FDA pulls authorization for AstraZeneca’s Covid antibody drug Evusheld

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
You asked if antibiotics should be pulled off the market because people have reactions to antibiotics and die .......and Asmodeus3 replied
If thousands die. Then yes.
And you disagree?

So if thousands die from taking a particular antibiotic...... would you think it ok to give to your child?
Or would you seek out a safer one?

Different argument.

He said antibiotics should removed if they cause hundreds or thousands of deaths. This ignores the millions of lives they save.

You don't understand the safety standards.

Any antibiotics that will kill hundreds or thousands of people won't even be released in the population in the first place

penicillin kills hundreds every year.

Virtually all medications have a degree of risk, if useful widely enough there will potentially be a lot of deaths.

That is weighed against the benefits of the medication.

Your idea that it is purely based on aggregate deaths is obviously false.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

You don't know what you are talking about. Now you are trying to appeal to emotions. Sign you have lost the argument long time ago.

When a drug or vaccine has killed a handful of people then it is withdrawn from the market. Standard safety measures. If it had killed 70 people only in one country and there are many other suspected cases then it is scandalous to have it on market.

Answered a question was asked. If anything the appeal to emotion was the poster asking it.

You think antibiotics should be withdrawn. You have demonstrared that you have no concept of risk v benefit

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

You don't know what you are talking about. Now you are trying to appeal to emotions. Sign you have lost the argument long time ago.

When a drug or vaccine has killed a handful of people then it is withdrawn from the market. Standard safety measures. If it had killed 70 people only in one country and there are many other suspected cases then it is scandalous to have it on market.

Answered a question was asked. If anything the appeal to emotion was the poster asking it.

You think antibiotics should be withdrawn. You have demonstrared that you have no concept of risk v benefit

The risk to benefit is always considered. If the risks outweighs the benefits or if there are many deaths associated with antibiotics or vaccines or other drugs then the drugs are withdrawn. Standard practise.

The person who doesn't have a concept of the benefit to risk ratio is you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

Yes the vaccine apologists and the pharmaceutical lobbying has come up with this terrible excuse.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

You don't know what you are talking about. Now you are trying to appeal to emotions. Sign you have lost the argument long time ago.

When a drug or vaccine has killed a handful of people then it is withdrawn from the market. Standard safety measures. If it had killed 70 people only in one country and there are many other suspected cases then it is scandalous to have it on market.

Answered a question was asked. If anything the appeal to emotion was the poster asking it.

You think antibiotics should be withdrawn. You have demonstrared that you have no concept of risk v benefit

The risk to benefit is always considered. If the risks outweighs the benefits or if there are many deaths associated with antibiotics or vaccines or other drugs then the drugs are withdrawn. Standard practise.

The person who doesn't have a concept of the benefit to risk ratio is you.

Define many.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

Yes the vaccine apologists and the pharmaceutical lobbying has come up with this terrible excuse.

Yes you keep posting about vaccine apologist when evidence contradicts your view.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
You asked if antibiotics should be pulled off the market because people have reactions to antibiotics and die .......and Asmodeus3 replied
If thousands die. Then yes.
And you disagree?

So if thousands die from taking a particular antibiotic...... would you think it ok to give to your child?
Or would you seek out a safer one?

Different argument.

He said antibiotics should removed if they cause hundreds or thousands of deaths. This ignores the millions of lives they save.

You don't understand the safety standards.

Any antibiotics that will kill hundreds or thousands of people won't even be released in the population in the first place

penicillin kills hundreds every year.

Virtually all medications have a degree of risk, if useful widely enough there will potentially be a lot of deaths.

That is weighed against the benefits of the medication.

Your idea that it is purely based on aggregate deaths is obviously false.

That is your unsubstantiated opinion only.
The swine flu vaccine and the rotavirus vaccines were withdrawn for a handful of deaths as they were deemed not safe and effective. They were causing a number of serious adverse reactions.

By the same standards the Covid vaccines should never have been released in the market in the first place.

Pfizer was moving at the speed of science and they didn't bother to check a few things...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

Yes the vaccine apologists and the pharmaceutical lobbying has come up with this terrible excuse.

Yes you keep posting about vaccine apologist when evidence contradicts your view.

