Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

WuFlu - Anti Vaxxers

Will you get the Vaccine?


  • Total voters
    298
When exactly did the Oxford trial start?
The lead scientist who worked on it was looking at developing a generic vehicle to be used in a number of vaccines. She was particularly interested in Ebola as when it appears it has mutated from the last one so a new vaccine was needed. By chance she was able to use this vehicle in the covid vaccine.

So she had been working on the vehicle for a number of year and just needed to make some alterations.
 
The lead scientist who worked on it was looking at developing a generic vehicle to be used in a number of vaccines. She was particularly interested in Ebola as when it appears it has mutated from the last one so a new vaccine was needed. By chance she was able to use this vehicle in the covid vaccine.

So she had been working on the vehicle for a number of year and just needed to make some alterations.
The Oxford Ivermection trial, not the vaccine. BTW I answered my own question the Oxford Ivermectin trials started on the 23rd June 2021, one and a half years after COVID.
 
It wasn't part of the question.

Having had Covid19 does not preclude having the vaccine(s).

Can you answer the question please?

Yes, but not 'fully' (what a ridiculous description that is!). Having had COVID would be a good thing and it is probably were most of us are heading.

 
When exactly did the Oxford trial start?
June IIRC.

And now you are going to complain that it wasn’t soon enough? As of July the author of a well publicised meta-analysis (Hill) on the drug pointed out that at that point only trials that had very small samples sizes, were not RCT’s or without good controls had been published. (Sara Reardon, Nature, 2 Aug 2021, “Fawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies”).

So as of July when the most cited study was withdrawn, it had not been peer reviewed in order to be fully published - so launching a large trial the month earlier is not taking its time.

ETA: Don‘t forget that you still have to design the trial, get funding, get subjects, secure lab time, secure computer time if needed, get the decision of various committees, etc, etc…
 
Yes, but not 'fully' (what a ridiculous description that is!). Having had COVID would be a good thing and it is probably were most of us are heading.

WTAF!?!

Having Covid is a good thing? Are you on drugs? So you want to have a 15% chance of hospitalisation with a 8% chance of SERIOUS long term injury to brain function, cardiovascular or organ damage? Not to mention the 1.15% chance of death…

FFS - you have just jumped the shark with that one.
 
June IIRC.

And now you are going to complain that it wasn’t soon enough? As of July the author of a well publicised meta-analysis (Hill) on the drug pointed out that at that point only trials that had very small samples sizes, were not RCT’s or without good controls had been published. (Sara Reardon, Nature, 2 Aug 2021, “Fawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies”).

So as of July when the most cited study was withdrawn, it had not been peer reviewed in order to be fully published - so launching a large trial the month earlier is not taking its time.

ETA: Don‘t forget that you still have to design the trial, get funding, get subjects, secure lab time, secure computer time if needed, get the decision of various committees, etc, etc…
Ryder02, what is your problem? You do seem to take EVERYTHING personally. Yes, I do believe 1 and a half years to carry out a trial is a long time, especially as, if successful, it could have saved many lives in the meantime. They go the brand new vaccine available in record time but haven't bothered looking at a well known, already off the shelf product (elsewhere in the World) and tested it when there was a strong view from certain sectors of the medical profession that it could be useful. Whether you like the idea or not, vaccines have not proved to be the single, final answer and what is plan B? That is exactly why Pfizer are developing their new pills that they will probably sell at $20 a pop,
 
WTAF!?!

Having Covid is a good thing? Are you on drugs? So you want to have a 15% chance of hospitalisation with a 8% chance of SERIOUS long term injury to brain function, cardiovascular or organ damage? Not to mention the 1.15% chance of death…

FFS - you have just jumped the shark with that one.
Bear with me, looking for a video.
 
WTAF!?!

Having Covid is a good thing? Are you on drugs? So you want to have a 15% chance of hospitalisation with a 8% chance of SERIOUS long term injury to brain function, cardiovascular or organ damage? Not to mention the 1.15% chance of death…

FFS - you have just jumped the shark with that one.
Ok, this video from Dr John Campbell, who if you haven't heard of him, is a VERY strong vaccine advocate and has been producing daily videos for the last year.

This video shows him talking about catching COVID to produce natural antibodies....to understand my comment you should watch it.
 
Ryder02, what is your problem? You do seem to take EVERYTHING personally. Yes, I do believe 1 and a half years to carry out a trial is a long time, especially as, if successful, it could have saved many lives in the meantime. They go the brand new vaccine available in record time but haven't bothered looking at a well known, already off the shelf product (elsewhere in the World) and tested it when there was a strong view from certain sectors of the medical profession that it could be useful. Whether you like the idea or not, vaccines have not proved to be the single, final answer and what is plan B? That is exactly why Pfizer are developing their new pills that they will probably sell at $20 a pop,
There was no indication that ivermectin was of any use as an antiviral as it had only been succesfully used in-vitro not in-vivo up to that point.

There were far better candidates to try first. They did. They worked (well a tiny number did). And they are in use.

So your idea that vaccines are the only answer is utter drivel - there are lots of other therapeutics out there that are being used by the NHS and others.
 
You need to go away and learn about what vaccines are and what they do.

Then stand in the corner and feel very ashamed.
Watch the video I linked to. You will find it very interesting.

It explains about 'Active on Active' immunity, using natural infection to improve immunity on top of that provided by vaccines. This would be preferable than continual booster shots.
 
Last edited:
Ok, this video from Dr John Campbell, who if you haven't heard of him, is a VERY strong vaccine advocate and has been producing daily videos for the last year.

This video shows him talking about catching COVID to produce natural antibodies....to understand my comment you should watch it.

You still have that 1.15% chance of death/15%/8% if not vaccinated.

You are also ill for a shorter amount of time IF you get infected after vaccination, can transmit for a shorter time, etc, etc, etc.

Vaccines are a no brainier - and you should NEVER aim to go for natural infection. That is dumber than dumb thing.
 
Top