Re: Covid : Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:15 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

The WHO and other official bodies literally changed their definition of what a vaccine is in order to fit them in. Whether you think that is relevant or not is down to personal interpretation but to suggest that someone is stupid for questioning it is totally ridiculous.

"...modifying its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website.

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

I totally agree Phuzzy. My original post was to share information from a reputable source, whether individuals want to believe it or not is up to them. What is not up for debate are the documents that Pfizer has been forced to release. Had I been given the choice of vaccination I would have chosen Astra Zeneca purely from the point of view that their process was likely to be more rigorous, transparent and wasn't produced for profit. Isn't it funny how the Covid mantra has suddenly taken a back seat despite SAGE insisting we were doomed?

Re: Covid : Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:20 pm  

Trainman wrote:

I really didn’t want to get involved in this thread but I can’t resist.

A vaccine trains the body to produce antibodies to help resist a disease that a person has not come into contact with before, we agree on that.

In biology immunity is the ability of the body to resist harmful microorganisms, this comes in varying degrees dependant on the strength of an individuals natural immune system. It will never stop you becoming infected but will train your body to resist the infection. You have vastly oversimplified this part and completely ignored the middle ground.

As to the study on lockdowns, I take that on board and agree to a certain extent. No one had the benefit of hindsight that this study has and should be used to understand the best way to respond in future rather than criticise the past.

The simple fact was at the start they didn’t know how serious this could be so aired on the side of caution. I can’t stand BJ and his cronies but I don’t think they had a choice at the time and held out as long as they could, our lockdowns were never as strict as many other countries. I don’t believe they were ever trying to stop everyone from catching this thing as the only way out was immunity, the lockdowns prevented too many from catching it at once before the vaccine was rolled out thus preventing a total breakdown of the NHS.

I agree, the Government made the correct decision initially but thereafter they were given poor advice based on bad science. As Phuzzy has said the definition of vaccine has been changed to suit their narrative.

Re: Covid : Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:07 pm  

Sweaty Betty's wrote:

I agree, the Government made the correct decision initially but thereafter they were given poor advice based on bad science. As Phuzzy has said the definition of vaccine has been changed to suit their narrative.

What is your background? Do you work in ICU, virology or vaccine development?

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:17 am  

Bob8 wrote:

What is your background? Do you work in ICU, virology or vaccine development?

I may, does that matter? I take it that you do given your comments?

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:20 am  

Bob8 wrote:

What is your background? Do you work in ICU, virology or vaccine development?

Bob, I am still awaiting a response to the points I put to you. I have had the courtesy to reply to your questions now please answer mine.

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:25 pm  

Sweaty Betty's wrote:

I totally agree Phuzzy. My original post was to share information from a reputable source, whether individuals want to believe it or not is up to them. What is not up for debate are the documents that Pfizer has been forced to release. Had I been given the choice of vaccination I would have chosen Astra Zeneca purely from the point of view that their process was likely to be more rigorous, transparent and wasn't produced for profit. Isn't it funny how the Covid mantra has suddenly taken a back seat despite SAGE insisting we were doomed?

Just copied a reply from someone who has been providing info throughout the pandemic on statistical/scientific analysis etc

A couple of things here:

1. Pfizer has nothing to do with this data release. It is the FDA who controls this info, and the release was drastically sped up due to a FOIA request. There are 300,000 pages set to be released. The FDA was planning on releasing 500 a month. The judge ordered that it be increased to 55,000 a month.

2. I haven't read the first 55,000 pages. In fact, if you read a page per minute without sleeping, eating, or stopping for a single second, you would still be about 10,000 pages short by the next release.

3. It wasn't being buried, it was being released at a normal rate. This is because that part of the FDA normally has about 10 employees who do this work. They have to redact all personal and proprietary info on every page potentially. And they are juggling, on average, several hundred other FOIA requests. This is a unique ask that requires a ton of external help to pull off.

4. We almost certainly won't read anything new in these documents. The highlights are already released, and the safety profile has been well established with several billion data points now.

I believe I read that the FDA is handling, on average, about 400 FOIA demands at any one time. If you release 500 pages per month for each report, that's 200,000 pages released monthly. That's about 20,000 pages per month per employee. Once again, the antivax crowd uses a nugget of truth to build a bigger lie.

No one is hiding anything

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:35 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Just copied a reply from someone who has been providing info throughout the pandemic on statistical/scientific analysis etc

A couple of things here:

1. Pfizer has nothing to do with this data release. It is the FDA who controls this info, and the release was drastically sped up due to a FOIA request. There are 300,000 pages set to be released. The FDA was planning on releasing 500 a month. The judge ordered that it be increased to 55,000 a month.

2. I haven't read the first 55,000 pages. In fact, if you read a page per minute without sleeping, eating, or stopping for a single second, you would still be about 10,000 pages short by the next release.

