Covid19

[Ali C]

I mean either choice is a bit of a gamble but with insider knowledge from someone who has a human biology degree and has worked in labs dealing with contagious diseases (and has previously been seriously ill with a mystery virus years ago) who also likes to read research papers and medical reports I’m backing the other horse in this race 

[AdamR28]

I'm in the same boat as Ali. If I don't know about something, I find and ask someone who does.

The best placed person I know is a school friend who has a (related subject) 1st from Oxford and has worked in the pharmaceutical industry since leaving uni. He isn't going to be taking up the offer of any of the Covid vaccines at present, which spoke volumes to me.

[Davetrials]

guy at work had covid, had to shut down for ten days, nobody else has tested positive on both lat flow and PCR. now I have 8 days of doing f**king nothing. 

plus it's a sunny Saturday and id love a beer, but can't go to the shop. boo.

[Ali C]

Jane just found this video, an interview with a member of the FLCCC (independent doctors searching for what they think is the best solution to the pandemic)…she covers a lot of the points which we’ve (well, Jane) found from researching papers and reports.

 

It’s a 15 min watch but covers a lot of the reasons why I’m skeptical about the vaccines.

 

 

[Pete.M]

^ I'll try to watch that soon

For me, the data makes it clear that it's safer to take the vaccine than get covid. As far as I can work out, there's a much bigger number of people with long-term issues from covid, than there is with issues from the vaccine. 

I guess there's a lot of personal factor's involved. For one thing, my mum has had an autoimmune disorder for 15 years, and long covid has been proven to have very similar effects on the autoimmune system. So I've witnessed how potentially damaging that type of illness can be. 

But to clarify, I'm not totally happy with the vaccine. I just view it as being the far lesser evil. 

Edit: Watched the video. Fair enough it does raise some concerns. I'm not sure if we can trust the "deaths" figure that was briefly mentioned. But the suppression of rolling out Ivermectin is a big concern. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Pete.M

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Agreed. The points made need to be linked to the data of who's being affected. People have had strokes after having the vaccine- that's bad. However what age were these people? In a normal year how many people over the age of 70, day, would've had a stroke? Considering basically all of those people are double jabbed you can't now attribute that to the vaccine and decide that it's the cause. Equally, she's saying there have been 300,000 yellow cards submitted linking side effects to these vaccines but I would suggest that literally no one knew they were even a thing before the pandemic and for the vaccine rollout people have been made very aware that they should report any side effects and so they have. Of those 300,000 I bet 95%+ are people reporting mild discomfort, mild cold-like symptoms or whatever which are of no concern whatsoever.

My main concern is that the whole jab related nervousness is going to fuel the whole general anti-vax shitshow and you're going to have a generation of people who don't want to get their kids vaccinated against measles or whatever because of this. 

[MadManMike]

1 hour ago, monkeyseemonkeydo said:

My main concern is that the whole jab related nervousness is going to fuel the whole general anti-vax shitshow and you're going to have a generation of people who don't want to get their kids vaccinated against measles or whatever because of this. 

The majority of people I know that don't want this vax are not anti-vax in general. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I had jabs for Malaysia last year and most of my friends are the same.

Aside from any medical concerns, I find the amount of marketing behind this jab unnerving too - every platform is pushing it, it's always worded like you must have it as soon as you can... I still think there's more than health at play here and unlike many anti-vax things, this theory is backed by medical experts and not just YouTube comment section loonies.

[Ali C]

Do they tell you about the yellow card system when you get jabbed? I hadn’t heard of it until that video. 
 

I agree that needing to know more about the figures would be important (like I mentioned previously), the vaccine does seem to effect the cardiovascular system though which I feel has to increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks…it’s very hard to prove it was the drug or just a coincidence I agree, but there seem to be a lot of coincidences which worry me (Next door neighbor died from a blood clot in his pelvis the day after taking the vaccine, a cycling friend has “heart pain” months after taking his too (younger than me and in good health)). As mentioned in the video this vaccine was given emergency status which means it isn’t given the same strict safety standards as usual, rolling it out to the entire world without more data is very risky in my opinion.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

7 minutes ago, Ali C said:

Do they tell you about the yellow card system when you get jabbed? I hadn’t heard of it until that video. 

