FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Is the vaccine a test drug
Is the vaccine a test drug
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) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" Have you looked at the drop in hospitalisation and deaths? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" Medication alone which is not only approved, and licensed have long term effects, which can also cause cancer, and other illnesses later resulting in death and people keep taking them because they need to, then you also have smoking and alcohol and both of these have long term effects, but the vaccine has reduced number of deaths, in reality wouldn't this be a fantastic thing  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" Where did you read the above info.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" I made a comment about this on another thread. 174 of the human medicine regulations act,states that in the emergency of a pandemic,a vaccine can be made fast and with some trial work,but not as much trial work as other vaccines get in non emergency times. It's a case of,better to take a chance and send it out and save some lives than let the pandemic get a complete foot hold. Here is one paragraph from the uk practical law site. Require the impact of Regulation 174 of the HMR to be formally reviewed within a year of any first use. Regulation 174 is the existing mechanism which allows for the temporary authorisation of an unlicensed medicine or vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" First of all, all drugs are test drugs. Second of all it is not one drug there are several that have been made by independent manufacturers. Thridly which peer reviewed publication did you read this in?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" You read this where exactly? Beane? Viz? Karen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" No, this is not experimental.. all the vaccines are based upon previously tried and tested vaccines and have been modified for this variant of Sars-Cov19. The vaccines follow many years of research and were not something that a scientist dreamt up a few days after the emergence of the virus. The previous Sars outbreaks had vaccines produced but never came to fruition as the outbreak disappeared as quickly as it appeared and there were insufficient numbers to trial it on, therefore, the vaccine never went into full production or was qualified. The saving grace for the current vaccines was the vast numbers of people worldwide who were contracting the virus (and still are), the vast funding that some governments were willing to invest in a vaccine and the vast numbers of people who were willing to sign up to vaccine trials (the current Janssen Ensemble 2 trial has almost 7000 volunteers). This amount of investment of funds and human resource has never been seen previously for any drug trial.. So if you are wondering why within a year, a vaccine can be trialled and approved in this fast track approach, the simple answer is thw scientists were already primed and there was a common deire to achieve the goal for the greater good of mankind (or womankind, or any other gender that people relate 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) | |||
"It's not a vaccine as such and an experimental drug, the government is using emergency power to override the law that states you have to be fully informed and sign to accept an unlicensed drug. That ok as long as you understand that and believe the government as you best interests at heart and money doesn't come into it, roll up your sleeve and go for it. But if people want to ask questions and get answers which is impossible without any debate, it's their choice and nothing to do with being anti anything. " Is your belief that governments across the world regardless previous hostilities have now entered a secret pact together to collectively promote the injection of a harmful substance into the population of planet earth? If so, why exactly would they do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" Anyone who has taken the vaccine is ( I hope) fully aware its a test.. We are all part of one of the biggest most important experiments in the history of our race.. Sure its a risk but that's the gamble we are a taking willingly to put a stop to this virus and its variants over the coming years. Seriously.. And respectfully Sharpen up lad.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? No, this is not experimental.. all the vaccines are based upon previously tried and tested vaccines and have been modified for this variant of Sars-Cov19. The vaccines follow many years of research and were not something that a scientist dreamt up a few days after the emergence of the virus. The previous Sars outbreaks had vaccines produced but never came to fruition as the outbreak disappeared as quickly as it appeared and there were insufficient numbers to trial it on, therefore, the vaccine never went into full production or was qualified. The saving grace for the current vaccines was the vast numbers of people worldwide who were contracting the virus (and still are), the vast funding that some governments were willing to invest in a vaccine and the vast numbers of people who were willing to sign up to vaccine trials (the current Janssen Ensemble 2 trial has almost 7000 volunteers). This amount of investment of funds and human resource has never been seen previously for any drug trial.. So if you are wondering why within a year, a vaccine can be trialled and approved in this fast track approach, the simple answer is thw scientists were already primed and there was a common deire to achieve the goal for the greater good of mankind (or womankind, or any other gender that people relate to).. " Which does beg the question. How useful or necessary are all the usual obstacles are in the production of safe drugs that make it take years to bring to market. Why they are there. If we can do it this effectively and quickly for this vaccine. Why would we not do it for all drugs? | |||
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) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? No, this is not experimental.. all the vaccines are based upon previously tried and tested vaccines and have been modified for this variant of Sars-Cov19. The vaccines follow many years of research and were not something that a scientist dreamt up a few days after the emergence of the virus. The previous Sars outbreaks had vaccines produced but never came to fruition as the outbreak disappeared as quickly as it appeared and there were insufficient numbers to trial it on, therefore, the vaccine never went into full production or was qualified. The saving grace for the current vaccines was the vast numbers of people worldwide who were contracting the virus (and still are), the vast funding that some governments were willing to invest in a vaccine and the vast numbers of people who were willing to sign up to vaccine trials (the current Janssen Ensemble 2 trial has almost 7000 volunteers). This amount of investment of funds and human resource has never been seen previously for any drug trial.. So if you are wondering why within a year, a vaccine can be trialled and approved in this fast track approach, the simple answer is thw scientists were already primed and there was a common deire to achieve the goal for the greater good of mankind (or womankind, or any other gender that people relate to).. Which does beg the question. How useful or necessary are all the usual obstacles are in the production of safe drugs that make it take years to bring to market. Why they are there. If we can do it this effectively and quickly for this vaccine. Why would we not do it for all drugs? " Funding.. a private pharma company will not want to invest millions of their own capital in a drug that may not be effective. Nor do they ever have a repsonse to a trial on the scale seen during this pandemic.. Because of major government investment and a public willingness to help in any way possible (call it Dunkirk spirit) it was possible on this occasion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" No. Next question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? No, this is not experimental.. all the vaccines are based upon previously tried and tested vaccines and have been modified for this variant of Sars-Cov19. The vaccines follow many years of research and were not something that a scientist dreamt up a few