FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > For the people who were cautious re the Vacc
For the people who were cautious re the Vacc
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I remember a thread from oooooh nearly a year ago asking for people's opinion on the vaccinations that were at the time in the pipeline. There were people who were understandably unsure whether they would have it if/when offered it. I was wondering if these people still feel the same or if they've decided they will, or whatever the reason definitely won't. No anti vax comments pls, I'm just interested to see if opinion has changed. " I would then and would now. We have to get out of this place and it's the only game in town. | |||
| |||
"I'm amazed they've been able to do it so quickly, but in a good way. I would not have taken the Russian vaccine until recently, because the data was not yet there. The data is now there and I now would." Around here 2 people I know in their 50's with no underlying conditions have been offered theirs today. I'm still not sure about it tbh. | |||
"I'm amazed they've been able to do it so quickly, but in a good way. I would not have taken the Russian vaccine until recently, because the data was not yet there. The data is now there and I now would. Around here 2 people I know in their 50's with no underlying conditions have been offered theirs today. I'm still not sure about it tbh. " This Week in Virology did an interview with Paul Offit recently which talked about, among other things, what goes into vaccine approval and what makes this different (speed is down to money and very little is missing from what you'd expect from normal vaccine trials, plus adverse effects taking hold beyond six weeks is all but unheard of). It's about the first half of this, yes I know it's long. He's very good. https://youtu.be/54WDQYvvcCs | |||
| |||
"I remember a thread from oooooh nearly a year ago asking for people's opinion on the vaccinations that were at the time in the pipeline. There were people who were understandably unsure whether they would have it if/when offered it. I was wondering if these people still feel the same or if they've decided they will, or whatever the reason definitely won't. No anti vax comments pls, I'm just interested to see if opinion has changed. " I haven't had any doubts really at any time. The plain truth is regardless of what it might or might not do to us. Is it dangerous? I would say its probably the most rigourously tested medical treatment in the history of man.. So if you can't trust that What can you trust? Also whether anyone likes it or not them in charge won't let us live our lives again unless we take it.. So I am certainly going to take the risk in favour of the hope that if enough people do it that let's everyone have another chance at living again.. No brainer really :/ | |||
"I remember a thread from oooooh nearly a year ago asking for people's opinion on the vaccinations that were at the time in the pipeline. There were people who were understandably unsure whether they would have it if/when offered it. I was wondering if these people still feel the same or if they've decided they will, or whatever the reason definitely won't. No anti vax comments pls, I'm just interested to see if opinion has changed. I haven't had any doubts really at any time. The plain truth is regardless of what it might or might not do to us. Is it dangerous? I would say its probably the most rigourously tested medical treatment in the history of man.. So if you can't trust that What can you trust? Also whether anyone likes it or not them in charge won't let us live our lives again unless we take it.. So I am certainly going to take the risk in favour of the hope that if enough people do it that let's everyone have another chance at living again.. No brainer really :/" I was unsure 11 months ago, as there was not enough data to know about various factors concerning the vaccines. Now there is. So that only leaves 1 thing left to consider. Do the possible and unknown (if any) long-term effects of the vaccine outweigh the known and definite effects of the virus (in my case the odds are not good if I caught the virus). In my case, the unquantifiable does not outweigh the most likely. Gun with a million chambers on one side and no idea how many bullets in it, as opposed to a 6 shooter with 3 bullets in it. Millions have taken the gun on one side, and so far they seem ok. Over 100K have taken the 6 shooter on the other side and sadly perished, with many more left with Long Covid. My money is on the vaccine. And no, it doesn't mean I'll be jumping around like a loon afterwards. I'll still continue to shield for as long as possible, especially if new variants need further inoculations/booster. It'd be a bit ironic to shrug off the initial virus and then die from a variant a few months later. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm amazed they've been able to do it so quickly, but in a good way. I would not have taken the Russian vaccine until recently, because the data was not yet there. The data is now there and I now would. Around here 2 people I know in their 50's with no underlying conditions have been offered theirs today. I'm still not sure about it tbh. This Week in Virology did an interview with Paul Offit recently which talked about, among other things, what goes into vaccine approval and what makes this different (speed is down to money and very little is missing from what you'd expect from normal vaccine trials, plus adverse effects taking hold beyond six weeks is all but unheard of). It's about the first half of this, yes I know it's long. He's very good. https://youtu.be/54WDQYvvcCs" I'll take a look at this later, thank you. | |||
"I remember a thread from oooooh nearly a year ago asking for people's opinion on the vaccinations that were at the time in the pipeline. There were people who were understandably unsure whether they would have it if/when offered it. I was wondering if these people still feel the same or if they've decided they will, or whatever the reason definitely won't. No anti vax comments pls, I'm just interested to see if opinion has changed. I would then and would now. We have to get out of this place and it's the only game in town. " Pretty much agree with this, there is currently no alternative to being vaccinated and the consequences of becoming infected aren't trivial. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Both of us were pretty certain we weren’t going to have it now 15mil plus have had it including our parents we are pretty sure now we will have it when offered. Only kid 50s with no health problems so think it will be a while yet any way. " Mid not kid lol | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
I've had all my other vaccinations. | |||
| |||
"At this point im so pissed off with it all, id have it if it was Bill gates himself, sewing a chip into my arm."  I think a lot of us feel that way | |||
"My opinion on it has changed. A year ago I was 95% against having the covid vaccine Nowadays I'm 100% against having the covid vaccine
I've had all my other vaccinations."Love to know what confirmed your doubts? | |||
