Generic Virus Thread

[nick76]

26 minutes ago, Thug said:

4) lack of safety data - without the conspiracy theories.

Maybe initially when the vaccine came out but at last count there have been over 13.5 billion doses delivered worldwide and just over 70% of the world population having at least one dose.  All the data has been harvested and reviewed by experts, so while you may argue long terms effects may not be fully known it’s also backed up by over 50 years of mRNA research.  There are far more things you do, use and consume in your daily life that have risks associated with less safety data available.

[JoshVilla]

Having potentially be the most untrustworthy government that this country has ever had in power during the pandemic obviously didn't help matters. Even more so when they were telling everyone to be scared while they were partying away, obviously not worried about it. It's not hard to see why so many people were so sceptical.

[Thug]

45 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Maybe initially when the vaccine came out but at last count there have been over 13.5 billion doses delivered worldwide and just over 70% of the world population having at least one dose.  All the data has been harvested and reviewed by experts, so while you may argue long terms effects may not be fully known it’s also backed up by over 50 years of mRNA research.  There are far more things you do, use and consume in your daily life that have risks associated with less safety data available.

Even minor differences between chemical compounds can have drastically different results.  Or even other ingredients used in the manufacturing process.

There was a drug called ranitidine first used in the 70s, and continued to be a very common h2 receptor antagonist prescribed right up until 2019 when it was removed from the market due to safety concerns with a component being carcinogenic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranitidine
 

Quote

In September 2019, the probable carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was discovered in ranitidine products from a number of manufacturers, resulting in recalls.^[6][7][8][9]

 

Other drugs in its class (eg cimetidine) with very similar chemical structures were found not to have this property.

1976 to 2019. 43 years of it being used before they find that it has cancer causing risks.

I’ve had my vaccines.  I advise people to have their vaccines, because on balance MY INFORMED decision led me to the conclusion it would be best for me.

indeed you can refer to the 13.5 billion doses administered as a good safety record.  Can you now show me the data proving its safety 10 years post dose?  No. Exactly.  Because it doesn’t exist.

Like I said, on balance, I would say they’re likely to be safe.  But you cannot deny unknown factors.

They told people factor XIII was safe.  It gave people HIV due to the way it was collected.  They told mothers thalidomide was safe, it took years before they connected it to teratogenicity.

I'm very much pro-vaccination

But let’s not pretend it’s risk free, and that anyone who has doubts is intellectually challenged.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Thug

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Like someone has already said, what bout a forth. "none of your business".

Yeah, it’s none of my business. I don’t really care whether someone does or doesn’t get vaccinated - but it falls under those categories.

The tragedy is children not getting vaccinated because their parents have become anti-vax. 

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, Seat68 said:

4th option is perhaps it's not available to you. I want a booster but can't at the moment. My wife is NHS and so has been offered and had it. 

Yeah, that’s fair. I’m talking from a point of availability, but on a wider call that’s definitely true. 

[nick76]

6 minutes ago, Thug said:

Even minor differences between chemical compounds can have drastically different results.  Or even other ingredients used in the manufacturing process.

There was a drug called ranitidine first used in the 70s, and continued to be a very common h2 receptor antagonist prescribed right up until 2019 when it was removed from the market due to safety concerns with a component being carcinogenic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranitidine
 

 

Other drugs in its class (eg cimetidine) with very similar chemical structures were found not to have this property.

1976 to 2019. 43 years of it being used before they find that it has cancer causing risks.

I’ve had my vaccines.  I advise people to have their vaccines, because on balance MY INFORMED decision led me to the conclusion it would be best for me.

indeed you can refer to the 13.5 billion doses administered as a good safety record.  Can you now show me the data proving its safety 10 years post dose?  No. Exactly.  Because it doesn’t exist.

Like I said, on balance, I would say they’re likely to be safe.  But you cannot deny unknown factors.

They told people factor XIII was safe.  It gave people HIV due to the way it was collected.  They told mothers thalidomide was safe, it took years before they connected it to teratogenicity.

I'm very much pro-vaccination

But let’s not pretend it’s risk free, and that anyone who has doubts is intellectually challenged.

I think we are on the same page and probably have the same view but coming from different directions.  

Your comment was ‘lack of safety information’ which I think as a reason in that context of reasons isn’t a great example imo.  