days after the emergence of the virus. The previous Sars outbreaks had vaccines produced but never came to fruition as the outbreak disappeared as quickly as it appeared and there were insufficient numbers to trial it on, therefore, the vaccine never went into full production or was qualified. The saving grace for the current vaccines was the vast numbers of people worldwide who were contracting the virus (and still are), the vast funding that some governments were willing to invest in a vaccine and the vast numbers of people who were willing to sign up to vaccine trials (the current Janssen Ensemble 2 trial has almost 7000 volunteers). This amount of investment of funds and human resource has never been seen previously for any drug trial.. So if you are wondering why within a year, a vaccine can be trialled and approved in this fast track approach, the simple answer is thw scientists were already primed and there was a common deire to achieve the goal for the greater good of mankind (or womankind, or any other gender that people relate to).. Which does beg the question. How useful or necessary are all the usual obstacles are in the production of safe drugs that make it take years to bring to market. Why they are there. If we can do it this effectively and quickly for this vaccine. Why would we not do it for all drugs? Funding.. a private pharma company will not want to invest millions of their own capital in a drug that may not be effective. Nor do they ever have a repsonse to a trial on the scale seen during this pandemic.. Because of major government investment and a public willingness to help in any way possible (call it Dunkirk spirit) it was possible on this occasion. " It couldn't have been done without legions of trial volunteers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks." I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" Yes you're absolutely right all the bad side effects and disabilities caused will have to be compensated by UK tax players. There fact that it is still experimental until 2023 means that there are no provisions for any long term side effects. These things usually take 12 years to come to market but these were bashed out in under 9 months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? No, this is not experimental.. all the vaccines are based upon previously tried and tested vaccines and have been modified for this variant of Sars-Cov19. The vaccines follow many years of research and were not something that a scientist dreamt up a few days after the emergence of the virus. The previous Sars outbreaks had vaccines produced but never came to fruition as the outbreak disappeared as quickly as it appeared and there were insufficient numbers to trial it on, therefore, the vaccine never went into full production or was qualified. The saving grace for the current vaccines was the vast numbers of people worldwide who were contracting the virus (and still are), the vast funding that some governments were willing to invest in a vaccine and the vast numbers of people who were willing to sign up to vaccine trials (the current Janssen Ensemble 2 trial has almost 7000 volunteers). This amount of investment of funds and human resource has never been seen previously for any drug trial.. So if you are wondering why within a year, a vaccine can be trialled and approved in this fast track approach, the simple answer is thw scientists were already primed and there was a common deire to achieve the goal for the greater good of mankind (or womankind, or any other gender that people relate to).. Which does beg the question. How useful or necessary are all the usual obstacles are in the production of safe drugs that make it take years to bring to market. Why they are there. If we can do it this effectively and quickly for this vaccine. Why would we not do it for all drugs? " The huge amount of funding and wealth of volunteers to go through the stringent testing cycles is the answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? Yes you're absolutely right all the bad side effects and disabilities caused will have to be compensated by UK tax players. There fact that it is still experimental until 2023 means that there are no provisions for any long term side effects. These things usually take 12 years to come to market but these were bashed out in under 9 months. " So much wrong here It is standard procedure for safety monitoring to continue after vaccines have been approved for use. As for the 12 years, it takes this long for many different reasons 1. The covid vaccines weren't developed from a standing start. Years of research existed. Trials began just 3 weeks after virus was isolated. 2. Recruitment of volunteers takes time. With covid vaccines there was a long queue of willing participants. 3. Phases 1 and 2 ran in parallel 4. Phase 3 had 10x more participants that there usually is for this phase. 5 . Funding existed. 6. Phase 3 data was collected and made available within 3 month. 7. Data was reviewed immediately. No red tape or waiting on reviewers. 8. Manufacturing began during trials. Basically, there has been lots of activities running in parallel getting immediate attention. | |||
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) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? You read this where exactly? Beane? Viz? Karen?" The facts are essentially true. His emotional response to those facts is his business alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. " But it is true they are only approved under emergency provisions, until the longer term data collection is complete. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use" You may be wrong. Indeed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed" Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." " Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary. "Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation? "No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect They've been approved  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved "Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics. "I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another. "Go find one if you need to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another. "Something like this from the mhra.... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-universityastrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-approved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics. "No, that's what "you're all guinea pigs, it's in trials until 2023" is. A phase 4 trial is post release. Which is post approval. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another.
Go find one if you need to. "I just have. But you're the one spreading incorrect information so perhaps you could provide some link.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" so what it your view on other vaccines...mmr, pertussis, tetanus.... Most people don't realise that you can't claim for any side effects from vaccines on anyone under the age of 5....which funnily enough is when all these vaccines are given. They have still managed to effectively wipe out most of the illnesses they cover. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course it is , any one with a tiny brain cell would have worked it out by now " Fortunately I've got about 84 billion. My second jab is in two weeks  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course it is , any one with a tiny brain cell would have worked it out by now Fortunately I've got about 84 billion. My second jab is in two weeks "Rol up roll up perfectly safe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course it is , any one with a tiny brain cell would have worked it out by now Fortunately I've got about 84 billion. My second jab is in two weeks
Rol up roll up perfectly safe "Yup | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another.
Go find one if you need to.
I just have. But you're the one spreading incorrect information so perhaps you could provide some link.?"You think AstraZeneca's own site is spreading incorrect information now?? 
This is a direct quote from their site "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK"
What is wrong with you people, you're like cult zealots denying the truth, what is your problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another.
Go find one if you need to.
I just have. But you're the one spreading incorrect information so perhaps you could provide some link.?
