Anti Vaxxer I Knew Became A Nurse

heron, ASN, RN · Dec 5, 2023

nursej22 said:

BCG does not prevent infection. It provides protection from TB infection progressing to TB disease in children.

Ahh ... that explains it! I worked at a university health service for four years before moving to an inpatient AIDS unit. Our basic screening for students included tb testing. Many of our international students tested positive because of bcg vaccination. I learned to appreciate the value of preventing infection from progressing to disease at my next job. End stage tb is a nasty way to die.

nursej22, MSN, RN · Dec 6, 2023

heron said:

Ahh ... that explains it! I worked at a university health service for four years before moving to an inpatient AIDS unit. Our basic screening for students included tb testing. Many of our international students tested positive because of bcg vaccination. I learned to appreciate the value of preventing infection from progressing to disease at my next job. End stage tb is a nasty way to die.

In my short time as a TB nurse, I saw 2 meningeal cases (1 kiddo), a miliary/disseminated case and loss of a kidney due to GU TB. All had BCG as infants so thought they were protected. Nasty indeed.

toomuchbaloney · Dec 6, 2023

NICU Guy said:

What is your point? BCG prevents TB, it is a vaccine. BCG protection lasts for up to 15 years. COVID-19 protection was very limited (2-3 months) and it does not prevent you from getting COVID. What is your definition of the time limit that a preparation needs to protect you to be considered a vaccine (old CDC definition, not new)?

My point is that for 225 years the preparations used as a vaccine were accurate to the CDC definition. COVID comes along and the "vaccine" does not perform as a vaccine (doesn't provide immunity or prevention), so they change the definition to fit their need.

Baloney

MaxAttack, BSN, RN · Dec 6, 2023

NICU Guy said:

What is your point? BCG prevents TB, it is a vaccine. BCG protection lasts for up to 15 years. COVID-19 protection was very limited (2-3 months) and it does not prevent you from getting COVID. What is your definition of the time limit that a preparation needs to protect you to be considered a vaccine (old CDC definition, not new)?

My point is that for 225 years the preparations used as a vaccine were accurate to the CDC definition. COVID comes along and the "vaccine" does not perform as a vaccine (doesn't provide immunity or prevention), so they change the definition to fit their need.

Reality should not be this difficult. This is so detached from objective truths that I can only assume you're trolling at this point.

AreYouReallySure · Dec 6, 2023

May I ask a basic scientific and medically relevant question here?
Regarding the mRNA treatments on offer or were offered before being withdrawn from a few western countries now.....
What is or was the assessed and documented Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and what is or was the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) for these intracellular genetic modifying/modulation injectibles for safety and efficacy before and then after they were introduced as being medically acceptable according to the powers that be (eg: are there any statistical re-evaluation of both stats after 12 months of the first introduction?) ?
And is there someone here whom can advise for those of us who do not know, what the difference is between the two risk mathematical statistics, how are these values reached...such as how they are calculated and also the relevance of knowing both statistical numbers in evidence based medicine and nursing practises?

toomuchbaloney · Dec 6, 2023

AreYouReallySure said:

May I ask a basic scientific and medically relevant question here?
Regarding the mRNA treatments on offer or were offered before being withdrawn from a few western countries now.....
What is or was the assessed and documented Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and what is or was the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) for these intracellular genetic modifying/modulation injectibles for safety and efficacy before and then after they were introduced as being medically acceptable according to the powers that be (eg: are there any statistical re-evaluation of both stats after 12 months of the first introduction?) ?
And is there someone here whom can advise for those of us who do not know, what the difference is between the two risk mathematical statistics, how are these values reached...such as how they are calculated and also the relevance of knowing both statistical numbers in evidence based medicine and nursing practises?

Did you know that misinformation about vaccines is elevated using the language about risk reduction that you just used?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9647013/

Quote

Treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials are often reported in the media and medical journals as the relative risk reduction. The present article explains why the relative risk reduction is a misinformative measure that promotes disinformation when reporting efficacy in clinical research studies such as randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines.

Will you read the article?

lifelearningrn, BSN, RN · Dec 6, 2023

toomuchbaloney said:

Did you know that misinformation about vaccines is elevated using the language about risk reduction that you just used?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9647013/

Will you read the article?

