Why don't we send 400 Victorians to India for science?

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-should-now-only-be-given-to-those-aged-60-and-above-atagi-recommends/news-story/bb5321c5a7ac7880d6b0f7340ba3ac69

Why do the recommendations keep shifting?
Oh, that's right, cause the clinical trials aren't finished yet, they're still getting study data from the general population...

I'd be interested to know what the age of people has to do with the risks.
What is the age where this clearly faulty vaccine experiment is acceptably safe to take?
40 was the magic age previously, then 50, now 60...are they just going to keep pushing it out to 80, so they can say people that age would have died from a naturally occurring blot clot anyway?

Its pretty clear. You might be able to follow it.

It is a balance between the risk of the vaccine versus the risk of getting Covid and dying. Clearly they are adjusting it upwards as they see side effects and less chance of many people here actually catching Covid. I suspect that they would stick with the original age or even bring it down if we were suffering through huge outbreaks. We aren't.

I actually asked this question of a GP recently and his reply was effectively what I said above.

You seem to be lumping all vaccines into your argument, but clearly that is not the case here in Aus.

Ah, so you do agree the clinical trials are still ongoing, just including the population as a whole.
Thanks for admitting that.

The thing with GPs...you can finish at the absolute bottom of your class and scrape through, and you can still be a GP.


You seem to be making a strawman about my view on vaccines.

What's the question? You asked if the clinical trials aren't finished yet. Obviously these vaccines were rushed through and things may sneak through the clinical trials as you cannot possibly test for every medical condition in your trials. Its just not possible.

Why are you arguing about this? Its pretty clear that this is the way its working.

Did you want to wait ten years to see the clinical trials and the stats from them to determine if something is safe to prevent Covid?

A GP could be a genius or he could be a crackpot. Surely you have seen the GPs that seem to pop up in America claiming that Covid is made up? I wonder which camp I would put them in?

Again, if its not clear to you, the use of Astrazenica appears to be a compromise between the risk of side-effects, unfortunately including death, and the risk from the virus itself. No one will argue otherwise with you. For some reason the public seem to think that there is a material difference between the age groups that makes this vaccine good or bad. It seems there is not and its just based on risks.

I didn't ask if the clinical trials were finished yet.
They are quite clearly still underway, using the general population.

Try reading things twice before you go on a rant.

Well, you think the clinical trials are still going on. Okay, believe what you want, but clearly clinical trials are different to real world results.

You did ask why the age is being changed. I answered that. I hope you understood it.

These 'real world results' are wholly part of and the result of the clinical trial.
Really, you shouldn't be feeling so superior since you seem to know nothing about clinical trials.

Your 'answer' only confirms the truth that the clinical trails are ongoing, by way of including the population at large.

You think the clinical trials are finished, for vaccines that were only given approval for 'emergency use'. Your ignorance is, well I would say astounding, but it's become very clear that you make up your mind on next to no real knowledge and double down on it.

Yeah, yeah, blah blah.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-should-now-only-be-given-to-those-aged-60-and-above-atagi-recommends/news-story/bb5321c5a7ac7880d6b0f7340ba3ac69

Why do the recommendations keep shifting?
Oh, that's right, cause the clinical trials aren't finished yet, they're still getting study data from the general population...

I'd be interested to know what the age of people has to do with the risks.
What is the age where this clearly faulty vaccine experiment is acceptably safe to take?
40 was the magic age previously, then 50, now 60...are they just going to keep pushing it out to 80, so they can say people that age would have died from a naturally occurring blot clot anyway?

Its pretty clear. You might be able to follow it.

It is a balance between the risk of the vaccine versus the risk of getting Covid and dying. Clearly they are adjusting it upwards as they see side effects and less chance of many people here actually catching Covid. I suspect that they would stick with the original age or even bring it down if we were suffering through huge outbreaks. We aren't.

I actually asked this question of a GP recently and his reply was effectively what I said above.