What evidence? You unsubstantiated views are not evidence

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

You have been appealing to emotions earlier which is a classical sign you have lost the argument.

Above you could see the product by AstraZeneca was pulled by the FDA. Simple as this. The same happened with the AZ vaccine in most countries that have used it.

I find it strange that you take 'offence' on this and in order to support your vaccine apologetics you call other strange accounts that I have not seen before....

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

You have been appealing to emotions earlier which is a classical sign you have lost the argument.

Above you could see the product by AstraZeneca was pulled by the FDA. Simple as this. The same happened with the AZ vaccine in most countries that have used it.

I find it strange that you take 'offence' on this and in order to support your vaccine apologetics you call other strange accounts that I have not seen before....

Yes we can add that to list of fallacies you don't understand.

Don't be shy, elaborate on your last paragraph.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
You asked if antibiotics should be pulled off the market because people have reactions to antibiotics and die .......and Asmodeus3 replied
If thousands die. Then yes.
And you disagree?

So if thousands die from taking a particular antibiotic...... would you think it ok to give to your child?
Or would you seek out a safer one?

Different argument.

He said antibiotics should removed if they cause hundreds or thousands of deaths. This ignores the millions of lives they save.

You don't understand the safety standards.

Any antibiotics that will kill hundreds or thousands of people won't even be released in the population in the first place

penicillin kills hundreds every year.

Virtually all medications have a degree of risk, if useful widely enough there will potentially be a lot of deaths.

That is weighed against the benefits of the medication.

Your idea that it is purely based on aggregate deaths is obviously false.

That is your unsubstantiated opinion only.
The swine flu vaccine and the rotavirus vaccines were withdrawn for a handful of deaths as they were deemed not safe and effective. They were causing a number of serious adverse reactions.

By the same standards the Covid vaccines should never have been released in the market in the first place.

Pfizer was moving at the speed of science and they didn't bother to check a few things...

Risk of deaths from covid vaccine is tiny compared to the benefit.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
You asked if antibiotics should be pulled off the market because people have reactions to antibiotics and die .......and Asmodeus3 replied
If thousands die. Then yes.
And you disagree?

So if thousands die from taking a particular antibiotic...... would you think it ok to give to your child?
Or would you seek out a safer one?

Different argument.

He said antibiotics should removed if they cause hundreds or thousands of deaths. This ignores the millions of lives they save.

You don't understand the safety standards.

Any antibiotics that will kill hundreds or thousands of people won't even be released in the population in the first place

penicillin kills hundreds every year.

Virtually all medications have a degree of risk, if useful widely enough there will potentially be a lot of deaths.

That is weighed against the benefits of the medication.

Your idea that it is purely based on aggregate deaths is obviously false.

That is your unsubstantiated opinion only.
The swine flu vaccine and the rotavirus vaccines were withdrawn for a handful of deaths as they were deemed not safe and effective. They were causing a number of serious adverse reactions.

By the same standards the Covid vaccines should never have been released in the market in the first place.

Pfizer was moving at the speed of science and they didn't bother to check a few things...

Risk of deaths from covid vaccine is tiny compared to the benefit.

.
Yes, according to all vaccine apologists and denialists of reality, the risk of deaths are tiny compared to the benefits. I think many around here and worldwide will beg to differ.

Deaths and serious adverse reactions are running quote high and your arguments are false.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So you would chance it and just hope your child was one of the lucky ones?

I get perplexed by this type of post.

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

Life's full of risks. If you are afraid to go out because you may get hit by a meteor, then you have lost the battle against understanding risk, and you are probably on an antianxiety drug anyway (and exposed to side effects).

As already stated, antibiotics have transformed lives and medicine. The lives saved versus the small number of lives lost is such a powerful argument. People died and had complications from the smallpox vaccination, but look at the lives saved from one of humanities most terrible diseases.

If you want to live in the Land Before Civilisation, then off you go. You'll be back when you get cold.

Life is full of risks but safety standards are safety standards when it comes to drugs and vaccines.

Your argument here is terrible.

The AZ vaccine for example has been withdrawn from the most countries that have used it. Why? It's obvious why I suppose unless you want to engage in vaccine apologetics.

