FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Covid+ve vs vaccination
Covid+ve vs vaccination
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes" And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "Indeed.. Popular thinking has it that eventually the Covid jab will be the same as the flu jab Also that it is going to match whatever strain is around each year.. Which makes sense and it will be even available in Bath too!.. Way hey! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Most of the points mentioned above still applies to an individual who took the jab.
My understanding is, both through vaccine or naturally caught covid, are still going to create antibodies and both are short lived, so why do gov and nhs recommend to get the jab for everyone and disregards the individual's medical history. They wasting the doses by giving to the individuals who actually don't need them urgently.
Did any one from your GP suggested for a full body checkup first to see whether any underlying issues before getting the jab, I thought that should be the sensible thing to do before blindly getting one, this may avoid unwanted deaths.
I am in my early 30s and I got a message from nhs to get one, but I hear from people in other part of UK in their late 40s still waiting for their first jab. I rejected it, so at least someone who really need them can have it.
Our human body is so wonderful, it can naturally fight against these, but people with less immune and other health condition it is different case.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "Wow! Unnecessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's advised that if you'd previously been infected, that you will gain benefit from the vaccine. An annual booster should keep your immunity strong and could be adjusted to any variants. Possibly a joint flu and covid jab. It's no fuss and easy to have. " I think that currently, the "booster" idea is dependant on many factors. Primarily on how well the rest of the world gets their infections under control. The current thinking is that it could be just the most vulnerable who will require a booster, but if the virus is still prevalent around the world and creating significant mutations, then everyone might benefit from a booster. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "to be fair, there are people more knowledgeable, but she does generally provide a well researched and factually correct response. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's advised that if you'd previously been infected, that you will gain benefit from the vaccine. An annual booster should keep your immunity strong and could be adjusted to any variants. Possibly a joint flu and covid jab. It's no fuss and easy to have. I think that currently, the "booster" idea is dependant on many factors. Primarily on how well the rest of the world gets their infections under control. The current thinking is that it could be just the most vulnerable who will require a booster, but if the virus is still prevalent around the world and creating significant mutations, then everyone might benefit from a booster. Cal" Just seen on breakfast telly ...3rd covid jab could be offered to over 50's in England in the autumn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
to be fair, there are people more knowledgeable, but she does generally provide a well researched and factually correct response.
Cal"Thank you. I've never claimed expertise - although if it's the insult de jour, well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
to be fair, there are people more knowledgeable, but she does generally provide a well researched and factually correct response.
Cal"This.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love how "expert" has become a term of abuse "The term “expert” has been diluted by all those PhGs out there! My father used to joke that “ex is an unknown quantity and spert is a drip under pressure” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's advised that if you'd previously been infected, that you will gain benefit from the vaccine. An annual booster should keep your immunity strong and could be adjusted to any variants. Possibly a joint flu and covid jab. It's no fuss and easy to have. I think that currently, the "booster" idea is dependant on many factors. Primarily on how well the rest of the world gets their infections under control. The current thinking is that it could be just the most vulnerable who will require a booster, but if the virus is still prevalent around the world and creating significant mutations, then everyone might benefit from a booster. Cal" yeah my understanding was it was still very undecided and will be based on the data at the time , they are just ordering supply and getting plans in place as an “if we need to” rather than be trying to sort out at the last minute what could have been organised with some foresight, surely thats a positive lesson learned over the last year - seems like the exact opposite from what they did with ppe and were criticised for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you had covid previously do you still need a vaccination? Doesn't mean that the anti bodies are there in your body already if you had covid? Also do you think two doses would be enough or is it going to be a yearly thing like flu jab? If it is yearly thing, could you take it? "Get an antibody kit off the NHS website & see if you still have antibodies. I've still got antibodies so I'm in no rush to have my jabs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you had covid previously do you still need a vaccination? Doesn't mean that the anti bodies are there in your body already if you had covid? Also do you think two doses would be enough or is it going to be a yearly thing like flu jab? If it is yearly thing, could you take it?
Get an antibody kit off the NHS website & see if you still have antibodies.
I've still got antibodies so I'm in no rush to have my jabs "This is something which I have been arguing about because nobody knows but everyone thinks they know whether each person is able to have antibodies to the virus, it's a virus just like the flu and some people are more at risk then others the body learns to build up a defence if able to I think I'll make further investigation of myself and order one of these test kits if I'm able to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you had covid previously do you still need a vaccination? Doesn't mean that the anti bodies are there in your body already if you had covid? Also do you think two doses would be enough or is it going to be a yearly thing like flu jab? If it is yearly thing, could you take it?
Get an antibody kit off the NHS website & see if you still have antibodies.
I've still got antibodies so I'm in no rush to have my jabs "do you have a link to where they are available please? i tried to search and it seemed like they were only available to primary care workers as part of ongoing studies but possibly just not looking in the right place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you had covid previously do you still need a vaccination? Doesn't mean that the anti bodies are there in your body already if you had covid? Also do you think two doses would be enough or is it going to be a yearly thing like flu jab? If it is yearly thing, could you take it? "Not sure what you mean by "If it is a yearly thing, could you take it"? Surely you're not implying that half an hour and a slight pain in the arm once a year might be too arduous for some people, or too high a price to prevent the sort of chaos and carnage we've had over the last 18 months? I'd defend anybody's right to choose not to have the vaccine, but I don't really understand why anyone for whom the jab is suitable would make that choice. I find it remarkable that there is resistance to something as useful as the vaccine, yet fundamental changes like the "assumed consent" to the harvesting of organs after death have passed into law in England without a whimper from the populace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you had covid previously do you still need a vaccination? " An actual person who had covid (on another forum I frequent) says that his antibody count rose after infection as expected; but leapt up massively after jab one and again after jab 2. Horse's mouth. I'll post the numbers if anyone interested asks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "If you mean someone that engages their brain, doesn't jump onto the latest crazy conspiracy bandwagon and uses common sense, then I totally agree. All hail the top covid expert! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you everyone for the response.
Most of the points mentioned above still applies to an individual who took the jab.
My understanding is, both through vaccine or naturally caught covid, are still going to create antibodies and both are short lived, so why do gov and nhs recommend to get the jab for everyone and disregards the individual's medical history. They wasting the doses by giving to the individuals who actually don't need them urgently.
Did any one from your GP suggested for a full body checkup first to see whether any underlying issues before getting the jab, I thought that should be the sensible thing to do before blindly getting one, this may avoid unwanted deaths.
I am in my early 30s and I got a message from nhs to get one, but I hear from people in other part of UK in their late 40s still waiting for their first jab. I rejected it, so at least someone who really need them can have it.
Our human body is so wonderful, it can naturally fight against these, but people with less immune and other health condition it is different case.
"Just so you know, you not getting your jab is not stopping anyone else getting one! Right now I can book a jab for tomorrow at one of a dozen sites within 20 miles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have had covid and I have had my first and second vaccine. The information I’ve read and heard strongly suggested that you should still be vaccinated even if you have had covid because antibodies don’t last long and not everyone who has covid has antibodies. Best bet - speak to a healthcare professional. " I was advised by a respected doctor that the antibodies may last anything between 8 to 12 months (he mentioned with potential of 24 months but not enough research just yet) and also jab 8 to 12 months as well (again not enough time to do proper research) ... he mentioned that jabs are of high value in cases when the virus mutates and the fact is that everyone will have to get one once a year because of mutations... he gave an example of the Indian version which causes blood clots. So to summarise- antibodies 8 to 12 months ... jab 8 to 12 months oh and interesting point - antibodies may not show on the antibody test due to the fact that they may be ‘asleep/invisible’ until one is exposed to the virus. We will know much more in a year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you everyone for the response.
Most of the points mentioned above still applies to an individual who took the jab.
My understanding is, both through vaccine or naturally caught covid, are still going to create antibodies and both are short lived, so why do gov and nhs recommend to get the jab for everyone and disregards the individual's medical history. They wasting the doses by giving to the individuals who actually don't need them urgently.
Did any one from your GP suggested for a full body checkup first to see whether any underlying issues before getting the jab, I thought that should be the sensible thing to do before blindly getting one, this may avoid unwanted deaths.
I am in my early 30s and I got a message from nhs to get one, but I hear from people in other part of UK in their late 40s still waiting for their first jab. I rejected it, so at least someone who really need them can have it.
Our human body is so wonderful, it can naturally fight against these, but people with less immune and other health condition it is different case.
Just so you know, you not getting your jab is not stopping anyone else getting one! Right now I can book a jab for tomorrow at one of a dozen sites within 20 miles."If people deny the so called yearly vaccine our government should give it away to needier countries who want it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you everyone for the response.
Most of the points mentioned above still applies to an individual who took the jab.
My understanding is, both through vaccine or naturally caught covid, are still going to create antibodies and both are short lived, so why do gov and nhs recommend to get the jab for everyone and disregards the individual's medical history. They wasting the doses by giving to the individuals who actually don't need them urgently.
Did any one from your GP suggested for a full body checkup first to see whether any underlying issues before getting the jab, I thought that should be the sensible thing to do before blindly getting one, this may avoid unwanted deaths.
I am in my early 30s and I got a message from nhs to get one, but I hear from people in other part of UK in their late 40s still waiting for their first jab. I rejected it, so at least someone who really need them can have it.
Our human body is so wonderful, it can naturally fight against these, but people with less immune and other health condition it is different case.
