A Doctor’s View About the New mRNA Vaccines

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Cigarettes

One has to wonder if the world were to apply its self to producing a cure for cancer, in the same, or similar manner, to remarkable endeavour required to produce the new COVID 19 vaccines, what could be achieved?

Not that there are not inherent dangers associated with the new vaccines that have not gone through the proper clinical trial procedures, take thalidomide for instance.

What do you believe regarding their creation or function?

a reply to: Rob808

The creation of Vaccines was down to necessity, progress, and scientific endeavour.

But the practice of immunisation dates back hundreds of years.

Buddhist monks drank snake venom to confer immunity to snake bites.

As to there function, that's self evident, considering the damage the likes of TB, Polio, and Measles can reap on the uninoculated masses.

The world would be a far worse off place to exist without immunisation IMHO.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: KansasGirl

Fact is the vaccines work maybe not like the Polio or other vaccines i mentioned, but there effective so far to varying degrees at preventing the onset of serious COVID 19.

The official marketeers of the AstraZeneca vaccine claim 70% effectiveness regarding what you just said (although when the media picks up on this number, they hardly ever make it very clear this is not talking about immunity). Yet, recently I saw a South African health official on TV (I think it was CNN) talking about a scientific study that reported 22% effectiveness in this regards; but they were gonna go ahead with the AstraZeneca vaccines anyway, cause the other 2, Moderna and Pfizer, had even worse results in practice.

So who's exaggerating the claims of effectiveness based on arguing from ignorance and a desire to market the vaccine as more effective than it really is again? As well as supporting the wrong impression given that this number is about immunity? Is it honest that these marketeers are pretending to be scientists publishing scientific reports rather than what is more akin to ads? What about the journals that are complicit when they pretend to belong in the category "Science" while filled with 'ads' like that?

Here are the results of a treatment with over 99,96% effectiveness at preventing such a serious form of Covid that it would require hospitalization, and a 100% effectiveness at preventing the need for IC or death (those numbers are the literal results of "almost 1800 positive patients", plenty to draw conclusions from regarding effectiveness; by now the number of patients has increased):

Eat that Pfizer-, Moderna- and AstraZeneca-marketeers posing as scientists with your supposed and false claims of 95, 90 and 70% effectiveness regarding almost the same subject ("the onset of serious COVID 19", as you put it). Moderna was 90% supposedly, right? Or am I remembering wrong? Whatever, besides my point whether it is 90 or 92-94.

a reply to: whereislogic

The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine apparently confirms 100% protection against severe disease, hospitalisation, and death in the primary analysis of Phase III trials.

www.astrazeneca.com... nd-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html

a reply to: andy06shake
Hey, at least it's clear where that claim is coming from and whether or not these people have a vested interest in fudging the numbers to make them say what they want them to say.

Just look at the actual results from nursing homes where there is an outbreak after vaccination (happens over and over, all over the world, with many people getting severely sick, requiring hospitalization but often not being admitted anyway, convinced to stay in the nursing home and dying). For example, some of AstraZeneca's real world results are in and reported on by the study the CNN guest from South Africa was referring to that I mentioned earlier (reporting 22% effectiveness in contrast to what the 70% effectiveness claim was about). Try not to use the argument that it isn't clear what the cause of "severe disease, hospitalization, and death" was, therefore, it's OK to leave it out of the calculation or any other sort of consideration concerning effectiveness of the vaccine.

Of course, they blame it on the South African variant, but these are real world results. I would not be surprised if anyone else was willing to report honestly on the actual results (which surprisingly, can already be extracted from the registered data, but whenever the media is anouncing deaths and new cases, they never mention which ones of these were already vaccinated, even though they are reporting deaths and new cases after vaccination in seperate news reports about nursing homes for example, where they are always quick to say that it's not clear how this affects the claims regarding effectiveness of the vaccine, they might have died anyway because of "underlying conditions"), that you would see similar results in other countries where the South African variant is not so prevalent. But we have an honesty problem on the reporting of real world results going on in many countries around the world, perhaps even more so than South Africa (and of course there's a vested interest to report less efficacy for new strains so one can market the next supposedly 'better' vaccine; perhaps demonstrating the true motive for reporting this 22% efficacy, and the only reason you'd actually hear about it. Otherwise, they wouldn't even admit that).

Oh, and what's the 70% effectiveness claim about then? Cause as per usual, most people have been impressed with the notion this is about immunity. In no small part due to how it was reported early on. Isn't this about not getting the disease called Covid at all? So you can be tested positive for Corona but not get the disease, as if you can tell the difference if you only have mild symptoms or are asymptomatic (thus in reality, you still have the disease, but when calculating the 70%, one can easily not count these as 'having the disease', because supposedly that's not clear again; arguing from ignorance, fudging the numbers to make them say what you want them to say to get to 70% effectiveness in "preventing Covid-19"*).