3. It wasn't being buried, it was being released at a normal rate. This is because that part of the FDA normally has about 10 employees who do this work. They have to redact all personal and proprietary info on every page potentially. And they are juggling, on average, several hundred other FOIA requests. This is a unique ask that requires a ton of external help to pull off.

4. We almost certainly won't read anything new in these documents. The highlights are already released, and the safety profile has been well established with several billion data points now.

I believe I read that the FDA is handling, on average, about 400 FOIA demands at any one time. If you release 500 pages per month for each report, that's 200,000 pages released monthly. That's about 20,000 pages per month per employee. Once again, the antivax crowd uses a nugget of truth to build a bigger lie.

No one is hiding anything

So you're concluding that an organisation worth billions couldn't take on more staff? Interesting viewpoint.

I'm not saying anything is being hidden. I simply don't know. Don't you think the fact that this report would not have been fully released in our lifetimes at the rate that Pfizer wanted to release it and that a high court judge has seen fit to order them to increase it to 55,000 pages (just take a second to take that in.. 500 to 55,000!) is at the very least noteworthy?

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:42 pm  

Just to add some context to the above, Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna are making profits of roughly $1000 a SECOND. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/pfiz ... -s-poorest

Just to add some context to the above, Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna are making profits of roughly $1000 a SECOND. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/pfiz ... -s-poorest

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:33 pm  

Sweaty Betty's wrote:

What makes you think I am stupid? Have you met me?

Let me point out to you, in case you have not grasped it, I did not write the article or conduct the research that supported the conclusion that lockdowns had little impact on public health, it was undertaken by the world renowned Johns Hopkins University. Now the big question is, do I believe what they have published or someone of lesser intelligence posting on a forum? It is a no brainer! By the way, what does moderately mean in this context?

Regarding vaccines, when I was a lad studying science at school I was taught that a vaccine was a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies which provided immunity against one or several diseases. Clearly, the Covid injection did not do that so, by definition, it cannot be classed as a vaccine. Now, if you would like to give me your definition of a vaccine I would be only too willing to consider it.

OK, so you are using the definition of vaccine as one that a teacher (who had a BSc in a generic science subject) used to teach to a bunch of about thirty odd teenages kids of varying intelligence. Do you see that having too much reliance on that as an authority might be the issue. Biology is messy, nothing is 100%.

The vaccines (for they are vaccines) do give protection. We can see this as unvaccinated people are disproportionately more likely to end up in UCI with Covid-19 than if they had been vaccinated. You can trust the official figures, or trust doctors and nurses who work in ICU.

You study you quoted, that I suspect you would not have quoted if it did not agree with you, was indeed co-authored by people at John Hopkin University. It has many departments, and if co-authored by a Danish political pressure group. It is not an independent study. Common sense would tell you to look at comparisons. Sweden did not lock down and suffered many, many deaths is 2020, similar Denmark and Norway locked down early and moderately and had no significant excess deaths. Post vaccination roll-out, Sweden had the highest vaccine uptake and is now doing extremely well, particularly to nations that have not.

Re: Covid : Fri Mar 11, 2022 3:09 pm  

Bob8 wrote:

OK, so you are using the definition of vaccine as one that a teacher (who had a BSc in a generic science subject) used to teach to a bunch of about thirty odd teenages kids of varying intelligence. Do you see that having too much reliance on that as an authority might be the issue. Biology is messy, nothing is 100%.

The vaccines (for they are vaccines) do give protection. We can see this as unvaccinated people are disproportionately more likely to end up in UCI with Covid-19 than if they had been vaccinated. You can trust the official figures, or trust doctors and nurses who work in ICU.

You study you quoted, that I suspect you would not have quoted if it did not agree with you, was indeed co-authored by people at John Hopkin University. It has many departments, and if co-authored by a Danish political pressure group. It is not an independent study. Common sense would tell you to look at comparisons. Sweden did not lock down and suffered many, many deaths is 2020, similar Denmark and Norway locked down early and moderately and had no significant excess deaths. Post vaccination roll-out, Sweden had the highest vaccine uptake and is now doing extremely well, particularly to nations that have not.

And yet 'all-cause' mortality rates stayed the same in both countries in 2020 as in previous years (2015-2018 Sweden and 2015-2019 Norway*)

Conclusion: Neither country faired better than the other when it came to mortality rate unless you take the ridiculous viewpoint that Covid deaths are somehow more important than Cancer deaths, heart disease deaths etc.

Incidentally, the vaccine definition was the one used by the WHO, not some biology teacher. Stop being disingenuous with your responses. It weakens your argument.

*All cause deaths actually fell in Sweden in 2019 so were outside the useful data for comparison.