It's because those scary MRNA vaccines have been found to be more effective.

You have been appealing to emotions earlier which is a classical sign you have lost the argument.

Above you could see the product by AstraZeneca was pulled by the FDA. Simple as this. The same happened with the AZ vaccine in most countries that have used it.

I find it strange that you take 'offence' on this and in order to support your vaccine apologetics you call other strange accounts that I have not seen before....

Yes we can add that to list of fallacies you don't understand.

Don't be shy, elaborate on your last paragraph.

Aaaah yes. I see! You are welcome to do so. And to start comparing the fatality rate of the vaccine to the fatality rate of the virus.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If the official sources say 70 deaths then you can expect more.

Why? All medicines have the potential for adverse side effects. People die from aspirin, and other common drugs. In the case of vaccinations for Covid, and AZ specifically, it's no longer being administered, so people won't get blood clots because of it. Unless you are saying they will. If AZ has a health impact after the event, then where's the evidence for that. Where's the impartial research? Please not a Youtube vid.

I am genuinely trying to flush out the concern here.

Yes people do die, but usually not from being forced into experimental treatments by threatening them with job loss if you don't submit, and you already know the long list of other admonishments for not submitting to these substances.

And if it was your own loved ones who were "unlucky" and died from one of the jabs or boosters would you not be royally pissed?

These products should have all long been gone, and in the past, things like this would have been pulled immediately, not having all the lies and excuses for them instead, and say anyone is cray-cray for being worried about these jabs.

It's a failed campaign and people should be punished, not for not taking the jabs, but those that forced it through economic sanctions and social sanctions. Those are criminal and inexcusable.

a reply to: paraphi

just to put the issue with Covid vaccines in perspective, in the history of mankind, there has not been a vaccine that we were all forced to take, or loose our jobs and or ability to work. This vaccine was mandated, and a good number of those who took it, did so under duress. And now it's proven to not be nearly as effective nor as safe as it was initially billed as.

So you will have a good bit of push back on something like this. I personally know two people who died after being vaxed. I can't say the vax killed them with any certainty, but as time passes, it looks more suspect.

Just pointing out there are many reasons for the anger here.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
You asked if antibiotics should be pulled off the market because people have reactions to antibiotics and die .......and Asmodeus3 replied
If thousands die. Then yes.
And you disagree?

So if thousands die from taking a particular antibiotic...... would you think it ok to give to your child?
Or would you seek out a safer one?

Different argument.

He said antibiotics should removed if they cause hundreds or thousands of deaths. This ignores the millions of lives they save.

You don't understand the safety standards.

Any antibiotics that will kill hundreds or thousands of people won't even be released in the population in the first place

penicillin kills hundreds every year.

Virtually all medications have a degree of risk, if useful widely enough there will potentially be a lot of deaths.

That is weighed against the benefits of the medication.

Your idea that it is purely based on aggregate deaths is obviously false.

That is your unsubstantiated opinion only.
The swine flu vaccine and the rotavirus vaccines were withdrawn for a handful of deaths as they were deemed not safe and effective. They were causing a number of serious adverse reactions.

By the same standards the Covid vaccines should never have been released in the market in the first place.

Pfizer was moving at the speed of science and they didn't bother to check a few things...

Risk of deaths from covid vaccine is tiny compared to the benefit.

You seem not to understand what standards of safety are and it's your posts that demonstrate inability to understand the basic issues and why lockdowns were catastrophic without any benefits.

You compare vaccines to viruses for fatality rates which is absurd. You need to compare vaccines to other vaccines. The standards of safety are not set by myself by the way. A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.

You are admitting that thousands of deaths that could be caused by the vaccines is an acceptable number given they 'save many more'

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

It doesn't seem to me to be 'safe and effective' products.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes unequivocally that is what i am saying. Some deaths ate acceptable. That is the same with any form of vaccination or treatment.

The weird thing would be thinking otherwise.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What you have posted in another thread.

And for avoidance of doubt I am outright stating thousands of deaths is acceptable if it saves many more

It shows how much you don't understand the safety standards involved for vaccines and drugs. A handful of deaths will be enough to withdraw a vaccine. Examples the Swine Flu, Rotavirus.