FDA pulls authorization for AstraZeneca’s Covid antibody drug Evusheld

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem again and again 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 A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.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The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets


Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields.

Actually i never said that and what is your qualification again?

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

Why do you keep repetaing that like its a big reveal?

a reply to: ScepticScot
It's on YouTube on The Hill channel posted 22 hours ago..... it's right at the beginning of the video that he says it.

He is saying there's 3 problems with the current vaccines.......but he is also promoting an inhaled treatment that he says will be better.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem again and again 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 A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.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


Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields.

Actually i never said that and what is your qualification again?

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

Why do you keep repetaing that like its a big reveal?

Of course it is. Until recently you and a few other members were arguing that these deaths are very rare and only few exist. It seems that the bar is raised when I made a simple scale up and the few have thousands or tens of thousands. Still we haven't discussed the serious adverse reactions that cause debilitating issues that are multiples of the number of deaths.

If the vaccines could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths you still are going to claim what you claimed earlier which shows how absurd your arguments have become.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem again and again 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


Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields.

Actually i never said that and what is your qualification again?

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

Why do you keep repetaing that like its a big reveal?

Of course it is. Until recently you and a few other members were arguing that these deaths are very rare and only few exist. It seems that the bar is raised when I made a simple scale up and the few have thousands or tens of thousands. Still we haven't discussed the serious adverse reactions that cause debilitating issues that are multiples of the number of deaths.

If the vaccines could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths you still are going to claim what you claimed earlier which shows how absurd your arguments have become.

Nice how you have smoothly scalled up from thousands, to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Not obvious at all.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's on YouTube on The Hill channel posted 22 hours ago..... it's right at the beginning of the video that he says it.

He is saying there's 3 problems with the current vaccines.......but he is also promoting an inhaled treatment that he says will be better.

Just watched the few seconds there. I don't think he Says anthing that is controversial at all.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

Previous infection also doesn't stop reinfection.

It does however have a much higher risk than vaccination.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem again and again 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


Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields.

Actually i never said that and what is your qualification again?

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

Why do you keep repetaing that like its a big reveal?

Of course it is. Until recently you and a few other members were arguing that these deaths are very rare and only few exist. It seems that the bar is raised when I made a simple scale up and the few have thousands or tens of thousands. Still we haven't discussed the serious adverse reactions that cause debilitating issues that are multiples of the number of deaths.

If the vaccines could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths you still are going to claim what you claimed earlier which shows how absurd your arguments have become.

Nice how you have smoothly scalled up from thousands, to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Not obvious at all.

The scaling up of the 70 deaths in the UK per 50 million vaccines it gets you to thousands of deaths worldwide. The number above is conservative though. There could be many more deaths per 50 million vaccinees as the above number is only for the victims of the AZ vaccine. And even more suspected ones for which the causes are mysterious...

But even if there were hundred of thousands of deaths you will be arguing in the same absurd manner.

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
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

Previous infection also doesn't stop reinfection.

It does however have a much higher risk than vaccination.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated

Are you sure that for all age groups the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks?? Where did you learn this? In the chronicles of left wing activism or the Pfizer Manuals?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You seem again and again 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


Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields.

Actually i never said that and what is your qualification again?

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

Why do you keep repetaing that like its a big reveal?

Of course it is. Until recently you and a few other members were arguing that these deaths are very rare and only few exist. It seems that the bar is raised when I made a simple scale up and the few have thousands or tens of thousands. Still we haven't discussed the serious adverse reactions that cause debilitating issues that are multiples of the number of deaths.

If the vaccines could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths you still are going to claim what you claimed earlier which shows how absurd your arguments have become.

Nice how you have smoothly scalled up from thousands, to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Not obvious at all.

The scaling up of the 70 deaths in the UK per 50 million vaccines it gets you to thousands of deaths worldwide. The number above is conservative though. There could be many more deaths per 50 million vaccinees as the above number is only for the victims of the AZ vaccine. And even more suspected ones for which the causes are mysterious...

But even if there were hundred of thousands of deaths you will be arguing in the same absurd manner.

Not absurd at all.

Penicillin kills hundreds of people in the US every year.

That's thousands worldwide.

By your logic we should not use penicillin.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's on YouTube on The Hill channel posted 22 hours ago..... it's right at the beginning of the video that he says it.

He is saying there's 3 problems with the current vaccines.......but he is also promoting an inhaled treatment that he says will be better.

Just watched the few seconds there. I don't think he Says anthing that is controversial at all.

I never said he said anything controversial.

I said that he said the current vaccines do not block infection.

Did he or did he not?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

Previous infection also doesn't stop reinfection.

It does however have a much higher risk than vaccination.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated

Are you sure that for all age groups the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks?? Where did you learn this? In the chronicles of left wing activism or the Pfizer Manuals?

In UK different age groups were reviewed severally and different advice given. Exactly how it should work

Love how you aren't been political about this...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's on YouTube on The Hill channel posted 22 hours ago..... it's right at the beginning of the video that he says it.

He is saying there's 3 problems with the current vaccines.......but he is also promoting an inhaled treatment that he says will be better.

Just watched the few seconds there. I don't think he Says anthing that is controversial at all.

I never said he said anything controversial.

I said that he said the current vaccines do not block infection.