You think AstraZeneca's own site is spreading incorrect information now??
This is a direct quote from their site "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK"
What is wrong with you people, you're like cult zealots denying the truth, what is your problem?"You see, we've been told to do our research. So we did. And we found stuff that contradicts what you found, and reasons why what you tell us is incorrect. All we did was what people asked. We did our research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another.
Go find one if you need to.
I just have. But you're the one spreading incorrect information so perhaps you could provide some link.?
You think AstraZeneca's own site is spreading incorrect information now??
This is a direct quote from their site "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK"
What is wrong with you people, you're like cult zealots denying the truth, what is your problem?
You see, we've been told to do our research. So we did.
And we found stuff that contradicts what you found, and reasons why what you tell us is incorrect.
All we did was what people asked. We did our research."You're talking nonsense. All of these vaccines were approved on emergency authorisations only. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another.
Go find one if you need to.
I just have. But you're the one spreading incorrect information so perhaps you could provide some link.?
You think AstraZeneca's own site is spreading incorrect information now??
This is a direct quote from their site "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK"
What is wrong with you people, you're like cult zealots denying the truth, what is your problem?
You see, we've been told to do our research. So we did.
And we found stuff that contradicts what you found, and reasons why what you tell us is incorrect.
All we did was what people asked. We did our research.
You're talking nonsense. All of these vaccines were approved on emergency authorisations only. "Ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" I've read that the Earth was created as a giant computer to solve a problem, but fortunately I'm able to recognise fiction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm personally satisfied that the approved vaccines have gone through appropriate studies and checks. I may be wrong but I think the vaccines haven’t yet been approved and won’t be till 2023, they’ve just been authorised for emergency use You may be wrong. Indeed Is the AstraZeneca website wrong too? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO) for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older, including those over 65." "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year." Emergency use is a form of authorisation. A different kind, but a kind. All vaccines approved have gone through the standard phase 3 trials, or bits have been condensed to get to the same result. The fact that they're part of phase 4 (post marketing surveillance) trial has been blown way out of the water. Ooh. Making sure it's still working, and watching it. So scary.
Was that you admitting you were wrong and apologising to the fella who said they only had emergency authorisation?
No. Haven't been approved and won't be approved until 2023 is incorrect
They've been approved
Only for emergency use. No emergency, no approval. You know damn well what he meant, either you got it wrong or you are trying to deceive with semantics.
I guess a link to its status on nice or gov or sage or whatever official site would confirm one way or another.
Go find one if you need to.
I just have. But you're the one spreading incorrect information so perhaps you could provide some link.?
You think AstraZeneca's own site is spreading incorrect information now??
This is a direct quote from their site "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK"
What is wrong with you people, you're like cult zealots denying the truth, what is your problem?"Ironic. But none the less I've looked at their website and can't find it. Could you provide the link to the quote please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative" Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May 10 - still EUA "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Emergency Use in Adolescents in Another Important Action in Fight Against Pandemic For Immediate Release: May 10, 2021 Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age."" Hmm. I'm not in the US. Are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market?" It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May 10 - still EUA "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Emergency Use in Adolescents in Another Important Action in Fight Against Pandemic For Immediate Release: May 10, 2021 Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age."" And? So now in the USA, young people have been authorised to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. This is after research into safety in this very age group | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"May 10 - still EUA "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Emergency Use in Adolescents in Another Important Action in Fight Against Pandemic For Immediate Release: May 10, 2021 Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to include adolescents 12 through 15 years of age."" And the mhra... Who regulate approval of drugs in the UK... " The COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University/AstraZeneca has today been given regulatory approval by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) after meeting required safety, quality and effectiveness standards. Following a rigorous, detailed scientific review by the MHRA’s expert scientists and clinicians and on the basis of the advice of its scientific, independent advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines, the UK regulator has approved COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca for use across the UK." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year"" ... Medical regulations in different jurisdictions are not the same. At all. The US has been a separate country for awhile... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year"" The criteria for temporary use authorisation in the UK, via the MHRA, are not the same as the FDA emergency use. To be clear, the MHRA has given temporary use authorisation. There's similar pages for the other two vaccines: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year"" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? " Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca" Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. " The only evidence I've seen to this 2023 thing is that the American FDA requires phase 4. Post marketing monitoring. Which by definition means it's out in public. Such experimental, so wow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. " The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence." Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? " There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation" Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? " I took a newly licensed drug which was in post approval monitoring (phase IV) when I was pregnant. I was invited to submit data about the pregnancy, birth and post natal period. New meds still actively being monitored in phase IV are identified in the paper leaflet/ insert with the drug, but it does mean the patient has to read it thoroughly. I took the drug, by the way, because it was abundantly clear its mechanism of action lent zero risk to anything crossing the placenta etc. I researched it thoroughly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation" Delusion and deliberate deception more like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. " Pretty much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. " It is an argument over semantics with a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Some people are insecure enough in their choices to need to deny any risk to these novel vaccines, which use new technology that has not been widely used before, and could cause unforseen longterm side effects. This is a dishonest position IMO, head in the sand at best. Processes have been accelerated to allow for use as soon as possible in an emergency situation, and ONLY temporarily approved for use because of that state of emergency. This is a statement of fact. I am not suggesting corners have been cut, but there are some problems which will ONLY become apparent with time and ongoing monitoring, study and data collection. Many questions remain unanswered, and pedantically denying their validity is detrimental to progress and deeper understanding. If you deny risk, you can't make a risk assessment or give informed consent, and even published medics are concerned at the morality of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. It is an argument over semantics with a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Some people are insecure enough in their choices to need to deny any risk to these novel vaccines, which use new technology that has not been widely used before, and could cause unforseen longterm side effects. This is a dishonest position IMO, head in the sand at