(03-11-2021, 10:31 PM)LP link Wrote:The actions in the EU are about politics and money, nothing to do with science, efficacy or safety.

The reports use words like "may have' or "associated" to infer causation without stating it, they can't state it because it doesn't exist and they risk litigation if the publish false claims.

They sow doubt without delivering supporting evidence for the allegations they make, and when you point that out, they link you to further articles full of more opinions and zero evidence. You can link to a billion wrong opinions, they are still wrong, but despite being scientifically worthless those opinions are powerful political tools.

(03-11-2021, 10:39 PM)flyboy77 date Wrote:in your opinion.

(03-11-2021, 10:45 PM)flyboy77 date Wrote:By the by, it's terrific that you know better than the governments of three Nordic nations!

It's pretty obvious the Health minister Hunt has had an 'adverse event' reaction to the vaccine.

Be 'funny' (not in a laughing way, maybe ironic) if Dopey Dan has suffered the same fate!

(03-11-2021, 10:50 PM)LP link Wrote:The conspiracists are victims of correlation, positive reinforcement of a coincidence, who can't set their mind free of it and it has trapped them in misery!

Unfortunately, as everyday goes by the foolishness of those still peddling the HCQ and Ivermectin type claims grows greater and greater, almost exponentially. It's the little boy still holding his finger in the dyke to stop the flood, but the big people drained the dam long ago! The wall of vaccine derived immunity grows bigger and more resilient, every day at a staggering rate, a marvel of science and engineering.

The sky is no longer falling, the sun still shines, go outside and fell the warmth on your face, .............. but take a mask as you'll never know who you might stand next to!

I'll never understand why, as millions are saved by the day, that the naysayers misery still grows. Perhaps they did their dough on some dodgy imports! :o

Quote:So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first
thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe. Common sense tells us this, that a
medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses
worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant
women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an
illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. In fact, a study by researchers at the
University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older
rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for
patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. The Oxford investigators also looked at
cardiac arrhythmias and found no increase for hydroxychloroquine users. This was in more
than 900,000 hydroxychloroquine users. This is examined at length in my paper in the
American Journal of Epidemiology in May. Now, the FDA posted a warning on July 1 on its
website about hydroxychloroquine used in outpatients, but we can discuss this later; the FDA
has had no systematic evidence in outpatients and erroneously extrapolated from hospital
inpatients to outpatients, what I said earlier was invalid.

About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and
there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil;
199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226
nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care
institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi
Arabia. All these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients—and all
showed about 50 percent or greater reductions in hospitalization or death. The Saudi study
was a national study and showed 5-fold reduction in mortality for hydroxychloroquine plus zinc
vs zinc alone. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia was reported among these thousands of
patients attributable to the hydroxychloroquine. These are the non-randomized but controlled
trials that have been published.

Now we also know that all of the outpatient randomized controlled trials this year also together
show statistically significant benefit. These six studies comprised generally much younger
patients, only a fraction of whom were at high risk, so they individually had too few
hospitalizations or deaths to be statistically significant. But they all suggested lower risks with
hydroxychloroquine use, and when they were analyzed together in meta-analysis as my
colleagues and I found, this lower risk was statistically significant across the studies.

(03-11-2021, 10:50 PM)LP link Wrote:The conspiracists are victims of correlation, positive reinforcement of a coincidence, who can't set their mind free of it and it has trapped them in misery!

Unfortunately, as everyday goes by the foolishness of those still peddling the HCQ and Ivermectin type claims grows greater and greater, almost exponentially. It's the little boy still holding his finger in the dyke to stop the flood, but the big people drained the dam long ago! The wall of vaccine derived immunity grows bigger and more resilient, every day at a staggering rate, a marvel of science and engineering.

The sky is no longer falling, the sun still shines, go outside and fell the warmth on your face, .............. but take a mask as you'll never know who you might stand next to!

I'll never understand why, as millions are saved by the day, that the naysayers misery still grows. Perhaps they did their dough on some dodgy imports! :o

(03-12-2021, 12:41 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:The vaccines, and for that matter, the widespread use of lock downs, should have been the subject of extensive cost-benefit analysis.

(03-12-2021, 12:41 AM)flyboy77 link Wrote:You really don't get it, do you.

The vaccines, and for that matter, the widespread use of lock downs, should have been the subject of extensive cost-benefit analysis.

Perhaps you don't do that in science world, but in my finance/economics/business world they are front and centre.

Lockdowns - even though we knew better and had the fallout data, we never factored in the cost of the aftermath (other deaths. mental health issues, suicides, familial destruction, SME closures etc.).

Likewise with the vaccine - in Australia - where there never has been a  pandemic - why are we taking an experimental treatment (as it is still in Phase 3 testing) when we have ZERO idea of the short to medium to long term safety issues yet?

The bug will now become endemic, just like influenza, and fluctuate seasonally.

And you obviously never read the Great Barrington Declaration - which is simply the tried and tested pathway of dealing with a pandemic.

Somehow all the rules got changed with this far from novel virus. Why?

The $$$$.

Why did the CDC change the long standing method of reporting deaths in the US in March 2020? Without which, the number of CV19 deaths in the US would have been far, far less?

COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective

Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law
Volume 2:4-22
October 12, 2020

This is what's funny with you shills - you say 'follow the science, listen to the experts'.

Then science from equally qualified, often more qualified, types gets put up and you go - yeah, nah, ignore that and start attacking the man....again a lot of parallels with the AGW scam.....

(03-12-2021, 02:36 AM)DJC link Wrote:Cherry-picking one or two scientists with a contrary view does not overturn the overwhelming scientific consensus.

(03-12-2021, 01:05 AM)LP link Wrote:If you apply the same fiscal rules to HCQ or Ivermectin they are at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the vaccines and yet still functionally ineffective at treating or preventing COVID-19 infections! Even Trump knew that, which is why he offered $1.4T for the vaccine, a cheap buy!

Our local good outcome results from the efforts of health professionals and authorities, it isn't proof their efforts weren't needed, the argument you pose is a confusion of cause and effect. We don't have widespread infection because of the efforts of health professionals and authorities, not in spite of their efforts! :o

One hospitalisation costs more than hundreds or thousands of vaccinations, if the rumours are correct about Trump's hospitalisation costing north of $300,000, that money could vaccinate 10,000 people. Trump told the world all Americans were going to get access to his treatment!

Ironic that the Nordic countries went down the GBD path and got severely burnt, now they want a vaccine, but not the one they were offered. I heard a scientist talking about the GDB, which he said was fundamentally flawed because from the very beginning it ignores the 101 basics of virology, that mutations and variants can generally only occur in infected people, vaccines stop mutant variants from developing.

Q is dead, killed by 320 Million vaccinations and counting!