How Pfizer answers a question
This topic contains 7 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 9, 2023 at 6:05 pm #49639
…is interesting and frustration. Either the testifying “experts” don’t know how the pericarditis side effect is caused or they really don’t want to talk about it. So, the witness answers every single attempt to get an answer with some words courtesy the Pfizer PR office:
August 9, 2023 at 11:14 pm #49652LOL, per the interrogator, “I know it’s a low risk, but do you know why it causes pericarditis?”.
He doesn’t care about the benefit to risk ratio of the vaccine, he’s just trying to paint the testifiers into a corner with a question that is irrelevant, “Do you know why it causes pericarditis?”, also leading to more speculation about “can it lead to harm to other organs”.
That’s typical of grandstanding and fear-mongering, rather than helping an audience understand the purpose of Phase One trials, i.e. determining to a certain level of confidence, in tests on human beings, how common and severe side effects might be. It does not matter why those side effects occur, unless there is some other mandate added to the study. This is especially true when the prime mandate is to immunize as many people as possible, as safely as possible, soon as possible. For example, this interrogator doesn’t give a shit about the astronomically higher incidence of immediate myocarditis caused by Covid-19. (Notably, this is also a Rand Paul tactic.)
Granted, the answer should have been “No, we don’t understand how it causes myocarditis.”, even if that answer would lower Pfizer profits, and likely further fuel the fire of distrust in medical research. If that’s you’re main point, it’s still obvious to me how useless a video like this is, with interrogator-for-the-masses vs profit-motive optics defender battle for truth completely missing the most important point of all, mitigating the well known dangers of Covid-19.
The only honest and beneficial debate and summary possible would have to be made by disinterested third parties, or parties that can at least enlarge the scope of discussion to the bigger picture. This snippet of bickering amongst very-self-interested parties is more damaging than helpful, poisoned by profit motive and politicization.
(The dramatic stinger at the end of the video helps to illustrate the outrage-invoking motive in its production.)
August 10, 2023 at 1:36 am #49653He doesn’t care about the benefit to risk ratio of the vaccine, he’s just trying to paint the testifiers into a corner with a question that is irrelevant, “Do you know why it causes pericarditis?”, also leading to more speculation about “can it lead to harm to other organs”.
Of course, the interrogator wanted to bring home the fact (I believe fairly well-established) that the vaccine can cause pericarditis and get the company to admit that. They might as well since it seems to be true, and then go on to discuss risk/benefit. Instead, the mishandling of the evasive-sounding answer didn’t help enlighten anyone.
August 10, 2023 at 4:20 pm #49656What can anyone really know about risks on a vaccine that was rushed out at “light speed”?
Many drugs, frustratingly, go through painfully long periods of testing on volunteers before being released, and even then side effects and other risks emerge. Some drugs are even pulled off the market after release despite the rigorous testing.
August 11, 2023 at 9:37 pm #49666I generally agree with your last two posts, except for a question with unspecified implications that you’re “just asking”.What can anyone really know about risks on a vaccine that was rushed out at “light speed”?
In response to the general question but in the specific case of fast-tracked Phase One vaccine trials, the general answer is “a lot“. “Light speed” is a useful cliche in this case insofar as how fast these vaccines were rushed out during the deadly pandemic, but technologies (like mRNA as a therapeutic tool, or to provoke immune responses) have actually been researched as early as the 1980s, with clinical trials in the 2010s.
Regardless of what Pfizer says or stonewalls, HOW MUCH pericarditis do Covid-19 vaccines cause, and how seriously… considering hospital and other health system data over the years that followed Phase One trials? If this topic is more about distrust of institutions or science in general because they can’t work as well as usual at “light speed” compared to years-long trials, what more effective solution can you propose?
IMO, again, it would have to work around the corporate profit-seeking vs political oversight conflict of interests, e.g. with disinterested third-party medical science-based oversight and expertise. NIH is the closest thing we have to that, but it hasn’t worked as well as we need. How do we fix THAT big picture? It’s not just about Pfizer.
August 12, 2023 at 1:19 am #49667In response to the general question but in the specific case of fast-tracked Phase One vaccine trials, the general answer is “a lot“. “Light speed” is a useful cliche in this case insofar as how fast these vaccines were rushed out during the deadly pandemic, but technologies (like mRNA as a therapeutic tool, or to provoke immune responses) have actually been researched as early as the 1980s, with clinical trials in the 2010s.
Plus practical application with mRNA ebola vaccines, though fairly recent and not subjected to the testing protocols of many jurisdictions (e.g. USA).
Regardless of what Pfizer says or stonewalls, HOW MUCH pericarditis do Covid-19 vaccines cause, and how seriously…
There is some research on the myocarditis link (not sure about pericarditis despite being a rather similar condition). Causes are hypothetical, though an incidence rate is documented.
August 12, 2023 at 11:22 pm #49686research on the myocarditis link (not sure about pericarditis despite being a rather similar condition)
I’ve mixed up myocarditis and pericarditis. After up to a dozen (I lost count) medical courses, I should have remembered that myocarditis is inflammation of heart muscle and pericarditis is inflammation of the sac that surrounds the heart.
Great article, thank you! I understand most of the terms in it and ramifications of vaccinations vs Covid-19 disease etiology. I welcome anyone to ask me about details. @unseen? Even if one cannot understand most of the article, I’d say that most people can get something from it by skimming it.
E.g. “itis” as a suffix means “inflammation”, and to simplify, inflammation has several possible causes, but in general is the body’s way of trying to kill off pathogens, whether viral, bacterial, pollen, parasite, or particle or splinter or other suspicious invader. The cells of capillary walls open up a bit to let immune armies of various kinds of other cells leak out to the surrounding tissues, often turning it red and itchy, often swelling.
These immune responses often go awry, e.g. with (say) damage to joints in arthritis, or damage to arteries in atherosclerosis. You could think of it as “damage by friendly fire” in a military sense, when our immune responses to pathogens also damage our own organs and body.
One might remember stories early in the pandemic of people dying from immune system-caused “cytokine storms”, especially in lung tissue. Once people require ventilators, their prospects are already dim. Those times illustrated the most horrid kind of “light-speed clinical trials” required, when the only way to learn what works or fails is by keeping track of what was tried and the outcomes for each hospitalized patient.
Anecdotes and speculations ruled and misled, especially when politicians and anti-establishment malcontents gained gullible and medically illiterate audiences. The federal response was terribly dysfunctional and dysfunctionalized by political powers of the time, urged on with high idiocy factor and outrage machines in the masses.
August 13, 2023 at 2:20 am #49692Pericarditis was also mentioned in the video in the OP.
One of the notable lines from the article:
And in that highest risk group, the myocarditis risk after the second dose, which is the highest, is 35.9 per 100,000 people. In comparison, the risk post-infection in that same group is 64.9 per 100,000.
And if I had to guess, this info would be of minimal value to people wary of the vaccine even if they did accept it at face value. It wouldn’t change their behaviour because vaccine safety or cost-benefit analysis isn’t the root of their resistance.
Granted, in the case of the video up above, if the point of concern was that Pfizer was not forthcoming about a known risk thus intentionally or negligently leaving people in the dark, fine, that would be of concern. Admittedly, I lost a bit of patience with the questions when the speaker raised a lack of longitudinal studies as an issue. I mean, is it so much to ask people think before they speak in these situations? Somewhat similar with cancer-risk studies.
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.