Mic Drop!

MaxAttack, BSN, RN · Dec 6, 2023

AreYouReallySure said:

May I ask a basic scientific and medically relevant question here?
Regarding the mRNA treatments on offer or were offered before being withdrawn from a few western countries now.....
What is or was the assessed and documented Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and what is or was the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) for these intracellular genetic modifying/modulation injectibles for safety and efficacy before and then after they were introduced as being medically acceptable according to the powers that be (eg: are there any statistical re-evaluation of both stats after 12 months of the first introduction?) ?
And is there someone here whom can advise for those of us who do not know, what the difference is between the two risk mathematical statistics, how are these values reached...such as how they are calculated and also the relevance of knowing both statistical numbers in evidence based medicine and nursing practises?

Considering most of the covid vaccines weren't withdrawn for safety reasons but because there were better formulations available and that the information you're asking for is readily available online, I'm wondering what "gotcha" moment we have coming here.

In addition - as all viruses mutate and change over time - comparing a vaccine 12 months after introduction we would expect to see a decline in efficacy. It's like asking to compare last year's flu shot to the current season. There's a reason there are different formulations every year. The covid shot available now is not the same one from 12 months ago.

As for safety: It's constantly reassessed. Besides the continuous monitoring that regulatory bodies perform, go to your database of choice and search. There's a world of information out there just waiting to be seen.

AreYouReallySure · Dec 7, 2023

Thank you for those that have responded.

Yes I did know that the use of the language I used has been used by others to accidentally or on purpose, not give a more full description of what to expect from a therapeutic medication.

I have looked at the article suggested. I had not seen this one before.

It seems that the article is saying that the ARR for the Covid vax was in colloquial terms, equating to the agent being delivered as a therapeutic being a waste of effort. Is that what we are all reading?

"What is new?

•Unreliability of relative measures in clinical trials is graphically illustrated, demonstrating constant relative measures as absolute measures change.

•Misuse of relative measures in clinical research is historically linked to misinterpretation of Jerome Cornfield's advice on measuring causative and associative effects.

•Consequences of disinformation and misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and modern clinical medicine are described.
.....edited...
ARR measures the precise magnitude and strength of the reduced risk, essential for clinical evaluation, which the RRR obscures [13]. Yet, ARRs "tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs" [14]. Nevertheless, "clinical research has a substantial need for absolute measures,” and researchers have argued that "the RR should no longer be used in clinical trials" [15].

...edited...

6. Conclusions

Key issues regarding use of relative measures in clinical trials and vaccine efficacy are summarized as follows:

1. At any relative risk in a clinical trial, which measures the proportion or ratio of the experimental and control event rates, variability of the absolute risk reduction is dependent on changes in the baseline risk of the control group.

2. Relative risk and relative risk reduction measures are more suitable for observational studies that estimate probability of an exposure associated with a risk, while absolute risk reduction is more reliable for reporting risk reductions causatively related to the efficacy of a vaccine or treatment in a randomized controlled trial.

3. Absolute risk reduction measures and the number of individuals needed to be treated or vaccinated to reduce one event should not be pooled together in meta-analyses unless the baseline risks are similar.

4. Misusing the relative risk reduction to report treatment and vaccine efficacies of clinical trials leads to scientific disinformation and media misinformation, especially if the absolute risk reduction is not also reported.

5. For the reasons stated above, relative risk and relative risk reduction are misinformative measures of treatment and vaccine efficacy and should not be used in randomized clinical trials.

.......................................................................................

I understand that someone has said that this RRR & ARR information is easily found somewhere and or every where.
Can someone however enlighten us on exactly where we can find the RRR & ARR figures for the covid vaxes.

I feel that both of these numbers would perhaps be relevant for those labeled as being "anti vaxers" and also for HR Dept's/infection control Dept's etc, so that everyone can make informed decisions.

toomuchbaloney · Dec 7, 2023

AreYouReallySure said:

Thank you for those that have responded.

Yes I did know that the use of the language I used has been used by others to accidentally or on purpose, not give a more full description of what to expect from a therapeutic medication.

