Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

FallingAwake

Members
  • Posts

    1,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FallingAwake

  1. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." Maybe "suppressed" is the wrong word. However, elsewhere the FDA say the results are "inconclusive". This might just possibly be because, according to the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (reissued 23rd August)... "C. There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19." https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download (see page 5) If they said Ivermectin was an alternative, then they couldn't legally issue the EUA. So according to the FDA, there is basically no alternative to the vaccine. Which is interesting language, since they actually HAVE approved an alternative. Go figure 🙄 This might not be "suppression" and maybe they just genuinely aren't convinced about Ivermectin one way or another. But then, where's the "warp speed" urgency to find out one way or another? Yes, you could rightly say, people can just take the vaccine, but clearly some people don't want to or are unable to, for whatever reason. If Ivermectin does turn out to be effective, as the above paper suggests, then people are dying because we've gone "warp speed" with vaccines but seemingly not for other forms of treatment. (Even though some people choose not to take the vaccine, not everyone is able to take it.) What alternatives do the people not able to take a vaccine have? According to the FDA, none.
  2. Of course, but if you start with a few million viral particles or less, surely your body has time to mount a defense while that number is multiplying. You're not necessarily starting out with trillions of particles, which is what you're doing with the mRNA vaccines.
  3. Well, we won't. I don't think there's a metric for that... except maybe timing? i.e. if they give the go-ahead in September, that would "coincide" with the new school year. Well, I think you'd agree there was a tone of caution in their August report, so it will be interesting to see what data becomes available to them between then and now that changes their minds from what they wrote in August. That's all, really. But enough about me. Do you think they're entirely following the data, or do you think they might be influenced by the fact that a new school year is coming up, and politicians and the NHS are already launching preparations to jab-a-stack even before the JCVI have said anything more? It would be interesting to see how this conversation would play out in a different context, i.e. the Bank of England. Would you be as interested in emphasising my scepticism if I suggested that politicians might influence what the independent Bank of England does? Is the JCVI immune from political pressure, conflicts of interest, revolving doors etc?
  4. Here's another view: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/18/facebook-fazze-russian-trolls-anti-vaxx-misinformation Apparently the "Fazze" campaign was a failure. The author thinks it was a huge distraction. I also wonder, is it possible that big corporations might be behind these, to throw mud at their competitors but in a very sneaky way? (I know you don't live in a world where corporations are squeaky clean.) The people who expose these campaigns always seem to link it to Russia, but again, if "Russia" (the implication being Putin, I guess) was behind it, why wouldn't they disguise it better? Have they really gone from superpower to amateur Facebook trolling in one generation? I suppose the same could be said of corporations. The difference is, corporations wouldn't want to get caught doing this, end of story... whereas if "Russia" was caught doing this, I suspect they wouldn't care all that much.
  5. I think Will's data is talking about people aged 16 and over. 88% of these have received one dose, and 78% have received two.
  6. Two die in Japan after shots from suspended Moderna vaccines - Japan govt https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/two-die-japan-after-shots-suspended-moderna-vaccines-japan-govt-2021-08-28/ "Two people died after receiving Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine shots that were among lots later suspended following the discovery of contaminants, Japan's health ministry said on Saturday." For balance: "There may only be a temporal relationship between vaccination and death," Sakamoto told Reuters. "There are so many things we still don't know to make any conclusions on these two cases." I wonder if Moderna still have zero liability in the case of contaminants traced back to their factory, and assuming a causal link is established?
  7. Why, then, is this language STILL in the Emergency Use Authorization, which was re-issued by the FDA on 23rd August? I. Criteria for Issuance of Authorization I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: ..... //snip//..... C. There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. So it's not cr8p. In the US, this is still the legal position. You can read it on Page 5 of the document itself: https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download Clearly the FDA are completely ignorant of what the NHS has done, or they're full of cr8p. Which is it? Well, they have. This trial was carried out at Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117664/ It's already being marketed in Israel and has received the CE mark in the EU. https://sanotize.com/enovid/ So we'll see whether it gets rolled out to hospitals here. Tell that to Will who posted the JCVI statement... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-august-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17-years-4-august-2021 What changed between then and now? Do you have access to data they don't? But anyway, I predict they'll be changing their minds shortly, because of the political pressure to do so. Imagine the outrage if they decided against pressing ahead with vaccination! Of course that's not going to happen. This is a fair question. For me, viral load plays a part. I think my body has a pretty good chance of fighting it off naturally, as long as the viral load isn't too heavy. We also know that other illnesses and underlying health conditions play a role, and I think I'm pretty healthy overall. By contrast, injecting trillions of nanoparticles into my body, forcing my cells to produce something that isn't natural to them (i.e. the Spike protein) seems more risky to me. We've already discovered one side effect they didn't know about during the clinical trials, i.e. blod clots, although I accept that they seem to be rare. I understand that most people have made a different choice, and that's fine. However, I also think it's right to point out what I see, i.e. - negative effects of the vaccine being downplayed (yes, deliberate choice of words) - scientific bodies being pressed to come up with decisions quicker than they might like, etc.
