Carlton Supporters Club
CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version

+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: CV and mad panic behaviour (/thread-4651.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 05-22-2021

(05-21-2021, 01:02 PM)ElwoodBlues1 date Wrote:I'd question the effectiveness of the present Astraz vs the variants , its one thing talking about Blood Clots and the risks but
its not proven against the variants at all and the " its better than nothing approach" doesnt encourage people to have a vaccine that is already under the microscope.
I think this is an old assertion that is being rehashed in the anti-AstraZeneca media. I think it was a Canadian group that debugged those claims by donating hundreds of thousands of doses to 3rd World locations then collected the efficacy data against all variants.

The last summary I heard was that it's proven equally effective as Pfizer, J&J and Moderna against the variants in Sth America and Sth Africa.


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 12:24 AM)DJC link Wrote:This is an ongoing study following the AstraZeneca rollout in the UK.  It’s not conclusive but it suggests that AstraZeneca is very effective.

What does "effective" mean? How is it assessed? What are the benchmarks, the baselines?

On adverse events in the UK?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987647/Coronavirus_vaccine_-_summary_of_Yellow_Card_reporting_12.05.21.pdf

Quote:As of 12 May 2021, for the UK, 58,065 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech
vaccine, 175,057 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,462 for the
COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 639 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not
specified.

So, given 23.9 million doses, and 175k adverse events for the AZ vaccine, that is 73 adverse events for every 10000 jabs.

Further:

Quote:The MHRA has received 374 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in
which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 786 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine
AstraZeneca,
4 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 16 where the brand of vaccine was
unspecified.

786 deaths shortly after the AZ jab,

Good luck.

And for what - a virus very much like its predecessor and extremely treatable EARLY - Ivermectin or HCQ protocols (and a few others to boot).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7410805/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxmhvZ6eEI4&t=2s

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-a-covid-19-solution


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 01:25 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:And for what - a virus very much like its predecessor and extremely treatable EARLY - Ivermectin or HCQ protocols (and a few others to boot).
Now beyond doubt proven completely useless against COVID.

However, Ivermectin / HCG combination is more likely to kill the recipient due to a very specific form of heart arrhythmia that happens in about 10x as many patients as can be expected to get a severe AstraZeneca side effect. An effect being reported in several combinations that combine HCQ with either an antiviral or antibiotic.

What officially is a Yellow Card?
Quote:
"The Yellow Card scheme is a mechanism by which anybody can voluntarily report any suspected adverse reactions or side effects to the vaccine. It is very important to note that a Yellow Card report does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused that reaction or event."







Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 07:52 AM)LP link Wrote:No beyond doubt proven completely useless against COVID.

But Ivermectin / HCG combination is more likely to kill the recipient due to a very specific form of heart arrhythmia that happens in about 10x as many patients as can be expected to get a severe AstraZeneca side effect. An effect being reported in several combinations that combine HCQ with either an antiviral or antibiotic.

you are clueless.

No one has suggested a combination (that comments exceeds stupidity).

10x comment is an abject lie - unsupported by anything but your hubris.

Of course, any medication can be bad for some people with certain existing pre conditions.

That's why doctors do what doctors do....  :-X

https://c19ivermectin.com/

The studies are in, you're off the pace - again.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk.

Have a great evening LP.




Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 07:59 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:you are clueless.

No one has suggested a combination (that comments exceeds stupidity).

10x comment is an abject lie - unsupported by anything but your hubris.

Of course, any medication can be bad for some people with certain existing pre conditions.

That's why doctors do what doctors do....  :-X

https://c19ivermectin.com/

The studies are in, you're off the pace - again.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk.

Have a great evening LP.
Ironic that you accuse me of posting redundant info, given what you have offered has now been disproved by multiple large scale studies across several different countries. So I doubt you can rain on anything with fake facts and worthless outdated claims.



Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 08:02 AM)LP link Wrote:Ironic that you accuse me of posting redundant info, given what you have offered has now been disproved by multiple large scale studies across several different countries. So I doubt you can rain on anything with fake facts and worthless outdated claims.

Put them up - going to cite the Recovery Study?

You're full of hot air.

two tips:

1. don't give near lethal dosages to patients

2. don't give an anti viral to patients once full viral replication has already occurred.


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 08:10 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:Put them up - going to cite the Recovery Study?

You're full of hot air.

two tips:

1. don't give near lethal dosages to patients

2. don't give an anti viral to patients once full viral replication has already occurred.
Your assertions aren't based in any truth, HCQ has been evaluated as both a prophylactic and as a treatment and been found exactly worthless on it's own on both counts. It general results are so poor some specialists are questioning how it was ever approved in the first place!

Patients who are ill with COVID develop secondary infections, some already have infections when they contract COVID, not giving them combinatory medications isn't an option. It just needs to be a safe combination and HCQ isn't part of it.

Ironically, the lethal side-effects of HCQ in combination with other medicines was known long before COVID, but ignored by it's COVID boosters. If it offered some real world benefit it might still be offered just as is a vaccine that can have rare deadly side-effects, but HCQ isn't going to be offered by other than illegal pushers of dodgy internet dealings. Brazil and India say hello!

This HCQ stuff, you bang on about it so much I think you protest a bit too much, it isn't another bet you got wrong is it, do you have a garage full?


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - PaulP - 05-22-2021

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misconduct-faces-legal-action-for-challenging-integrity-of-hydroxychloroquine-study


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 11:34 AM)PaulP date Wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misconduct-faces-legal-action-for-challenging-integrity-of-hydroxychloroquine-study
Dr Didier Raoult cases seems vexatious, he was one of the primary boosters for HCQ in Europe and has gone hard at many who call out the rather thin evidence and questionable methods used to derive his conclusions.

Not satisfied to profit from his claims, He seems to have rallied a fanatical US supporter base to threaten whistle-blowers all around the globe. In some cases his group of supporters has been caught publishing the whistle-blower's private address as an intimidation, followed up with the obligatory death threats.

There is some nice coverage of this recently in The Science Friction podcast.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/troublemakers-covid-science-research-integrity/13344772


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - PaulP - 05-22-2021

(05-22-2021, 11:41 AM)LP link Wrote:Dr Didier Raoult cases is vexatious, he was the primary booster for HCQ in Europe and has gone hard at anyone who calls out the rather thin evidence and questionable methods used to come to his conclusions.

Not satisfied to profit from his claims, he's rallied a fanatical US supporter base to threaten whistle-blowers all around the globe. In some cases his group of supporters has been caught publishing the whistle-blower's private address as an intimidation, followed up with the obligatory death threats.

There is some nice coverage of this recently in The Science Friction podcast.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/troublemakers-covid-science-research-integrity/13344772

It's pretty seedy, litigious behaviour from a doctor / scientist. The sort of behaviour that should make one feel immediately uncomfortable and suspicious