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

[guy]

I have no problem with either Sandro or Grant, but I did think the "....in your ignorance...." unnecessary and insulting.

no intention to stir - please delete this post if it seems that way.

[walpurgis]

I have no problem with either Sandro or Grant, but I did think the "....in your ignorance...." unnecessary and insulting.

no intention to stir - please delete this post if it seems that way.

I agree.

[struth]

my last post on this... hydroxychloroquine is potentially dangerous if misused.

https://www.drugs.com/medical-answer...d-19-3536024/#

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/hydr...plained-429144

advising people to buy it is wrong.

as for the above post, and as guy says ..


Grant I am Quite happy that in your ignorance you came up whit the Lancet

I find questionable the motivations to many of you replies to my posts


Dr. Chris Martenson has himself been debunked and he is not a medical dr as such , but a is an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion, and co-founder of PeakProsperity.com.

[Bksabath]

Whit a PHD in pathology
I am not going to post any further links nor lower myself and further replies to Grant's
as said before I rest my case end off
Have a nice day

[Bksabath]

Is there a way to place people one dislike on the ignore list on this forum ?

[Marco]

I have no problem with either Sandro or Grant, but I did think the "....in your ignorance...." unnecessary and insulting.

no intention to stir - please delete this post if it seems that way.

Yes, but I also missed this, which is arguably worse:

I find questionable the motivations to many of you replies to my posts

Sandro, firstly it's impolite to imply that someone is 'ignorant' of certain facts, simply because they disagree with what you're saying. Therefore, I'd avoid using that word in future. You can make the same point just as successfully in other ways.

Secondly, and more importantly, in terms of what I've quoted above. It's unacceptable to imply that someone has 'questionable motivations', just because you disagree with their opinion or stance in this debate. Doing that doesn't help your argument and only causes friction.

Clearly, Grant and you have very different opinions on this matter, and I suspect also quite different personalities, so as you've alluded to in your last post, I suggest you ignore each other from now on, or simply agree to disagree and move on.

Marco.

[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.

I think you are confusing vaccine development and trial with drug development and trial. New vaccines for infulenza are developed every year to respond to the different strains that appear every year.

Also with flu vaccines there are very remote possibilities of serious side effects ( 1 in ten thousand). This does not stop flu vaccines being administered since the benefit far outweighs the risk.

It's not a question of belief but of probabilities. Declining to have the Covid vaccine, or a flu vaccine, due to concerns over side effects is to bet heavily against the odds. if you have the vaccine there's a very low chance of side effects. If you don't there's a much higher chance, orders of magnitude higher, of contracting the virus and suffering serious effects or dying.

it's like deciding not to bet on Liverpool to win the 2022 premiership because you don't want to lose the money if they fail to win it, but then going on to bet the same amount of money on West Ham to win it instead.

[Bksabath]

[Marco]

I think you are confusing vaccine development and trial with drug development and trial.

Nope, I'm not confusing anything. It's widely accepted [see example in link below] that the timescale for new vaccines to be developed, approved and declared as safe, is normally several years, not 6 months, in the case of those for Covid - and that happened because, due to the pandemic, they were 'fast-tracked'.

The use of that language alone indicates that said vaccines were pushed through for general use MUCH faster than normally.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-29/...proved-for-use

Key quote: "What is the usual process for developing a vaccine?"

"Traditionally, vaccine development takes several years... [etc, etc]".

Therefore, I'm clearly taking about VACCINE DEVELOPMENT, not drug development and trial.

My argument is that, because of Covid vaccines being 'fast-tracked', they weren't tested over a long enough period of time, or on enough different types of people, as would've normally been the case, and that that could lead to problems.

That's why *possible, not yet proven* side-effects linked to those vaccines, such as blood clots, weren't discovered during the trials, thus identified by the government as being a possible cause for concern, BEFORE the roll-out to the population took place, *and it [the blood-clotting] was only discovered later, once a broader section of many more people had been subjected to the vaccine than had taken place during the trials*. Note my emphasis denoting the key point.

Now *if* once the study into that is completed, and a link between blood clots and the AZ vaccine is proven, then what other possible side-effects may have been missed during the trials of all these 'fast-tracked' vaccines, which haven't shown up yet, but may do in the fullness of time? The reality is, no-one knows the answer to that for sure, and in terms of validating the link to blood clotting with the AZ vaccine, we'll simply have to wait for the results of the study.

That is one of the main reasons why I haven't accepted any vaccine yet, as I simply don't believe that any of them are as safe as claimed. The fact is, we'll only really know how safe they are *for sure* once YEARS, not mere months, have passed and no further side-effects (proven as being linked to the vaccine or otherwise) have been reported among those vaccinated.

It's not a question of belief but of probabilities. Declining to have the Covid vaccine, or a flu vaccine, due to concerns over side effects is to bet heavily against the odds. if you have the vaccine there's a very low chance of side effects. If you don't there's a much higher chance, orders of magnitude higher, of contracting the virus and suffering serious effects or dying.

it's like deciding not to bet on Liverpool to win the 2022 premiership because you don't want to lose the money if they fail to win it, but then going on to bet the same amount of money on West Ham to win it instead.

You're missing the point, mate. I'm not denying any of that. What I was referring to was your statement that the doctor, who's claims about infertility I'd linked to on YT, had an agenda. I simply said 'Who doesn't'? ALL the authorities in relation to this pandemic have some sort of an agenda, and no-one wants to admit any errors of judgement.

My point was that that being the case, sources of information you believe support your argument (thus represent what you believe is the truth) aren't *automatically* any more free of agendas, than any sources others and I chose to support ours, so you simply choose whatever agenda best fits with what you believe is the truth.

In that respect, there is no 'right or wrong' here, simply legitimate differences of opinion

Marco

[Pierre De Grenoble]

i think his mother should have swallowed