AreYouReallySure

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.

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?

Thanks Max, Now I know how alerts are found. Yes, tangents delivered on purpose as I am sure you suspected. Anyway, nothing new on here and haven't seen any posts by JKL discussing the opposite of what was advised to me. Oh well. Catch you later.

Indeed. Nearly 30yrs of it here - very good for us all.?

? Nah JKL, ?I am just repeating what my colleague had said. Had just found it interesting they would make "that" specific observation of all observations that was possible, & it was the main one they had noticed. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Hardly have a scoop, and you should perhaps write a post of your interesting observations. Makes for good reading and I look forward to your post. Would you mind pm'ing me so I can view your post - I probably will never be able to find it otherwise as per reason below. In response to Grumpy's & Max's fine Q?, I was just just looking around this forum, hardly ever here, had no idea the thread/post was from last year & just stumbled upon it and thought I would add what I thought was interesting. ROFL, it was near abouts Easter time and am quite chuffed with good humour someone chose to use the word Resurrection...If the thread was so old, I am surprised with a nobody as myself posting, anyone had somehow managed to notice that it was posted...perhaps everyone also stumbled upon it like I had with the original reply I made....I have no idea, just guessing. Mostly I find social media places full of social misdemeanors and high-stakes casino or Alpha type personality egos competing for airtime and so, I generally avoid them like the plague, especially FaceCrap and the like. Never had a FaceCrap account. Far too many tangential thoughts leading people around the garden path and reminds me of Mental Health patients revolving doors for those stuck in their internal and external expression of their tangential life's theme/programme. Life is too short to spend one's life around people whom are not friends collegial or friendly. Just here for the banter - a friendly chat, like the good ol' days of chatting with real life human beings before the days of computerised miscommunications. re:- "Yeah... Hopefully... in due course... sometime... future. So never then because it's bunk." Well I am not in charge of the data collection etc, it belongs to the State Health authorities - and they are very unforthcoming in dissemination of such data. The same as for gaining access to the data collected... Or any data for that matter.?‍♂️ "Apparently" is a word that ensures that the reader knows the comment is not a confirmed fact. No hidden agenda nor hidden manipulative communication. Very unambiguous. Very Concise. I was not writing a Journal submission. This was clear, I had thought, in my own minds eye. Just in the sharing of a colleague's clinical observation that was given to me during a banter session... and was just interested in hearing the experiences of other colleague's from other areas/locations. Not everyone here within this allnurses.com community of professionals is living and working within the centre of the universe, wherever that be. A box of chocolates to all.

I agree that I disagree. Anecdotal - sure, not the best source... yet a colleague of mine looks after the SARS-Cov-2 patients for the entire hospital they work in. Inpatient & outpatient. Apparently the patients whom are vaccinated are suffering/experiencing much greater complaints of severity in their symptoms and more treatment interventions than the those unvaccinated. The former are needing more treatment than the latter. Very strange. They are documenting this phenomenon and hopefully data will be shared in due course sometime in the future. An interesting observation none-the-less. kind regards

See this USA based group of Drs..... www.FLCCC.net and one of the full Ivermectin Protocols that are being offered by responsible Drs Please note - it is a fallacy that Ivermectin on it's own is the treatment needed, it is also a fallacy that 1 or 2 or 3 doses are enough, just like a full course of antibiotics must be given as per protocols, so is the Ivermectin protocol similar. Patients need to complete the full course of the protocol. Full protocol treatment needs to start prior to day 6 of first symptoms & positive test. If no one here knows why, then I suggest you do some research into pathophysiology and the pharmocodynamics of the suggested treatment protocols specifically in relation to SARS-Cov-2 (branded as Covid these last couple of years). Once we all check in on our medical knowledge bases, it will then make complete sense to those whom are currently ignorant of Ivermectin protocol treatment regimes. I trust this helps you... In addition.....Dr Marik has been given an award from the State of Virginia politicians for his work with Ivermectin Treatments etc. Of course you can check this for yourselves. On Mar. 11, the Virginia House of Delegates unanimously passed HR228, a resolution to recognize Dr. Paul Marik, founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), for what lawmakers called “his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients.” “Instead of playing it safe, and going along with so-called conventional wisdom, Dr. Marik dared to take a truly scientific approach by questioning and innovating in an environment where both were not only frowned upon, but for which he was persecuted,” said Virginia Republican Dave LaRock, the resolution’s primary sponsor.

Your last post's paragraph is very pertinent. I feel we can all just ignore posts that do just as you say they do. It's like shouting at everyone at the local Pub. Seeing as this particular thread is about mandated vaccinations, I would like to ask if Gillick Competency is a legal thing that we as nurses have a right to be able to do for ourselves, and not just for our patients? May I ask a Nurse with Medico-Legal expertise to respond? Surely we have one here in this thread?

"Choice and consent are integral parts of medical care, there are legal, professional and ethical obligations but how can this be addressed with coercion...." I watched the video near the bottom of this law firms home page - very informative and relevant to Australian and overseas national laws and the way in which healthcare is delivered. https://aflsolicitors.com.au/

Nope, I do not push anything. I have finished my academic compilation of data including the he said this, she said that. All I am here for is to talk to nurses at the coal face. Those whom are medicating the sick ones. The Clinician's pushing all the deceased into the morgue. So I may get a better understanding of that area of healthcare.

We must all make a choice. We have the right to choose, we are not free of the consequences of our choices. Moral = choose wisely as best as one can.

I am sorry I misrepresented myself. What I meant, was everyone has a sad story.... Such as when my child died of respiratory distress. And the whole story about that. Which is no business to anyway here by the way. He said she said. 1 case study after another.... I appreciate your correcting my poor communication by the way.

If there is no validity at all in it, they would not publish it. However, you are probably correct in saying, "VigiAccess cannot be used to infer any confirmed link between a suspected side effect and any specific medicine." I have not checked. However, the data shown surely provides for a rough guide.

Youth/child in Australia dies from covid Vaccinated Anecdotal this, anecdotal that. The story you told is fact it seems. The story I told is fact it seems.

There is no room in science for maybe's or beliefs. There are more than 12,000 Drs in Brazil working at the coal face using a protocol. So yes Baloney, there is a protocol that is being used. This is Fact, not a belief. I have personally worked with a Brazilian trained specialist in gynaecological-oncological surgery. He is equal to the task as compared to his Australian trained peers, so I have no doubt that ALL Brazilian Drs are in general terms, equal to the task in being able to identify "if" a treatment protocol works or is a complete waste of time.