"How refreshing to see a thread where people who are concerned and cautious are not immediately jumped on and called anti-vaxxers! Sky News ran a programme the other night that coined a phrase I had not heard before that I think is a better label... Vaccine Hesitant Hesitancy in most walks of life is a good thing - a pause to risk assess before taking action rather than just jumping. It also sums us up. We were concerned by various factors including, but not limited to, speed of development, new biotech, concurrent research phases, lack of testing against interaction with other medicines, no long term side effect studies (understandably), no phase 4 (this rollout basically IS the phase 4) and the ethical history of big pharma over the years. Some of that can be explained inc the huge unprecedented level of investment and access to a huge pool of research subjects/participants. Other areas cannot. So for us it was initially about personal risk assessment. Weighing up likelihood if serious illness from Covid vs possible long term side effects from vaccine. As both of us are very healthy, fit, no underlying or hereditary health conditions, we think the risk of serious illness from Covid is statistically very low. So had the vaccine only protected us from serious illness then we might still have passed, for now. However... There is now a growing level of evidence (early days and needs validation) that the vaccine(s) ALSO reduce transmission, ie they protect others not just me. That changes it to a moral argument about looking after friends, family, neighbours etc. So yes we will be having it, though remain uncomfortable about it." Exactly this for me. | |||
| |||
" Nowadays I'm 100% against having the covid vaccine " I don't think I could ever be 100% about something | |||
" Nowadays I'm 100% against having the covid vaccine I don't think I could ever be 100% about something" I imagine it's said to stimulate comment and response. Though would be interested as someone posted earlier to understand what has happened in the last 12 months to take the poster from 95 to 100 per cent against it. | |||
| |||
| |||
 He’s had both jabs now and no side effects except a sore back for a day. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Was looking forward to my vaccine until i was told yesterday by my doctor that most asthmatics are no longer on the priority list. How can it be that people with a respiratory condition are not priority for a vaccine that protects you from a virus that attacks your lungs!" Really? A friend of mine (in Scotland) told me she should be offered it next month due to her asthma .. she's mid forties | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Xx | |||
"I research everything I’m having done. I did with the vaccine and had it. I would put my trust in the science and specialists if I needed treatment for something else, it’s the same group of amazing people
Xx"Absolutely! I ultimately trust the medical establishment, but I still want to know. (I occasionally get GPs getting pissy with me for understanding my thyroid condition I don't want to steal your prescription pad, I just want to know why my levels are off and have a conversation about it. I might know a thing or two, living with this condition for 20+ years?) | |||
"At the start of the pandemic, it became quickly obvious, this was no longer about the individual. Anyone not taking up the offer of the vaccine, must seriously look at the sacrifices given by front line workers,workers keeping the country going,shop workers, dustman, post men and women the list is endless." I am a front line worker actually and I will take my time and make the right decision for me and my family. I'm not going to be pressured by anyone. | |||
| |||
"At this moment in time I don't want it, covid isn't a deadly illness for the overwhelming majority the population yet we are being obliged and coerced into sticking a rushed thru concoction into our bodies with no guarantee that it will be effective nor will have any long term health implications. As it stands I'd feel more comfortable taking my chances with the virus than an unproven medication. Also it's been implied that the vaccine will require a yearly top up hence I would rather forgo mine (as I am in the least at risk catagory) and allow it to be saved for somebody more needing of it whether in this country or elsewhere." Dont take it then nobody is bothered infact there is a place in the queue one before. | |||
"At this moment in time I don't want it, covid isn't a deadly illness for the overwhelming majority the population yet we are being obliged and coerced into sticking a rushed thru concoction into our bodies with no guarantee that it will be effective nor will have any long term health implications. As it stands I'd feel more comfortable taking my chances with the virus than an unproven medication. Also it's been implied that the vaccine will require a yearly top up hence I would rather forgo mine (as I am in the least at risk catagory) and allow it to be saved for somebody more needing of it whether in this country or elsewhere." There is actually a lot of very positive data coming back from the vaccinations. We are already seeing a huge drop-off of the most at risk groups (those vaccinated first) being hospitalised with the virus. Cal | |||
"At this moment in time I don't want it, covid isn't a deadly illness for the overwhelming majority the population yet we are being obliged and coerced into sticking a rushed thru concoction into our bodies with no guarantee that it will be effective nor will have any long term health implications. As it stands I'd feel more comfortable taking my chances with the virus than an unproven medication. Also it's been implied that the vaccine will require a yearly top up hence I would rather forgo mine (as I am in the least at risk catagory) and allow it to be saved for somebody more needing of it whether in this country or elsewhere. There is actually a lot of very positive data coming back from the vaccinations. We are already seeing a huge drop-off of the most at risk groups (those vaccinated first) being hospitalised with the virus. Cal" let s not let facts to get in the way | |||
"At this moment in time I don't want it, covid isn't a deadly illness for the overwhelming majority the population yet we are being obliged and coerced into sticking a rushed thru concoction into our bodies with no guarantee that it will be effective nor will have any long term health implications. As it stands I'd feel more comfortable taking my chances with the virus than an unproven medication. Also it's been implied that the vaccine will require a yearly top up hence I would rather forgo mine (as I am in the least at risk catagory) and allow it to be saved for somebody more needing of it whether in this country or elsewhere. There is actually a lot of very positive data coming back from the vaccinations. We are already seeing a huge drop-off of the most at risk groups (those vaccinated first) being hospitalised with the virus. Cal" I don't mean to sound so negative, I do genuinely hope that vaccination is successful and leads to a return to normality. But at this moment in time I am still a sceptic and I still feel safer without it. | |||
"At this moment in time I don't want it, covid isn't a deadly illness for the overwhelming majority the population yet we are being obliged and coerced into sticking a rushed thru concoction into our bodies with no guarantee that it will be effective nor will have any long term health implications. As it stands I'd feel more comfortable taking my chances with the virus than an unproven medication. Also it's been implied that the vaccine will require a yearly top up hence I would rather forgo mine (as I am in the least at risk catagory) and allow it to be saved for somebody more needing of it whether in this country or elsewhere. There is actually a lot of very positive data coming back from the vaccinations. We are already seeing a huge drop-off of the most at risk groups (those vaccinated first) being hospitalised with the virus. Cal I don't mean to sound so negative, I do genuinely hope that vaccination is successful and leads to a return to normality. But at this moment in time I am still a sceptic and I still feel safer without it." As is your prerogative. Out of interest what would need to happen for you to be less sceptical and have a vaccine? | |||
| |||
