cyllan
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by cyllan
-
-
3 hours ago, Tyson said:
Can someone with access to this article copy and paste it?
Here you go:
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Coma16 said:
The problem here (or at least one of them) is that our "experts" are urging people to take whatever injection is available and they are all safe one day, and then weeks later there is evidence thats not the case (ahem AstraZenica and now there are warnings for moderna). Maybe you don't mind being the research or admit that you're being lied to.
Also, anyone who let's their children 5-11 get the jab (because we all know it's coming) needs to be reported to children's aid for abuse. "Treating" healthy children for something that virtually has no risk against them is unforgivable.
Well said! The way the government is coming after the kids, against even their own “experts” advice, is abhorrent. Since when did using children to protect frightened adults become morally acceptable. Unbelievable that it’s come to this - or perhaps not, given the nature of what we’re up against.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I’m really glad some people seem to be enjoying this tour. Personally, I can’t get enthused over the ‘new’ song and performances ranging from dreadful to merely decent. I had no plans to see them in Europe in 2020 and this hasn’t changed my mind for 2022 (if these even happen).
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, downzy said:
You honestly think hospitals are consciously putting themselves in this hole? Do you have the faintest clue as to how hospitals are staffed with respect to demand/need analysis?
Here we have a clear example of a healthcare system getting crushed solely because of a pandemic. But to you, the real reason this is happening is a staff scheduling issue or managerial incompetence?
Do you understand why no one takes you seriously?
Rinse and repeat.
https://texascovid19.com/texas-hospitals-entering-dire-covid-19-surge-situation/?Display_FAQ=4255https://www.texastribune.org/2018/01/11/flu-levels-rise-texas-officials-advise-public-be-aware/
I cant take anyone seriously if they still believe there’s a pandemic or that getting jabbed will restore their freedom. -
1 hour ago, downzy said:
And why is there a staffing shortage?
I’ll give you a hint.
It rhymes with Rovid.
Perhaps if they hadn’t understaffed the hospital to start with (a cost cutting exercise I’ve no doubt), they wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in now. And only going to get worse when staff resign over mandated vaccines.
-
10 hours ago, downzy said:
Things not great in Texas:
But let’s still repeate absolute nonsense about the supposed “dangers” of the vaccines.
It’s sickening how sick we are.
If you read the article and not just the fear porn tweet, it seems that a shortage of staff is the problem. Click on the article linked and the following two paras read:
The judge added no ICU beds have been available for children for at least 24 hours. The Texas Department of State Health Services said the shortage of pediatric ICU beds is related to a shortage in medical staff.
“Hospitals are licensed for a specific number of beds and most hospitals regularly staff fewer beds than they are licensed for. They can’t use beds that aren’t staffed. With the increase in COVID cases, hospitals are experiencing a shortage of people to staff the beds that they are licensed for,” department spokesperson Lara Anton said in an email, adding that staffing agencies in the state are working on recruiting medical surge staff from across the US.
There also seems to be an unseasonal early surge of RSV affecting youngsters in the area and putting pressure on the bed availability. But reporting that wouldn’t suit the narrative at all would it?
-
3 minutes ago, Coma16 said:
Do covid case counts still include influenza cases, or did they get that sorted out?
Didn’t you know that washing your hands and wearing a face nappy eradicated flu last year. All these years and if only we’d known... 🤣
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:
Nobody is mocking the flu. People are mocking the ones who actually compare covid to the flu, trying to downgrade how dangerous it is. And those people deserve to be mocked day in and day out.
FYI, UK gov downgraded Covid from high consequence infectious disease on 19 March 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SilverMachine said:
I know seven people who all have long covid - all under the age of 35, all but one were in prime health. One of them is six years old.
If you're inferring that long covid doesn't exist, I can assure you it absolutely does and its fucking grim.
Don’t know anyone who has had Covid. Know people who had post viral fatigue from flu etc in past years.
-
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:
That is actually gloriously ironic considering that Dazey wrote about non-fatal adverse effects in his reply to you but apparently you didn't get it. Did you not "bother to read" what he wrote?
Not ironic at all. I was referring to vaccine effects, as well he knew, and he referred to Covid effects.
-
35 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:
What's that, then?
Not falling for that old chestnut!