best. Processes have been accelerated to allow for use as soon as possible in an emergency situation, and ONLY temporarily approved for use because of that state of emergency. This is a statement of fact. I am not suggesting corners have been cut, but there are some problems which will ONLY become apparent with time and ongoing monitoring, study and data collection. Many questions remain unanswered, and pedantically denying their validity is detrimental to progress and deeper understanding. If you deny risk, you can't make a risk assessment or give informed consent, and even published medics are concerned at the morality of that. " Well i agree with a lot of that, though I wonder genuinely at the ability of man on the street to understand risk let alone have the skills to assess their own risk Even were sufficient accurate data to be made available in a usable format. It sounds like you agree that it has been approved temporarily and that corners have not been cut in granting that approval.... So we agree on more than we disagree. Caution is good when it comes to what we do with our bodies and if we all showed as much diligence with our choices as we seem to in these threads we would all be much healthier, nobody would be obese or undernourished and filling themselves with super processed foods or smoke or alcohol or poor air quality. What would help people would be with and without comparisons of risk. As someone who lost someone to covid Im very much on the side of let's do what we can do to avoid others suffering a slow and painful death or illness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In reality the vaccine has reduced deaths from Covid19" What reality...we were in a lockdown and Boris himself saud it was the lockdown and not the vaccine  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Delusion and deliberate deception more like. " Yes, there is certainly somebody posting on this thread who is deluded and deliberately trying to push harmful misinformation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. It is an argument over semantics with a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Some people are insecure enough in their choices to need to deny any risk to these novel vaccines, which use new technology that has not been widely used before, and could cause unforseen longterm side effects. This is a dishonest position IMO, head in the sand at best. Processes have been accelerated to allow for use as soon as possible in an emergency situation, and ONLY temporarily approved for use because of that state of emergency. This is a statement of fact. I am not suggesting corners have been cut, but there are some problems which will ONLY become apparent with time and ongoing monitoring, study and data collection. Many questions remain unanswered, and pedantically denying their validity is detrimental to progress and deeper understanding. If you deny risk, you can't make a risk assessment or give informed consent, and even published medics are concerned at the morality of that. Well i agree with a lot of that, though I wonder genuinely at the ability of man on the street to understand risk let alone have the skills to assess their own risk Even were sufficient accurate data to be made available in a usable format. It sounds like you agree that it has been approved temporarily and that corners have not been cut in granting that approval.... So we agree on more than we disagree. Caution is good when it comes to what we do with our bodies and if we all showed as much diligence with our choices as we seem to in these threads we would all be much healthier, nobody would be obese or undernourished and filling themselves with super processed foods or smoke or alcohol or poor air quality. What would help people would be with and without comparisons of risk. As someone who lost someone to covid Im very much on the side of let's do what we can do to avoid others suffering a slow and painful death or illness. " For sure I can respect that, and had no hesitation taking elderly relatives for vaccination. I have the same concerns for unforseen vaccine damage or death being inflicted on those who just did not need to take the risk, like the healthy 36 yr old mother of 2 who died a couple of days after getting the jab recently. I hate the obfuscation of truth, the stifling of debate, the spin and the propaganda. This relentless fear-centred coercion is immoral. If the man on the street struggled to weigh up a balance of risk, then it must be explained to him in simple terms he can understand - it is not right to deceive him, even for 'his own good'. Then he has not given informed consent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. It is an argument over semantics with a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Some people are insecure enough in their choices to need to deny any risk to these novel vaccines, which use new technology that has not been widely used before, and could cause unforseen longterm side effects. This is a dishonest position IMO, head in the sand at best. Processes have been accelerated to allow for use as soon as possible in an emergency situation, and ONLY temporarily approved for use because of that state of emergency. This is a statement of fact. I am not suggesting corners have been cut, but there are some problems which will ONLY become apparent with time and ongoing monitoring, study and data collection. Many questions remain unanswered, and pedantically denying their validity is detrimental to progress and deeper understanding. If you deny risk, you can't make a risk assessment or give informed consent, and even published medics are concerned at the morality of that. Well i agree with a lot of that, though I wonder genuinely at the ability of man on the street to understand risk let alone have the skills to assess their own risk Even were sufficient accurate data to be made available in a usable format. It sounds like you agree that it has been approved temporarily and that corners have not been cut in granting that approval.... So we agree on more than we disagree. Caution is good when it comes to what we do with our bodies and if we all showed as much diligence with our choices as we seem to in these threads we would all be much healthier, nobody would be obese or undernourished and filling themselves with super processed foods or smoke or alcohol or poor air quality. What would help people would be with and without comparisons of risk. As someone who lost someone to covid Im very much on the side of let's do what we can do to avoid others suffering a slow and painful death or illness. For sure I can respect that, and had no hesitation taking elderly relatives for vaccination. I have the same concerns for unforseen vaccine damage or death being inflicted on those who just did not need to take the risk, like the healthy 36 yr old mother of 2 who died a couple of days after getting the jab recently. I hate the obfuscation of truth, the stifling of debate, the spin and the propaganda. This relentless fear-centred coercion is immoral. If the man on the street struggled to weigh up a balance of risk, then it must be explained to him in simple terms he can understand - it is not right to deceive him, even for 'his own good'. Then he has not given informed consent." The big problem here is actually you are hanging an argument on legal terms, ‘experimental drug’ is the term for any pre authorisation. Likewise, temporary is a term applied to all applications as the system has an in built review mechanism to gauge mid to long term issues etc. All three covid vaccines routes to market are pretty standard yet accelerated, all three are based on existing vaccines so actually their structures are quite throughly tried and tested even before work commenced. Most interesting of all is to compare the data on side effects, complications etc... all three but especially Pfizer and Moderna are proving to be safer than the majority of fully approved vaccinations licensed in the world currently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yellow card report government website weekly numbers of deaths from the jab please look you will be shocked." How many are there each week ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yellow card report government website weekly numbers of deaths from the jab please look you will be shocked." many people die from a Anaphylaxis brought on by peanuts ,some people will find that shocking aswell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yellow card report government website weekly numbers of deaths from the jab please look you will be shocked. How many are there each week ?" I'm going to take a stab at not that many or otherwise our wonderful fearmongering media would be all over it like a rash... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How about www.fda.gov What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative Does the FDA regulate the UK medicines market? It's the same for UK vaccines as quoted - can't you people read? "AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for emergency supply in the UK, with the first doses being released today so that vaccinations may begin early in the New Year" I can read thank you for your concern. But I'm asking for the link so I can read it for myself.? Not the link you're looking for, but this might help. