News Forum - Pfizer Vaccine protection after 6 months: Covid 47%, Hospitalisation 90%

[Stonker]

19 minutes ago, Faraday said:

Yea, $33.5billion ain't so much... 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aayushipratap/2021/07/28/pfizer-expects-335-billion-in-vaccine-revenue-in-2021/?sh=1bba75a2217d

But they haven't "made" that, which is what you asked and the point you were making.

That's total "revenue", which is considerably more even than sales as it includes all the deposits for pre-production orders which have been placed for next year if not beyond, which they haven't even started to produce or pay for yet.

"Revenue" isn't profit, far from it, as it doesn't allow for any production costs or overheads at all, and includes advance payment for sales and orders that haven't even started to be produced or sourced yet.

[Stonker]

10 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Sales worth $11.3bn (£8bn) were made by Pfizer in the first half of this year from the Covid-19 jab that it developed with Germany’s BioNTech. In July it lifted its 2021 sales forecast to $33.5bn.

BioNTech expects to make revenues of nearly €16bn (£13.5bn) from the vaccine this year, as its first-half net profit jumped to almost €4bn from €142m a year earlier.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/11/covid-19-vaccines-the-contracts-prices-and-profits

See above to @Faraday.

He was confusing revenue and profits.

You're confusing revenue, sales and profits.

Yes, BioNTech has made massive profits, but they were a comparatively small company, not "big pharma" which was why they turned to Pfizer, just as Oxford turned to Astra Zeneca.

[Stonker]

11 minutes ago, Faraday said:

@BlueSphinx

Yea but, yea, it's not about pharmaceutical companies making disgustingly high profits at a time when - allegedly, there is a global crisis.

They're here to help....

*Faraday wakes up with a start*

I think we're drifting way, way off topic here.

Big pharma making a profit from a global crisis has nothing at all to do with @BS's argument suggesting built-in obsolescence and the fanciful but absurd idea that vaccines are being made deliberately ineffective, and it's got even less to do with the topic.

[Faraday]

Yea, you're right Stonks, these benevolent pharmaceutical companies struggle to get by 

[JamesE]

11 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

which is illegal in some countries

Name one. Planned obsolescence is the business model of late-stage capitalism. All of the profits go to the manufacturing chain and no money flows into repair and maintenance.

[JamesE]

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

I think we're drifting way, way off topic here.

Big pharma making a profit from a global crisis has nothing at all to do with @BS's argument suggesting built-in obsolescence and the fanciful but absurd idea that vaccines are being made deliberately ineffective, and it's got even less to do with the topic.

I think we all forget that initial studies of natural immunity showed an antibody half-life of something like 36 days. Beating that with the vaccines was a win. What the current studies are showing is, for the mRNA vaccines at least, is that dosage does matter. The half-life of Pfizer, at about 6 months, is much lower than that of Moderna, which maintained its near-initial efficacy . The difference? Moderna's exosome (the lipid droplet the RNA rides in) can hold about twice as much (100mcg vs. 50mcg) as Pfizer's. We're still in the learning phase vis-a-vis vaccine performance so getting our collective shorts in a knot over the planned obsolescence of the vaccine is premature, at best.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, JamesE said:

I think we all forget that initial studies of natural immunity showed an antibody half-life of something like 36 days. Beating that with the vaccines was a win. What the current studies are showing is, for the mRNA vaccines at least, is that dosage does matter. The half-life of Pfizer, at about 6 months, is much lower than that of Moderna, which maintained its near-initial efficacy . The difference? Moderna's exosome (the lipid droplet the RNA rides in) can hold about twice as much (100mcg vs. 50mcg) as Pfizer's. We're still in the learning phase vis-a-vis vaccine performance so getting our collective shorts in a knot over the planned obsolescence of the vaccine is premature, at best.

Sorry, but while you're correct about the difference in dose size between Pfizer and Moderna, the rest is either a complete mis-reading of all the recent studies (Israel, NHSE, etc,), and a misunderstanding of how mRNA vaccines work or just plain wrong.

No comparative studies show that any vaccines give longer immunity than prior infection. This is just untrue and wrong.

If you disagree, name any of any size.

The best known, frequently referenced by the anti-post-infection-protection crowd, was in Nature magazine on-line -  it admitted it was contradicted by many other studies, and it only involved 20 people - 6 with Moderna and 14 with Pfizer, IIRC!

All the data from the Israeli study, which was by far the largest in the world so far, showed that while protection resulting from prior infection wasn't permanent or indefinite, as had been claimed by some (including here) it was at least as long as Pfizer before it started to wane, and that the level of protection was considerably higher.

The NHSE study, now peer reviewed in the Lancet, showed that while Moderna gave slightly higher protection after six months against minor symptoms than Pfizer, the protection against hospitalization and death dropped off at a similarly low rate with a minimal difference of only one or two percentage points.