Just so you know, you not getting your jab is not stopping anyone else getting one! Right now I can book a jab for tomorrow at one of a dozen sites within 20 miles.
If people deny the so called yearly vaccine our government should give it away to needier countries who want it "Or just give away the people that refuse it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have had covid and I have had my first and second vaccine. The information I’ve read and heard strongly suggested that you should still be vaccinated even if you have had covid because antibodies don’t last long and not everyone who has covid has antibodies. Best bet - speak to a healthcare professional. I was advised by a respected doctor that the antibodies may last anything between 8 to 12 months (he mentioned with potential of 24 months but not enough research just yet) and also jab 8 to 12 months as well (again not enough time to do proper research) ... he mentioned that jabs are of high value in cases when the virus mutates and the fact is that everyone will have to get one once a year because of mutations... he gave an example of the Indian version which causes blood clots. So to summarise- antibodies 8 to 12 months ... jab 8 to 12 months oh and interesting point - antibodies may not show on the antibody test due to the fact that they may be ‘asleep/invisible’ until one is exposed to the virus. We will know much more in a year. " Antibodies in folks I know lasted at high levels longer than a year, and people who had Sars1 17 years ago were found to have enough immune response to protect them this time round. If you have antibodies I believe it is wise to delay. Checkout Hooman Noorchashm's open letter of warning to the FDA and Pfizer about the immunological danger of vaccination in the naturally infected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have had covid and I have had my first and second vaccine. The information I’ve read and heard strongly suggested that you should still be vaccinated even if you have had covid because antibodies don’t last long and not everyone who has covid has antibodies. Best bet - speak to a healthcare professional. I was advised by a respected doctor that the antibodies may last anything between 8 to 12 months (he mentioned with potential of 24 months but not enough research just yet) and also jab 8 to 12 months as well (again not enough time to do proper research) ... he mentioned that jabs are of high value in cases when the virus mutates and the fact is that everyone will have to get one once a year because of mutations... he gave an example of the Indian version which causes blood clots. So to summarise- antibodies 8 to 12 months ... jab 8 to 12 months oh and interesting point - antibodies may not show on the antibody test due to the fact that they may be ‘asleep/invisible’ until one is exposed to the virus. We will know much more in a year. Antibodies in folks I know lasted at high levels longer than a year, and people who had Sars1 17 years ago were found to have enough immune response to protect them this time round. If you have antibodies I believe it is wise to delay. Checkout Hooman Noorchashm's open letter of warning to the FDA and Pfizer about the immunological danger of vaccination in the naturally infected. " He's produced zero evidence. He refers to "vaccine tissue injury" which isn't even a thing. Just another MD who should have his certification reviewed for talking nonsense. From factcheck.org: Vaccines Benefit Those Who Have Had COVID-19, Contrary to Viral Posts By Catalina Jaramillo Posted on April 23, 2021 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you had covid previously do you still need a vaccination? Doesn't mean that the anti bodies are there in your body already if you had covid? Also do you think two doses would be enough or is it going to be a yearly thing like flu jab? If it is yearly thing, could you take it?
Get an antibody kit off the NHS website & see if you still have antibodies.
I've still got antibodies so I'm in no rush to have my jabs
This is something which I have been arguing about because nobody knows but everyone thinks they know whether each person is able to have antibodies to the virus, it's a virus just like the flu and some people are more at risk then others the body learns to build up a defence if able to I think I'll make further investigation of myself and order one of these test kits if I'm able to". The research trials for the vaccines did evaluate the immune responses from research participants, who were genuinely a fairly diverse group of people, in multiple countries. Those initial studies, which helped to drive their approvals in each country, could be useful for you to establish the widespread immunity that they created. Obviously the real test of their immunity was the great reduction in severe illness and deaths, showing effective immunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have had covid and I have had my first and second vaccine. The information I’ve read and heard strongly suggested that you should still be vaccinated even if you have had covid because antibodies don’t last long and not everyone who has covid has antibodies. Best bet - speak to a healthcare professional. I was advised by a respected doctor that the antibodies may last anything between 8 to 12 months (he mentioned with potential of 24 months but not enough research just yet) and also jab 8 to 12 months as well (again not enough time to do proper research) ... he mentioned that jabs are of high value in cases when the virus mutates and the fact is that everyone will have to get one once a year because of mutations... he gave an example of the Indian version which causes blood clots. So to summarise- antibodies 8 to 12 months ... jab 8 to 12 months oh and interesting point - antibodies may not show on the antibody test due to the fact that they may be ‘asleep/invisible’ until one is exposed to the virus. We will know much more in a year. Antibodies in folks I know lasted at high levels longer than a year, and people who had Sars1 17 years ago were found to have enough immune response to protect them this time round. If you have antibodies I believe it is wise to delay. Checkout Hooman Noorchashm's open letter of warning to the FDA and Pfizer about the immunological danger of vaccination in the naturally infected. He's produced zero evidence. He refers to "vaccine tissue injury" which isn't even a thing. Just another MD who should have his certification reviewed for talking nonsense. From factcheck.org: Vaccines Benefit Those Who Have Had COVID-19, Contrary to Viral Posts By Catalina Jaramillo Posted on April 23, 2021" You do not need experimental 'vaccines' with unknown longterm safety if you already have natural immunity, this is obvious. Fact checking websites are usually extremely biased - do your own research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
"To be honest, the general consensus on this forum is that people have free choice to decide for themselves if they want it, but that it is highly recommended. One of the issues is that there are "some" of the people that are starting threads trying to encourage others to not have it and generate some sort of validation for their own choice. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters "It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine. "No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone. "Ah but that's what you say! what if someone asks you in future years about it? Examples applying for life insurance? Getting some other form of insurance .. travel for example? Applying for a job that involves working with the general public .. Bus driver all the way to a Gas fitter and teachers, etc. I am fairly sure that history of being vaccinated with regular ' boosts' will become a pre requisite as much as getting a DBS check is now .. My point being you / everyone has the right to refuse .. However, you must realize that because of that .. everyone has the right o refuse you too ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone. "Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades? "It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
"Sorry am jumping on that statement .. you are saying that you feel you don't need to be accountable for your actions or decisions that impact everyone else health? seems a bit selfish? I'm afraid anyone who currently thinks they don't / won't be held accountable in some indirect way or another for safeguarding everyone's health not just their own. These people will very very shortly be finding out just how much they do have to start explaining and justifying their decisions .. this stuff is going to impact all of us in so many indirect ways I doubt anyone has even considered the full implications yet. So the short answer is I suspect you absolutely will in a year or so have to explain your decisions and actions regarding being vaccinated/ not vaccinated/boosted this year ..unless you don't need to work/ possible lottery winner and don't wish to enter a pub, cinema, social gathering, concert, festival or work with the public in some way again? in which case you may pass under the ' radar' When all this has died down and we return to ' new normal' living all of those things are going to need some form of health guarantee, not just results of a test before people will be allowed to get involved in them .. this I predict will apply mostly in the areas of work and social / hospitality ..No jab no job is going to happen at some stage for a lot of people whether we like it or not. However, back to the thread. I think you definitely will need to be able to explain your decisions and account for your actions .. this society we live in in not anywhere near as ' free' as we think it is and will soon be finding out about . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You could argue that the Govt is acting extremely immorally by swamping the UK with vaccine and giving it to people who statistically have almost zero chance of a bad outcome, or have already proven themselves resilient (that's us and 10s of millions of you then!), when there are still millions around the globe who are highly vulnerable, have no chance of vaccine any time soon and for whom catching it would be a near certain death sentence, or at least seriously debilitating. I'd happily donate mine to one of them but I can't and, as said elsewhere, refusing it wouldn't make any difference either, they'd just give it to someone even younger and less in need of it than me, so I might as well just take it, get my covid passport and go on holiday in their country to see if they've survived! So, unfortunately, the real right answer just doesn't exist as an option and it won't because Boris can't win votes by giving it to those who really need it, but can by doing the opposite, as proven last week." The answer is to do what it's within your power to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "Unnecessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You wouldn’t be able to trace where they caught it? " Genomic sequencing is in principle possible, in a way where it can be proved genetically who infected who. While it's not been used this way in this country, it's part of how they've managed the pandemic in Australia. It's also been used in criminal cases where deliberate infection of HIV has been alleged | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tell you what, if I ever discovered that (god forbid) a family member caught covid and died or seriously ill from someone who refused to get vaccinated I wouldn't hesitate to take the strongest legal action I could against that person." Hard to achieve. One of my parents falls into the category of conspiracy theorist who brought it into my Grandad's house. It didn't end well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You wouldn’t be able to trace where they caught it? Genomic sequencing is in principle possible, in a way where it can be proved genetically who infected who. While it's not been used this way in this country, it's part of how they've managed the pandemic in Australia. It's also been used in criminal cases where deliberate infection of HIV has been alleged" Exactly and with the money and research being thrown at covid it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that this will become much easier. Particularly in a controlled environment such as a care/nursing home. So I disagree in that yes I think it maybe entirely possible to prove who passed it onto them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You wouldn’t be able to trace where they caught it? Genomic sequencing is in principle possible, in a way where it can be proved genetically who infected who. While it's not been used this way in this country, it's part of how they've managed the pandemic in Australia. It's also been used in criminal cases where deliberate infection of HIV has been alleged Exactly and with the money and research being thrown at covid it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that this will become much easier. Particularly in a controlled environment such as a care/nursing home. So I disagree in that yes I think it maybe entirely possible to prove who passed it onto them." As numbers go down, it might become more likely, too. Where my family live, they consider any unconnected case a *failure*. Because the numbers are that low. (So in almost all cases they can say, person A flew in, gave it to B, and B gave it to C. If E pops up positive with no genetic link to any other Covid they worry) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
Sorry am jumping on that statement .. you are saying that you feel you don't need to be accountable for your actions or decisions that impact everyone else health? seems a bit selfish?