Not specifically (and I'd never heard that either before!) but they give you a bit of paper that (I think, didn't pay much atttention!) that if you suffer any side effects you need to contact either your GP or NHS direct or whatever which I assume would mean an immediate yellow card submission... Just guessing though!

[JT!]

56 minutes ago, Ali C said:

As mentioned in the video this vaccine was given emergency status which means it isn’t given the same strict safety standards as usual, rolling it out to the entire world without more data is very risky in my opinion.

When you say "this vaccine" which one are you talking about? Surely you're not amalgamating all 4 different types and claiming that they're all just as bad as equally each other?

[marg26]

They gave me a pamphlet version of this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-guide-for-older-adults/covid-19-vaccination-a-guide-to-phase-2-of-the-programme

There's a link to mhra gov yellow card website for reporting side effects at the end.

[Ali C]

2 hours ago, JT! said:

When you say "this vaccine" which one are you talking about? Surely you're not amalgamating all 4 different types and claiming that they're all just as bad as equally each other?

I’ve no clue about the different types of vaccines, I’m sure some are safer than others but I’m no scientist so I’m basing my thoughts on what others (who I deem knowledgeable in this subject) are saying…I’ve not heard these people mention that we should be taking one vaccine over the other, only that we should question the ethics of pushing them on the public without more data, this suggests to me that if there are safe vaccines then they’re not actually doing much so not worth taking and the ones that people say are effective have these suspected health ramifications.

 

 

[JT!]

6 hours ago, Ali C said:

this suggests to me that if there are safe vaccines then they’re not actually doing much so not worth taking

You've lost me there, why would a vaccines safety have any bearing on how effective it is by that attribute alone?

[Ali C]

6 minutes ago, JT! said:

You've lost me there, why would a vaccines safety have any bearing on how effective it is by that attribute alone?

What I mean is if there are vaccines that are “safer” then why aren’t we using those instead of ones with apparent evidence of risk? I assume because they are deemed less effective? 

[manuel]

There is a huuuuuuuge amount of data now available for these vaccines. If someone can show me any cold hard statistics that show me that I am safer not taking the vaccine, then I won’t take the second dose. 
 

Ali, your position seems to be based significantly more on feeling than fact (not a dis), which is all fine - it’s a choice and you are in a group that is very unlikely to be affected by the actual disease. 
 

where you lose me totally is on ivermectin. It’s benefits are not proven in trials (although proper trials are taking place) and self medicating with a drug usually prescribed that can have serious side effects on its own seems insane to me. 
 

edit: probably don’t mean fact. Science maybe - it’s sounds harsh either way but isn’t meant to

[Ali C]

41 minutes ago, manuel said:

There is a huuuuuuuge amount of data now available for these vaccines. If someone can show me any cold hard statistics that show me that I am safer not taking the vaccine, then I won’t take the second dose. 
 

Ali, your position seems to be based significantly more on feeling than fact (not a dis), which is all fine - it’s a choice and you are in a group that is very unlikely to be affected by the actual disease. 
 

where you lose me totally is on ivermectin. It’s benefits are not proven in trials (although proper trials are taking place) and self medicating with a drug usually prescribed that can have serious side effects on its own seems insane to me. 

I disagree, I’m mostly going on what I’m told from a scientists point of view rather than feelings. The evidence to me is sketchy and backed up with reports and papers, if I was going by my feelings alone I’d be getting my facts from The Sun or something and ignoring the evidence I’ve been told.

 

i still think that video describes most of my thoughts about the whole thing. I won’t deny that there'll be plenty of data coming in but it’s still vaccines that have been given emergency status and will be missing the vital long-term data you’ll usually get. I’m not saying the vaccine will kill you but I am saying there are inherent risks and I’d rather take my chances. If you feel safer taking a vaccine then go ahead, I’ve no issues with people making up their own mind.

 

As for Ivermectin, that’s had decades of data now and out of billions of uses it’s had next to zero percent incidents. Funding for research was cut drastically since Covid vaccines became number one priority (and some reports are suspected to have been funded by peoples with ulterior motives (happens more often than you’d think in all kinds of industries)) but before ivermectin was censored some of the more genuine research papers showed it to be effective. Not much money to be made from that though.

[JT!]

1 hour ago, Ali C said:

What I mean is if there are vaccines that are “safer” then why aren’t we using those instead of ones with apparent evidence of risk? I assume because they are deemed less effective? 