You seem to be lumping all vaccines into your argument, but clearly that is not the case here in Aus.

Ah, so you do agree the clinical trials are still ongoing, just including the population as a whole.
Thanks for admitting that.

The thing with GPs...you can finish at the absolute bottom of your class and scrape through, and you can still be a GP.


You seem to be making a strawman about my view on vaccines.

What's the question? You asked if the clinical trials aren't finished yet. Obviously these vaccines were rushed through and things may sneak through the clinical trials as you cannot possibly test for every medical condition in your trials. Its just not possible.

Why are you arguing about this? Its pretty clear that this is the way its working.

Did you want to wait ten years to see the clinical trials and the stats from them to determine if something is safe to prevent Covid?

A GP could be a genius or he could be a crackpot. Surely you have seen the GPs that seem to pop up in America claiming that Covid is made up? I wonder which camp I would put them in?

Again, if its not clear to you, the use of Astrazenica appears to be a compromise between the risk of side-effects, unfortunately including death, and the risk from the virus itself. No one will argue otherwise with you. For some reason the public seem to think that there is a material difference between the age groups that makes this vaccine good or bad. It seems there is not and its just based on risks.

I didn't ask if the clinical trials were finished yet.
They are quite clearly still underway, using the general population.

Try reading things twice before you go on a rant.

Well, you think the clinical trials are still going on. Okay, believe what you want, but clearly clinical trials are different to real world results.

You did ask why the age is being changed. I answered that. I hope you understood it.

These 'real world results' are wholly part of and the result of the clinical trial.
Really, you shouldn't be feeling so superior since you seem to know nothing about clinical trials.

Your 'answer' only confirms the truth that the clinical trails are ongoing, by way of including the population at large.

You think the clinical trials are finished, for vaccines that were only given approval for 'emergency use'. Your ignorance is, well I would say astounding, but it's become very clear that you make up your mind on next to no real knowledge and double down on it.

Yeah, yeah, blah blah.

Par for the course for you.

Thanks for admitting you are wrong.

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-should-now-only-be-given-to-those-aged-60-and-above-atagi-recommends/news-story/bb5321c5a7ac7880d6b0f7340ba3ac69

Why do the recommendations keep shifting?
Oh, that's right, cause the clinical trials aren't finished yet, they're still getting study data from the general population...

I'd be interested to know what the age of people has to do with the risks.
What is the age where this clearly faulty vaccine experiment is acceptably safe to take?
40 was the magic age previously, then 50, now 60...are they just going to keep pushing it out to 80, so they can say people that age would have died from a naturally occurring blot clot anyway?

Oh, I see the problem with my responses. You weren't actually wanting an answer. You only asked the questions to give your own viewpoint. Okay then.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-should-now-only-be-given-to-those-aged-60-and-above-atagi-recommends/news-story/bb5321c5a7ac7880d6b0f7340ba3ac69

Why do the recommendations keep shifting?
Oh, that's right, cause the clinical trials aren't finished yet, they're still getting study data from the general population...

I'd be interested to know what the age of people has to do with the risks.
What is the age where this clearly faulty vaccine experiment is acceptably safe to take?
40 was the magic age previously, then 50, now 60...are they just going to keep pushing it out to 80, so they can say people that age would have died from a naturally occurring blot clot anyway?

Oh, I see the problem with my responses. You weren't actually wanting an answer. You only asked the questions to give your own viewpoint. Okay then.

Maybe if you knew what a rhetorical question was, you wouldn't be looking like such a fool right now.

I mean it's not like you could provide an answer anyway. What you did provide was completely in support of my statement anyway.
I made the observation that the clinical trials are still ongoing, having been expanded to the population at large; your response completely backed this up.