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca Thanks I have the ones off our own MHRA and gov but was after the one for the manufacturer AstraZeneca that frisky us quoting as they may be at odds. I'm not sure that they are in disagreement, as "emergency supply" to me may convey a very different meaning to "emergency approval until 2023". I just know on the entity that approves our medications in the UK... As provided in links. It states it has been approved. So the comments of it being unapproved or untested etc are inaccurate. If the az website is saying anything contrary that would be a Concern. But I can't find anything to the contrary on the az website. The AZ website will not have any documentation with respect to the legal approval of the vaccine because it does not give that approval. The MHRA is the agency who do that on behalf of the UK Government. There are new vaccine trials for things like suitability in different age groups (various manufacturers), for the impact on transmission, for the combining of different types of vaccine for first and second doses etc, so in that respect, trials are ongoing, but phase III trials for the efficacy against severe disease and safety in over 16s or 18s have been completed and we have moved to the phase IV (post licensing monitoring). This happens in every single new drug approved, either on a temporary licence or a permanent licence. Way outside of my area of understanding but I wonder if some of the arguments come down to comms again. As in some people seem to be under the impression that an "emergency approval or approval for use in an emergency" means that it is "not approved". I wonder how much is down to lingual semantics and basic ignorance but an ability to use Google search (such as myself). I take a number of regular medications as I suspect do a fare few contributors but I've never once googled their approval status on MHRA etc.... Maybe people being more interested in what they shove in their bodies (coca cola... Sweeteners... Nicotine patches etc) is a better thing.? There's a combination of ignorance and misinformation Yes perhaps... As we see in posts above... "approved for use in an emergency" seem to mean "experimental drug" to some people or "unapproved drug".... To me it means "approved for use in an emergency". The fact billions have had vaccines without keeling over is possibly more significant than any words on a website that cna be argued over. It is an argument over semantics with a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Some people are insecure enough in their choices to need to deny any risk to these novel vaccines, which use new technology that has not been widely used before, and could cause unforseen longterm side effects. This is a dishonest position IMO, head in the sand at best. Processes have been accelerated to allow for use as soon as possible in an emergency situation, and ONLY temporarily approved for use because of that state of emergency. This is a statement of fact. I am not suggesting corners have been cut, but there are some problems which will ONLY become apparent with time and ongoing monitoring, study and data collection. Many questions remain unanswered, and pedantically denying their validity is detrimental to progress and deeper understanding. If you deny risk, you can't make a risk assessment or give informed consent, and even published medics are concerned at the morality of that. Well i agree with a lot of that, though I wonder genuinely at the ability of man on the street to understand risk let alone have the skills to assess their own risk Even were sufficient accurate data to be made available in a usable format. It sounds like you agree that it has been approved temporarily and that corners have not been cut in granting that approval.... So we agree on more than we disagree. Caution is good when it comes to what we do with our bodies and if we all showed as much diligence with our choices as we seem to in these threads we would all be much healthier, nobody would be obese or undernourished and filling themselves with super processed foods or smoke or alcohol or poor air quality. What would help people would be with and without comparisons of risk. As someone who lost someone to covid Im very much on the side of let's do what we can do to avoid others suffering a slow and painful death or illness. For sure I can respect that, and had no hesitation taking elderly relatives for vaccination. I have the same concerns for unforseen vaccine damage or death being inflicted on those who just did not need to take the risk, like the healthy 36 yr old mother of 2 who died a couple of days after getting the jab recently. I hate the obfuscation of truth, the stifling of debate, the spin and the propaganda. This relentless fear-centred coercion is immoral. If the man on the street struggled to weigh up a balance of risk, then it must be explained to him in simple terms he can understand - it is not right to deceive him, even for 'his own good'. Then he has not given informed consent. The big problem here is actually you are hanging an argument on legal terms, ‘experimental drug’ is the term for any pre authorisation. Likewise, temporary is a term applied to all applications as the system has an in built review mechanism to gauge mid to long term issues etc. All three covid vaccines routes to market are pretty standard yet accelerated, all three are based on existing vaccines so actually their structures are quite throughly tried and tested even before work commenced. Most interesting of all is to compare the data on side effects, complications etc... all three but especially Pfizer and Moderna are proving to be safer than the majority of fully approved vaccinations licensed in the world currently. " I'm not hung up on the term experimental, I'm just very unhappy for something to be called 'safe' with no long term studies, and a large number of poorly understood deaths and serious injuries to it's name - even as a tiny proportion of the millions. I understand why safety has been played up and risk played down, but I just don't agree with it. And because I can plainly see the bias, the denial of fact, the censorship of legitimate concerns, I remain deeply skeptical of the figures anyway. It takes time for truth and understanding to percolate through, particularly with a totally inept or muzzled media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yellow card report government website weekly numbers of deaths from the jab please look you will be shocked. How many are there each week ? I'm going to take a stab at not that many or otherwise our wonderful fearmongering media would be all over it like a rash... " No they are silenced. And incompetent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. " Perfect answer! Could you show me the long term study of the vaccine please? Where’s the 10/20 year results? Thanks in advance x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" All three covid vaccines routes to market are pretty standard yet accelerated, all three are based on existing vaccines so actually their structures are quite throughly tried and tested even before work commenced. " You see, this paragraph, could be interpreted as saying these vaccines are nothing new, the technology had all been 'out there' in the public domain in use for years - but that is just not true. I can see why the term 'experimental gene therapy' was coined, in order to make a distinction, to make an unavoidable point. Yes, this new technology has been in research for years, there have been trials for other diseases (which were not without their problems) and it shows great promise in areas like targeted cancer treatment or rapid adaptation. But there is NO vaccine using this technology that has so far made it to licencing or is in public use. This is cutting edge stuff, new technology, but that brings potential risks with it's potential benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. Perfect answer! Could you show me the long term study of the vaccine please? Where’s the 10/20 year results? Thanks in advance x" Can you show me the regulatory study guidelines that are for 10/20 years length? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" and the scaremongering goes on, have you seen number of deaths and hospitals admissions have gone down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??and the scaremongering goes on, have you seen number of deaths and hospitals admissions have gone down? " Yup. The media are sunshine and joy compared to the fibs about the vaccines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. Perfect answer! Could you show me the long term study of the vaccine please? Where’s the 10/20 year results? Thanks in advance x Can you show me the regulatory study guidelines that are for 10/20 years length?" Still waiting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Proudly part of a trial for an experimental vaccine. Actually experimental. "Care to explain howyou feel about the government not etting you out to play on holiday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Proudly part of a trial for an experimental vaccine. Actually experimental.