*: just noticed how it was phrased on their website, "Protection of over 70%", "preventing Covid-19", "vaccine efficacy of 76%".

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca confirms 100% protection against severe disease, hospitalisation and death in the primary analysis of Phase III trials

It doesn't seem you were referring to this 100% claim when you were talking about "but they're effective so far to varying degrees at preventing the onset of serious COVID 19." I guess, technically it could be included in that statement. But I have my doubts about the AstraZeneca claim being true because in that case, one can fiddle around with what one is willing to count as "severe", in your statement, the key word in the eye of the beholder would be "serious" (what is serious? I think the fever side effect that many healthy pro-vaccine doctors have reported in their youtube videos as not being very 'serious' issues for them, may cause some serious issues in the elderly and frail, where deaths after vaccination are not often attributed to the vaccination, even when the link is obvious; then suddenly the notion is promoted that they would have died anyway, with or without the vaccine, because they all had "underlying conditions". How convenient, they still weren't dying yet until after the vaccine possibly made them more vulnerable to Corona, caused the outbreak in the nursing home where previously outbreaks were much smaller or nonexistent before the vaccination rounds or resulting deaths were less, but those details are conveniently not shared in the news report, and suddenly a whole bunch of people died or are dying; but now it's the "underlying conditions" that is the main cause right? What else do the news reports about it want to sell me on?).

This is not about the AstraZeneca vaccine, just an example of what I was referring to at the end above concerning the fever side effect of vaccines:

a reply to: whereislogic

As to the AstraZeneca vaccine, there are indeed side effects.

My Mrs got them, apparently down to the fact that she had COVID 19 less than a few weeks before she was inoculated with her first dose of said vaccine.

Its your own decision whereislogic, ile take it if/when offered, even if its only a modicum or semblance of protection it offers up, ive had COVID 19 its nasty.

a reply to: andy06shake

So much for the 100% claim:

Scottish vaccine roll-out working, data suggests | The University of Edinburgh

By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation from Covid-19 by up to 85 per cent and 94 per cent, respectively.

Among those aged 80 years and over - one of the highest risk groups - vaccination was associated with an 81 per cent reduction in hospitalisation risk in the fourth week, when the results for both vaccines were combined.

Not that I think these numbers are all that more reliable. The same fiddling around with the numbers by deciding what to count and what not to count (what if hospital admission policy was recently changed so that even when previously you would have been admitted, now you won't? Then hospital admissions are lower as well, but not because of the vaccine) could be going on.

Either case, the treatment used by Dr. Brian Tyson (from the video) involving HCQ + Azithromycin + zinc still has had better results in reducing hospitalisation (really? with an "s"? I always though it should be "z") with less risky side effects (or better risk vs reward profile). With the added advantage that it also works against other similar viruses such as the seasonal flu (similar in operation, not severity). Very useful for the vulnerable population groups (you don't want both flu and Covid), it also saves you from having to get a flu shot every year (of course that's going to cut into the profits of the vaccine-sellers quite a bit).

In another video, Dr. Tyson explains that the 1 hospitalisation that he had amongst his patients (or the patients of his Urgent Care facility in California to be exact), was very short and not very serious. It sounded to me that the patient in question didn't really needed to be in the hospital, it was more of a personal precautionary choice (of course, I have a feeling you still need to qualify for admission, so that indicates a bit more severity of the disease than when hospitalisation doesn't even come up as an option).

I know it's my decision. Wasn't really trying to sway you either way either, just noting some impresssions and thoughts I had about the various efficacy claims that I've seen reported (with the alternative HCQ prophylaxis or treatment in my mind for comparison, knowing that none of the sources reporting about vaccine efficacy have been honest about HCQ or spoken out about the lies in particular coming from the Lancet and the NEJM when the anti-HCQ marketing campaign was in full swing, March - Oct mostly; to maintain and increase demand for a vaccine). The University of Edinburgh was silent at the time about the scientific fraud and propaganda employed primarily by the Lancet and the NEJM as well. How convenient for the Lancet and the NEJM, no repurcussions for their vile murderous* actions misrepresenting the risk vs reward profile of HCQ vs Corona. (I know, "murderous" is a strong word, but if you look at the details and understand how many people have died whose lives could have been saved, just because some people need to protect their career prospects by securing the profits of yet other powerful people in Big Pharma, while knowing better, knowing that they're lying and twisting the facts, deliberately misrepresenting the situation concerning HCQ, then their actions are "vile" and "murderous" in my opinion).

a reply to: whereislogic

So much for the claim anything is 100% if I'm honest whereislogic.

As the world seldom deals in such absolutes at the best of times, never mind with newly developed experimental vaccines, designed to combat an already mutating dangerous easily spread pathogen with 14 day incubation period.

Ether way i would still take the vaccine, same as i would a flu shot, and they are only ever around 40-60% effective depending on whither they manage to guess thee magic stain that year.

You stay safe.