| |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying." Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is | |||
"If the government hadn't lied to us over the past year people wouldn't feel sceptical towards them but been fed untrue statistics for over a year and been fed propaganda along with these untrue statistics and lies some people have seen straight through this and are prepared to sit and wait it out to see what the future brings as there will ALWAYS be the chance of the vaccine and lets be right the vaccines that will be introduced next year will be far better than any vaccines which we have available to us this year?" OK so if I have understood you correctly, there is nothing that can be done other than sit and wait? And you feel this way because you believe that some statistics or all statistics are lies? And that the govt have used propaganda regarding the virus? And you think next year's vaccines will be better than this year's? Upon what do you feel able to make that statement? Just trying to understand. I have no idea about next year's vaccine so would be good to understand. | |||
"some people have seen straight through this and are prepared to sit and wait it out to see what the future brings as there will ALWAYS be the chance of the vaccine and lets be right the vaccines that will be introduced next year will be far better than any vaccines which we have available to us this year?" If anybody chooses to sit at home alone for another year that is their choice. I had my vaccination today and I'm very happy | |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying. Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is "Erm not saying Covid isn’t serious 
And yes politicians lie and...that makes it ok? | |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying. Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is
Erm not saying Covid isn’t serious
And yes politicians lie and...that makes it ok?"It's not ok, no. But it happens. Nothing we can do about it, apart from verify stuff from other sources, as I mentioned. | |||
| |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying. Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is
Erm not saying Covid isn’t serious
And yes politicians lie and...that makes it ok?
It's not ok, no.
But it happens. Nothing we can do about it, apart from verify stuff from other sources, as I mentioned."It is sad when people say “there is nothing we can do about it” the apathy displayed towards our democratic rights makes me sad. Politicians will only be held to account if there is public outcry. Write to your MP. Write to the media. Criticise the Govt on social media. Oh and if we are ever allowed to again - protest march! Finally vote the lying thieving gits out and support things like the goodlawpractice in taking Ministers to court. | |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying. Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is
Erm not saying Covid isn’t serious
And yes politicians lie and...that makes it ok?
It's not ok, no.
But it happens. Nothing we can do about it, apart from verify stuff from other sources, as I mentioned.
It is sad when people say “there is nothing we can do about it” the apathy displayed towards our democratic rights makes me sad. Politicians will only be held to account if there is public outcry. Write to your MP. Write to the media. Criticise the Govt on social media. Oh and if we are ever allowed to again - protest march! Finally vote the lying thieving gits out and support things like the goodlawpractice in taking Ministers to court."That would be very refreshing. Let's get through this together. | |||
"If the government hadn't lied to us over the past year people wouldn't feel sceptical towards them but been fed untrue statistics for over a year and been fed propaganda along with these untrue statistics and lies some people have seen straight through this and are scared to sit and wait it out to see what the future brings as there will ALWAYS be the chance of the vaccine and lets be right the vaccines that will be introduced next year will be far better than any vaccines which we have available to us this year? OK so if I have understood you correctly, there is nothing that can be done other than sit and wait? And you feel this way because you believe that some statistics or all statistics are lies? And that the govt have used propaganda regarding the virus? And you think next year's vaccines will be better than this year's? Upon what do you feel able to make that statement? Just trying to understand. I have no idea about next year's vaccine so would be good to understand. " There are already talk of needing four jabs (yes4!) So to think people will be safe to go out and about after just the two is wrong, we don't know enough (if anything) about these vaccines never mind the vaccines which are going to be decided upon in the future but surely vaccines in the future should be better due to this world wide vaccine experiment in which only England is taking part in so far these studies of now will produce findings which can (surely) only get better? It seems to me that the people who want to look after themselves and be responsible for their own health aren't having the vaccine or are waiting to see what will happen further down the line and those who can't think for themselves or feel they are unable to look after their own health or more want someone else to take responsibility for their health then they seem to be getting vaccinated and if it makes them feel part of something or makes them feel like they will be ok and can go (back to normal) out then fine but I know a nurse who has had both jabs (over2weeks ago now) and been told to still self isolate? I just don't see why the rush unless you have been scared so much through lies off the bbc and false statistics forced upon you by the government that you feel safer with the jab than without? All I can add is there's always next week if you are unsure about it now and if hesitant about it remember there isn't a rush (unless you watch the tv) next years vaccinations will be far better than this year's? | |||
| |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly " Oahr and to think YOU could be the test? Why wouldn't you ever want to be part of something as big as this?xx | |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly " How do they test it properly? What should they do that haven't already done testing wise? | |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly " So if you had cancer and there was a new not fully tested drug that might save your life I guess you would turn it down on the same grounds right. | |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly So if you had cancer and there was a new not fully tested drug that might save your life I guess you would turn it down on the same grounds right. "
Many of the drugs offered to people with cancers and similar are still experimental, under trials / test phases etc.
KJ | |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly So if you had cancer and there was a new not fully tested drug that might save your life I guess you would turn it down on the same grounds right.
Many of the drugs offered to people with cancers and similar are still experimental, under trials / test phases etc.
KJ "My sister in law did 3 drugs trials at Royal Marsden, when she had cancer. All 3 were passed, in this case, many others benefited from that. | |||
| |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly " What makes you think it hasn't been tested properly, is it something you have read? | |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying. Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is
Erm not saying Covid isn’t serious
And yes politicians lie and...that makes it ok?