Well it's generally accepted that all the vaccines are safe within a degree of reason. You're the one who believes that that safety has yet to be proven, though, if your only criticism is that they're new, and they haven't stood the test of time, then that's impossible to prove, you could literally say that about any drug created after 1930 (Ivermectin included).

But what I'm asking is, there's many types of covid vaccines, some that are mrna, and some that use a more traditional method of vaccination, the same method that we see in vaccines you probably received when you were a baby, they just change the type of virus that your body will make antibodies for. But it seems you're not interested in any of the different types of covid vaccine for no other reason than they're all covid vaccines.

[Ali C]

5 minutes ago, JT! said:

Well it's generally accepted that all the vaccines are safe within a degree of reason. You're the one who believes that that safety has yet to be proven, though, if your only criticism is that they're new, and they haven't stood the test of time, then that's impossible to prove, you could literally say that about any drug created after 1930 (Ivermectin included).

But what I'm asking is, there's many types of covid vaccines, some that are mrna, and some that use a more traditional method of vaccination, the same method that we see in vaccines you probably received when you were a baby, they just change the type of virus that your body will make antibodies for. But it seems you're not interested in any of the different types of covid vaccine for no other reason than they're all covid vaccines.

Once more data comes in over a longer period and proves they’re safe then that’s fine, I’ll happily join the queue to get it but until then I’m just not happy to get it, especially when I don’t think it’s the only option. I’m not the only one who thinks this but I admit I’m in a smaller minority.

 

As for vaccines being impossible to prove, I’m not sure what you mean? Vaccines given to me (and others) have had decades (and life cycles) of data to prove they’re safe, unless you mean that my vaccines as a baby/teenager might rear side effects a couple of generations down the line through my kids? 
 

It all comes down to the lack of data for long term side effects, like I said a few times before, I don’t think anyone’s out to purposely give us sketchy drugs and the majority of people who’ve had the vaccines are totally fine but I still think the whole situation of rushing out an emergency set of vaccines without the usual safety net of a longer trial period is sketchy, unnecessary and morally wrong when there’s potentially safer and cheaper alternatives, I’m not against Covid vaccines at all, if they had one with the long term data then I’d most likely have had the jab so I could travel to do shows in Europe. 

[JT!]

17 hours ago, Ali C said:

As for vaccines being impossible to prove, I’m not sure what you mean? Vaccines given to me (and others) have had decades (and life cycles) of data to prove they’re safe, unless you mean that my vaccines as a baby/teenager might rear side effects a couple of generations down the line through my kids? 

Ivermectin has only been used for around 40 years, maybe less on humans. What happens if it gives you brain cancer after 40 years?

[Ali C]

13 minutes ago, JT! said:

Ivermectin has only been used for around 40 years, maybe less on humans. What happens if it gives you brain cancer after 40 years?

In 40 years I’ll be happy to have made it to my 80s (well, late 70s)! 

[manuel]

20 hours ago, Ali C said:

I disagree, I’m mostly going on what I’m told from a scientists point of view rather than feelings. The evidence to me is sketchy and backed up with reports and papers, if I was going by my feelings alone I’d be getting my facts from The Sun or something and ignoring the evidence I’ve been told.

 

i still think that video describes most of my thoughts about the whole thing. I won’t deny that there'll be plenty of data coming in but it’s still vaccines that have been given emergency status and will be missing the vital long-term data you’ll usually get. I’m not saying the vaccine will kill you but I am saying there are inherent risks and I’d rather take my chances. If you feel safer taking a vaccine then go ahead, I’ve no issues with people making up their own mind.

 

As for Ivermectin, that’s had decades of data now and out of billions of uses it’s had next to zero percent incidents. Funding for research was cut drastically since Covid vaccines became number one priority (and some reports are suspected to have been funded by peoples with ulterior motives (happens more often than you’d think in all kinds of industries)) but before ivermectin was censored some of the more genuine research papers showed it to be effective. Not much money to be made from that though.

this doesn’t add up for me so I’d ask, what basis anyone is suggesting you don’t take it? If there are some stats that can show that you are more at risk from taking it than not I’d like to see it. The evidence for taking it are hundreds of millions of data points, and taking the advice of a single (or a few) scientist seems to me a bit of a feeling decision, unless there is some pretty hard evidence to back up any claim?