I'm afraid anyone who currently thinks they don't / won't be held accountable in some indirect way or another for safeguarding everyone's health not just their own.
These people will very very shortly be finding out just how much they do have to start explaining and justifying their decisions .. this stuff is going to impact all of us in so many indirect ways I doubt anyone has even considered the full implications yet.
So the short answer is I suspect you absolutely will in a year or so have to explain your decisions and actions regarding being vaccinated/ not vaccinated/boosted this year ..unless you don't need to work/ possible lottery winner and don't wish to enter a pub, cinema, social gathering, concert, festival or work with the public in some way again? in which case you may pass under the ' radar'
When all this has died down and we return to ' new normal' living all of those things are going to need some form of health guarantee, not just results of a test before people will be allowed to get involved in them .. this I predict will apply mostly in the areas of work and social / hospitality ..No jab no job is going to happen at some stage for a lot of people whether we like it or not.
However, back to the thread. I think you definitely will need to be able to explain your decisions and account for your actions .. this society we live in in not anywhere near as ' free' as we think it is and will soon be finding out about . "You can think what you like really ...Its all just Ifs and buts... How about we just wait and see what will be thrown at all the unvaccinated people instead of making it up as we go along. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
Sorry am jumping on that statement .. you are saying that you feel you don't need to be accountable for your actions or decisions that impact everyone else health? seems a bit selfish?
I'm afraid anyone who currently thinks they don't / won't be held accountable in some indirect way or another for safeguarding everyone's health not just their own.
These people will very very shortly be finding out just how much they do have to start explaining and justifying their decisions .. this stuff is going to impact all of us in so many indirect ways I doubt anyone has even considered the full implications yet.
So the short answer is I suspect you absolutely will in a year or so have to explain your decisions and actions regarding being vaccinated/ not vaccinated/boosted this year ..unless you don't need to work/ possible lottery winner and don't wish to enter a pub, cinema, social gathering, concert, festival or work with the public in some way again? in which case you may pass under the ' radar'
When all this has died down and we return to ' new normal' living all of those things are going to need some form of health guarantee, not just results of a test before people will be allowed to get involved in them .. this I predict will apply mostly in the areas of work and social / hospitality ..No jab no job is going to happen at some stage for a lot of people whether we like it or not.
However, back to the thread. I think you definitely will need to be able to explain your decisions and account for your actions .. this society we live in in not anywhere near as ' free' as we think it is and will soon be finding out about .
You can think what you like really ...Its all just Ifs and buts... How about we just wait and see what will be thrown at all the unvaccinated people instead of making it up as we go along.
Told we have to do boosters from the Autumn, for 50 plus
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
Sorry am jumping on that statement .. you are saying that you feel you don't need to be accountable for your actions or decisions that impact everyone else health? seems a bit selfish?
I'm afraid anyone who currently thinks they don't / won't be held accountable in some indirect way or another for safeguarding everyone's health not just their own.
These people will very very shortly be finding out just how much they do have to start explaining and justifying their decisions .. this stuff is going to impact all of us in so many indirect ways I doubt anyone has even considered the full implications yet.
So the short answer is I suspect you absolutely will in a year or so have to explain your decisions and actions regarding being vaccinated/ not vaccinated/boosted this year ..unless you don't need to work/ possible lottery winner and don't wish to enter a pub, cinema, social gathering, concert, festival or work with the public in some way again? in which case you may pass under the ' radar'
When all this has died down and we return to ' new normal' living all of those things are going to need some form of health guarantee, not just results of a test before people will be allowed to get involved in them .. this I predict will apply mostly in the areas of work and social / hospitality ..No jab no job is going to happen at some stage for a lot of people whether we like it or not.
However, back to the thread. I think you definitely will need to be able to explain your decisions and account for your actions .. this society we live in in not anywhere near as ' free' as we think it is and will soon be finding out about .
You can think what you like really ...Its all just Ifs and buts... How about we just wait and see what will be thrown at all the unvaccinated people instead of making it up as we go along.
"I really don't think it is a case of 'if' but when.. Pretty much all of the world leaders have more than suggested this in the last few weeks .. Using the the 'victim' stance in all this as a minority group isn't going to have any impact on anyone who can make a difference to the situation from what I have seen and heard. We are all of us Practically powerless one way or another regardless of what we want, agree or don't agree with.. It's out of our control already because the eventual outcome rules, plans, laws and restrictions has already been agreed.. As for me? I'm just going along for the ride and will see where it takes me whether that be good or bad it's where I'm going . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
"Maybe not but I'll judge them regardless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
Maybe not but I'll judge them regardless. "Ha. They don’t care about your opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters
It's more like, don't pretend you know more than people that are highly qualified in this area and make shit up to justify not having the vaccine.
No one needs to justify why they haven’t had the vaccine. It’s their choice and they don’t need to justify the reasons to anyone.
Actually, I think they do. Why not contribute to the effort of getting the country herd immunity? What makes you think you know more than those experts that have studied this field for decades?
It doesn’t make any difference just because you think they do. No ones accountable to you and they don’t have to explain themselves to you or anyone else if they don’t want to.
Maybe not but I'll judge them regardless.
Ha. They don’t care about your opinion "I don't really give a flying testicle if they care or not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite simple really. Before we had vaccines rolled out in the UK, 150,000 plus excess deaths. With the vaccine rollout covering large parts of the population, excess deaths are negligible - clearly still incredibly sad for thosecthat do die, but by vaccinating people we are reducing this hugely. I cannot see any rational argument against vaccines. It doesn’t just protect the individual, it actually does generate a ‘herd’ immunity by limiting the ‘R’ rate significantly, meaning that further outbreaks are minimised. Just get vaccinated, if not for yourself then for everyone else." But the vaccine isn't tested and it might turn me into an ogre, I don't give a shit if everyone else suffers because I'm a dick!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is quite simple really. Before we had vaccines rolled out in the UK, 150,000 plus excess deaths. With the vaccine rollout covering large parts of the population, excess deaths are negligible - clearly still incredibly sad for thosecthat do die, but by vaccinating people we are reducing this hugely. I cannot see any rational argument against vaccines. It doesn’t just protect the individual, it actually does generate a ‘herd’ immunity by limiting the ‘R’ rate significantly, meaning that further outbreaks are minimised. Just get vaccinated, if not for yourself then for everyone else. But the vaccine isn't tested and it might turn me into an ogre, I don't give a shit if everyone else suffers because I'm a dick! "That would seem to be a fair summary of some peoples attitude | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, even if you had covid previously you need to get vaccinated. Reasons 1. Your antibodies from your previous infection do not last forever. 2. You can get infected again by the same strain or a differemt strain 3. You can get infected by more than one strain at the same time. 4. Even if you were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms does not mean that if you get infected again you will be again asympromatic or have mild symptoms. 5. The vaccine minimizes your risk of getting hospitalised or worse if you get infected. 6. The vaccine minimizes the risk of transmiting the virus to others because even if you are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms your viral load is likely to be less. 7. Two doses are better than one. To get the maximum protection from most vaccines you need two doses. 8. We do not know how things will progress. Even though in UK we are going to achieve a high percentage of vaccinated population, in other countries this does not seem to be the case. 9. It is likely that the vaccine will be a yearly thing, at least for the first few years, if new strains appear. If it is a yearly thing yes and based on how things are now, yes I would take it. As I do with the flu jab. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tell you what, if I ever discovered that (god forbid) a family member caught covid and died or seriously ill from someone who refused to get vaccinated I wouldn't hesitate to take the strongest legal action I could against that person." What if they caught Covid and became seriously ill from someone who was vaccinated? Will you sue them for not taking enough care to avoid getting infected? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact." Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All these people who are blasting others for not having the vaccine for whatever reason but those same people are happy to roll around with a load of strangers contracting goodness knows what? It is a little hypocritical. Everyone needs to make their own choices " Haha, good point, Herpes, HIV and Hepatitis are no stroll in the park for some. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People keep harping about science and that we should listen to the experts. So what does the science say? Covid19 has an IFR of 0.2% and average age of death of roughly 78 years. (CDC figures) For the vast majority of people, it is a mild to moderate infection that won't require hospitilisation. WHO, CDC, EMA, and the pharmaceutical companies all admit the shots won't prevent infection, re infection or transmission. No previous coronavirus vaccine had been developed because they never got past animal trials. All animals died when exposed to the wild virus after vaccination due to Antibody dependant enhancement. The shots have been approved for emergency use and clinical trials conclude in 2023. If you get the shot, essentially you're part of an experiment with unknown outcome. Leading doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm and requested that EMA address their specific concerns re adverse events, specifically the blood clotting. This was before the first cases began that led to a suspension of the Astrazeneca in several countries. No specific answers were provided. Search doctors4covidethics and you can read the detailed letter they submitted and the laughable reply they received that provided no hard data they requested. Hydroxichloroquine, Invermectin, Vit D and Zinc are all highly effective in combating covid. It's what frontline professionals are stating. Search America's Frontline Doctors. They're qualified physicians in the trenches, not theorists in ivory towers (SAGE). Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. And still many ask why some people have reservations and won't just take a leap of faith on something unproven, untested, unprecedented and in my case, unnecessary? Thanks but no thanks." Not only US Frontline doctors but The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Group headed up by Dr Lawrie who does meta-analyses for the WHO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People keep harping about science and that we should listen to the experts. So what does the science say? Covid19 has an IFR of 0.2% and average age of death of roughly 78 years. (CDC figures) For the vast majority of people, it is a mild to moderate infection that won't require hospitilisation. WHO, CDC, EMA, and the pharmaceutical companies all admit the shots won't prevent infection, re infection or transmission. No previous coronavirus vaccine had been developed because they never got past animal trials. All animals died when exposed to the wild virus after vaccination due to Antibody dependant enhancement. The shots have been approved for emergency use and clinical trials conclude in 2023. If you get the shot, essentially you're part of an experiment with unknown outcome. Leading doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm and requested that EMA address their specific concerns re adverse events, specifically the blood clotting. This was before the first cases began that led to a suspension of the Astrazeneca in several countries. No specific answers were provided. Search doctors4covidethics and you can read the detailed letter they submitted and the laughable reply they received that provided no hard data they requested. Hydroxichloroquine, Invermectin, Vit D and Zinc are all highly effective in combating covid. It's what frontline professionals are stating. Search America's Frontline Doctors. They're qualified physicians in the trenches, not theorists in ivory towers (SAGE). Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. And still many ask why some people have reservations and won't just take a leap of faith on something unproven, untested, unprecedented and in my case, unnecessary? Thanks but no thanks. Not only US Frontline doctors but The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Group headed up by Dr Lawrie who does meta-analyses for the WHO." To say science is settled and everyone is in agreement is dishonest and misleading. Doctors and scientists at the top of their fields the world over have raised legitimate concerns concerning these shots using logical arguments and data. You turn on the mainstream media and you hear crickets. There is no debate and thus no informed consent. I work in healthcare and virtually all of my colleagues had no idea re these issues. They never stopped to think things through. The blindly accepted recommendations on faith because the "experts" said so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family." This is incorrect. The companies have protection from being sued by the government. Anyone who is unlucky enough to have a damaging reaction to the vaccine has the exact same recourse as they do with any vaccine - the Covid vaccines are not excluded from the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. The protection for the general public has not changed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People keep harping about science and that we should listen to the experts. So what does the science say? Covid19 has an IFR of 0.2% and average age of death of roughly 78 years. (CDC figures) For the vast majority of people, it is a mild to moderate infection that won't require hospitilisation. WHO, CDC, EMA, and the pharmaceutical companies all admit the shots won't prevent infection, re infection or transmission. No previous coronavirus vaccine had been developed because they never got past animal trials. All animals died when exposed to the wild virus after vaccination due to Antibody dependant enhancement. The shots have been approved for emergency use and clinical trials conclude in 2023. If you get the shot, essentially you're part of an experiment with unknown outcome. Leading doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm and requested that EMA address their specific concerns re adverse events, specifically the blood clotting. This was before the first cases began that led to a suspension of the Astrazeneca in several countries. No specific answers were provided. Search doctors4covidethics and you can read the detailed letter they submitted and the laughable reply they received that provided no hard data they requested. Hydroxichloroquine, Invermectin, Vit D and Zinc are all highly effective in combating covid. It's what frontline professionals are stating. Search America's Frontline Doctors. They're qualified physicians in the trenches, not theorists in ivory towers (SAGE). Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. And still many ask why some people have reservations and won't just take a leap of faith on something unproven, untested, unprecedented and in my case, unnecessary? Thanks but no thanks. Not only US Frontline doctors but The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Group headed up by Dr Lawrie who does meta-analyses for the WHO. To say science is settled and everyone is in agreement is dishonest and misleading. Doctors and scientists at the top of their fields the world over have raised legitimate concerns concerning these shots using logical arguments and data. You turn on the mainstream media and you hear crickets. There is no debate and thus no informed consent. I work in healthcare and virtually all of my colleagues had no idea re these issues. They never stopped to think things through. The blindly accepted recommendations on faith because the "experts" said so." When you say you work in healthcare, do you mean you work in Boots? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You will be told in this forum that you must absolutely have the vaccine and while you’re at it toss any kids you may have into the trials. Nothing else matters "Well actually like everything in life you’d take an informed choice, the minuscule risk of complications (we have had just over 200 incidents in the entirety of our vaccination programme where there has been some medical concern or issue during vaccination, none of which have had serious consequences). I do find it interesting that you seem to paint the picture that anyone pushing vaccination as being reckless, I’d suggest you look at India, 4,000+ deaths a day battling a strain which has only just arrived in the U.K. whatever way you spin it, to not vaccinate is the far greater risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. This is incorrect. The companies have protection from being sued by the government. Anyone who is unlucky enough to have a damaging reaction to the vaccine has the exact same recourse as they do with any vaccine - the Covid vaccines are not excluded from the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. The protection for the general public has not changed." In the U.S. they have blanket immunity. They cannot be sued in a court of law by individuals or the government. There is a government scheme that pays out compensation for vaccine induced damage....it's settled 29 claims in 10 years. As for the UK, the same applies. The government cannot take legal action and neither can patients. There's an Independent article highlighting it. If things have changed in the meantime, good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. This is incorrect. The companies have protection from being sued by the government. Anyone who is unlucky enough to have a damaging reaction to the vaccine has the exact same recourse as they do with any vaccine - the Covid vaccines are not excluded from the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. The protection for the general public has not changed. In the U.S. they have blanket immunity. They cannot be sued in a court of law by individuals or the government. There is a government scheme that pays out compensation for vaccine induced damage....it's settled 29 claims in 10 years. As for the UK, the same applies. The government cannot take legal action and neither can patients. There's an Independent article highlighting it. If things have changed in the meantime, good." Patients in the UK can access the VDPS if the damage is caused by the covid vaccine. Now, the Independent’s point about potential changes and things needed to the VDPS is a discussion that I do agree is needed, however that’s a separate issue and has been an issue for a long time (the cases of those who ended up with narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine highlight some issues). However to say patients in the UK have no recourse is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation." Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. " The data for vaccines globally, all vaccines, is that long term effects show up within two months. (Per Paul Offit) Given the number given out globally, and the fact that two months have passed for tens of millions of people - I consider the risk of long term effects to be pretty low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People keep harping about science and that we should listen to the experts. So what does the science say? Covid19 has an IFR of 0.2% and average age of death of roughly 78 years. (CDC figures) For the vast majority of people, it is a mild to moderate infection that won't require hospitilisation. WHO, CDC, EMA, and the pharmaceutical companies all admit the shots won't prevent infection, re infection or transmission. No previous coronavirus vaccine had been developed because they never got past animal trials. All animals died when exposed to the wild virus after vaccination due to Antibody dependant enhancement. The shots have been approved for emergency use and clinical trials conclude in 2023. If you get the shot, essentially you're part of an experiment with unknown outcome. Leading doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm and requested that EMA address their specific concerns re adverse events, specifically the blood clotting. This was before the first cases began that led to a suspension of the Astrazeneca in several countries. No specific answers were provided. Search doctors4covidethics and you can read the detailed letter they submitted and the laughable reply they received that provided no hard data they requested. Hydroxichloroquine, Invermectin, Vit D and Zinc are all highly effective in combating covid. It's what frontline professionals are stating. Search America's Frontline Doctors. They're qualified physicians in the trenches, not theorists in ivory towers (SAGE). Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. And still many ask why some people have reservations and won't just take a leap of faith on something unproven, untested, unprecedented and in my case, unnecessary? Thanks but no thanks. Not only US Frontline doctors but The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Group headed up by Dr Lawrie who does meta-analyses for the WHO. To say science is settled and everyone is in agreement is dishonest and misleading. Doctors and scientists at the top of their fields the world over have raised legitimate concerns concerning these shots using logical arguments and data. You turn on the mainstream media and you hear crickets. There is no debate and thus no informed consent. I work in healthcare and virtually all of my colleagues had no idea re these issues. They never stopped to think things through. The blindly accepted recommendations on faith because the "experts" said so." I find this to be true. Crickets is a great description. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. " Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. The data for vaccines globally, all vaccines, is that long term effects show up within two months. (Per Paul Offit) Given the number given out globally, and the fact that two months have passed for tens of millions of people - I consider the risk of long term effects to be pretty low. " Haha, that's bullshit - even the trials are running for two and three more years!! Long terms means years, they have not even had time yet to fully assess and understand the immediate risk of the thousands of adverse events and deaths. Unknown longterm risk is exactly that - unknown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. The data for vaccines globally, all vaccines, is that long term effects show up within two months. (Per Paul Offit) Given the number given out globally, and the fact that two months have passed for tens of millions of people - I consider the risk of long term effects to be pretty low. Haha, that's bullshit - even the trials are running for two and three more years!! Long terms means years, they have not even had time yet to fully assess and understand the immediate risk of the thousands of adverse events and deaths. Unknown longterm risk is exactly that - unknown. " Ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. This is incorrect. The companies have protection from being sued by the government. Anyone who is unlucky enough to have a damaging reaction to the vaccine has the exact same recourse as they do with any vaccine - the Covid vaccines are not excluded from the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. The protection for the general public has not changed. In the U.S. they have blanket immunity. They cannot be sued in a court of law by individuals or the government. There is a government scheme that pays out compensation for vaccine induced damage....it's settled 29 claims in 10 years. As for the UK, the same applies. The government cannot take legal action and neither can patients. There's an Independent article highlighting it. If things have changed in the meantime, good." 120k is the maximum I understand. That's not much if it is a permanent disability or death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "WOW you really do have a huge chip on your shoulder!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Drug companies have legal immunity. You get injured or killed by the shot? Tough luck! No recourse for you or your family. This is incorrect. The companies have protection from being sued by the government. Anyone who is unlucky enough to have a damaging reaction to the vaccine has the exact same recourse as they do with any vaccine - the Covid vaccines are not excluded from the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. The protection for the general public has not changed. In the U.S. they have blanket immunity. They cannot be sued in a court of law by individuals or the government. There is a government scheme that pays out compensation for vaccine induced damage....it's settled 29 claims in 10 years. As for the UK, the same applies. The government cannot take legal action and neither can patients. There's an Independent article highlighting it. If things have changed in the meantime, good. 120k is the maximum I understand. That's not much if it is a permanent disability or death. " Assuming you can prove it. Not likely, given the lengths authorities go to stress that there's no link when someone previously healthy drops dead or becomes seriously ill 24-48h after getting the shot. Good luck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance." Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid." Yeah, I'm not buying any of this either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid." For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here "She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I know a little and have learned to navigate virology, is all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I must say, it is rather flattering to be elevated to expert
I know a little and have learned to navigate virology, is all"I’m sure you already knew it but I was taking the piss | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies."No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies. "Who are "some"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"- like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent.." That’s incorrect. The scandal with Pandermix is that the risk of developing narcolepsy (children and adults developed it, not just children) was known before millions were vaccinated. That is why so many of the compensation claims are still ongoing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?"I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"- like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent.. That’s incorrect. The scandal with Pandermix is that the risk of developing narcolepsy (children and adults developed it, not just children) was known before millions were vaccinated. That is why so many of the compensation claims are still ongoing. " Well that's even worse then. They were probably dismissed as conspiracy theories at the time eh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?