So thanks.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
Some developments on the legal front headed by Reiner Fuelmich looking like gaining traction. Very thorough interview with James Dellingpole worth listening to

odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/fuellmich:8

Here we have both Peter McCollough and Reiner spreading conspiracy theories.
www.bitchute.com/video/4QZzFfrsmzB7/

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-should-now-only-be-given-to-those-aged-60-and-above-atagi-recommends/news-story/bb5321c5a7ac7880d6b0f7340ba3ac69

Why do the recommendations keep shifting?
Oh, that's right, cause the clinical trials aren't finished yet, they're still getting study data from the general population...

I'd be interested to know what the age of people has to do with the risks.
What is the age where this clearly faulty vaccine experiment is acceptably safe to take?
40 was the magic age previously, then 50, now 60...are they just going to keep pushing it out to 80, so they can say people that age would have died from a naturally occurring blot clot anyway?

Oh, I see the problem with my responses. You weren't actually wanting an answer. You only asked the questions to give your own viewpoint. Okay then.

Maybe if you knew what a rhetorical question was, you wouldn't be looking like such a fool right now.

I mean it's not like you could provide an answer anyway. What you did provide was completely in support of my statement anyway.
I made the observation that the clinical trials are still ongoing, having been expanded to the population at large; your response completely backed this up.

So thanks.

You might want to brush up on what a rhetorical question is yourself. It's not generally a question that you ask and then answer yourself.

For someone so keen to correct me, you are doing a lousy job of it.

What was your point again? Are you trying to say that the results of the vaccine on people have not been tested enough before rolling them out? Well, yeah, that's sort of the point in an emergency.

I think you are just trying to imply that vaccines shouldn't be rolled out without finishing the testing, but again you are not actually making a point. I guess if you don't make a point no one can offer a different viewpoint.

Select to expand quote

IanR said..

japie said..

japie said..
Some developments on the legal front headed by Reiner Fuelmich looking like gaining traction. Very thorough interview with James Dellingpole worth listening to

odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/fuellmich:8

Here we have both Peter McCollough spreading conspiracy theories.
www.bitchute.com/video/4QZzFfrsmzB7/

So how many Dr Peter McCollough's are there?
Don't you mean you have all three amigos talking about their unproven theorems, Reiner Fuellmich (the ambulance chasing Lawer looking to take money from gullible people), James Delingpole (the climate change denialist journalist) and a misguided cardiologist.

If hydroxychloroquine was the miracle cure for COVID-19 why has Brazil had over half a million deaths.
www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/06/15/1006198151/covid-pseudoscience-is-choking-brazil

Professor of Medicine
Vice Chief of Internal Medicine
Baylor University Medical Center
Dallas, TX

After receiving a bachelor's degree from Baylor University, Dr. McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington in Seattle, cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master's degree in public health at the University of Michigan.

Dr. McCullough is a consultant cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. He is a Principal Faculty in internal medicine for the Texas A & M University Health Sciences Center.

Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state with > 1000 publications and > 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the "Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness" in Braunwald's Heart Disease Textbook.

Dr. McCullough is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research.

Dr. McCullough is a founder and current president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, an organization dedicated to bringing cardiologists and nephrologists together to work on the emerging problem of cardiorenal syndromes. His works have appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet and other top-tier journals worldwide.

He is the co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, and associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and Cardiorenal Medicine. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals.

Dr. McCullough has made presentations on the advancement of medicine across the world and has been an invited lecturer at the New York Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency, and the U.S. Congressional Oversight Panel.

Major Contributions

Senior leadership and oversight of clinical, education, and research operations at major academic medical centers in Detroit, Kansas City, and Dallas

Led observational studies and randomized trials of therapies for acute kidney injury, hypertension, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, and cardiorenal syndromes

Chaired and participated on 15 data safety monitoring committees for large randomized trials
Advised sponsors and the FDA resulting in approval of 15 new drugs and 3 novel in vitro diagnostic tests used today around the world

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-should-now-only-be-given-to-those-aged-60-and-above-atagi-recommends/news-story/bb5321c5a7ac7880d6b0f7340ba3ac69

Why do the recommendations keep shifting?
Oh, that's right, cause the clinical trials aren't finished yet, they're still getting study data from the general population...