The study doesn't show that Pfizer has a "half-life" of "about six months" and that Moderna has a much longer "half life" - that's simply completely untrue.

There are various ways of measuring different types of  "half lives", mostly varying from a few hours to a few days or a couple of months, but that simply isn't how mRNA vaccines work or how they give you protection.

That might well be how you interpret the studies, but you don't have access to the data and nobody involved with any of the studies has said that.

Again, if you disagree quote from the studies saying that, or name any respected vaccinologists that have said that.

It's simply untrue.

None of the manufacturers can even say yet whether these are booster doses or initial doses, nor can any of the leading scientists, so I'd suggest that what's "premature" is you appearing to be better informed than they are.

[BlueSphinx]

15 hours ago, Stonker said:

I think we're drifting way, way off topic here.

Big pharma making a profit from a global crisis has nothing at all to do with @BS's argument suggesting built-in obsolescence and the fanciful but absurd idea that vaccines are being made deliberately ineffective, and it's got even less to do with the topic.

A short response as I do not want to derail this thread with an off-topic response, but the truth has its rights...

I was NOT suggesting that Pfizer deliberately built-in or planned obsolesence in its covid-vaccine, for the simple reason that that was not necessary in the first place.  EVERY vaccine-developer and public health official KNOWS that vaccine immunity will often fade much faster because the vaccine is often only able to trigger a partial immune response compared to the actual infection. And so, the Covid-19 vaccines which recreate the S-protein spike instead of the whole virus, could NEVER have been expected to be an exception to the rule.  Denying this or pretending that waning vaccine-immunity was not an issue, was an outright but hidden lie.  Of course they were careful in not openly stating this but they left the 'customers' with the erroneous belief that two jabs would solve the issue and guarantee a return to normality.  

ALL the experience with coronavirus immunity in both humans and animals, demonstrated only a temporary short-term protection. And there was no reason to expect, despite hollow pretence, for these rushed through “vaccine solutions” to be any different.

[Malc-Thai]

On 10/7/2021 at 2:27 PM, billywillyjones said:

Best advice is to get the diet and immune system under control as best as possible and get ahold of some good antiviral drugs.  There is no guarantee the virus will not continue to mutate which may lessen the effectiveness of the vaccines.

And how about pregnant women? You seem to have overlooked that one..!

Edited October 11, 2021 by Malc-Thai

[palooka]

On 10/7/2021 at 2:28 PM, Bob20 said:

From what I read from @billywillyjoneshe seems to advocate a survival of the fittest strategy. But when I asked, he denied that.

I suppose he doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, doesn't have unsafe sex, eats responsibly and exercises regularly. Because if a virus takes advantage of any weaknesses like that, then according to him he is to blame himself.

He should count himself lucky to get away with Covid and, with a misunderstanding of the working of natural immunity, he may fare less well next time.

Jeez you sound exactly like my doctor back home, no drink, no smoking, no loose women, eat less, exercise....55555

[Poolie]

8 minutes ago, palooka said:

Jeez you sound exactly like my doctor back home, no drink, no smoking, no loose women, eat less, exercise....55555

Makes you sick doesn't it?

Your just going to sit down for a smoke and a beer, maybe a few nibbles, consider who to spend the evening with......................

Killjoys, the lot of 'em.

[Bob20]

19 minutes ago, palooka said:

Jeez you sound exactly like my doctor back home, no drink, no smoking, no loose women, eat less, exercise....55555

So you found a different type doctor here?

[palooka]

13 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

So you found a different type doctor here?

I listened to the doctor back home and took his advice for 2 years before coming to Thailand. Just on 3 years here , touch wood, going fine. Still do the exercises at least, bit slack on the others sometimes. 

[Bob20]

4 minutes ago, palooka said:

I listened to the doctor back home and took his advice for 2 years before coming to Thailand. Just on 3 years here , touch wood, going fine. Still do the exercises at least, bit slack on the others sometimes. 

No, I meant did you find a fat, drinking, smoking, promiscuous doctor here?

[palooka]

17 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

No, I meant did you find a fat, drinking, smoking, promiscuous doctor here?

Nah the one back home fitted that description though,

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

A short response as I do not want to derail this thread with an off-topic response, but the truth has its rights...

I was NOT suggesting that Pfizer deliberately built-in or planned obsolesence in its covid-vaccine, for the simple reason that that was not necessary in the first place.  EVERY vaccine-developer and public health official KNOWS that vaccine immunity will often fade much faster because the vaccine is often only able to trigger a partial immune response compared to the actual infection. And so, the Covid-19 vaccines which recreate the S-protein spike instead of the whole virus, could NEVER have been expected to be an exception to the rule.  Denying this or pretending that waning vaccine-immunity was not an issue, was an outright but hidden lie.  Of course they were careful in not openly stating this but they left the 'customers' with the erroneous belief that two jabs would solve the issue and guarantee a return to normality.  