-
54 minutes ago, Dazey said:
Well according to UK statistics the total number of deaths due to adverse reactions to the vaccine are about 1,500 total as of a month or so ago. Now as of roughly the same time approximately 46 MILLION people had received at least one dose of vaccine so that's a chance of serious adverse reaction of 0.003%. Which bizarrely enough is about the same as the risk of toxic shock syndrome from a tampon so I assume you're a Tampax sceptic too?
Now to compare that the risk of serious illness, life changing disability or death of catching covid for the 20-49 age group is about 0.02% or for the hard of thinking that means you're approximately 6 times more likely to die from Covid as a 20 year old than to have any serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.
TL;DR You're being rather silly and can't do maths!
Serious adverse events include more than just death. Honestly, if you’re not going to bother to read what I write, why bother replying. And the worldwide reporting mechanisms capture only a small percentage of the damage done by these drugs; as they freely admit.
-
1 hour ago, Dazey said:
Yeah, except it's not poisonous.
Tell that to the families of the tens of thousands of people who’ve died after taking it. And the millions who’ve had serious adverse reactions including those left with life changing dIsabilities.
-
4
-
-
14 hours ago, SoulMonster said:
I have found that if I do, I become "the enemy".
Ah, we have 77 Bde amongst us. 🤐
-
4 hours ago, Pedrolg said:
As I said before, I don't think anybody here wants to go out of their way to attack and insult other members. At the same time it is really hard to supress how I feel on this matter. There isn't a single rational argument that justifies refusing vaccines at this point. Sweden gets thrown around. It's a failure, a deathzone when compared to it's neighbours and a country that has disgraceful numbers for it's hdi and social and economic standing. Vaccines are proven to immensely help in death prevention ate every single country they have been deployed so far.
I understand that nobody should be objectively forced to inject a substance in their bodies against the will, but restrictions are the way forward. I hate to say this but I hope they get severe to the point where the only place antivaxxers can linger are antivaxxers homes. Wanting to remain unvaccinated and go to events like huge rock concerts is absolutely selfish and insane.
You don’t think calling people irrational and wishing them locked up isn’t insulting then? Mmm ok. Seems you’d have loved Germany in the 1930s - or maybe even today’s Australia. Papers please.
On the plus side, when we’re all thrown in the gulags, you won’t be able to blame us when you keel over from the poisonous shit you’ve allowed yourself to be injected with. 😂
-
2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:
We have been through this before. Here is what I wrote yesterday;
All the vaccines that are being used have gone through clinical trials, typically phase I, II and III, and it is on the grounds of these data that regulatory bodies have decided to grant EUAs. It is correct that some trials are ongoing and that full approval will rely on these, but even for approved drugs we refer to data collection post-market as clinical phase IV, and in that sense even approved drugs are to some extent experimental. It is only when the drug is rolled out and administered to real patients, in properly large numbers, in a real world setting - the final and best trial of a drug - that we can claim to truly know its properties. As for the mRNA vaccines and other therapies that receive EUAs, the clinical data that had been submitted in the EUA application and are the foundation for the EUA, is enough to say they are safe and not experimental.
The claim that these vaccines are experimental and have not gone through clinical trials has also been fact checked and debunked here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2M70MW
And:
[...] All of them have passed through PhI to PhIII.
Here is the press release from when the Pfizer vaccine finished PhIII: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-publication-results-landmark
The misunderstanding is likely that there are still ongoing clinical data being harvested after market launch but as I pointed out, this is entirely normal and also happens for approved drugs. [...]
And:
Sorry to spam, but there was also a claim earlier that the clinical trials of the mRNA vaccines have not been published for peer-review. Of course they have. Here is the publication of Phase III for the Pfizer vaccine in NEJM as an example: Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine | NEJM
_____
The first link is to Reuter's debunking of the claim that the vaccines are experimental and have not gone through clinical trials.
The second link is to Pfizer's press release as they finished clinical phase III.
The third link is to the published, peer-reviewed paper on this clinical trial, from New England Journal of Medicine (on of the pharmaceutical journals with the highest impact factor).
So, done, done and done! Yesterday. But always happy t spend some time replying to the same questions again.
BREAKING! Here's a bonus link of Reuter's fact-checking the claim that since Pfizer and Moderna will continue to monitor the recipients in PhIII, PhIII isn't finished: Fact check: It is standard practice for vaccine safety monitoring to continue after approval | Reuters
And here's a link to Full Fact factchecking the claim that the results of PhIII results have not been published for peer-review: Results of Covid-19 vaccine trials have been published and peer-reviewed - Full Fact
I am like reverse Santa, you are naughty but I still give presents.
