Your answer is irrelevant (as well as gratuitously insulting) for I was referring to the Covid mRNA vaccines, not vaccines in general. And regarding the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines, the initial expectation at the time of rollout, based on clinical trial data, was indeed to reduce the risk of symptomatic infection.
Here’s a disrespectful diatribe the likes of which I’ve rarely read. Given that you are falsely accusing me to lie, you should apologize.
I regret it
That expectation bore fruit for a time, but immunity did wane faster than expected.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that @Giltil’s original claim/rhetorical-question was:
And Gilbert has presented:
All Gilbert’s irrelevant QoVAX bullshit has been nothing but a red herring to attempt to distract us from this.
And no Gilbert, in answer to your question, I don’t think he has such data, I (like suspect many others here) see this as simply a further example in a long line of incidents showing RFK Jr to be an entitled, ill-qualified, dangerous and BLATANT loon.
Addendum: this is hardly late-breaking news – Kennedy has had his own listing in the Encyclopedia of American Loons since 2011.
So when Rumraket asked for something other than quotes – presumably something like an actual argument to that effect, if not evidence – you give him… another quote. And rather than one that’s from a possibly at best semi-relevant authority… you chose to make it come from a random text generator instead.
Are you trolling?
Can you list all the scientific questions the QoVax study may have help to address?
The use of the word “may” in this prompt renders the results completely speculative. That is assuming that Grok knows what it talking about – and LLMs don’t!
It is difficult for me to muster a care for the assessments of SkyHitlerNet. It’s not clear to me it really has much in-depth info on the quality or comparability of various biobanks. It couldn’t have anything but what has been accessibly published online, which therefore can’t be much of an indication of the true status of various biobanks.
For one thing I recently asked various chatbots to track down a quote by the late Steven Weinberg, only for them to keep suggesting I must have been misremembering since their searches failed to turn up anything. I then went and found the quote myself eventually.
It appears that Gil is completely clueless about the meaning of the term “evidence,” as he has done this in the past, too.
Gil, do you really not understand that the evidence is not what anyone says (whether you agree or not) about the evidence?
Please don’t cite AI as an authoritative source. Feel free to use it like Wikipedia, but make sure that the sources it cites are real and it’s citing them accurately, and then cite those sources as authoritative (much like using Wikipedia).
Except, of course, DO recognize that when Grok declares itself to be “MechaHitler,” Grok is the best authority on that particular topic. Not on any other.
I’m not familiar with this one (and to I’ve been away from the discussion), but it’s also possible that the patient consent agreement stipulated that all biological samples would be destroyed after the study concluded. That may have been an unfortunate choice in hindsight, but IRB’s can (and should!) be sticklers about enforcing these things.
If this is the case, then the only ethical alternative would be to re-consent all study participants, which is difficult and costly.
According to the piece below, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Here is the relevant passage:
In a strongly worded open letter, Smith and other study participants are demanding that their samples be preserved, as was “explicitly promised” in the participant consent form, and as is required under the relevant legal and ethical codes.
“I agreed to provide my blood and data with the clear understanding that my samples would remain available for ongoing and future studies,” says the letter.
I really doubt that was ever “promised” That would be highly unusual. The consent more likely only gave permission to retain the samples if the investigators so chose.
Anyway, can you explain why you assume RFK Jr. is making his decision based on good evidence? What possible evidence could demonstrate that every single mRNA vaccine ever developed at any time in the future would not be worthwhile? So much so that any funding for any research on any mRNA vaccine must be stopped? If you think the Queensland gov’t is stopping research because they have something to hide, why are you so guilelessly trusting of RFK Jr.?
Interesting, this is opposite what I expected. It they consented to have their samples “banked” this should not be an issue. I’ll read up tomorrow.
I think both @Dan_Eastwood and @Giltil are missing the point. The destruction of the samples was hardly unexpected. Funding for this biobank was withdrawn under the previous Palaszczuk ALP state government back in 2023:
Queensland Health withdraws QoVAX Covid-19 study funding
Explicitly:
… throwing the research trial, which has 10,000 participants, into doubt.
Therefore, if this dataset is of as “exceptional scientific and medical value” as Gilbert, the peripatetic Rebekah Barnett, or Janet Davies suggest, there has been two years in which to demonstrate its value by publishing significant results from it, or to obtain new funding for it.
Lacking either, it does not seem unreasonable that it finally gets closed down.
I will note that nothing about this demonstrates even the slightest relevance to RFK Jr’s decision making.
The relevance is in exposing the utter hypocrisy of Sec’y Wormbrain’s followers. RFK Jr. destroys research programs, he’s a hero. Queensland does it, they are engaged in a cover up.
If the widespread miscategorisation biases pinpointed to by the preprint below were real, they could have lead to an overestimation of the vaccines efficacy.
A preprint written by a trio with no apparent medical training (two are CompSci Faculty, and the third lectures in “Digital Technologies for Health”), two of which run a Covid loon substack and have had their lunacy praised by arch-loon RFK Jr:
The issue is not whether Norman Fenton et al have been praised by RFK jr, which is an ad hominem argument, but whether the studies they pinpointed to do suffer from categorization biases.
Indeed.
No Gilbert. They chose to feature RFK’s praise on their webpage promoting their book.
This, even by itself, would be reason to question their credibility.
Serious researchers would target the medical community with their work.
Do “Fenton et al” have any demonstrated expertise in assessing vaccine efficiacy?
The fact that the article remains in preprint means that it has not undergone peer review by such experts, so we have no assurance from that process that this work is credible.
Why exactly are you expecting us to accept this preprint as credible Gilbert?
I am not stating that their lack of credibility proves that they are wrong – that would indeed be an ad hominem claim – I’m simply stating that their lack of credibility means that we have no evidence that they’re right – and so are justified not putting any weight on their claims – unless and until a more credible articulation of these claims come forth.