Maybe I’m wrong.  

My point was that there is so much data now it’s hard to have a rational argument of that based on the benefits-risk ratio which is overwhelmingly positive.  

Of course to suggest that it’s totally safe when we don’t have long term impacts or better technology to understand it would be stupid of me.  

My point was that many of things we do daily, consume and use have less safety data, don’t have long term impacts yet we don’t question it.  Yes there are examples when 40+ years on major issues have arose on the things you suggest but there are many things in life that we did 40 years ago and more, that we know not to do today but we don’t know what the equivalent today that will seen as a problem in 40 years time and if we did that for everything in the past then there would be more disease and death now…

a lot of words but basically using we don’t have Absolute all information as a reason would seem a stretch if I’m being kind about that, we can only use the vast data we have for the last few years plus 50 years of research by leaders in the field.  For the average Joe to then say there isn’t enough safety information would seem a less than honest reason imo.

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, JoshVilla said:

Having potentially be the most untrustworthy government that this country has ever had in power during the pandemic obviously didn't help matters. Even more so when they were telling everyone to be scared while they were partying away, obviously not worried about it. It's not hard to see why so many people were so sceptical.

There was a lot of fear mongering , confusion and lies told. I think a lot of the deaths were manipulated towards it being covid when it wasn’t. As you say the government or shall I say some of them clearly weren’t concerned about it. 

[fruitvilla]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

I think a lot of the deaths were manipulated towards it being covid when it wasn’t.

Citation please.

[Thug]

6 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I think we are on the same page and probably have the same view but coming from different directions.  

Your comment was ‘lack of safety information’ which I think as a reason in that context of reasons isn’t a great example imo.  

Maybe I’m wrong.  

My point was that there is so much data now it’s hard to have a rational argument of that based on the benefits-risk ratio which is overwhelmingly positive.  

Of course to suggest that it’s totally safe when we don’t have long term impacts or better technology to understand it would be stupid of me.  

My point was that many of things we do daily, consume and use have less safety data, don’t have long term impacts yet we don’t question it.  Yes there are examples when 40+ years on major issues have arose on the things you suggest but there are many things in life that we did 40 years ago and more, that we know not to do today but we don’t know what the equivalent today that will seen as a problem in 40 years time and if we did that for everything in the past then there would be more disease and death now…

a lot of words but basically using we don’t have Absolute all information as a reason would seem a stretch if I’m being kind about that, we can only use the vast data we have for the last few years plus 50 years of research by leaders in the field.  For the average Joe to then say there isn’t enough safety information would seem a less than honest reason imo.

We are absolutely on the same page.

Quote

My point was that many of things we do daily, consume and use have less safety data, don’t have long term impacts yet we don’t question it

Absolutely.  BUT you don’t HAVE to do it, right?  You can CHOOSE not to smoke? You can CHOOSE to smoke?  You can CHOOSE not to have the 4th kebab this week? Or indeed to have it.

You know full well that smoking, eating kebabs and not exercising increase your risk of a cardiovascular event, but you are absolutely free to do what you want, right?

All I’m saying is, you can’t force your opinion on other people.  I find that if you’re very honest about everything, and take the time to explain things (like your point about 50th of safety data from similar treatments) then people are much more likely to accept it.

Telling them they HAVE to do something, just because we say so, tends to have the opposite effect.

My point of about lack of safety information wasn’t to suggest that I believe that to be the case, it was a ‘reason’ people may choose not to get vaccinated.

[Rugeley Villa]

8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Citation please.

What I meant was some people were dying anyway and had other issues that were main reason for them dying. For example my grandad was dying from end stage dementia caught Covid , then the Covid subsided and he died few days after coming back out of hospital . I’d say thousands of cases were like this . I’m not saying they were randomly putting Covid on death certificates although Covid was put on my grandads. 

[Thug]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

What I meant was some people were dying anyway and had other issues that were main reason for them dying. For example my grandad was dying from end stage dementia caught Covid , then the Covid subsided and he died few days after coming back out of hospital . I’d say thousands of cases were like this . I’m not saying they were randomly putting Covid on death certificates although Covid was put on my grandads. 

You’re actually absolutely right about this.

 

Ill find the citation once I finish work.

