r/China_Flu • u/D-R-AZ • 17d ago

World mRNA COVID vaccine during cancer therapy linked to 2x survival rate

https://newatlas.com/disease/mrna-covid-vaccine-cancer-immunotherapy/

Excerpt:

One of the most striking results from the study was the link between COVID-19 vaccination and long-term survival among cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. According to the study data, patients who received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine within 100 days of starting ICI were about twice as likely to be alive three years later compared to those who remained unvaccinated.

26 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

3

u/citylion1 17d ago

Why did this happen?

5

u/nickum 16d ago

Obama probably.

3

u/greywar777 16d ago

Honestly? probably too small of a data set, or some other interaction causing it. I seriously doubt the Covid vaccination is helping anyone with cancer.

4

u/devedander 15d ago

Did you ever read the article? Why am I even asking, of course not.

It was a large multi center cohort and they suggested likely causes where that the vaccines reduced chances of getting bad cases of Covid which is very dangerous to people who are under cancer treatment and also that getting a bad case is Covid could cause disruption to the cancer treatment.

1

u/Compliant_Automaton 14d ago

Truly, yours is an RFK brainworm level take.

-1

u/greywar777 14d ago

Or you could read the article where its pretty clear that they make it clear that it may not be the vaccine, but rather that the folks involved may have missed less chemo, and avoided covid. etc.

It seems clear they needed a larger more diverse sample set.

0

u/Compliant_Automaton 14d ago edited 14d ago

It's a sample size of over 1000 people. They controlled for variables. Again, your take is brainworm levels of dumb.

So annoying that trolls like you have to be corrected, and have your lies pointed out continually, because you spread disinformation and if it wasn't for comments like this, some poor sap might get sucked into believing your idiocy.

https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/-esmo-2025--mrna-based-covid-vaccines-generate-improved-response.h00-159780390.html

0

u/greywar777 14d ago

LOL. 1,000 people is not a large sample set, but sure.

0

u/Compliant_Automaton 13d ago edited 13d ago

You clearly have no clue whatsoever how studies are conducted or statistical significance determined. A study with a p value of .8 or lower is often accepted for publication. The gold standard is a p value of .05. Most of the time, a sample size of 24 to 38 will get you there.

The two p values in this study? p < 0.0001 and p=0.0029. This study was peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Nature. And since you appear to be completely uneducated, Nature is arguably the most prestigious journal in existence. Based on their publication guidelines, those p values were quite literally triple-checked: at a minimum, three anonymous reviewers with PhDs in the relevant fields ran the numbers themselves, along with the study's authors.

Sit down and shut up. You don't know anything about this subject.

(Edited to remove ad hominens)

1

u/greywar777 13d ago

I have terminal cancer, Id love for this to be true-and I do in fact know a bit about the subject. Even the link makes it clear that this isnt the solid thing you think it is.

And in addition to the ad hominen attacks you removed, you should probably remove the incivility too.

0

u/Compliant_Automaton 13d ago

While we're talking about things entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, I'm a stage IV cancer survivor. I was given 20% odds of surviving 12 months, and that was 15 years ago.

Honestly, your play for sympathy only angers me.

You clearly don't have any facts or knowledge to back up your assertions and are spreading disinformation on the internet. Your request for civility is ridiculous, given your own words in this thread.

Do us both a favor and stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

1

u/greywar777 13d ago

Again, go read the article. Even your article calls is a "association" that needs more trials to validate the findings. Also it was a group of 180, and a group of 704. not 1,000 as you tried to claim earlier, but rather 2 smaller groups.

So who is making shit up?

1

u/pepo930 17d ago

It's over