Care to explain howyou feel about the government not etting you out to play on holiday "I don't give a single solitary fuck
I can't get official proof anyway and I knew that when I signed up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" it’s in trials till 2023 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? it’s in trials till 2023 " The Pfizer vaccine, on which the 2023 number is based, concluded its phase 3 trial in mid November last year. It's in post marketing safety monitoring until 2023. Safety monitoring. How scary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? it’s in trials till 2023 " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You really shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. The vaccine is NOT a test drug. Do you understand how vaccine licensing works? The vaccine rollout is NOT a trial. All the clinical trials take place BEFORE it is released for general use. " Yup (I say I'm on a clinical trial because I'm on a clinical trial, lol. Valneva phase 3) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? No, this is not experimental.. all the vaccines are based upon previously tried and tested vaccines and have been modified for this variant of Sars-Cov19. The vaccines follow many years of research and were not something that a scientist dreamt up a few days after the emergence of the virus. The previous Sars outbreaks had vaccines produced but never came to fruition as the outbreak disappeared as quickly as it appeared and there were insufficient numbers to trial it on, therefore, the vaccine never went into full production or was qualified. The saving grace for the current vaccines was the vast numbers of people worldwide who were contracting the virus (and still are), the vast funding that some governments were willing to invest in a vaccine and the vast numbers of people who were willing to sign up to vaccine trials (the current Janssen Ensemble 2 trial has almost 7000 volunteers). This amount of investment of funds and human resource has never been seen previously for any drug trial.. So if you are wondering why within a year, a vaccine can be trialled and approved in this fast track approach, the simple answer is thw scientists were already primed and there was a common deire to achieve the goal for the greater good of mankind (or womankind, or any other gender that people relate to).. " This.
If people keep getting their news from blogs and Facebook, the world is fucked. Science, people! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice "Absolute illiterate bollocks. If you believe that then stay inside until a vaccine comes along that you can trust and let the grown ups, you know the ones who understand actual science, get on with sorting this all out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
Absolute illiterate bollocks.
If you believe that then stay inside until a vaccine comes along that you can trust and let the grown ups, you know the ones who understand actual science, get on with sorting this all out."Except they say we should stay inside if we're scared of a sniffle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. Perfect answer! Could you show me the long term study of the vaccine please? Where’s the 10/20 year results? Thanks in advance x Can you show me the regulatory study guidelines that are for 10/20 years length?" I don’t need to. But I won’t be taking the vaccine until it’s been published. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been proven that the vaccine is safe, protect others and the NHS " Proven? for God sakes its been only months!!! or do you claim to be fortune teller | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
Absolute illiterate bollocks.
If you believe that then stay inside until a vaccine comes along that you can trust and let the grown ups, you know the ones who understand actual science, get on with sorting this all out."Actual science? pretty sure the govt have been making political decisions throughout darling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
Absolute illiterate bollocks.
If you believe that then stay inside until a vaccine comes along that you can trust and let the grown ups, you know the ones who understand actual science, get on with sorting this all out.
Actual science? pretty sure the govt have been making political decisions throughout darling"So ignore the government The science exists regardless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
Absolute illiterate bollocks.
If you believe that then stay inside until a vaccine comes along that you can trust and let the grown ups, you know the ones who understand actual science, get on with sorting this all out.
Actual science? pretty sure the govt have been making political decisions throughout darling
So ignore the government The science exists regardless"Yet you reject scientists who have been silenced for speaking out... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
Absolute illiterate bollocks.
If you believe that then stay inside until a vaccine comes along that you can trust and let the grown ups, you know the ones who understand actual science, get on with sorting this all out.
Actual science? pretty sure the govt have been making political decisions throughout darling
So ignore the government The science exists regardless
Yet you reject scientists who have been silenced for speaking out... "I follow the science, and am aware of how the scientific method works. I reject individuals who repeatedly spout bollocks, whether they're a cook or a former Pfizer employee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice "This
I would urge anyone to do their own research. This is a trial phase until 2023. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
This
I would urge anyone to do their own research. This is a trial phase until 2023. "Start with a simple internet search. "When did Pfizer phase 3 trial end" You'll find it most informative | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 so far , I did not have the army knocking on my doors and forcing me to take it...I wanted it and I got it..you don't want it , don't take it, simple as that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
This
I would urge anyone to do their own research. This is a trial phase until 2023.
