WuFlu - Anti Vaxxers

Will you get the Vaccine?


  • Total voters
    221

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
Okay - what countries are using it. Provide some solid sources please (we will mock you if it is some conspiraloon crap with no links to primary sources).


There is no vast conspiracy to deny it to patients - if that were the case why is Oxford Uni trying to find out if it actually works or not?

Last I heard some Indian States, Slovakia, Mexico, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, although I believe the Czech Republic and Slovakia was maybe an emergency period and not permanent.

I've never suggested a conspiracy, I've said it once and I will say it again, the authorities must have their reasons. What I don't understand is the time it has taken to start serious trials and the co-ordinated horse dewormer narrative which suddenly hit worldwide headlines a short while ago based on a report from a small town in Oklahoma with less than 9,000 people living there. This shitshow started from that one observation.
 
dogcock, you are just such an impressive edgelord, with your edgy alias, edgy comments and edgy Terry Thomas avatar. :)

dfec3168e29a0c47d9f49b355096fd6e.gif
 
Last I heard some Indian States, Slovakia, Mexico, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, although I believe the Czech Republic and Slovakia was maybe an emergency period and not permanent.

I've never suggested a conspiracy, I've said it once and I will say it again, the authorities must have their reasons. What I don't understand is the time it has taken to start serious trials and the co-ordinated horse dewormer narrative which suddenly hit worldwide headlines a short while ago based on a report from a small town in Oklahoma with less than 9,000 people living there. This shitshow started from that one observation.
Last I heard is not a source - and last I heard none of them had done so, yeah, my anecdote cancels out yours.

Oh and in parts of Europe there are still countries that give out sugar pills as a cure for all sorts and lots of yanks swear by a procedure that regularly causes strokes. If you think the NHS should go back to either of these then FRO.

Perhaps the reason it took so long is that someone has to give something a go in the first place. Should we trial shoving two raccoons up peoples asses? Or maybe a trial of prophylactic doses of aspirin. Unless there is a hypothesis to test based on previous knowledge then there is no starting point.
In this case the initial test done on the Monkey kidneys showed that it only worked with doses above that which would cause harm (IIRC). So most people put that one into the ‘do not touch with a barge pole’ file - this was in June 2020. Previous to the only other evidence of it working against viruses was also in-vitro (again, IIRC).

After that some more trials were done anyway and one guy decided to make shit up and lie about it (Egypt) which got everyone excited on the internet, but most people in the medical field were looking at it and thinking, hmmmm. Eventually he got found out - but there are trials going on anyway to see if it does actually work in doses that don’t kill people.

At the same time scientists around the world were trying all sorts of stuff that had been shown to work against viruses or were known to assist sypmptomatically - some worked, some didn’t. Some of the former are now being used by the NHS.

So please stop asking why ‘they didn’t do this earlier!!!’ - they did.
 

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
Last I heard is not a source - and last I heard none of them had done so, yeah, my anecdote cancels out yours.

Oh and in parts of Europe there are still countries that give out sugar pills as a cure for all sorts and lots of yanks swear by a procedure that regularly causes strokes. If you think the NHS should go back to either of these then FRO.

Perhaps the reason it took so long is that someone has to give something a go in the first place. Should we trial shoving two raccoons up peoples asses? Or maybe a trial of prophylactic doses of aspirin. Unless there is a hypothesis to test based on previous knowledge then there is no starting point.
In this case the initial test done on the Monkey kidneys showed that it only worked with doses above that which would cause harm (IIRC). So most people put that one into the ‘do not touch with a barge pole’ file - this was in June 2020. Previous to the only other evidence of it working against viruses was also in-vitro (again, IIRC).

After that some more trials were done anyway and one guy decided to make shit up and lie about it (Egypt) which got everyone excited on the internet, but most people in the medical field were looking at it and thinking, hmmmm. Eventually he got found out - but there are trials going on anyway to see if it does actually work in doses that don’t kill people.

At the same time scientists around the world were trying all sorts of stuff that had been shown to work against viruses or were known to assist sypmptomatically - some worked, some didn’t. Some of the former are now being used by the NHS.

So please stop asking why ‘they didn’t do this earlier!!!’ - they did.
When exactly did the Oxford trial start?
 

offog

LE
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.
 

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
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.
 

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
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.
 

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
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,
 

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
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.
 

ChrisSmith

Old-Salt
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.
 

Latest Threads

Top