I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion."Ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time." Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"- like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent.. That’s incorrect. The scandal with Pandermix is that the risk of developing narcolepsy (children and adults developed it, not just children) was known before millions were vaccinated. That is why so many of the compensation claims are still ongoing. Well that's even worse then. They were probably dismissed as conspiracy theories at the time eh." No, there was no real conspiracy theories round it. The increase in narcolepsy numbers were flagged up (in particular in Finland) and then it was worked backwards to the cause. In most cases it was acknowledged quickly. It was harder in the cases of adults, especially those in the age range where it showed itself. (Don’t get me wrong - the handling here of many of the compensation cases here has been dire, the Vaccine damage fun does need overhauled. But there wasn’t enough secrecy for conspiracy theories to build as it was known and recognised very quickly) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"- like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent.. That’s incorrect. The scandal with Pandermix is that the risk of developing narcolepsy (children and adults developed it, not just children) was known before millions were vaccinated. That is why so many of the compensation claims are still ongoing. Well that's even worse then. They were probably dismissed as conspiracy theories at the time eh. No, there was no real conspiracy theories round it. The increase in narcolepsy numbers were flagged up (in particular in Finland) and then it was worked backwards to the cause. In most cases it was acknowledged quickly. It was harder in the cases of adults, especially those in the age range where it showed itself. (Don’t get me wrong - the handling here of many of the compensation cases here has been dire, the Vaccine damage fun does need overhauled. But there wasn’t enough secrecy for conspiracy theories to build as it was known and recognised very quickly)" I was being sarcastic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"- like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent.. That’s incorrect. The scandal with Pandermix is that the risk of developing narcolepsy (children and adults developed it, not just children) was known before millions were vaccinated. That is why so many of the compensation claims are still ongoing. Well that's even worse then. They were probably dismissed as conspiracy theories at the time eh. No, there was no real conspiracy theories round it. The increase in narcolepsy numbers were flagged up (in particular in Finland) and then it was worked backwards to the cause. In most cases it was acknowledged quickly. It was harder in the cases of adults, especially those in the age range where it showed itself. (Don’t get me wrong - the handling here of many of the compensation cases here has been dire, the Vaccine damage fun does need overhauled. But there wasn’t enough secrecy for conspiracy theories to build as it was known and recognised very quickly) I was being sarcastic. " Sorry I totally misread that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine." You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8" A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets." No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....?" Of the 18 people in the RBH with Covid, the majority are UNVACCINATED. 5 had received 1 dose (an incomplete course) and only 1 received 2 doses. This individual is described as already very frail so it's possible they didn't make a robust immune response. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tess Lawrie does not work for the NHS. She runs her own medical consultancy and her LinkedIn profile shows only 11 months of her career as working in the NHS (in Bath, in 2010). Her training is in gynaecology. Her own meta-analysis states, and I quote "Low certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%). Secondary outcomes provided very-low or low certainty evidence." All data on ivermectin to date show there is insufficient evidence to recommend its use for Covid. In humans, ivermectin is only licensed as a topical preparation in the UK, for things like rosacea. To get ivermectin into the lungs in quantities sufficient to do anything useful, humans would need to take doses well above anything previously studied or given. Lab studies show ivermectin may impair SARS-CoV-2 replication but at exceptionally high concentrations. The MHRA has not received any application from any organisation or company to seek a licence for ivermectin to be used for Covid or as anything other than a topical preparation. If there was that much evidence, some company somewhere would be seeking to get it licensed and would be selling it like hot cakes. All this lead the European Medicines Agency to say: "Laboratory studies found that ivermectin could block replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), but at much higher ivermectin concentrations than those achieved with the currently authorised doses. Results from clinical studies were varied, with some studies showing no benefit and others reporting a potential benefit. Most studies EMA reviewed were small and had additional limitations, including different dosing regimens and use of concomitant medications. EMA therefore concluded that the currently available evidence is not sufficient to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 outside clinical trials. Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded. EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." From a FOI to NHS Scotland: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100137853/ Being a qualified doctor does not preclude someone from acting in opposition to actual evidence. There are doctors who work within the NHS who have carried out FGM. Wakefield was an NHS doctor when he conducted utterly unethical experiments and drew false conclusions about MMR, to the point where his actions alone set the fight against childhood infectious diseases back several decades. There are plenty other such examples. The fact Dr Lawrie seems to have no peer reviewed papers on the benefits of ivermectin and is publishing her "knowledge" on the well known academic website YouTube says it all." Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. " Where has Lawrie published her peer reviewed findings? Why does her own (unpublished) meta analysis refer only to low certainty evidence? Why has no organisation or individual sought approval from the MHRA for the use of ivermectin as an anti-Covid treatment at the required doses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....?" Four people are known to have died from the Indian variant but appearing on TV this morning Mr Hancock said those who had been hospitalised were 'largely people who are eligible for the vaccine but have not taken it'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....?" I have no narrative, unlike yourself. I would love an existing drug to be used to cancel out the Covid but you obviously can’t read the meta analysis report properly. Many of the small scale trials were done at a higher rate. You are saying on the one hand that the vaccines haven’t been tested properly (yet they have been through globally accepted regulatory trials) and then saying it’s okay to prescribe a drug at higher rates without testing it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....? Four people are known to have died from the Indian variant but appearing on TV this morning Mr Hancock said those who had been hospitalised were 'largely people who are eligible for the vaccine but have not taken it'." Yes plus all the people currently in hospital being treated for covid are either unvaccinated or caught covid within 3 weeks of receiving their first dose. I really understand people who spread false information when there is no evidence to back up what they say but plenty to prove the opposite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?
I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion."That’s crap, they are actually very different in terms of the manner they provide a level of immunity. Amongst our staff many have been positive, still test positive for antibodies yet we all are now vaccinated too, there’s never been any directions to delay on any of the approved vaccinations. It’s also why they don’t ask it as a screening requirement prior to booking in for your vaccination. You are only ‘delayed’ if you are currently positive, that’s purely to safeguard others at the centre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....? Four people are known to have died from the Indian variant but appearing on TV this morning Mr Hancock said those who had been hospitalised were 'largely people who are eligible for the vaccine but have not taken it'." Largely. I think he said 5 out of the 18 were vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....? I have no narrative, unlike yourself. I would love an existing drug to be used to cancel out the Covid but you obviously can’t read the meta analysis report properly. Many of the small scale trials were done at a higher rate. You are saying on the one hand that the vaccines haven’t been tested properly (yet they have been through globally accepted regulatory trials) and then saying it’s okay to prescribe a drug at higher rates without testing it "Nope, you misread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?
I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion.
That’s crap, they are actually very different in terms of the manner they provide a level of immunity. Amongst our staff many have been positive, still test positive for antibodies yet we all are now vaccinated too, there’s never been any directions to delay on any of the approved vaccinations.
It’s also why they don’t ask it as a screening requirement prior to booking in for your vaccination. You are only ‘delayed’ if you are currently positive, that’s purely to safeguard others at the centre.
