstanding because the definition didn't really represent exactly what vaccines do.

It's like how people read 'immunity' and assume it means immunity in the video game / movie sense, where you're invulnerable to things, which isn't what it means in the vaccine world.

 

[Chief]

Big problem in mandating a vaccine that doesn't stop infection or transmission of the virus and many fully vaccinated events or teams are all getting COIVD infection.

Please stop spreading that.

Vaccines work. They have saved millions and millions of lives since their invention.

Read the report from NSW where the unvaccinated have a 15x chance of contracting the virus and a 10x chance of major illness or death.

Vaccination reduces the CHANCE of infection and illness.

"Immunity" in plain English is not necessarily "immunity" in medical terms. There are different types and levels of immunity. You might have antibodies, you might be physically unable to contract a disease - dogs cannot be infected with measles - and so on.

That's why the definition was changed, to stop people mistaking "immunity" for "natural immunity" or "complete immunity" or any of the other types and levels of resistance.

"The relative ability to resist infection or the effects of any toxic or dangerous substance."

 

[theyellowsash]

I'd like to give you full marks but you need to fix up some grammar errors. A (resubmit with your corrections and you may just get that A+!)

haha my writing and grammar skills are actually one of my strengths, when i can be bothered

 

[Drought Break]

I have to say, you've posted a few times in here and most of it is not really helpful for encouraging respectful discussion.

Amen

Gruffles your an exception and have actually learnt and got a lot out of your posts

some of the other pro vaccination posters could take a leaf out of your book

 

[Roby]

BlueE has no idea what he's talking about. (I'm being generous).

90% of what they post is copied and paste, or regurgitated from another source. I've asked them to reiterate some things in his own words but as yet to do so.

 

[Sainter1873]

Not to be personal but may I ask what your view is on the mandation of teachers requiring vaccination? My neighbour is a German teacher who does not want to be vaccinated and is taking legal action as it was announced yesterday in Adelaide that all teachers require vaccination.

I have said previously that I am against people being coerced into a COVID vaccination against their will and deserve the freedom to choose their own medical treatment/way of life.

You seem to personally know quite a few anti-vax people, whether it be your cousin in the SA Health system who has conducted a rigorous scientific poll of all SA Health workers and their opinions on vaccine mandates or your German neighbour who no doubt has conducted a similar poll of attitudes in the education sector. You should be a journalist with all those great sources.