It's not ok, no.
But it happens. Nothing we can do about it, apart from verify stuff from other sources, as I mentioned.
It is sad when people say “there is nothing we can do about it” the apathy displayed towards our democratic rights makes me sad. Politicians will only be held to account if there is public outcry. Write to your MP. Write to the media. Criticise the Govt on social media. Oh and if we are ever allowed to again - protest march! Finally vote the lying thieving gits out and support things like the goodlawpractice in taking Ministers to court."That won't change anything. The opposition lies also. Politicians lie. It's life. I've no interest in joining protests or complaining on social media. Waste of time. It's why I don't vote and never will. They are all as bad as eachother | |||
"I remember a thread from oooooh nearly a year ago asking for people's opinion on the vaccinations that were at the time in the pipeline. There were people who were understandably unsure whether they would have it if/when offered it. I was wondering if these people still feel the same or if they've decided they will, or whatever the reason definitely won't. No anti vax comments pls, I'm just interested to see if opinion has changed. " Yes, I was unsure at first as to whether I'd have it because of the lack of data avaliable on long term side effects. Now I'd take it as soon as its offered to me. I figured that if I get the vaccine, maybe I'll have issues 10-20 years down the line, maybe I won't, or maybe I'll get hit by a car a year from now. Life is never a guarantee. But if I don't get it, maybe I'll get covid and die or have long term issues now. Or worse, pick it up and pass it to those I care about who are vulnerable. Its worth the risk in my opinion. | |||
"News today (hidden away but out there): Matt Hancock lied about Govt trials looking at potential prevention of Covid through healthier immune systems bolstered by Vit D. He said there was no evidence and only way forward was vaccine. Except the trials with Vit D never happened. Just one example of why this Govt have lost trust and moral authority - the list is long and growing. BTW the CEO of AZ attended Hancock’s wedding. Just saying. Were you not aware that politicians lie? This is nothing new. However, it's possible to obtain facts and statistics from other sources and professions to see how serious Covid is
Erm not saying Covid isn’t serious
And yes politicians lie and...that makes it ok?
It's not ok, no.
But it happens. Nothing we can do about it, apart from verify stuff from other sources, as I mentioned.
It is sad when people say “there is nothing we can do about it” the apathy displayed towards our democratic rights makes me sad. Politicians will only be held to account if there is public outcry. Write to your MP. Write to the media. Criticise the Govt on social media. Oh and if we are ever allowed to again - protest march! Finally vote the lying thieving gits out and support things like the goodlawpractice in taking Ministers to court.
That won't change anything.
The opposition lies also.
Politicians lie.
It's life.
I've no interest in joining protests or complaining on social media. Waste of time.
It's why I don't vote and never will.
They are all as bad as eachother "Sorry to say this but that kind of apathy is part of the problem. The ONLY reason we progressed from feudalism is because the people eventually had had enough! Your right to be a TV/TS (sorry not looked at profile) only exists because people fought for those rights. Hey ho totally your choice of course. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I just got my letter this afternoon and I called them to say I would opt out of it as I don't think it's been tested properly So if you had cancer and there was a new not fully tested drug that might save your life I guess you would turn it down on the same grounds right. " I have just done a trial with a drug called ozempic for diabetes and weight loss I am now suffering with a bad stomach which is a side effect of it and been taken off the drug. Its been working well for people but it's not been good for me | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. " This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. " As in... the virus part. And the Oxford isn't an mrna. Did you even read what I wrote? Mrna vaccines have still been around for years. Their safety hasn't been an issue, it's been effectiveness but for whatever reason they've managed to make effective ones for Covid. Probably because it's been more pressing as the other trials have mostly been for viruses that already had other effective vaccines available. | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. " You want the truth... You can't handle the truth | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. " Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw "Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far. | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far."Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China. The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus."Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional. 'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening. People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think? | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?"Informed choice is a wonderful thing. Taking a word used by someone on a swinging site to leap to anti vax canards is not so great. The Russian and Chinese rollouts have been controversial (I'm paying attention) because they did so before phase 3 trials were done, which is unacceptable in most parts of the world. For informed choice we need reliable information, not anti vax bullshit being spewed. (I am not calling anyone an anti vaxxer. I'm saying the ADE, gene therapy, stuff is anti vax bullshit) | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Informed choice is a wonderful thing.
Taking a word used by someone on a swinging site to leap to anti vax canards is not so great.
The Russian and Chinese rollouts have been controversial (I'm paying attention) because they did so before phase 3 trials were done, which is unacceptable in most parts of the world.
For informed choice we need reliable information, not anti vax bullshit being spewed. (I am not calling anyone an anti vaxxer. I'm saying the ADE, gene therapy, stuff is anti vax bullshit)"Oh now you're just making a fool of yourself. Int J Clin Pract . 2020 Oct 28;e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795. ".....COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials...." | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Informed choice is a wonderful thing.
Taking a word used by someone on a swinging site to leap to anti vax canards is not so great.
The Russian and Chinese rollouts have been controversial (I'm paying attention) because they did so before phase 3 trials were done, which is unacceptable in most parts of the world.
For informed choice we need reliable information, not anti vax bullshit being spewed. (I am not calling anyone an anti vaxxer. I'm saying the ADE, gene therapy, stuff is anti vax bullshit)
Oh now you're just making a fool of yourself.
Int J Clin Pract
. 2020 Oct 28;e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795.