[bickster]

3 hours ago, Thug said:

6) exercising your right to make an informed decision.

Nope, that again isn’t a reason, its something everyone hopefully does. The mere use of the word exercising though suggests that it’s something one actively had to sort of opt out of which takes it into the realm of something a right whopper might say.

[Thug]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Nope, that again isn’t a reason, its something everyone hopefully does. The mere use of the word exercising though suggests that it’s something one actively had to sort of opt out of which takes it into the realm of something a right whopper might say.

I don’t follow you.

 

[bickster]

Just now, Thug said:

I don’t follow you.

 

Exercising your right to make an informed decision isn’t a reason not to take a vaccine, someone taking a vaccine could say exactly the same thing. It’s not a reason. It’s a bullshit statement not a genuine reason.

[Thug]

Just now, bickster said:

Exercising your right to make an informed decision isn’t a reason not to take a vaccine, someone taking a vaccine could say exactly the same thing. It’s not a reason. It’s a bullshit statement not a genuine reason.

lol.  Read your posts before posting man.  You’re so hell bent on criticising every post I make sometimes you come across as a little… odd.
 

Quote

Exercising your right to make an informed decision isn’t a reason not to take a vaccine

 

[fruitvilla]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

What I meant was some people were dying anyway and had other issues that were main reason for them dying. For example my grandad was dying from end stage dementia caught Covid , then the Covid subsided and he died few days after coming back out of hospital . I’d say thousands of cases were like this . I’m not saying they were randomly putting Covid on death certificates although Covid was put on my grandads. 

Fair enough ... but having a whackload of people in hospital with COVID putting a strain on other illnesses and emergencies is not desirable, is it? Here's a nice link giving hospitalizations per million for Canada, the US and the UK. You can add and subtract as you wish. UK has not reported any data in the last while. Canada has a relatively high number at the moment. Is it an unwanted strain of the health system?

Your Grandad sadly was taking up room that might have saved somebody else's (non-COVID related) life.
Again, it's not about you or even your Grandad, it's about the system/community.

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, JoshVilla said:

Having potentially be the most untrustworthy government that this country has ever had in power during the pandemic obviously didn't help matters. Even more so when they were telling everyone to be scared while they were partying away, obviously not worried about it. It's not hard to see why so many people were so sceptical.

I think we have to separate the consequences of the lockdowns from the consequences of the "vaccine".

It would seem more likely that the excess deaths probably have more to do with former than the latter, and for which the Government must be held to account.

[tomav84]

2 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

Citation please.

in fairness, there's numerous anecdotal examples. people dying from a heart attack that had covid put on the death certificates. i don't think this is the full story though. a very quick google search indicates that actually a death certificate forms multiple parts. 1) the disease etc that started the chain of events that lead to one's death. 2) other contributing factors.

i suspect that COVID was automatically mentioned in section 2 if a person happened to be COVID positive at the time.

more than happy to be corrected, i probably spent less than a minute getting the above info

[fruitvilla]

6 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

in fairness, there's numerous anecdotal examples. people dying from a heart attack that had covid put on the death certificates. i don't think this is the full story though. a very quick google search indicates that actually a death certificate forms multiple parts. 1) the disease etc that started the chain of events that lead to one's death. 2) other contributing factors.

i suspect that COVID was automatically mentioned in section 2 if a person happened to be COVID positive at the time.

more than happy to be corrected, i probably spent less than a minute getting the above info

Tom just take a look at the hospitalization data I linked to in a reply to Rugely just above.

[Thug]

12 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Tom just take a look at the hospitalization data I linked to in a reply to Rugely just above.

I think @Rugeley Villa was making the point that the reporting of covid 19 on the death certificate was often made when it actually may not have been a direct cause or even a contributing factor to death.

At one point, the statistics reporting was going even a stage further than this… in order to make the statistics more ‘up to date’. Rather than report the number of covid deaths by seeing whether covid 19 was on a death certificate or not (which can take up to 14 days to collate data) they would be using the statistics of whether anybody that had died had tested +ve within the 28 days prior to the death - this would cut down the reporting time to 2-3 days. They later found that there was quite a discrepancy between the figures.

it is only recently that they stopped using this statistic - and focused solely on whether covid 19 appeared on the death certificate or not.