I have looked at the article suggested. I had not seen this one before.

It seems that the article is saying that the ARR for the Covid vax was in colloquial terms, equating to the agent being delivered as a therapeutic being a waste of effort. Is that what we are all reading?

"What is new?

•Unreliability of relative measures in clinical trials is graphically illustrated, demonstrating constant relative measures as absolute measures change.

•Misuse of relative measures in clinical research is historically linked to misinterpretation of Jerome Cornfield's advice on measuring causative and associative effects.

•Consequences of disinformation and misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and modern clinical medicine are described.
.....edited...
ARR measures the precise magnitude and strength of the reduced risk, essential for clinical evaluation, which the RRR obscures [13]. Yet, ARRs "tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs" [14]. Nevertheless, "clinical research has a substantial need for absolute measures,” and researchers have argued that "the RR should no longer be used in clinical trials" [15].

...edited...

6. Conclusions

Key issues regarding use of relative measures in clinical trials and vaccine efficacy are summarized as follows:

1. At any relative risk in a clinical trial, which measures the proportion or ratio of the experimental and control event rates, variability of the absolute risk reduction is dependent on changes in the baseline risk of the control group.

2. Relative risk and relative risk reduction measures are more suitable for observational studies that estimate probability of an exposure associated with a risk, while absolute risk reduction is more reliable for reporting risk reductions causatively related to the efficacy of a vaccine or treatment in a randomized controlled trial.

3. Absolute risk reduction measures and the number of individuals needed to be treated or vaccinated to reduce one event should not be pooled together in meta-analyses unless the baseline risks are similar.

4. Misusing the relative risk reduction to report treatment and vaccine efficacies of clinical trials leads to scientific disinformation and media misinformation, especially if the absolute risk reduction is not also reported.

5. For the reasons stated above, relative risk and relative risk reduction are misinformative measures of treatment and vaccine efficacy and should not be used in randomized clinical trials.

.......................................................................................

I understand that someone has said that this RRR & ARR information is easily found somewhere and or every where.
Can someone however enlighten us on exactly where we can find the RRR & ARR figures for the covid vaxes.

I feel that both of these numbers would perhaps be relevant for those labeled as being "anti vaxers" and also for HR Dept's/infection control Dept's etc, so that everyone can make informed decisions.

The experts disagree with your feelings about that relevance.

MaxAttack, BSN, RN · Dec 7, 2023

AreYouReallySure said:

It seems that the article is saying that the ARR for the Covid vax was in colloquial terms, equating to the agent being delivered as a therapeutic being a waste of effort. Is that what we are all reading?
...
I understand that someone has said that this RRR & ARR information is easily found somewhere and or every where.
Can someone however enlighten us on exactly where we can find the RRR & ARR figures for the covid vaxes.

I feel that both of these numbers would perhaps be relevant for those labeled as being "anti vaxers" and also for HR Dept's/infection control Dept's etc, so that everyone can make informed decisions.

Your specialty is "research" but you need help navigating Google and/or databases? ?

I have a feeling when you see ARR numbers you'll think you've been vindicated and not realize that at a population level those numbers quickly become huge.

You seem to believe in the concept of vaccines at least (even if you struggle with applying the same logic to the covid vaccine), so while you're at it you should look up the ARR for other vaccines and then the impact vaccines have had. Those small percentages add up quickly. But I'm sure HR and infection control would love to hear your thoughts.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Jan 1, 2024

NICU Guy said:

I wish people would stop using the word "vaccine" when referring to Covid. For 225 yrs the definition of a vaccine was "a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce an immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from the disease." Covid comes along and the CDC wants to use the word "vaccine" even though the shot does not provide immunity from the disease. The use of the word "vaccine" gives the public the impression that getting the Covid shot will prevent them from getting Covid. Once it was determined that it didn't prevent you from getting Covid and you need to get 4-5 booster shots to get any kind of protection, the CDC changed the definition of "Vaccine" to "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against a disease." They leave out the part of the definition relating to immunity from the disease. By that definition, Zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C are all vaccines. They don't prevent you from getting the Cold virus, but stimulate your immune response to fight against the Cold virus.

Wow. Just stunning.