I'd be interested to know what the age of people has to do with the risks.
What is the age where this clearly faulty vaccine experiment is acceptably safe to take?
40 was the magic age previously, then 50, now 60...are they just going to keep pushing it out to 80, so they can say people that age would have died from a naturally occurring blot clot anyway?

Oh, I see the problem with my responses. You weren't actually wanting an answer. You only asked the questions to give your own viewpoint. Okay then.

Maybe if you knew what a rhetorical question was, you wouldn't be looking like such a fool right now.

I mean it's not like you could provide an answer anyway. What you did provide was completely in support of my statement anyway.
I made the observation that the clinical trials are still ongoing, having been expanded to the population at large; your response completely backed this up.

So thanks.

You might want to brush up on what a rhetorical question is yourself. It's not generally a question that you ask and then answer yourself.

For someone so keen to correct me, you are doing a lousy job of it.

What was your point again? Are you trying to say that the results of the vaccine on people have not been tested enough before rolling them out? Well, yeah, that's sort of the point in an emergency.

I think you are just trying to imply that vaccines shouldn't be rolled out without finishing the testing, but again you are not actually making a point. I guess if you don't make a point no one can offer a different viewpoint.

I'm not in anyway trying to correct you.

Keep digging, you're doing a great job of uncovering more of your willful ignorance.

I have to keep using google to find these big words you use.

"Wilful ignorance". I should be proud of that, but it sort of highlights that you have a viewpoint but don't feel comfortable saying it.

You still haven't actually stated your point of view, or do you not have one and have just reposted someone else's stuff?

Yarpie
I do like the edit of your post on 22nd It makes you look a little less foolish. It seems you are now on a first name basis with Fuelmich. How much have you contributed to his fictitious class action.

As such an esteemed Doctor, as Dr Peter McCollough is made out to be by you. One would think with all his experience in clinical trials he would have done a trial on his mix of over the counter medications. Where is it.

Why not discuss the one country in the world where they have tried to us these medication to counter the Pandemic.
Brazil. Is it because it has been a resounding failure and the people are now rallying to oust Jair Bolsonaro because of his handling of the of the Pandemic

And the clinical trial involving the population at large continues to provide evidence it shouldn't have been using the general population as guinea pigs.

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/federal-government-reveals-updated-vaccine-plan-with-astrazeneca-to-be-phased/news-story/6e98afc8e7bbec1c5743215172c84d30

"The federal government is predicting the AstraZeneca vaccine will be phased out by the end of the year, given all Australians older than 60 should have received both doses."

Yeah, right! I'd bet Formula Nova's house on this statement being BS. There's no way all Australians over 60 would have been fully vaccinated.
I guess the details are in the semantics...'should'. Smoke and mirrors!

The truth is, this is a dodgy vaccine that should never have made it out of the lab.
Of course SARS-COV2 should never have made it out of the lab either...

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..
And the clinical trial involving the population at large continues to provide evidence it shouldn't have been using the general population as guinea pigs.

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/federal-government-reveals-updated-vaccine-plan-with-astrazeneca-to-be-phased/news-story/6e98afc8e7bbec1c5743215172c84d30

"The federal government is predicting the AstraZeneca vaccine will be phased out by the end of the year, given all Australians older than 60 should have received both doses."

Yeah, right! I'd bet Formula Nova's house on this statement being BS. There's no way all Australians over 60 would have been fully vaccinated.
I guess the details are in the semantics...'should'. Smoke and mirrors!

The truth is, this is a dodgy vaccine that should never have made it out of the lab.
Of course SARS-COV2 should never have made it out of the lab either...

People use words to indicate meaning. No kidding! "Should" implies that something is likely to happen, but not definite. "Will" on the other hand is definite. What do they say? 'Should'. My guess is that they are saying that the resources will be available for those over 60 to be vaccinated. If they decide not to or are otherwise incapable, I guess they won't be.