And if you continue to argue that the drugs have not gone through clinical trials, that the results have not been published for peer-review, and that hence they are experimental, then I think you have become immune to facts and knowledge that challenges your beliefs.
Ditto - you seem unable to grasp the difference between interim and completed. 21,000 people followed for 2 months - the bare minimum protocol required for an EUA. My standards are set somewhat higher than that. -
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/why-we-must-question-vaccine-efficacy-and-safety-claims
The Lancet
https://archive.is/hf7nU
The clinical trials for the vaccine include the Pfizer and BioNTech trial of BNT162b2 (NCT04368728), which is still in the recruitment phase, AstraZeneca's AZD1222 (or ChAdOx1-S) trial (NCT04516746), due to be completed in February 2023, Moderna's mRNA vaccine phase III trial (NCT04470427), which should be concluded by October 2022 and Johnson & Johnson's Janssen trial (NCT04614948), which will hopefully near completion in May 2023.
-
56 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:
But clinical phase I and II have been completed for all these vaccines
And the industry considers PhIII to be completed too, even if -- as usual -- they will continue to collect data for a while.
Here's what you wrote;
Evidence please from drug companies that phase 3 trials completed, analysed and published reports on way. Otherwise still experimental. Not taking it.
-
50 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:
But I am not an expert on clinical data analysis nor on the molecular basis of ADE. Why would you want to hear my layman's opinion? I don't have my own opinions on this. I adopt whatever opinion actual experts have...you know, those guys who dedicate their careers to be as knowledgeable on a topic as it is possible to be, and who conclude that the clinical trials (and pre-clinical work) of the mRNA vaccines have been designed to assess any ADE's and that the danger of any ADE is minimal.
No critical analysis or common sense required then. OK got it, waste of time conversing with you.
-
5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:
I am talking about PhIV because you seemed to labor under the misunderstanding that approval is granted only when we are 100% sure of the drug's efficacy and safety. My point is that we will never be before the drug is rolled out and administered to large amounts of real patients. And this ties into how much data the FDA/EMA requires before granting approval (or EUA). With the mRNA vaccines they obviously consider that enough information has been received from pre-clinical PhI, PhII and PhIII to start allow using the vaccines on patients.
As for whether PhIII is concluded or not is a matter of terminology, I suppose. The industry certainly considers PhIII to have been finalized for the mRNA vaccines, even if they will continue to collect data for some months - and I get that that sounds counter-intiutive. But that's just standard practise in the industry.
I did post a link to a fact-check earlier and here is the relevant section:
What is important is that the main data has been collected and analyzed and that this is deemed more than enough to grant EUA - and that you now seem to have accepted that the vaccines have indeed gone through clinical trials, something you denied earlier.
Never denied clinical trials hadn’t been started just that they haven’t been completed.
5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:I can't provide you with details about how these studies have been performed, but here is some info on why we don't fear ADE for these vaccines:
Source: Do the mRNA vaccines cause Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) with COVID-19 disease? | Immunize BC
Speak for yourself about ADE.
-
5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:
Would you have expected to see such data?
Anyway, here is another article discussing ADE and Covid-19 vaccines: Why ADE Hasn't Been a Problem With COVID Vaccines | MedPage Today
Yes obviously, given that ADE has been such a problem in the attempts to find coronavirus vaccines in the past. Not to challenge the trial subjects would be negligent in the extreme.
-
4 hours ago, downzy said:
Well, yes and no. We're talking about dengue fever here, one where the severity of the infection generally gets worse with subsequent infections. The vaccine was discovered to increase the severity of dengue for those having no prior infection. However, it is still cleared for anyone with a prior infections in many countries throughout the world. Whether ADE is to blame or whether it's just the nature of dengue fever is still left to be determined.
People have been received second shots for 10 months or so by now. The fact that almost all newly infected are unvaccinated should indicate that ADE is not at all present with the current known strains.
I got it. There's misunderstanding alright.
You’re splitting hairs now. The vaccine administered in 2016 caused enhanced severity of the disease in a proportion of those receiving it. ADE seems to be the accepted reason in everything I’ve read for a subset of the population and the drug company has had to amend its guidance for use.
ADE has been shown to be a problem in the attempts to make vaccines for SARS and MERS and there is every reason to be consider that this could be arise with these latest gene therapies.