".....COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials....""Congratulations you can quote from a single paper. One, one paper is not the whole and only truth, and two, it doesn't say it is a risk, it says it may be a concern (and might be an issue for consent in trials. The trials are done) It *was* a concern, yes. It's not been observed so far, and mitigation has occurred to try to prevent it. Unfortunately I can't link to any of the pages I just skimmed through to come to that conclusion (site rules and all), but they're all on the first page of the Google search: evidence for ade Covid vaccines | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?"Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. | |||
"Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. " Ain't that the truth  | |||
| |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind." I've always been in the... I'll have it category. But as it gets closer I admit to be anxious about some of the side effects which sound very nasty. But that's only from these pages. Everyone I know who has had it have been fine with hardly any side effects. | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I've always been in the... I'll have it category. But as it gets closer I admit to be anxious about some of the side effects which sound very nasty. But that's only from these pages. Everyone I know who has had it have been fine with hardly any side effects. " I personally have only known three people who have had it...two were fine ( 86 year old MIL being one of them ) the other one has a condition and had an awful time for two days after...I must admit I have wavered a bit since then but think I will probably still have it He had the chills for two days that floored him, he couldn't even stand up, it really wasn't pleasant | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I've always been in the... I'll have it category. But as it gets closer I admit to be anxious about some of the side effects which sound very nasty. But that's only from these pages. Everyone I know who has had it have been fine with hardly any side effects. " Yes, everyone is affected differently, I just had a fuzzy head. It's worth a couple of days of discomfort, rather than the potential alternative | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Informed choice is a wonderful thing.
Taking a word used by someone on a swinging site to leap to anti vax canards is not so great.
The Russian and Chinese rollouts have been controversial (I'm paying attention) because they did so before phase 3 trials were done, which is unacceptable in most parts of the world.
For informed choice we need reliable information, not anti vax bullshit being spewed. (I am not calling anyone an anti vaxxer. I'm saying the ADE, gene therapy, stuff is anti vax bullshit)
Oh now you're just making a fool of yourself.
Int J Clin Pract
. 2020 Oct 28;e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795.
".....COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials...."
Congratulations you can quote from a single paper. One, one paper is not the whole and only truth, and two, it doesn't say it is a risk, it says it may be a concern (and might be an issue for consent in trials. The trials are done)
It *was* a concern, yes. It's not been observed so far, and mitigation has occurred to try to prevent it. Unfortunately I can't link to any of the pages I just skimmed through to come to that conclusion (site rules and all), but they're all on the first page of the Google search: evidence for ade Covid vaccines"No, the trials are not 'done' - they are ongoing,'til 2022 and 2023, longterm effects can only be assessed in the long term, that's pretty obvious. Even the immediate serious after effects and deaths are still being assessed. If you're 80 or vulnerable it may well be the lower of two risks, of course. But a healthy 30 year old who might get pregnant in the next 6 months? No way should they be coerced by mass hysteria into taking an experimental gene therapy still in trials. | |||
Only issues was a sore arm..that probably more to do with sticking a pointy bit of metal in your arm and pumping some liquid into the muscle rather than a vaccine reaction  | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. "Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal. | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Informed choice is a wonderful thing.
Taking a word used by someone on a swinging site to leap to anti vax canards is not so great.
The Russian and Chinese rollouts have been controversial (I'm paying attention) because they did so before phase 3 trials were done, which is unacceptable in most parts of the world.
For informed choice we need reliable information, not anti vax bullshit being spewed. (I am not calling anyone an anti vaxxer. I'm saying the ADE, gene therapy, stuff is anti vax bullshit)
Oh now you're just making a fool of yourself.
Int J Clin Pract
. 2020 Oct 28;e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795.
".....COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials...."
Congratulations you can quote from a single paper. One, one paper is not the whole and only truth, and two, it doesn't say it is a risk, it says it may be a concern (and might be an issue for consent in trials. The trials are done)
It *was* a concern, yes. It's not been observed so far, and mitigation has occurred to try to prevent it. Unfortunately I can't link to any of the pages I just skimmed through to come to that conclusion (site rules and all), but they're all on the first page of the Google search: evidence for ade Covid vaccines
No, the trials are not 'done' - they are ongoing,'til 2022 and 2023, longterm effects can only be assessed in the long term, that's pretty obvious. Even the immediate serious after effects and deaths are still being assessed.
If you're 80 or vulnerable it may well be the lower of two risks, of course. But a healthy 30 year old who might get pregnant in the next 6 months? No way should they be coerced by mass hysteria into taking an experimental gene therapy still in trials. "Ok, whatever you like. The phase 3 papers have been published and the vaccines approved. Have fun with that. | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind." I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! " Sadly I think that could be the truth. | |||
| |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal. "I'm not really sure what that comment means in this context. But to explore further... I guess I'm trying to say informed choice is different to different people. And the information part of it must be relevant and appropriate to its audience. Who may or not be able to make accurate interpretations. Sometimes guided discovery is more appropriate and sometimes trusting experts is appropriate. Use the analogy... 50 per cent of car crashes happen less than a mile from home. Therefore if you park your car a mile away and walk the last mile you reduce your chances of a car crash by 50 per cent. | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! " I agree we could all be a lot more proactive to improve our health and immune systems. | |||
| |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! Sadly I think that could be the truth. " There's something in reverse psychology isn't there... So we've been told to stay at home, close gyms and everyone's been out walking and bumping into eachother...and crying to have gyms opened. Imagine how we'd react if the guideline became... Everybody must get outside for 2 hours a day in the daylight to boost our vit D and exercise in the gym an hour a day to improve our cardio etc.. | |||