  8. It's not "irrelevant." These people died after taking a vaccine (whether coincidentally or not). Shouldn't we be autopsying them, to find out more? Guess what. The BBC reporter was the FIRST person to be autopsied. It's experimental in the sense that Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna are using a technology that has literally never been used in a drug product before. We don't know what effects this will have on human development (the drugs have only been out for a year or so), so maybe we should be more cautious about injecting children with these ones?
  9. Thanks. So the tone in this 4th August 2021 document seems to be one of eminent caution. We'll see what the one in September says. Will that caution evaporate, just in time for the school season? To be clear - you seem to be suggesting the JCVI base their decisions primarily on the science. I am suggesting they'll be basing it partly on science, but they will also be influenced by the political pressure (which was highlighted in the Daily Mail article) to jab-a-stack. This is why I think the chances of them refusing to give the go-ahead to 12-16 year olds getting the jab in September is somewhere close to 0%. We'll also be able to compare these August notes from the JCVI to what they say in September, to see what new evidence comes along.
  10. Get ready to vaccinate kids as young as 12, Sajid Javid tells NHS bosses, after Sage warned of 'large' Covid wave when schools go back https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9934275/Get-ready-vaccinate-kids-young-12-Sajid-Javid-tells-NHS-bosses.html "Mr Javid said it was important for the NHS and schools to be prepared. He said offering all teenagers a coronavirus jab will ‘solidify our wall of protection’ against the disease in a move that will pile pressure on the JCVI to approve the move." Hmm, of course the JCVI will be basing their decision on science and not politics "The vaccine is available for those aged 16 and over or for 12 to 15-year-olds who are most at risk from Covid. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has yet to advise lowering the age due to concerns the Pfizer jab may be linked to a rare form of heart inflammation. But other scientists have accused the panel of dithering and called for children to be jabbed immediately." Yes, we can't have any dithering. Warp speed ahead!
  11. Of course I'm using biased language. I think the language from governments have generally been to minimize any hesitancy, which has also been biased. Yes. You don't think anyone has died because of the vaccine then? Money doesn't necessarily buy you time. You can't run a 28 day trial in 14 days. You can't hurry a woman to produce a baby in 3 months instead of 9. Anyway, maybe "done at warp speed" is more appropriate, since Trump's project was called Operation Warp Speed. So am I OK to say it was produced "at warp speed"? Is that more acceptable? True. However, I also think the FDA are culpable in this regard. Part of the reason they issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the vaccines was that they knew of no other treatments available. I think (I could be wrong here) this is a legal requirement (in the US) in order to issue an EUA. So any discussion of potential treatments was cut short, so they could say, "vaccines or nothing". There probably were ways of minimising the risks from covid, but they got shut down very quickly once the vaccines started to roll out. Case in point - lots of people were talking about Ivermectin (probably one of the most successful drugs in the world for humans and animals) before the vaccine rollout. Suddenly that got shut down and/or "debunked" once the vaccines were launched. Why? Because of the requirements of the FDA's emergency use authorization. It literally had to be the vaccines or nothing. So when people die or get seriously ill from covid, I think that's partly because other treatments were shut down. This is also why one of our NHS trusts have worked with a company that has developed a nasal spray that pretty much kills covid... while in the USA they're still busy pushing vaccines or nothing. OK, fair enough. I just think we should exercise a little more caution when it comes to people whose bodies are still developing. We could be putting them at more risk than the risk from covid. The dozens of vaccines we pump into the young have at least been around for a long while. These current vaccines have only been around for a matter of months.
  12. Care Homes Could Be Forced to Call On the Relatives of Their Residents to Help Out Due to Staff Shortages Caused by Vaccine Mandate https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/27/care-homes-could-be-forced-to-call-on-the-relatives-of-their-residents-to-help-out-due-to-staff-shortages-caused-by-vaccine-mandate/ The original Telegraph article is behind a paywall, but here's the link if someone has access: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/27/care-home-says-residents-relatives-may-need-help-staff-shortages/ Another well-intentioned policy that is coming back to bite them on the bum.