Semantics? Hardly, but it pays to understand what you read.

How would you know whether a vaccine is 'dodgy'? Well you don't until there is sufficient data available from trials, and in this case its rushed out in an emergency so you only see these results as they happen.

We could all find out that Pfizer turns us all into conspiracy theorists and destroys our ability to think logically and reason, but we won't know it until later, and some of 'us' won't know even then.

All of these vaccines haven't had enough time to be tested thoroughly. It's the whole nature of this pandemic and the need to vaccinate quickly for a new virus.

It would certainly be a worry if someone just produced a vaccine ready to go and tested for a new virus. It would imply that someone knew it was coming....

I think my favourite part of this pandemic is the slogan pitched by Tim from marketing at Novavax.
Novavax, making tomorrow's vaccines today.
It's kinda clever for a vaccine company that has never brought a vaccine to market.
Also. Why is someone deleting sequenced data from a public data bank? especially in the middle of a pandemic

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
And the clinical trial involving the population at large continues to provide evidence it shouldn't have been using the general population as guinea pigs.

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/federal-government-reveals-updated-vaccine-plan-with-astrazeneca-to-be-phased/news-story/6e98afc8e7bbec1c5743215172c84d30

"The federal government is predicting the AstraZeneca vaccine will be phased out by the end of the year, given all Australians older than 60 should have received both doses."

Yeah, right! I'd bet Formula Nova's house on this statement being BS. There's no way all Australians over 60 would have been fully vaccinated.
I guess the details are in the semantics...'should'. Smoke and mirrors!

The truth is, this is a dodgy vaccine that should never have made it out of the lab.
Of course SARS-COV2 should never have made it out of the lab either...

People use words to indicate meaning. No kidding! "Should" implies that something is likely to happen, but not definite. "Will" on the other hand is definite. What do they say? 'Should'. My guess is that they are saying that the resources will be available for those over 60 to be vaccinated. If they decide not to or are otherwise incapable, I guess they won't be.

Semantics? Hardly, but it pays to understand what you read.

How would you know whether a vaccine is 'dodgy'? Well you don't until there is sufficient data available from trials, and in this case its rushed out in an emergency so you only see these results as they happen.

We could all find out that Pfizer turns us all into conspiracy theorists and destroys our ability to think logically and reason, but we won't know it until later, and some of 'us' won't know even then.

All of these vaccines haven't had enough time to be tested thoroughly. It's the whole nature of this pandemic and the need to vaccinate quickly for a new virus.

It would certainly be a worry if someone just produced a vaccine ready to go and tested for a new virus. It would imply that someone knew it was coming....

Yeah no, you are completely right.
Using the general population as guinea pigs is a great idea.

No, I think its better that we just let them die. Surely old people are worth nothing? A painful few months of life with Covid and being able to hug their grandchildren is surely better than years of comfortable living and initially keeping them isolated for a little while?

I see a glimmer of your opinion emerging. Good on you. The first post didn't make it clear.

Can you repeat that in english please?
Try and make it coherent this time.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
It's all there. In detail:

covid19criticalcare.com/

Do you even read the stuff you post or like the lancet link do you just copy and paste it from other sites.The first thing you see when you open the FLCCC site is a request for donations, (Bit of a Red Flag for Me) most serious research papers or publisher don't want your money

McCollough had nothing to do with this publication. Where are his findings.
I have highlighted some word from the link that you posted that show that this is in no way a conclusive study.
"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.
Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection

Yes if I had Covid-19 I would most likely take ivermectin and hope for the best.
But I'm not going to take it in the slim chance that it may work as a prophylaxis. I will get the vaccine
The real world example of Brazil is far more potent evidence of how little these drugs actually help than the stuff you put forward

I certainly didn't read this as the more perceptive of you will appreciate that it is a radio interview.

www.abc.net.au/radio/newcastle/programs/drive/ivermectin-covid-19/13418066