| |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! Sadly I think that could be the truth. There's something in reverse psychology isn't there... So we've been told to stay at home, close gyms and everyone's been out walking and bumping into eachother...and crying to have gyms opened. Imagine how we'd react if the guideline became... Everybody must get outside for 2 hours a day in the daylight to boost our vit D and exercise in the gym an hour a day to improve our cardio etc.. " I was agreeing with the last comment the lady made about being left at home until you can't breathe before being taken to Hospital | |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. " For me the issues are several. If used for cancer treatment presumably the person receiving the jab receives the benefit? . Or are you suggesting pre cancer vaccination type treatment.? For the covid virus.. We are asking people who have very low likelihood of infection already, and very low likelihood of serious consequences to put chemicals in their body, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others. Now... I've always been reluctant to take paracetamol or any drugs... I was brought up that way... There's a price to pay for everything you do to your body. I had my first flu jab last year as an example. So... If I were younger I'd be hesitant to stick something in my body that was of very limited benefit to me personally. I appreciate its an ethical dilemma. Now for older folks it's a no brainer...it could save our lives. | |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. For me the issues are several. If used for cancer treatment presumably the person receiving the jab receives the benefit? . Or are you suggesting pre cancer vaccination type treatment.? For the covid virus.. We are asking people who have very low likelihood of infection already, and very low likelihood of serious consequences to put chemicals in their body, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others. Now... I've always been reluctant to take paracetamol or any drugs... I was brought up that way... There's a price to pay for everything you do to your body. I had my first flu jab last year as an example. So... If I were younger I'd be hesitant to stick something in my body that was of very limited benefit to me personally. I appreciate its an ethical dilemma. Now for older folks it's a no brainer...it could save our lives. " I'm not saying you're wrong or disagreeing with what you're saying here, just a different perspective. I've been on medication to keep me alive since I was thirteen. My mum has been on the same medication since before I was born. I find the whole "I don't want to take medication" thing baffling (not wrong, just alien to my experience). If I don't take the pills I'll die. So I take the pills. (Same goes for vaccines, and yes I've had to ask that question - when I moved to the UK I was warned about increased risk of measles. I asked my doctor who responded by giving me another MMR jab lol) | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! Sadly I think that could be the truth. There's something in reverse psychology isn't there... So we've been told to stay at home, close gyms and everyone's been out walking and bumping into eachother...and crying to have gyms opened. Imagine how we'd react if the guideline became... Everybody must get outside for 2 hours a day in the daylight to boost our vit D and exercise in the gym an hour a day to improve our cardio etc.. I was agreeing with the last comment the lady made about being left at home until you can't breathe before being taken to Hospital "Yeah sadly that's what happened with my mum... And I'm just hearing the same with a mates mum. Surely they can be more proactive. | |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. For me the issues are several. If used for cancer treatment presumably the person receiving the jab receives the benefit? . Or are you suggesting pre cancer vaccination type treatment.? For the covid virus.. We are asking people who have very low likelihood of infection already, and very low likelihood of serious consequences to put chemicals in their body, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others. Now... I've always been reluctant to take paracetamol or any drugs... I was brought up that way... There's a price to pay for everything you do to your body. I had my first flu jab last year as an example. So... If I were younger I'd be hesitant to stick something in my body that was of very limited benefit to me personally. I appreciate its an ethical dilemma. Now for older folks it's a no brainer...it could save our lives. " No it will most likely be personalised cancer treatment. Tumors are individual but treated all the same so a biopsy would be taken, mRNA injected back into you so your immune system would attack the tumor instead of blasting the whole of the person or large areas of the person with radiation or chemicals. I get where you're coming from and I understand that reasoning and hesitancy. But then you've got to factor in long Covid, and also many young people having an onset of diabetes post-covid too. And diabetes is one of the major risk factors, so catch Covid, get diabetes, then be in greater risk next winter when the next strain comes round, and throw us all into lockdown again. | |||
| |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. For me the issues are several. If used for cancer treatment presumably the person receiving the jab receives the benefit? . Or are you suggesting pre cancer vaccination type treatment.? For the covid virus.. We are asking people who have very low likelihood of infection already, and very low likelihood of serious consequences to put chemicals in their body, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others. Now... I've always been reluctant to take paracetamol or any drugs... I was brought up that way... There's a price to pay for everything you do to your body. I had my first flu jab last year as an example. So... If I were younger I'd be hesitant to stick something in my body that was of very limited benefit to me personally. I appreciate its an ethical dilemma. Now for older folks it's a no brainer...it could save our lives. I'm not saying you're wrong or disagreeing with what you're saying here, just a different perspective. I've been on medication to keep me alive since I was thirteen. My mum has been on the same medication since before I was born. I find the whole "I don't want to take medication" thing baffling (not wrong, just alien to my experience). If I don't take the pills I'll die. So I take the pills. (Same goes for vaccines, and yes I've had to ask that question - when I moved to the UK I was warned about increased risk of measles. I asked my doctor who responded by giving me another MMR jab lol) " I understand that and how it might lead to a very different perspective. And there's space for both. What I do feel strongly is that for the younger ones who get less and less benefit from the vaccine. We need to do better at persuading them rather than yelling at them and calling them selfish. (not that you do). We need better and more relevant communication. | |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. For me the issues are several. If used for cancer treatment presumably the person receiving the jab receives the benefit? . Or are you suggesting pre cancer vaccination type treatment.? For the covid virus.. We are asking people who have very low likelihood of infection already, and very low likelihood of serious consequences to put chemicals in their body, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others. Now... I've always been reluctant to take paracetamol or any drugs... I was brought up that way... There's a price to pay for everything you do to your body. I had my first flu jab last year as an example. So... If I were younger I'd be hesitant to stick something in my body that was of very limited benefit to me personally. I appreciate its an ethical dilemma. Now for older folks it's a no brainer...it could save our lives. I'm not saying you're wrong or disagreeing with what you're saying here, just a different perspective. I've been on medication to keep me alive since I was thirteen. My mum has been on the same medication since before I was born. I find the whole "I don't want to take medication" thing baffling (not wrong, just alien to my experience). If I don't take the pills I'll die. So I take the pills. (Same goes for vaccines, and yes I've had to ask that question - when I moved to the UK I was warned about increased risk of measles. I asked my doctor who responded by giving me another MMR jab lol) I understand that and how it might lead to a very different perspective. And there's space for both. What I do feel strongly is that for the younger ones who get less and less benefit from the vaccine. We need to do better at persuading them rather than yelling at them and calling them selfish. (not that you do). We need better and more relevant communication. " Yes. I'm not sure how to do it, it's something I've given thought to. The misinformation train has had a lot more practice, and people seem unwilling to accept caveats (see discussions today on things like effectiveness of masks. They help but aren't 100% effective - therefore... they don't work? ... No  ) | |||
"Was looking forward to my vaccine until i was told yesterday by my doctor that most asthmatics are no longer on the priority list. How can it be that people with a respiratory condition are not priority for a vaccine that protects you from a virus that attacks your lungs!" I have asthma, i had my jab 3 weeks ago in group 4. | |||
| |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal.