"It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. Where has Lawrie published her peer reviewed findings? Why does her own (unpublished) meta analysis refer only to low certainty evidence? Why has no organisation or individual sought approval from the MHRA for the use of ivermectin as an anti-Covid treatment at the required doses? " Beats me, you wait for further data if you like, if I get Covid I'm taking Ivermectin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....? I have no narrative, unlike yourself. I would love an existing drug to be used to cancel out the Covid but you obviously can’t read the meta analysis report properly. Many of the small scale trials were done at a higher rate. You are saying on the one hand that the vaccines haven’t been tested properly (yet they have been through globally accepted regulatory trials) and then saying it’s okay to prescribe a drug at higher rates without testing it
Nope, you misread. "Fine we will agree to disagree and we can just forget my 35 years of experience in reading and dissecting such papers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. Where has Lawrie published her peer reviewed findings? Why does her own (unpublished) meta analysis refer only to low certainty evidence? Why has no organisation or individual sought approval from the MHRA for the use of ivermectin as an anti-Covid treatment at the required doses? Beats me, you wait for further data if you like, if I get Covid I'm taking Ivermectin. " Well one thing will be certain. You will be tape worm free | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. Where has Lawrie published her peer reviewed findings? Why does her own (unpublished) meta analysis refer only to low certainty evidence? Why has no organisation or individual sought approval from the MHRA for the use of ivermectin as an anti-Covid treatment at the required doses? Beats me, you wait for further data if you like, if I get Covid I'm taking Ivermectin. " Good luck to you if you do take it. You'd be taking something with far less data on efficacy, suitability and safety that any of the vaccines or any of the other medications now recommended, such as dexamethasone. Ivermectin is used as a topical, external treatment in humans. You'd be ingesting high concentrations with zero idea as to whether it would harm you or whether it'd be effective. I find that interesting, given your stance on people who take the vaccines, which have considerable amounts of data behind them now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. Now you are talking BS re Ivermectin. The vaccines have been through double blind trials involving 30,000 people. The ivermectin trials involved 70 to 400 people and were not double blind trials and some trials didn’t have a correct control sample population snd dome studies it was impossible to tell which drug gave the better results. The rates of Ivermectin (which is basically an insecticide) used in the trials were at a much higher rate than is prescribed for humans for the control of parasitic worms. There are not studies available to show that ivermectin is safe at these higher rates and hence you cannot state the risk of this drug is equivalent to the vaccine. You're missing heaps of data there, check out the meta-analysis done by Dr Lawrie and BIRD. They're are several long videos on YouTube still. She works for the NHS and WHO doing meta-analysis and producing guidelines, and has no axe to grind. It is a drug that has a long record of safe use, and anti-parisitic action is only one of it's properties, but one for which it's discoverer earned a nobel prize. https://youtu.be/psjoHNxw6-8 A long record of safe use at a certain rate. Are you saying analysis of small scale studies at a higher rate with no guideline studies performed at this higher rate means that it is safe? It’s like saying take 20 paracetamol tablets as it has a long term safe use when taking 2 tablets. No, the rates proving effective for Covid in the field are normal safe doses. Plenty more data on the way too, feel free to ignore it all though if it suits your narrative. I wonder if all those vaccinated people in hospital in Bolton with Covid would like to enrol on the UK Ivermectin trial....? I have no narrative, unlike yourself. I would love an existing drug to be used to cancel out the Covid but you obviously can’t read the meta analysis report properly. Many of the small scale trials were done at a higher rate. You are saying on the one hand that the vaccines haven’t been tested properly (yet they have been through globally accepted regulatory trials) and then saying it’s okay to prescribe a drug at higher rates without testing it
Nope, you misread.
Fine we will agree to disagree and we can just forget my 35 years of experience in reading and dissecting such papers."No, you misread my posts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. Where has Lawrie published her peer reviewed findings? Why does her own (unpublished) meta analysis refer only to low certainty evidence? Why has no organisation or individual sought approval from the MHRA for the use of ivermectin as an anti-Covid treatment at the required doses? Beats me, you wait for further data if you like, if I get Covid I'm taking Ivermectin. Well one thing will be certain. You will be tape worm free " Actually not, it does not kill tape worms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic." Not allowed? Pretty doubtful that you're currently tapping our your message on prison window railings right now, so maybe dissent is very very much allowed here, just correctly held to account and exposed by some when it's utter bilge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Working for someone as an independent consultant does not mean being employed by them, you do realise? But it does mean they respect your judgement and professional opinion. But you feel free to know better than NHS and WHO if it does not fit your 'we need vaccine salvation alone' narrative. Where has Lawrie published her peer reviewed findings? Why does her own (unpublished) meta analysis refer only to low certainty evidence? Why has no organisation or individual sought approval from the MHRA for the use of ivermectin as an anti-Covid treatment at the required doses? Beats me, you wait for further data if you like, if I get Covid I'm taking Ivermectin. Good luck to you if you do take it. You'd be taking something with far less data on efficacy, suitability and safety that any of the vaccines or any of the other medications now recommended, such as dexamethasone. Ivermectin is used as a topical, external treatment in humans. You'd be ingesting high concentrations with zero idea as to whether it would harm you or whether it'd be effective. I find that interesting, given your stance on people who take the vaccines, which have considerable amounts of data behind them now." Nope, it's been safely used as an oral dose for many years, not topically. And the longterm data on the vaccines is not yet available, only the short term death and adverse event figures - 10k deaths in Europe apparently I've just been shown, who knew. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic. Not allowed? Pretty doubtful that you're currently tapping our your message on prison window railings right now, so maybe dissent is very very much allowed here, just correctly held to account and exposed by some when it's utter bilge." Nope, was a very reasoned argument regarding the possible mechanism of fatal adverse reactions in healthy people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic. Not allowed? Pretty doubtful that you're currently tapping our your message on prison window railings right now, so maybe dissent is very very much allowed here, just correctly held to account and exposed by some when it's utter bilge. Nope, was a very reasoned argument regarding the possible mechanism of fatal adverse reactions in healthy people." And you were allowed to make your argument? No one arrested you at gun point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?
I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion.
That’s crap, they are actually very different in terms of the manner they provide a level of immunity. Amongst our staff many have been positive, still test positive for antibodies yet we all are now vaccinated too, there’s never been any directions to delay on any of the approved vaccinations.
It’s also why they don’t ask it as a screening requirement prior to booking in for your vaccination. You are only ‘delayed’ if you are currently positive, that’s purely to safeguard others at the centre.
It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic."No, I’m just being factual as opposed to posing as some kind of authority and spouting drivel. If you hadn’t noticed alongside the USA we’ve become the benchmark for vaccination plans across the globe, there’s a reason for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?
I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion.
That’s crap, they are actually very different in terms of the manner they provide a level of immunity. Amongst our staff many have been positive, still test positive for antibodies yet we all are now vaccinated too, there’s never been any directions to delay on any of the approved vaccinations.
It’s also why they don’t ask it as a screening requirement prior to booking in for your vaccination. You are only ‘delayed’ if you are currently positive, that’s purely to safeguard others at the centre.
It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic."No, it’s total crap. There’s zero reason to delay vaccination due to resident antibody levels from previous covid-19 exposure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Medical advice I've heard says yes, but consult your doctor Don't know Yes And like magic... the top covid expert on fab is here
She happens to be right. All medical advice is to take the vaccine even if you've previously tested positive for covid and for antibodies.
No, not all. Some recommend delaying vaccination if you still have high levels of antibodies.
Who are "some"?
I don't make lists for reference on discussions on sex websites, sorry. Qualified medical professionals anyway, there is diversity of opinion.
That’s crap, they are actually very different in terms of the manner they provide a level of immunity. Amongst our staff many have been positive, still test positive for antibodies yet we all are now vaccinated too, there’s never been any directions to delay on any of the approved vaccinations.
It’s also why they don’t ask it as a screening requirement prior to booking in for your vaccination. You are only ‘delayed’ if you are currently positive, that’s purely to safeguard others at the centre.
It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic.
