Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[Bksabath]

DSCF2763[1].jpg

Grant I am Quite happy that in your ignorance you came up whit the Lancet
That is a very good example clearly you have not been looking at the links I have been posting
Coronavirus: Debunking The Hydroxychloroquine 'Controversy' (Dr. Chris Martenson) - YouTube
Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work! - YouTube
There are hundred's more
I find questionable the motivations to many of you replies to my posts

[Marco]

people die of blood clotting all the time, as far as I am aware there isn't yet an established link between the AZ vaccine and blood clotting, correlation isn't causation.

Well, it's clearly a concern, otherwise the Government wouldn't have issued this document (updated on 21st May, which is key, as it shows that it's NEW information): https://www.gov.uk/government/public...blood-clotting

Just because there may not yet be an established link, doesn't mean that there isn't one!

Yes, people die of blood clotting all the time, but do you remember any advance warning being given by the government about the AZ vaccine's potential for causing blood clots, BEFORE it was rolled out to the population? I don't.

It was something that was discovered AFTERWARDS, once it had been administered to a number of people, who then developed those symptoms, post-vaccination. For me, that proves the vaccine wasn't properly tested, a) for long enough, and b) among a wide enough range of test subjects.

Otherwise, the vaccine's potential for causing blood clots would've been revealed during the trial period (and subsequently stated as being a possible side-effect) - if indeed that trial period had been conducted over the timespan normally necessary for vaccines to be approved, instead of it being rushed through in 6 months.

And the fertility thing is just a shot in the dark. He could just as well have said it reduces IQ, or hand-eye coordination. If he had any evidence he would have presented it. Seems pretty obvious to me he has some agenda of his own.

Perhaps he has, but then tell me anyone who doesn't? It also doesn't mean that he isn't right. Governments certainly have agendas, and so do pharma companies, so I guess it's a case of choosing the agenda that best fits with what you believe is the truth

Marco.

[struth]

DSCF2763[1].jpg

Grant I am Quite happy that in your ignorance you came up whit the Lancet
That is a very good example clearly you have not been looking at the links I have been posting
Coronavirus: Debunking The Hydroxychloroquine 'Controversy' (Dr. Chris Martenson) - YouTube
Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work! - YouTube
There are hundred's more
I find questionable the motivations to many of you replies to my posts

i find this post a disgrace.

[Macca]

Well, it's clearly a concern, otherwise the Government wouldn't have issued this document (updated on 21st May, which is key, as it shows that it's NEW information): https://www.gov.uk/government/public...blood-clotting

Just because there may not yet be an established link, doesn't mean that there isn't one!

Yes, people die of blood clotting all the time, but do you remember any advance warning being given by the government about the AZ vaccine's potential for causing blood clots, BEFORE it was rolled out to the population? I don't.

It was something that was discovered AFTERWARDS, once it had been administered to a number of people, who then developed those symptoms, post-vaccination. For me, that proves the vaccine wasn't properly tested, a) for long enough, and b) among a wide enough range of test subjects.

Otherwise, the vaccine's potential for causing blood clots would've been revealed during the trial period (and subsequently stated as being a possible side-effect) - if indeed that trial period had been conducted over the timespan normally necessary for vaccines to be approved, instead of it being rushed through in 6 months.

Perhaps he has, but then tell me anyone who doesn't? It also doesn't mean that he isn't right. Governments certainly have agendas, and so do pharma companies, so I guess it's a case of choosing the agenda that best fits with what you believe is the truth

Marco.

The document you linked to makes it clear that the clotting thing is still being studied. It does not say that a link is demonstrated. It also points out that there are only 10 cases per million doses of vaccine. How long and how many people would be required in a clinical trial for that to show up? Answer - hundreds of thousands and a very long trial period.

Once again it is not a question of belief it is a question of probabilities. I am simply presenting rational alternatives to some of the wilder theories being promulgated on this thread.

Also I think some are confusing a vaccine with a drug. A vaccine is not a drug and development and trials for a vaccine differ substantially from development and trial for a drug.

[Bksabath]

Gravitas: Was Lancet study on Hydroxychloroquine fabricated? - YouTube

Would you like a few hundred more I can keep up whit this all day

Grant, you find my post a disgrace
Cool, I could not care less you are perfectly in title to have your opinion.
What I care for is that 1000’s of deaths could have been avoided
Hydroxychloroquine has been around for 30 years to cure malaria and sold many million doses

My post on this was in regards to People not willing to risk taking the vaccine
Hydroxychloroquine can help
A 12-tablet pack for sale for a few pounds would help for a good 6 months

[Marco]

The document you linked to makes it clear that the clotting thing is still being studied. It does not say that a link is demonstrated.

I didn't say it did. I said it was a cause for concern; clearly for some it is, and rightly so. Therefore, let's see what the study reveals in due course.

It also points out that there are only 10 cases per million doses of vaccine. How long and how many people would be required in a clinical trial for that to show up? Answer - hundreds of thousands and a very long trial period.

Yes, perhaps the trial period (decades or more) normally required for new vaccines to be officially approved?

THAT is my point, so please answer this: how do you know that the clotting issue wouldn't have shown up, if the clinical trials had run for the length of time that they normally do before a new vaccine is approved?

You have to be as *thorough* as possible when testing these things, so the procedure takes as long as it takes, as you can be damn sure that if there are any problems, they will show up when you roll out the vaccine to millions of new 'guinea pigs'!

The fact is, the vaccines for Covid were 'fast-tracked', because we had a pandemic, but that doesn't mean that they had been tested as thoroughly as they would've been under normal circumstances, and quite simply that can lead to problems.

Also I think some are confusing a vaccine with a drug. A vaccine is not a drug and development and trials for a vaccine differ substantially from development and trial for a drug.

In what way? The normal required period for testing, in order for a new vaccine to be approved can often run to over a decade. This time, the first one for Covid was approved in 6 months. Those are facts, so what's being confused?

Marco.

[Marco]

Gravitas: Was Lancet study on Hydroxychloroquine fabricated? - YouTube

Would you like a few hundred more I can keep up whit this all day

Please don't!!

Marco.

[Marco]

i find this post a disgrace.

In what way, mate? You've refuted his claims, which is fine, and he's subsequently provided evidence he believes supports his views, so what's the problem?

Marco.

[Bksabath]

Tanks Marco
I rest my case

[Marco]

Tanks Marco
I rest my case

I'm not saying that Grant was wrong to consider your post as a "disgrace", but rather it doesn't read that way to me. In that respect, he needs to say why he found it so and cite the appropriate evidence for such.

Marco.