I'm not really sure what that comment means in this context. But to explore further... I guess I'm trying to say informed choice is different to different people. And the information part of it must be relevant and appropriate to its audience. Who may or not be able to make accurate interpretations. Sometimes guided discovery is more appropriate and sometimes trusting experts is appropriate. Use the analogy... 50 per cent of car crashes happen less than a mile from home. Therefore if you park your car a mile away and walk the last mile you reduce your chances of a car crash by 50 per cent. "At the moment I believe there is excessive encouragement of fear over Covid, total lack of emphasis on prophylaxis and early treatment, and inappropriate suppression of concerns over rapidly produced vaccines. Of course there is balance in all things but I find 'These vaccines are safe and effective' to be a lie. I would rather it was acknowledged there was some risks, some unknowns, and a recommendation made on a balance of risk - which is supposed to be the legal requirement. | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! I agree we could all be a lot more proactive to improve our health and immune systems. " And investigate more simple early treatments. Too much emphasis has been placed on hospitalization and vaccines IMO. | |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. " I don't know anyone who is vehemently against mRNA, it has great potential especially in areas like untreatable cancer, just needs a few more years to perfect I believe. | |||
| |||
"I do wonder if all these people vehemently against mRNA will refuse to take it when it's successfully produced as cancer treatment. For me the issues are several. If used for cancer treatment presumably the person receiving the jab receives the benefit? . Or are you suggesting pre cancer vaccination type treatment.? For the covid virus.. We are asking people who have very low likelihood of infection already, and very low likelihood of serious consequences to put chemicals in their body, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others. Now... I've always been reluctant to take paracetamol or any drugs... I was brought up that way... There's a price to pay for everything you do to your body. I had my first flu jab last year as an example. So... If I were younger I'd be hesitant to stick something in my body that was of very limited benefit to me personally. I appreciate its an ethical dilemma. Now for older folks it's a no brainer...it could save our lives. I'm not saying you're wrong or disagreeing with what you're saying here, just a different perspective. I've been on medication to keep me alive since I was thirteen. My mum has been on the same medication since before I was born. I find the whole "I don't want to take medication" thing baffling (not wrong, just alien to my experience). If I don't take the pills I'll die. So I take the pills. (Same goes for vaccines, and yes I've had to ask that question - when I moved to the UK I was warned about increased risk of measles. I asked my doctor who responded by giving me another MMR jab lol) I understand that and how it might lead to a very different perspective. And there's space for both. What I do feel strongly is that for the younger ones who get less and less benefit from the vaccine. We need to do better at persuading them rather than yelling at them and calling them selfish. (not that you do). We need better and more relevant communication. " Yes, and more informed consent. The present campaign is more like propaganda designed solely to induce irrational fear, and that is truly dystopian. I also think it's morally wrong - manipulation, domination and control always is. | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal.
I'm not really sure what that comment means in this context. But to explore further... I guess I'm trying to say informed choice is different to different people. And the information part of it must be relevant and appropriate to its audience. Who may or not be able to make accurate interpretations. Sometimes guided discovery is more appropriate and sometimes trusting experts is appropriate. Use the analogy... 50 per cent of car crashes happen less than a mile from home. Therefore if you park your car a mile away and walk the last mile you reduce your chances of a car crash by 50 per cent.
At the moment I believe there is excessive encouragement of fear over Covid, total lack of emphasis on prophylaxis and early treatment, and inappropriate suppression of concerns over rapidly produced vaccines.
Of course there is balance in all things but I find 'These vaccines are safe and effective' to be a lie. I would rather it was acknowledged there was some risks, some unknowns, and a recommendation made on a balance of risk - which is supposed to be the legal requirement.
"This is how the NHS should be re organised, prevent through education etc with PHE or whatever replaces it. Somehow & I have no idea how...we have to convince people that taking care of what they put in their mouths & how often they move is vital to a healthy life. The biggest spend up to the pandemic was is preventable diseases. As a nation we got to banning cigarettes, not suggesting that we ban all sugar heavy, fat & salt saturated ‘foods’ but if people cannot take responsibility...what then? My background is in this field I cannot tell you how many nutritional consults I had where everyone nods & says we know, we know, but??? I so wanted to scream but what? Oh well when the biscuits/cake/chocolate in the cupboard calls...well how did that get there I wonder? The chocolate fairies? My internal monologue.... | |||
"Few antivax people on this post, are most people positively having the jab? " Yes. I go in with my eyes open and will take it as soon as I'm offered. | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal.
I'm not really sure what that comment means in this context. But to explore further... I guess I'm trying to say informed choice is different to different people. And the information part of it must be relevant and appropriate to its audience. Who may or not be able to make accurate interpretations. Sometimes guided discovery is more appropriate and sometimes trusting experts is appropriate. Use the analogy... 50 per cent of car crashes happen less than a mile from home. Therefore if you park your car a mile away and walk the last mile you reduce your chances of a car crash by 50 per cent.