No, it’s total crap. There’s zero reason to delay vaccination due to resident antibody levels from previous covid-19 exposure. "Well, some medics disagree. Until all the sudden post vaccine deaths are fully explained no reasoning adult should dismiss discussion about their cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not crap, it's just not the approach taken in this country where dissent is not allowed. That does not alter the fact that others are of a different opinion, you're just being dogmatic. Not allowed? Pretty doubtful that you're currently tapping our your message on prison window railings right now, so maybe dissent is very very much allowed here, just correctly held to account and exposed by some when it's utter bilge. Nope, was a very reasoned argument regarding the possible mechanism of fatal adverse reactions in healthy people.rofessionals And you were allowed to make your argument? No one arrested you at gun point?" I'm talking about medical professionals being silenced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time." My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. " I have no intention of catching Covid either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. I have no intention of catching Covid either. " I wish you all the luck with that. A way of significantly reducing the impact should you get it, is to have the vaccination beforehand. The only way we eradicate and reduce the impact of serious disease isto vaccinate. It is how we removed Polio. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. I have no intention of catching Covid either. I wish you all the luck with that. A way of significantly reducing the impact should you get it, is to have the vaccination beforehand. The only way we eradicate and reduce the impact of serious disease isto vaccinate. It is how we removed Polio." Ivermectin works pretty well in this case it seems, early treatment makes far more sense to me. And Vitamin D status is critical, that's clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. I have no intention of catching Covid either. I wish you all the luck with that. A way of significantly reducing the impact should you get it, is to have the vaccination beforehand. The only way we eradicate and reduce the impact of serious disease isto vaccinate. It is how we removed Polio. Ivermectin works pretty well in this case it seems, early treatment makes far more sense to me. And Vitamin D status is critical, that's clear. " Given your concern about Covid vaccines being ‘untested’, how do you recocile with this… “FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).” I’d rather listen to the science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading about it, ivermectin on the bmj and the FDA websites it looks to be being pushed certainly in South Africa by people making a lot of money for a medication not even in use for humans.. Whilst this is a learning curve for science and the global medical community it's also as we've seen with PPE, oxygen and meds in India etc an opportunity for some to exploit people's genuine fears.. " I think the HCQ debacle is good reason to be incredibly cautious about medications that aren't designed for viruses, and are being pushed beyond the evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading about it, ivermectin on the bmj and the FDA websites it looks to be being pushed certainly in South Africa by people making a lot of money for a medication not even in use for humans.. Whilst this is a learning curve for science and the global medical community it's also as we've seen with PPE, oxygen and meds in India etc an opportunity for some to exploit people's genuine fears.. I think the HCQ debacle is good reason to be incredibly cautious about medications that aren't designed for viruses, and are being pushed beyond the evidence." Snake oil salesmen, just in suits and called marketing execs.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading about it, ivermectin on the bmj and the FDA websites it looks to be being pushed certainly in South Africa by people making a lot of money for a medication not even in use for humans.. Whilst this is a learning curve for science and the global medical community it's also as we've seen with PPE, oxygen and meds in India etc an opportunity for some to exploit people's genuine fears.. I think the HCQ debacle is good reason to be incredibly cautious about medications that aren't designed for viruses, and are being pushed beyond the evidence. Snake oil salesmen, just in suits and called marketing execs.." Quite. Also applies to other things like remdesivir (spelling?) being given at the wrong disease stage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. I have no intention of catching Covid either. " Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Other than being allergic to the vaccines, I just don’t see any excuse for not having one. Opinion is not valid in the face of scientific fact. Ah. So anyone who is of the opinion that these vaccines will turn out to have a good long term safety, without the scientific fact of completed long term studies, is what - acting on blind faith? No, this is about assessing the balance of risk in the full knowledge of all the relevent facts AND possibilities as they pertain to your own particular situation. Let’s face it, neither you, nor I have ‘all the relevant facts’, this is why people specialise in scientific careers. I believe that the scientists are more accurate than ‘lay opinion’. So I stand by my statement. All the fact based evidence says vaccines work, so take them unless you have an allergy. Lol, this is so incorrect and entirely ignores all the fact-based evidence of risk, which also presented by suitably qualified scientists. This is a biased, head in the sand attitude based on ignorance. Where is this ‘fact-based evidence of risk’? So far 500m plus people have been vaccinated worldwide. What risk are you seeing? I accept people might not like the idea of being vaccinated, but their is far less risk having the vaccine than their is getting Covid. For some groups, sure, maybe not the ones who died shortly after vaccination, or have blood clots, or amputations, or heavy uterine bleeding or spontaneous miscarriages...and maybe not for those who had low risk from Covid and go on to develop some as yet unforseen side effect - like the children who developed lifelong narcolepsy after the swine flu vaccine. Many millions had had that vaccine before that risk became apparent. When I started researching which vaccine would be the best to get I stumbled across a paper in the International Journal of Clinical Practice about the impossibility of informed consent to these vaccinations when their nature and risks had not been properly explained to the public - ADE I believe was their initial concern. In researching further I discovered a whole host of medical opinion highlighting other potential risks, and so decided to wait a few months for more clarity. At the same time, the efficacy of well known and totally safe drugs like Ivermectin came to my attention, both in prophylaxis and treatment, seemingly offering a similar efficacy to the vaccines without any risk, and it started looking increasingly like a no-brainer. Time will tell, and at the moment I have the luxury of time. My mistake, it is 1.45billion vaccines given. When you look at risks you also need to look at the equivalent risk of not having the vaccine. You mention a number of risks, but these things would happen to a certain extent to a ‘control’ population who weren’t vaccinated. Given that 150,000 plus people in the UK have died from Covid, the biggest risk is not some possible issue, it is the real issue of Covid. I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible." Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course..." You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky." I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. " And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible." No, not even with two vaccines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines." We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. " Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. " Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? " This question has already been posed. The response to "where are the peer reviewed papers?" was "beats me". Conclusive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? This question has already been posed. The response to "where are the peer reviewed papers?" was "beats me". Conclusive "Ah.. Seen it before on other topics.. Hey ho.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. " If as you suggest Ivermectin is so groundbreaking one does wonder why 2 days ago it was decided by the Covid-19 therapeutics panel in the U.K. that: “They felt the evidence of a clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effect was weak and that the current clinical evidence and meta-analyses were not sufficiently robust to recommend ivermectin [for further study].” To put that into context there’s not enough positive data to even suggest it has a worth in limited therapy trials. The past year has seen numerous drugs tried through this route, amongst them another anti inflammatory “ibuprofen”... if we speak plainly, it’s less useful than a couple of nurofen. So far today you’ve suggested to a number of people they should be trying this drug, including Long Covid sufferers none of which who would benefit in the slightest from an anti inflammatory... what exactly is your background and why do you keep repeating groundless claims about the power of a cheap drug design to combat worm infestation? Add to that the EMA’s findings that the required dosage to gain any benefit against covid-19 is outweighed by probable side effects from the vastly increased dose. That was their reason for banning it in Europe for c-19 therapy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? " Sorry no. Google Dr Tess Lawrie and BIRD, she will have links up somewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? This question has already been posed. The response to "where are the peer reviewed papers?" was "beats me". Conclusive "It's a sex site, I'm at work all day - do your own research! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. If as you suggest Ivermectin is so groundbreaking one does wonder why 2 days ago it was decided by the Covid-19 therapeutics panel in the U.K. that: “They felt the evidence of a clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effect was weak and that the current clinical evidence and meta-analyses were not sufficiently robust to recommend ivermectin [for further study].” To put that into context there’s not enough positive data to even suggest it has a worth in limited therapy trials. The past year has seen numerous drugs tried through this route, amongst them another anti inflammatory “ibuprofen”... if we speak plainly, it’s less useful than a couple of nurofen. So far today you’ve suggested to a number of people they should be trying this drug, including Long Covid sufferers none of which who would benefit in the slightest from an anti inflammatory... what exactly is your background and why do you keep repeating groundless claims about the power of a cheap drug design to combat worm infestation? Add to that the EMA’s findings that the required dosage to gain any benefit against covid-19 is outweighed by probable side effects from the vastly increased dose. That was their reason for banning it in Europe for c-19 therapy. " Most of that is factually incorrect, but your mind is too closed to hear anything of value. Last I heard Oxford Uni were running the latest trial, they obviously considered it worthwhile....plenty of use in the field will be producing data too. I care not if you are interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? Sorry no. Google Dr Tess Lawrie and BIRD, she will have links up somewhere. " Yes, I searched last night. She hasn't had anything published and peer reviewed on ivermectin. She has two pre prints, which describe themselves as showing "low to very low certainty" evidence. In fact, there's a dearth of ANY peer reviewed evidence on ivermectin for Covid. I wonder why? It's not because medics are trying to suppress the use of cheap, existing drugs. Dexamethasone, one of the most widely used drugs in Covid treatment now, was put into use due to evidence gathered in trials and it is a cheap, generic drug. No-one has applied to the MHRA to license ivermectin for Covid treatment. If it was so efficacious and the evidence so overwhelming, someone would have applied to license it for different reasons to what its already licensed for. For those interested, these are the side effects known for orally taken ivermectin: With oral use abnormal sensation in eye; anaemia; appetite decreased; asthenia; asthma exacerbated; chest discomfort; coma; confusion; conjunctival haemorrhage; constipation; diarrhoea; difficulty standing; difficulty walking; dizziness; drowsiness; dyspnoea; encephalopathy; eosinophilia; eye inflammation; faecal incontinence; fever; gastrointestinal