Did he or did he not?

Yes, and?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
The scaling up of the 70 deaths in the UK per 50 million vaccines it gets you to thousands of deaths worldwide. The number above is conservative though. There could be many more deaths per 50 million vaccinees as the above number is only for the victims of the AZ vaccine. And even more suspected ones for which the causes are mysterious...

You cannot extrapolate AZ deaths with other vaccinations, which could be better or worse. That's statistical wishful thinking and guesswork.

I say "worse", because the vaccinations with unpublished or (likely) falsified data - such as those coming out of China or Russia, are completely unknown. I have greater trust in the regulatory structures in the UK, US or other places in the developed world, but not so much in autocracies, such as China and Russia.

In other words - you may be right that there have been "hundreds of thousands of deaths", but not for the reasons you are pushing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's on YouTube on The Hill channel posted 22 hours ago..... it's right at the beginning of the video that he says it.

He is saying there's 3 problems with the current vaccines.......but he is also promoting an inhaled treatment that he says will be better.

Just watched the few seconds there. I don't think he Says anthing that is controversial at all.

I never said he said anything controversial.

I said that he said the current vaccines do not block infection.

Did he or did he not?

Yes, and?

And..now you have heard him say what he thinks of the vaccines.....even he doesn't appear to think they are particularly effective, it seems.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
It's on YouTube on The Hill channel posted 22 hours ago..... it's right at the beginning of the video that he says it.

He is saying there's 3 problems with the current vaccines.......but he is also promoting an inhaled treatment that he says will be better.

Just watched the few seconds there. I don't think he Says anthing that is controversial at all.

I never said he said anything controversial.

I said that he said the current vaccines do not block infection.

Did he or did he not?

Yes, and?

And..now you have heard him say what he thinks of the vaccines.....even he doesn't appear to think they are particularly effective, it seems.

He lists the 3 main issues with them. I don't think any of them are big reveals.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

Previous infection also doesn't stop reinfection.

It does however have a much higher risk than vaccination.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated

Are you sure that for all age groups the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks?? Where did you learn this? In the chronicles of left wing activism or the Pfizer Manuals?

In UK different age groups were reviewed severally and different advice given. Exactly how it should work

Love how you aren't been political about this...

That's not true.

The products were untested and experimental. You didn't know short, medium and long term effects and neither the benefit to risk ratio in every age groups.

We are just starting to see the short term effects and they are very unpleasant. And many.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

Previous infection also doesn't stop reinfection.

It does however have a much higher risk than vaccination.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated

Are you sure that for all age groups the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks?? Where did you learn this? In the chronicles of left wing activism or the Pfizer Manuals?

In UK different age groups were reviewed severally and different advice given. Exactly how it should work

Love how you aren't been political about this...

That's not true.

The products were untested and experimental. You didn't know short, medium and long term effects and neither the benefit to risk ratio in every age groups.

We are just starting to see the short term effects and they are very unpleasant. And many.

It is true, different age groups got different advice.

That is a matter of record and disputing it just makes you look even less informed.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
The scaling up of the 70 deaths in the UK per 50 million vaccines it gets you to thousands of deaths worldwide. The number above is conservative though. There could be many more deaths per 50 million vaccinees as the above number is only for the victims of the AZ vaccine. And even more suspected ones for which the causes are mysterious...

You cannot extrapolate AZ deaths with other vaccinations, which could be better or worse. That's statistical wishful thinking and guesswork.

I say "worse", because the vaccinations with unpublished or (likely) falsified data - such as those coming out of China or Russia, are completely unknown. I have greater trust in the regulatory structures in the UK, US or other places in the developed world, but not so much in autocracies, such as China and Russia.

In other words - you may be right that there have been "hundreds of thousands of deaths", but not for the reasons you are pushing.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products. So yes, not only I can do but I can multiply with a higher factor.

Stop the vaccine apologetics please

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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
I just watched Bill Gates saying that the current vaccines are not infection blocking.

Is he wrong?

As in completely stopping infection, no but they do reduce infection.

By how much? Everyone is getting infected or has been infected. How much reduction do you see in absolute numbers.

Also clear previous infection doesn't stop reinvention either.

One of the key anti vaccinations arguments.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated.

Previous infection also doesn't stop reinfection.

It does however have a much higher risk than vaccination.

Is not an antivaccination argument. Being infected you develop robust and superior natural immunity. No need for booster after booster. Once you have been infected and survived primary Infection i.e the vast majority of us, you don't need to get vaccinated

Are you sure that for all age groups the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks?? Where did you learn this? In the chronicles of left wing activism or the Pfizer Manuals?

In UK different age groups were reviewed severally and different advice given. Exactly how it should work

Love how you aren't been political about this...

That's not true.

The products were untested and experimental. You didn't know short, medium and long term effects and neither the benefit to risk ratio in every age groups.

We are just starting to see the short term effects and they are very unpleasant. And many.

It is true, different age groups got different advice.

That is a matter of record and disputing it just makes you look even less informed.

The products were untested and experimental. You didn't know short, medium and long term effects and neither the benefit to risk ratio in every age groups.

We are just starting to see the short term effects and they are very unpleasant. And many.

What advise? Entire populations were terrorised as if Covid-19 was the Spanish Flu.