ALL the experience with coronavirus immunity in both humans and animals, demonstrated only a temporary short-term protection. And there was no reason to expect, despite hollow pretence, for these rushed through “vaccine solutions” to be any different.

Yes, "the truth has its rights", but also its wrongs, particularly where your "rules" are concerned.

There was (and is) a reason to hope for rather than expect long term protection because your "rule" which you say Covid should be no exception to is very obviously wrong.

Do you get a tetanus, polio or MMR, Hep B or yellow fever jab every year? Obviously not.

A flu jab? Obviously so.

It depends entirely on the vaccine - there is no "rule".

Some last for life, some for a year or less, and some require a number of initial jabs (two to five) followed by boosters every ten years.

Little is known on duration with any Covid jabs as they simply haven't been around long enough, and even less about duration for mRNA jabs a they work in an entirely different way.

Nobody knows if third shots (or more) are initial shots or booster shots, so anyone pretending they do, on either side of the pro/anti vax divide, is only demonstrating their ignorance.

Does protection wane over time? Obviously.

Does it wane equally for all vaccines and all levels of protection? Obviously NOT, particularly where hospitalisation and death are concerned.

[JerseyBKK]

This "study" is a fascinating press release from Pfizer. They are brilliant.

From the Kaiser website, (https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/health-research/news/pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-wanes-over-time) I wasn't thrilled when they used many different time frames because that's a great way to manipulate data:

• Effectiveness against infections declined ,,,,,,,, at 5 to 6 months.
• Vaccine effectiveness against infections ...... declined ... at 4 to 5 months.
• Effectiveness against non-delta coronavirus variants declined,,,,, at 4 to 5 months.

So I decided to read the actual study on Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext.

In that report they list these items (with my comments in parentheses):

1. Funding :  Pfizer. (In the biotech and pharma fields, this is not uncommon. Somebody has to fund the studies otherwise they don't get done. Unfortunately that always raises the question of impartiality.)

2.  The funder of the study approved the study design, and participated in data interpretation and writing of the report. (This is not common. This is what tobacco used to do when they funded studies trying to convince people that smoking didn't cause any health problems.)

3  Contributors

SYT, FJA, LJ, and JMM conceived this study. JMS, HF, VH, and ONR conducted the analysis. SYT, FJA, JMS, HF, and JMM wrote the first draft of the protocol. SYT and JMM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the study design, drafting the protocol, and edited the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published. All authors had full access to all the data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Declaration of interests

JMZ, SG, KP, FJA, LJ, SRV, and JMM are employees of and hold stock and stock options in Pfizer. TBF holds shares of Pfizer stock.

 

(WOW! It turns out that this "study" is really a Pfizer press release. Upon reading the study, I found many "interesting" things. Like the differing time frames, inclusion of people who had Covid but were then vaxxed, and the following surprising statement)

"Our study has potential limitations. We were unable to establish causal relationships between vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study. Further, it is difficult to achieve a perfect balance of testing patterns and other characteristics between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in this real-world observational study design."

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by JerseyBKK
Added Kaiser link

[MikeTexas]

On 10/7/2021 at 1:00 AM, HolyCowCm said:

So Pfizer for the first two and then Moderna for the booster. Looks like Moderna is riding the top spot now, but I am not unhappy one bit that I have already had 2 Pfizer.

Kind of.  The published study found that a triple jab of Moderna was best followed by a double of Pfizer with a Moderna booster.  The J&J shot with an MRNA booster was next and double J&J was dead last (of the ones studied).  HOWEVER, the Moderna booster that was studies was, similar to the Pfizer booster, tested at full strength.  The ACTUAL Moderna booster is being given, unlike the Pfizer, is at half strength.  Moderna says this is to reduce negative reactions to the shot and to allow for more doses.  Nothing has been published regarding the efficacy of the 1/2 Moderna booster.  I'm sure it is still better than the J&J but I'm guessing it is primarily to be able to provide (sell) more doses with the same supply.  

[HolyCowCm]

6 hours ago, MikeTexas said:

Kind of.  The published study found that a triple jab of Moderna was best followed by a double of Pfizer with a Moderna booster.  The J&J shot with an MRNA booster was next and double J&J was dead last (of the ones studied).  HOWEVER, the Moderna booster that was studies was, similar to the Pfizer booster, tested at full strength.  The ACTUAL Moderna booster is being given, unlike the Pfizer, is at half strength.  Moderna says this is to reduce negative reactions to the shot and to allow for more doses.  Nothing has been published regarding the efficacy of the 1/2 Moderna booster.  I'm sure it is still better than the J&J but I'm guessing it is primarily to be able to provide (sell) more doses with the same supply.  

I don't think I want or want my family to be putting that much of any vaccine in our bodies ever. We are just looking to get to a clearing of safety. But I do hope that China is eventually charged and held accountable for this virus so it never happens from these devils again. How much evidence do they need to stand up to the CCP when it is really apparent already.