One potential hurdle for antibody-based vaccines and therapeutics is the risk of exacerbating COVID-19 severity via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE can increase the severity of multiple viral infections, including other respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)9,10and measles11,12. ADE in respiratory infections is included in a broader category named enhanced respiratory disease (ERD), which also includes non-antibody-based mechanisms such as cytokine cascades and cell-mediated immunopathology (Box 1). ADE caused by enhanced viral replication has been observed for other viruses that infect macrophages, including dengue virus13,14 and feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV)15. Furthermore, ADE and ERD has been reported for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV both in vitro and in vivo. The extent to which ADE contributes to COVID-19 immunopathology is being actively investigated.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5
10 months is nothing compared to the average length of time (7-10 years) for a vaccine to reach the required safety standards before coming to market. And, of course this one hasn’t been fully licensed yet; only temp EUA. So a way to go yet and definitely unable to guarantee no ADE will occur over the coming year. Oh and plenty of infected double jabbed over here.
-
21 hours ago, downzy said:
No respected medical expert refers to it as "pathogenic priming." That's a catch phrase used largely by social media experts trying to disprove the safety of not only covid-19 vaccines but all vaccines. Anyone familiar with the concept behind "pathogenic priming" refers to as Antibody Mediated Enhanced Disease, or Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).
The last time ADE was found with a vaccine was in the 1960s, relating to the Respiratory Syncytial Virus. So you're talking about a phenomenon that has been unseen in nearly 60 years and just blindly assuming it will happen with covid-19 vaccines despite the lack of any evidence.
Moreover, the clinical trials conducted in the summer and fall of last year would have picked this up. They didn't. This is a phenomenon that vaccine makers look very closely for in clinical trials (both in animal and in human testing). It would have been caught prior to wider release to the public. This was the case with the Respiratory Syncytial Virus, where ADE was discovered and pulled from the market before it was made available to the public.
Their diet doesn't affect whether people contract the virus. It does and can affect the severity of the symptoms. I don't think you've thought this through.
Re. pathogenic priming - didn’t know the BMJ was regarded as a social media site, but there you go. Last time it was found in a vaccine was 2016, dengue vaccine. So not quite the 1960s. As I mentioned elsewhere, I’ve not seen any evidence of deliberate challenging of vaccine recipients in the earlier trial phases, so what evidence is there to prove that it won’t happen to the double or triple jabbed in the coming months.
Re. the junk food comment. It was a throwaway line which you failed to grasp the point of, but never mind..
-
2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:
Definitely. As I touched upon earlier: There are limitations to what can actually be tested in clinical trials as part of the drug approval process. Ideally, we would like to test the drug on a number of people equal to the disease's patient size and for as long as people live. Instead we test on a representative sample that is statistically significant and sufficiently long to confidently conclude that the drug is efficient and safe. It becomes an approximation of the real world. The real test comes when the drug is rolled out and administered to the real patients, and this is followed up over the coming years. This monitoring post-market is what is referred to as clinical phase IV.
But again, the clinical trials are designed in such a way that the data becomes statistically significant and that we can confidentially conclude on the drug's efficacy and effect profile.
The fact that we can't follow a drug over its entire life cycle in clinical trials before approval, does not mean that its long-term effects is a complete black box. You won't get approval unless you have modelled the drug's mode of action, and from this any potential long- term effects can be understood. The animal and human studies, as well as in vitro studies, also tell us a lot about the long-term effects. Additionally, comparative studies will also help us. A drug for which we couldn't conclude would be safe long-term, would not get approval.
What’s with all this “we” business? Did you have a hand in developing these drugs or have you just bought wholesale into this ‘we are all in this together’ crap?
And I don’t know why you keep referencing phase 4 monitoring when the phase 3 trials haven’t been completed.
As for animal studies, apart from the fact that they were conducted on mice alongside the phase 1 human trials, I can’t find any details as to whether the subjects were deliberately challenged with reinfection after being jabbed . So any ADE (as you prefer to call it) effects still remain to be seen when the winter flu season arrives. I’ll be watching with interest.
And the industry considers PhIII to be completed too, even if -- as usual -- they will continue to collect data for a while.
Guns at Glastonbury confirmed
in GUNS N' ROSES - DISCUSSION & NEWS
Posted
Oh I don’t know, at this stage I’d rather listen to an hour or two of Tommy ‘The Nightmare’ Smith than watch Guns lumber through the same old set again.