Start with a simple internet search. "When did Pfizer phase 3 trial end"
You'll find it most informative "The truth is these are novel technologies that have emergency approval only and no long term data. Experimental is a fitting description for something whose complex actions and side effects are still so poorly understood. What will the effect of spike protein accumulation in, and damage to, testes and ovaries be after 5 or 10 years forinstance? They do not know yet - that is the very definition of experimental. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's experimental gene therapy. If you have had it your the trial. All this info is out there if you can be bothered to go and find it. Or you can blindly believe the most corrupt and distrustful sectors of society, Politicians and the Media, have your best interests at heart. If your on the fence don't let the caring, baying mob force you into it. Make your own choice
This
I would urge anyone to do their own research. This is a trial phase until 2023.
Start with a simple internet search. "When did Pfizer phase 3 trial end"
You'll find it most informative
The truth is these are novel technologies that have emergency approval only and no long term data.
Experimental is a fitting description for something whose complex actions and side effects are still so poorly understood.
What will the effect of spike protein accumulation in, and damage to, testes and ovaries be after 5 or 10 years forinstance? They do not know yet - that is the very definition of experimental."https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/05/08/can-covid-19-vaccines-cause-shedding-of-coronavirus-the-problems-with-such-claims/ A much more interesting read and the truth about the "spike proteins" in the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 07/06/21 00:13:12]" I'm not talking about shedding. Do some more research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. Perfect answer! Could you show me the long term study of the vaccine please? Where’s the 10/20 year results? Thanks in advance x Can you show me the regulatory study guidelines that are for 10/20 years length? I don’t need to. But I won’t be taking the vaccine until it’s been published. " There aren’t any 10 to 20 year studies. So it will never be published. Just shows you have no idea of the regulatory process for drugs. Only what you have learned through Facebook. But I suspected you wouldn’t ever be taking the vaccine anyway but that’s your prerogative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 07/06/21 00:13:12] I'm not talking about shedding. Do some more research." You mean research into spike proteins some how building up over years? The "do some more research" thing is getting a little old now to be quite honest, the spike proteins created by the vaccine are bound to the cells instructed to create them by vaccine these are then destroyed by antibodies along with the cell that they are present on, that's how your immune system works, the antibodies see the spike proteins on the surface of the cell and attack it destroying both the spike proteins and the cell they are on job done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. " What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 07/06/21 00:13:12] I'm not talking about shedding. Do some more research. You mean research into spike proteins some how building up over years? " No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being." yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right?" Ive had both jabs: I signed nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right?" You are covered by the regular compensation scheme for vaccine damages via the NHS, should you be damaged - it's at the same levels of al existing vaccines. It's important for us all to read this provided details of side effects. They do now discuss these in greater details, so that we make informed choices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right?" I haven't signed anything but have had a dose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"soo many Agent Smiths in this website ..lets be real the ony reason you decided to take the vaccine was out of FEAR. Those that have no fear instilled by the media & govt did not make a decison out of FEAR. " I took the vaccine, and it wasn't out of FEAR. So that's another of your theories debunked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"soo many Agent Smiths in this website ..lets be real the ony reason you decided to take the vaccine was out of FEAR. Those that have no fear instilled by the media & govt did not make a decison out of FEAR. I took the vaccine, and it wasn't out of FEAR. So that's another of your theories debunked "I took mine out of FEAR. Fully Evaluated and Analysed Research | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"soo many Agent Smiths in this website ..lets be real the ony reason you decided to take the vaccine was out of FEAR. Those that have no fear instilled by the media & govt did not make a decison out of FEAR. I took the vaccine, and it wasn't out of FEAR. So that's another of your theories debunked
I took mine out of FEAR. Fully Evaluated and Analysed Research "Good one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I took mine out of FEAR. Fully Evaluated and Analysed Research " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still in phase 3 trials until 2023. Draw your own conclusions. " Incorrect. Phase 3 trials have been completed. Monitoring phase now, the same as for all drugs. Conclusion, you don’t know what you are talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still in phase 3 trials until 2023. Draw your own conclusions. Incorrect. Phase 3 trials have been completed. Monitoring phase now, the same as for all drugs. Conclusion, you don’t know what you are talking about." Approved temporarily in UK and approved on emergency authorisation in the US...clearly you are clueless yourself Agent Smith | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right?" There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda?" I was thinking the same about this as I never signed anything and not has anyone else I know that has been vaccinated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hahahaha....Agent Smiths hate being exposed for their irrational fear. Make sure you wash your hands for exactly 20 seconds..perhaps sing happy birthday..one second earlier and you are risking it... " So you don’t wash your hands?!!! ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda? I was thinking the same about this as I never signed anything and not has anyone else I know that has been vaccinated" No need to sign anything...big pharma have already been cleared of any potential damages they are that confident it will be fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hahahaha....Agent Smiths hate being exposed for their irrational fear. Make sure you wash your hands for exactly 20 seconds..perhaps sing happy birthday..one second earlier and you are risking it... So you don’t wash your hands?!!! ?? " put it this way i wash my hsnds the same way and frequency as i always have p.s. i dont count to 20 unless out in public (sarcasm) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still in phase 3 trials until 2023. Draw your own conclusions. Incorrect. Phase 3 trials have been completed. Monitoring phase now, the same as for all drugs. Conclusion, you don’t know what you are talking about. Approved temporarily in UK and approved on emergency authorisation in the US...clearly you are clueless yourself Agent Smith" Yes approved temporarily AFTER phase 3 trials have been completed. Oops seems I do know what I’m talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone on an actual trial, I've signed so many things. Trees have died to get my signature" Lol so your an accomplice to tree murder then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone on an actual trial, I've signed so many things. Trees have died to get my signature Lol so your an accomplice to tree murder then" Yes. Evil evil big pharma | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ??" Good question, me neither, don't fancy being the first o many guinea pigs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right?" We've not seen anyone sign anything at multiple centres, one of is jabbing and this 'signing' is something we are totally unaware of..