  13. Sure, if you like. But it's nice to have an alternative, right?
  14. "The company is investigating the reports and remains committed to working transparently and expeditiously with its partner, Takeda, and regulators to address any potential concerns," a Moderna spokesperson told Nikkei, saying the drugmaker believed a "manufacturing issue" at a plant in Spain was the cause." https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-vaccines/1.6m-Moderna-doses-withdrawn-in-Japan-over-contamination Will be interesting to learn what was in those 1.6 million vials.
  15. Anyway, more good news: "A well known antimicrobial, Nitric Oxide, has been found to rapidly reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load, knocking it down by 95% within 24 hours, and 99% within 72 hours, according to a recent study by researchers funded by England's NHS foundation trust and SaNOtize Research & Development Corporation - a Canadian biotech company currently conducting Phase II trials of a nitric oxide nasal spray." Here's the research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117664/ Here's the article I quoted from: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/nitric-oxide-nasal-spray-reduces-covid-19-viral-load-95-within-24-hours-study (If you don't like the source, there are plenty more. See: Google.) Congratulations to the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for participating. It would be great if this could cut down drastically on the number of serious cases.
  16. The context is vaccinating children. - Somewhere in the region of 25 children have died from covid in the UK. (Around 15 had life-limiting or underlying conditions, including 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities) https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717 - For adults: "The MHRA has received 508 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 1,056 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 17 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 28 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting That's 1,609 deaths. Now, the above report plays down the vaccine connection, i.e. they were elderly or had an underlying illness, and concludes: "Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths." Do you believe them? (Yes, probably some of these deaths are coincidental, but maybe some aren't.) Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying malevolence. I'm saying, they rushed through these vaccines, and now they're about to rush to vaccinate children. Since there may be more long-term effects from the vaccines we don't yet know about (i.e. blood clots were only known about after millions of people had already been injected), maybe we should slow down in the rush to jab millions of children with these new treatments?
  17. Thanks. Interesting article. I did have a long-winded rant ready to go regarding them not knowing the interaction of the PF4 protein, but I deleted it because I guess it's not really plausible to know every interaction that might take place in the body when you inject it with something. I'll concede the point that this doesn't automatically make new vaccines bad. I'm curious to know whether, in a non-rushed environment, where the vaccine would normally take years to get to market, this might have been caught in clinical trials or research. However, I realize we don't necessarily have that luxury in the middle of a pandemic.
  18. Fair enough, but given that @zugzwang says we've been researching this stuff for decades, why couldn't the researchers at least have predicted the possibility of blood clots, even before their clinical trials? They've been researching this stuff for decades apparently! By predicting it they could have then prepared people, dealt with it much more swiftly, and maybe saved this presenter's life. But the manufacturers have no liability. "Wait... our product causes blood clots? That's terrible! Ah well, never mind.... add it to the Warning Label." Do you see my point at all? If the science is as watertight as zugzwang says, surely they'd have known about the possibility of blood clots in advance, and then mitigated against it?
  19. I agree forced vaccinations won't happen (except maybe in a few of the nuttier countries). However, what will and is happening in various places is, people are losing their jobs over being required to take it, people being excluded from stores if they're not "fully vaccinated". And this for a vaccine which is increasingly being shown to be more a treatment than actually stopping the spread of the virus. The interesting question will be if, when and whether schools will essentially mandate vaccination. In other words, will kids who don't want the vaccine be barred from school?
  20. Maybe, but based on what I've seen so far, I don't think it will be that simple. I suspect come September we'll see a ramping up of stories in the media of children in intensive care and the few who died of covid. Since vaccines don't seem to be all that effective in stopping the transmission, the "it lowers your symptoms" angle is the one they'll have to run with. What reasonable parent wouldn't want to help their child avoid all that horribleness? This is the angle that will be used. Don't worry about the VERY RARE side effects (I believe the European adverse effects database has now got several million incidents logged)... let alone the three, five or ten year effects (which they're studying "in real time" ) Watch it play out. It's amazing how none of this is apparently orchestrated, yet simultaneously it's predictable as clockwork.
  21. So that's how they'll be doing it in schools. And most parents will oblige because it's "safe and effective" innit.
  22. This is an interesting document... Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf "3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools." "Evidence suggests that consent procedures based on opt-out approaches are likely to result in higher acceptance of an intervention, than using opt-in." Worth thinking about...
  23. My guess is... because that's what the state can currently get away with?
  24. Surely another principle of any medical treatment is informed consent. I think this is also enshrined in laws both in the Supreme Court here and all the way up to a European body that escapes me right now, but we're a member of. So who is fully informing children of how the vaccine works, their exact risk levels to themselves of taking and not taking it, of the adverse effects etc? I presume and expect this will be done IN FULL? And not just some glib "safe and effective" line?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.