At the moment I believe there is excessive encouragement of fear over Covid, total lack of emphasis on prophylaxis and early treatment, and inappropriate suppression of concerns over rapidly produced vaccines.
Of course there is balance in all things but I find 'These vaccines are safe and effective' to be a lie. I would rather it was acknowledged there was some risks, some unknowns, and a recommendation made on a balance of risk - which is supposed to be the legal requirement.
This is how the NHS should be re organised, prevent through education etc with PHE or whatever replaces it. Somehow & I have no idea how...we have to convince people that taking care of what they put in their mouths & how often they move is vital to a healthy life. The biggest spend up to the pandemic was is preventable diseases. As a nation we got to banning cigarettes, not suggesting that we ban all sugar heavy, fat & salt saturated ‘foods’ but if people cannot take responsibility...what then? My background is in this field I cannot tell you how many nutritional consults I had where everyone nods & says we know, we know, but???
I so wanted to scream but what?
Oh well when the biscuits/cake/chocolate in the cupboard calls...well how did that get there I wonder? The chocolate fairies?
My internal monologue...."Yes, I'm convinced the inflammatory states associated with diabesity are a large part of why the UK and US have had such high mortality. Some debate on the Israeli data is beginning to appear, just saw this in an article: "The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit's Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer's experimental shot causes "mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc." Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications." | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal.
I'm not really sure what that comment means in this context. But to explore further... I guess I'm trying to say informed choice is different to different people. And the information part of it must be relevant and appropriate to its audience. Who may or not be able to make accurate interpretations. Sometimes guided discovery is more appropriate and sometimes trusting experts is appropriate. Use the analogy... 50 per cent of car crashes happen less than a mile from home. Therefore if you park your car a mile away and walk the last mile you reduce your chances of a car crash by 50 per cent.
At the moment I believe there is excessive encouragement of fear over Covid, total lack of emphasis on prophylaxis and early treatment, and inappropriate suppression of concerns over rapidly produced vaccines.
Of course there is balance in all things but I find 'These vaccines are safe and effective' to be a lie. I would rather it was acknowledged there was some risks, some unknowns, and a recommendation made on a balance of risk - which is supposed to be the legal requirement.
"100% agree with the first part of your statement. However I'd add further that we know low vit D is found in a large percentage of victims and we know obesity is a large impact too. Individuals can choose to boost vit D and try and manage their weight. | |||
"I was saying I am not getting it at the beginning and have now changed my mind. I was intending to have it, but have now decided to delay for more clarity. I'm also increasingly impressed with the data on Vitamin D and Ivermectin. I feel this country has seriously let us down on outpatient treatment of Covid - some countries with less advanced medical systems have far better outcomes, and we are left to just fester at home until we are struggling to breathe! I agree we could all be a lot more proactive to improve our health and immune systems. And investigate more simple early treatments. Too much emphasis has been placed on hospitalization and vaccines IMO." | |||
"I've spoken to a number of doctors I work with about it and apparently both the Pfeizer and the Oxford vaccines were developed using vaccines that were already in use and its just the actual virus that was changed. The Oxford one especially is a type of vaccine that has been around for a long time. So basically they didn't start from scratch and none of the ingredients aren't already approved and in use apart from the actual virus. So the only unknown is the virus part but personally with the choice between a weakened or dead version as part of a vaccine or a high chance of catching the actual virus with the possibility of long covid, I'd rather go for the weakened/dead version. This is just not true, it's the first public trial of mRNA 'vaccines' and none so far are conventional. Frisky, is this is more #postingrubbishtogetaneffect? Trump lost btw
Yeah, yeah and Biden doesn't have dementia. Not posting solely for effect, just can't bear the total misinformation. There is no 'weakened or dead version' so far, that would be a conventional true vaccine - though I have heard the Novovax one might be such. No these are novel gene therapies so far.
Russian and Chinese vaccines are attenuated, I believe. Russia has released a promising phase 3 paper, not sure about China.
The others are still vaccinations, and might well be lower risk because they don't contain whole virus.
Yes I thought the Russian and Chinese ones would probably be more conventional.
'Might' be lower risk. Might also cause worsening of clinical disease through antibody dependent enhancement, a fact which a paper in the Journal of Clinical Practice felt really must be explained to recipients to fulfil ethical guidelines. That is not happening.
People are free to take the risk before the data is available of course, but it should be an informed choice don't you think?
Hmmm informed choice? Trouble is out of 100 people probably 1 or 2 have the faintest clue about any of the data or long words that are used and are extremely susceptible to misinformation or misunderstanding or misinterpretation. If we applied the same logic to every area of our life.... Eg.. Construction materials, car transport, over the counter medicines... Not many people have the time, knowledge or inclination to understand what they are reading, how it has been produced, much less be able to interpret it to establish its consequences upon them. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Indeed, and sometimes total ignorance is fatal.
I'm not really sure what that comment means in this context. But to explore further... I guess I'm trying to say informed choice is different to different people. And the information part of it must be relevant and appropriate to its audience. Who may or not be able to make accurate interpretations. Sometimes guided discovery is more appropriate and sometimes trusting experts is appropriate. Use the analogy... 50 per cent of car crashes happen less than a mile from home. Therefore if you park your car a mile away and walk the last mile you reduce your chances of a car crash by 50 per cent.
At the moment I believe there is excessive encouragement of fear over Covid, total lack of emphasis on prophylaxis and early treatment, and inappropriate suppression of concerns over rapidly produced vaccines.
Of course there is balance in all things but I find 'These vaccines are safe and effective' to be a lie. I would rather it was acknowledged there was some risks, some unknowns, and a recommendation made on a balance of risk - which is supposed to be the legal requirement.
100% agree with the first part of your statement. However I'd add further that we know low vit D is found in a large percentage of victims and we know obesity is a large impact too. Individuals can choose to boost vit D and try and manage their weight. " | |||