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda? I was thinking the same about this as I never signed anything and not has anyone else I know that has been vaccinated" I am fairly sure I'm not unique..However, I have signed paperwork on both occasions when I attended..and you are saying his didn't? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The many different vaccines have all undergone the exhaustive scientific research trials that are required for all medicines, to prove safety and efficacy. The MHRA licences medicines where it has fully reviewed all of the evidence for and has satisfaction for. Other countries have similar government bodies that grant approvals. It's better to stick with officially published details, rather than spurious memes on social media etc, that typically aim to stoke fear and unrest. " They haven't been approved!!! The are under emergency authorisation. Well certainly in the US. Licenses won't be issued until the 4th of July over there. They may be authorised in the UK but then the MHRA receives a huge donation from the B&M Gates foundation every year so it's not surprising | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda?" there is and there was and I did no 'agenda' just facts old fruit ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda? there is and there was and I did no 'agenda' just facts old fruit !" Well looks like you're the only person that had to sign anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"soo many Agent Smiths in this website ..lets be real the ony reason you decided to take the vaccine was out of FEAR. Those that have no fear instilled by the media & govt did not make a decison out of FEAR. I took the vaccine, and it wasn't out of FEAR. So that's another of your theories debunked
I took mine out of FEAR. Fully Evaluated and Analysed Research "Me too!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've read that the vaccine is not a vaccine as we know them . That it's a experimental drug largely untested in the long term effects. That I'll have on the people taking it . What's so worrying about this that the government is so confident. In this experimental drug that they've given themselves and the manufacturers. Total immunity from prosecution that really doesn't lead me to have any confidence in this experimental drug! ?? I'm really sorry to say this but this shows an unbelievable level of naivety! Everyone has been told plenty of times it's an experiment..a pretty safe one but still an experiment.All drugs legal and illegal are experiments .Similarly we don't ever know how the human body will react to something and that can happen in a different way at anytime.. Everyone who takes the vaccine has to sign a waiver /disclaimer before being given it. people are taking it and being aware of the risks involved..frankly because everyone knows the implications of not doing so. A statement like yours is a bit out if place..if your aim was to stop people from being vaccinated?I would say that failed a little bit..because pretty much everyone apart from you it seems actually knows what it is they have agreed to take..and well done them for doing so. What? Sign a waiver before taking it? I signed nothing. I took it because I am a responsible human being. yes you did if you had the jab at a vaccination centre in the Uk? remember the information sheet you signed the first and second time? it states you can't claim for damages in the event of problems and that you agree to that . Also the information leaflet you got that no one reads tells you about that side of it/possible reactions/side effects etc .if I am right? There is nothing to sign...why are you spreading false information...what's your agenda? there is and there was and I did no 'agenda' just facts old fruit ! Well looks like you're the only person that had to sign anything." This.. Between us we've seen a couple of thousand go through different centres thus far and no one has had to sign anything at all.. And I bet tomorrow and this Thu and Fri there will be no one signing.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"soo many Agent Smiths in this website ..lets be real the ony reason you decided to take the vaccine was out of FEAR. Those that have no fear instilled by the media & govt did not make a decison out of FEAR. I took the vaccine, and it wasn't out of FEAR. So that's another of your theories debunked
I took mine out of FEAR. Fully Evaluated and Analysed Research
Me too!! "It doesnt matter really What any one does we all die in the end some fast some slow and painfull | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It feels like the tinfoil hat brigade but there’s a thread of truth in that the Pfizer MRNA vaccine works in a novel way and is effectively being “mass tested”. But I got AZ, so I’m fine with it. Vaccine tech is moving on tremendously because of the pandemic. " Necessity is the mother of invention... As someone once said... Was it the Wuhan institute of virology? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It feels like the tinfoil hat brigade but there’s a thread of truth in that the Pfizer MRNA vaccine works in a novel way and is effectively being “mass tested”. But I got AZ, so I’m fine with it. Vaccine tech is moving on tremendously because of the pandemic. Necessity is the mother of invention... As someone once said... Was it the Wuhan institute of virology? " The mRNA vaccine was invented by a Hungarian woman working for a German biotech company (BioNTech). Katalin Karako is her name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It feels like the tinfoil hat brigade but there’s a thread of truth in that the Pfizer MRNA vaccine works in a novel way and is effectively being “mass tested”. But I got AZ, so I’m fine with it. Vaccine tech is moving on tremendously because of the pandemic. Necessity is the mother of invention... As someone once said... Was it the Wuhan institute of virology? The mRNA vaccine was invented by a Hungarian woman working for a German biotech company (BioNTech). Katalin Karako is her name "A long time ago, too. This Chinese conspiracy nonsense is getting really boring and silly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It feels like the tinfoil hat brigade but there’s a thread of truth in that the Pfizer MRNA vaccine works in a novel way and is effectively being “mass tested”. But I got AZ, so I’m fine with it. Vaccine tech is moving on tremendously because of the pandemic. Necessity is the mother of invention... As someone once said... Was it the Wuhan institute of virology? The mRNA vaccine was invented by a Hungarian woman working for a German biotech company (BioNTech). Katalin Karako is her name
A long time ago, too. This Chinese conspiracy nonsense is getting really boring and silly "Blame game and culture has ran its course now boring 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
