Status
Not open for further replies.

IdleRich

IdleRich
Rather than your 17-year natural coronavirus immunity, bolstered by contact with other variants, you have short-lived immunity from an unlicensed vaccine...great.
But that's clearly what he was saying - you may disagree with the entire medical establishment and think the vaccine makes you ill, but Biden hasn't suddenly switched positions has he?
 

luka

Well-known member

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
Weird innit. On one front there’s a back-stop almost in place, really hope they don’t string the 2nd jab along with Toryocracy, on another NHS is redeploying staff into vaccine positions to keep the momentum up.

Just waiting for the Boris noises and ChurchillIan overtures, before new strains come thicker and faster than a fuckin weed farm. Going to be a long year regardless.
 

luka

Well-known member
I agree with the point about the BBC. I think Labour has been calling for more action against vaccine deniers.
This government is obsessed with an artificial debate about free speech (mostly in connection with universities) and has been for years. But the fact that there is a precedent in the Cancer Act is interesting and should make them more comfortable with legislating on this.

i copied and pasted this sensible and informed comment out of an email my little sister sent me. i wanted to see if anyone would notice.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Impracticable and selective: there are hundreds of academic papers on associations between various vaccines and nefarious effects.

Would reporting on the failed French vaccine or on adverse effects in our vaccines' trials be considered 'denial'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

Leo

Well-known member
Impracticable and selective: there are hundreds of academic papers on associations between various vaccines and nefarious effects.

do vaccines help more people than they hurt? what are the percentages, positive vs negative? I don't know, do you?

there are always going to be some adverse side effects for every drug, it's a matter of good/bad ratio. if a vaccine works for a vast majority but has some ill effect for a very small minority, would you be in favor of its use? or do you take the position that no one should take it unless it's proven 100% effective?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Problem is that everyone's body is different, so trials should try to pick out risks for individuals within smaller and smaller groups-with-commonalities, rather than stating that 'this works overall for the average' from a study of a large lump of people - a problem with 'evidence-based medicine' overriding your long-standing personal doctor's view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
do vaccines help more people than they hurt? what are the percentages, positive vs negative? I don't know, do you?

there are always going to be some adverse side effects for every drug, it's a matter of good/bad ratio. if a vaccine works for a vast majority but has some ill effect for a very small minority, would you be in favor of its use? or do you take the position that no one should take it unless it's proven 100% effective?
I can't remember the exact figures, but I read recently that the rates of deaths or serious adverse reactions are about a hundred times higher for antibiotics than they are for most types of vaccine, yet for some reason there is no anti-antibiotic movement.

Whatever the risks are, they're clearly minuscule compared to the risks in not being vaccinated, when you look at the death toll from infectious diseases before vaccines were introduced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top