discomfort; headache; hepatitis; hypotension; joint disorders; leucopenia; lymphatic abnormalities; Mazzotti reaction aggravated; myalgia; nausea; oedema; pain; psychiatric disorder; seizure; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); stupor; tachycardia; tremor; urinary incontinence; vertigo; vomiting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First, Large High-Quality Trial for ‘Wonder Drug’ Ivermectin Could Dramatically Reduce COVID-19 Deaths By HospiMedica International staff writers Posted on 29 Jan 2021 A new trial will assess Ivermectin, a medicine traditionally used on livestock and to treat people with parasitic infestations, that has been hailed by some as a “wonder drug” with the potential to save the lives of thousands of COVID-19 patients. Researchers from the University of Oxford (Oxford, UK) are planning the first, large high-quality trial of the antiparasitic drug Ivermectin, according to a report by The Times. The study will be a part of the UK-wide Platform Randomized trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older people (PRINCIPLE) trial which is seeking at-home treatments that could be taken immediately after symptoms of COVID-19 appear. The trial aims to find a medicine that would be effective during the earliest stages of the disease in preventing severe illness. " It still seems like at best an adjuct to a vaccine - plus of course testing of vaccines has been much more rigorous. Just do not get why you wont follow the science? We have a solution that dramatically reduces risk, but you promote unproven alternatives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First, Large High-Quality Trial for ‘Wonder Drug’ Ivermectin Could Dramatically Reduce COVID-19 Deaths By HospiMedica International staff writers Posted on 29 Jan 2021 A new trial will assess Ivermectin, a medicine traditionally used on livestock and to treat people with parasitic infestations, that has been hailed by some as a “wonder drug” with the potential to save the lives of thousands of COVID-19 patients. Researchers from the University of Oxford (Oxford, UK) are planning the first, large high-quality trial of the antiparasitic drug Ivermectin, according to a report by The Times. The study will be a part of the UK-wide Platform Randomized trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older people (PRINCIPLE) trial which is seeking at-home treatments that could be taken immediately after symptoms of COVID-19 appear. The trial aims to find a medicine that would be effective during the earliest stages of the disease in preventing severe illness. " The PRINCIPLE trial is not currently assessing ivermectin. The website is the name of the trial, followed by dot org. A search of that site brings up zero results for ivermectin. One of the researchers running the PRINCIPLE trial was quoted in The Times, in January 2021, as saying there was a gap in the data and that other studies were of low quality and that they might add ivermectin to the study, but at the present time, they are not studying it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. Do you have a link for the peer reviewed evidence for ivermectin in relation to covid..? Sorry no. Google Dr Tess Lawrie and BIRD, she will have links up somewhere. Yes, I searched last night. She hasn't had anything published and peer reviewed on ivermectin. She has two pre prints, which describe themselves as showing "low to very low certainty" evidence. In fact, there's a dearth of ANY peer reviewed evidence on ivermectin for Covid. I wonder why? It's not because medics are trying to suppress the use of cheap, existing drugs. Dexamethasone, one of the most widely used drugs in Covid treatment now, was put into use due to evidence gathered in trials and it is a cheap, generic drug. No-one has applied to the MHRA to license ivermectin for Covid treatment. If it was so efficacious and the evidence so overwhelming, someone would have applied to license it for different reasons to what its already licensed for. For those interested, these are the side effects known for orally taken ivermectin: With oral use abnormal sensation in eye; anaemia; appetite decreased; asthenia; asthma exacerbated; chest discomfort; coma; confusion; conjunctival haemorrhage; constipation; diarrhoea; difficulty standing; difficulty walking; dizziness; drowsiness; dyspnoea; encephalopathy; eosinophilia; eye inflammation; faecal incontinence; fever; gastrointestinal discomfort; headache; hepatitis; hypotension; joint disorders; leucopenia; lymphatic abnormalities; Mazzotti reaction aggravated; myalgia; nausea; oedema; pain; psychiatric disorder; seizure; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); stupor; tachycardia; tremor; urinary incontinence; vertigo; vomiting" That sounds nice and safe  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I have no intention of catching Covid either. Yes, the virus simply avoids those who have no intention of catching it. By that logic, everyone who has caught Covid HAD the intention of catching it. My Grandfather could be described as having had no intention of catching it, the week before his first vaccine. Unfortunately someone who DID have it, who lived in his house passed it on. How generous of them. My Grandfather died of Covid within the week. The virus does not discriminate, it's a blob of protein, lipid and RNA and has no sentient capacity. It infects anyone susceptible. Not if they manage to avoid it. Boy there is some real subjective bias and post-justification on this site. Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug, the billions are only being made on vaccines. And Chinese test kits of course... You cannot guarantee you will avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus any more than you can avoid a rhinovirus or any other aerosol spread virus. If you go to the shops, to a workplace, to the gym, on public transport or frankly in any place other than being solitary in your home, you cannot guarantee to avoid it. I didn't go looking for it in April 2020 but I caught it. Fortunately I had mild disease but not everyone is so lucky. I don't go to most of those places, I work outside, I understand bio-security and I have good PPE. So far so good. And I hope it remains so, but you cannot guarantee that you will never contract it. That's simply not possible. No, not even with two vaccines. We're going round in circles here. There's mounting (peer reviewed) evidence that having two vaccines reduces transmission substantially, as well as preventing serious/fatal disease. Studies into the effect of vaccines on transmission came, quite rightly, after studies to assess safety/tolerability and impact on disease severity. Sure. And mounting evidence for the patterns and causes of the adverse events and deaths too, and the efficacy of Ivermectin in both prevention and treatment. The more time passes, the more evidence there is to base ALL our choices on. I am happy for whatever works out to be the best for any individual's circumstances. It would certainly be best for poor countries if that were Ivermectin. If as you suggest Ivermectin is so groundbreaking one does wonder why 2 days ago it was decided by the Covid-19 therapeutics panel in the U.K. that: “They felt the evidence of a clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effect was weak and that the current clinical evidence and meta-analyses were not sufficiently robust to recommend ivermectin [for further study].” To put that into context there’s not enough positive data to even suggest it has a worth in limited therapy trials. The past year has seen numerous drugs tried through this route, amongst them another anti inflammatory “ibuprofen”... if we speak plainly, it’s less useful than a couple of nurofen. So far today you’ve suggested to a number of people they should be trying this drug, including Long Covid sufferers none of which who would benefit in the slightest from an anti inflammatory... what exactly is your background and why do you keep repeating groundless claims about the power of a cheap drug design to combat worm infestation? Add to that the EMA’s findings that the required dosage to gain any benefit against covid-19 is outweighed by probable side effects from the vastly increased dose. That was their reason for banning it in Europe for c-19 therapy. Most of that is factually incorrect, but your mind is too closed to hear anything of value. Last I heard Oxford Uni were running the latest trial, they obviously considered it worthwhile....plenty of use in the field will be producing data too. I care not if you are interested. " Sure, strangely I’m fairly confident about the validity of the BMC to be honest x A brief internet search will confirm it has been dropped by numerous countries in the past week. As for the Oxford trials, that would appear quite tricky to achieve seeing as the drug has not been approved for investigation in covid 19 treatment, in other words you legally can not administer it to a covid patient in the U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ever heard of the subjective selection of evidence? Research continues. "EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. This EMA public health statement has been endorsed by the COVID-19 EMA pandemic Task Force (COVID-ETF), in light of the ongoing discussions on the use of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19."" I'm all for good quality trials being done and if they show it to be safe and effective, let's use it. But at the moment, there is pretty much no evidence it is safe and/or effective for the clinical treatment of Covid-19. Plenty of research has been done into cheap, already existing drugs for Covid, with a number of cheap, generic steroids being shown to be effective. These medications are now being used to treat Covid. There's no reason why ivermectin would be excluded from being trialled, but it has to be properly trialled before being rolled out for use in the NHS. By the way, dexamethasone tablets are cheaper, on average, than ivermectin, so the cost profile is not a reason for "ignoring" it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ever heard of the subjective selection of evidence? Research continues. "EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. This EMA public health statement has been endorsed by the COVID-19 EMA pandemic Task Force (COVID-ETF), in light of the ongoing discussions on the use of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19." I'm all for good quality trials being done and if they show it to be safe and effective, let's use it. But at the moment, there is pretty much no evidence it is safe and/or effective for the clinical treatment of Covid-19. Plenty of research has been done into cheap, already existing drugs for Covid, with a number of cheap, generic steroids being shown to be effective. These medications are now being used to treat Covid. There's no reason why ivermectin would be excluded from being trialled, but it has to be properly trialled before being rolled out for use in the NHS. By the way, dexamethasone tablets are cheaper, on average, than ivermectin, so the cost profile is not a reason for "ignoring" it. " Exactly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In fact, there's a dearth of ANY peer reviewed evidence on ivermectin for Covid. I wonder why? It's not because medics are trying to suppress the use of cheap, existing drugs. Dexamethasone, one of the most widely used drugs in Covid treatment now, was put into use due to evidence gathered in trials and it is a cheap, generic drug. No-one has applied to the MHRA to license ivermectin for Covid treatment. If it was so efficacious and the evidence so overwhelming, someone would have applied to license it for different reasons to what its already licensed for. For those interested, these are the side effects known for orally taken ivermectin: With oral use abnormal sensation in eye; anaemia; appetite decreased; asthenia; asthma exacerbated; chest discomfort; coma; confusion; conjunctival haemorrhage; constipation; diarrhoea; difficulty standing; difficulty walking; dizziness; drowsiness; dyspnoea; encephalopathy; eosinophilia; eye inflammation; faecal incontinence; fever; gastrointestinal discomfort; headache; hepatitis; hypotension; joint disorders; leucopenia; lymphatic abnormalities; Mazzotti reaction aggravated; myalgia; nausea; oedema; pain; psychiatric disorder; seizure; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); stupor; tachycardia; tremor; urinary incontinence; vertigo; vomiting That sounds nice and safe "Clearly we need to be confident of its safety before offering it to people to ingest as an oral treatment. It has been used as a single oral dose for some types of helminthic worms (which aren't seen in this country, really) but for Covid, the suggestion is that not only would more than a single dose be needed, it would be needed at higher concentrations. The oral side effects above are for the 3mg tablets at a single dose for helminths etc. (which there's actually no license for in this country anyway). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