What long term data are you looking for that’s missing? it’s a two shot deal which will be out of your system quickly, most side effects will show in a person within 2 months and these vaccines have been in testing and use for more than a year? 


yes some of the vaccines have serious side effects, but so does ivermectin, including severe allergic reactions coma and death, which are going to be higher risk if you are going to take it as unprescribed (possibly). Saying the drugs effectiveness is being suppressed is to me falling into conspiracy theory. Yes it has been shown to be effective when directly used on cells but as far as I can tell no published study currently has shown it to be significantly effective enough to use it as treatment. There was a trial that showed remarkable results in patients, but it has been withdrawn pending investigation for fraud I think? There is a new trial going on at the moment, but until there is proper data, taking a different drug that has its own serious side effects that has no proof of effectiveness instead of one that does and is being given free, seems madness to me. 

 

[Ali C]

I feel I’m in danger of repeating myself now, that video covers pretty much everything I can think of. 
 

*new drug(s) haven’t had the same safety tests as usual and have had unprecedented numbers of reactions and deaths (but I agree this could be because more people are reporting these cases but  even with extra reported cases it’s still a high % compared with ivermectin for example)

*cheap, tested, safe drugs showed real life (as-in people in ICU recovered faster and others had a lesser effect when taken early) success and in (limited) testing. (Ivermectin is extremely safe btw, saying there’s a chance of an allergic reaction is like saying you refuse to take paracetamol or ibuprofen because you could have a reaction to that)

*restricting freedoms for refusal to take an emergency vaccine is unethical, discriminatory and edging closer to a dictatorship (ok that last one is a little dramatic).

*With the government’s non stop lies (even before Covid with things like Brexit) and non-stop corruption I can totally believe there’s something happening that they’re profiteering from, Covid is now a 100 billion dollar industry.

 With a less conspiracy approach I think the WHO (which I’m not against as a whole) dropped the ball with Covid and kept on offering advice only to withdraw it later and say something else but to go against their advice was dubbed “harmful” so because they didn’t really go down the ivermectin route it was deemed “harmful” to suggest we should be looking at it and social media would delete posts or even ban people…these aren’t conspiracy tin foil wearing nutters, they’re scientists and doctors trying to get  alternative information to people.

*Any action from me is only done with advice from my partner who is very scientific (as I mentioned she was a biomedical scientist and has studied infectious diseases and virology, knows how to read scientific papers and where to get unbiased information and respected peer reviewed reports etc), even though I have a dislike for the government I don’t act on emotions, I adhered to lockdown even though I think that was taken too far and face mask wearing even though I find them uncomfortable. Those were just inconvenient though but I want more data before I get any jabs and I don’t think that’s an unfair opinion.

 

Don’t forget, this is a pandemic. People seem to want all tests neatly presented in a box with a nice ribbon but the reality is that things have been a bit all over the place and everyone’s still trying to make sense of it all. I just want to wait until things are calmer and there’s better tests with better data and more long-term info. I encourage people to do their own research but also be mindful that if you’re not a scientist then don’t pretend to be…find someone you can trust (ideally someone independent) and see if they can shed some light, if they come back in favor of taking the vaccine now without waiting then that’s great, maybe I’ll eventually get the same info and join you or maybe the other way round.

[manuel]

Sorry but comparing ivermectin to paracetamol is ridiculous.

[Ali C]

15 minutes ago, manuel said:

Sorry but comparing ivermectin to paracetamol is ridiculous.

The only danger I can find associated with ivermectin is that it’s dangerous to take in large doses and can have adverse effects if taken alongside other drugs such as blood thinners…sounds similar to paracetamol.

paracetamol was the first drug that came to mind though, if you want to compare it to something you think fits better then please do. I’m not having a go at you (I know you’re a smart guy) but from what you’ve written it suggests you think ivermectin is quite risky? It’s had billions of uses since being created and only a few hundred (I think, maybe less?) cases of severe reaction or death…I’m sure more people have died from paracetamol (though I’m sure a lot are from suicide).

[Stephen Morris]

On 24/01/2021 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Morris said:

Won’t get too involved, will just say that I can see a scary lack of understanding of vaccinations on this thread.

I still stand by this.