Re: Coronavirus
 

I'd say 98%

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wish I could get the vaccine. I am not that worried about catching COVID in terms of my health and don't take any precautions other than vaccinations but I had it in early August and it was just annoying.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even without being a nit picker for a minute or two I guess you can see that training the immune system to respond to the spike protein of the original covid has become less effective as the virus has mutated such that omicron variants can get around this much more easily.


So the idea of the bivalent vaccine is that you're injected with the original spike and also the spike of the (original, as it's all they had) omicron. Mutations in the more recent omicrons such as BA.5 are less drastic when compared to this than the previous spike protein is, so the immune system recognises it better.


This will mean that the response the immune system can give to the vaccine is much better (in principle, I doubt there's a great deal of real world data outside clinical trials yet) which usually means it can respond with meaningful antibodies and t-cells quicker. Despite that it's probably not going to be perfect and some people will probably still get covid when they have had it and may be able to transmit it without getting ill but better levels of prevention are clearly more helpful in general.



As for workplaces you're around people all day and if someone's sat at their desk coughing all day because they have covid then if the rest of them aren't vaccinated then they'll probably all get it. If say the original vaccines offer like 20% (hypothetical figure) protection against getting ill from covid then if there's 10 people sat near them all day then 8 of them will get it. If that figure is reduced by bivalent vaccines to 80% then only 2 will get it (again that is just illustrative before you nit pick it). And if only 2 people out of a usual team of 10 were well enough to work then whatever they're doing will be severely impacted for a few days at least whilst they get over covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No need for me to nit pick, you've acknowledged yourself it's hypothetical. And the theory is sound, now if someone could develop a vaccine that had efficacy against infection, that'd be nice and I'd be in the queue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The science about how a vaccine works is pretty well established though.


None of them actually prevent anything, they just reduce the risk of getting it. That's the case for any covid vaccine and indeed the ones against other illnesses.


We're just noticing it more with covid as the virus has changed and the number of infections is high enough for even a 99% successful vaccine to still allow 1 in every 100 infections to break through protection. If 100k people are getting covid a day as was happening last winter then 1. the vaccine is going to prevent a lot of these no matter how effective it is 2. the majority of these are going to be prevented from serious illness by having a better immune response


If you think of other illnesses there isn't a vaccine against norovirus because the virus mutates often enough so it can't really work and also there isn't really much benefit from vaccinating against something which just gives you a bad stomach for a couple of days then stops in most people, flu vaccines are different as they are targeting a predicted strain which they think might go round and if this is wrong a lot will still get it and even some vaccinated people will still get flu.


Think of immune response to a vaccine as meeting someone for the first time. You have a photo of them which was taken last month and have to pick them out from a crowd and take them somewhere. Now if you have a recent photo this won't take long and will be quite easy. Now imagine the photo is 5 years old. It's still that person but they might be a bit fatter, hair might have gone a bit grey, they might need to wear glasses now, this takes longer. Now imagine the building's on fire and you need to recognise them and get them out before too much burns... Or they need to be somewhere quickly to stop the fire. The more recent photo is likely to mean the fire causes less damage. This is why the older vaccines are less useful now.


Quite frankly I don't see the point in offering anyone the vaccines which aren't bivalent now, unless there's a clinical reason why you can't. They need to join masks and lockdowns in the "things which don't work now" pile.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re using a lot of words to not offer very much new information I’m afraid.

There’s no real world evidence to demonstrate efficacy against infection of the current vaccines against current variants at all. In six months when we are two more waves and variants on, the gap will be even wider. Hybrid immunity is clearly not up to much either, despite it’s many proponents.

This is my last input on the subject for now the thread was dead and buried and I’ve no real interest in resuscitating to debate the palpably obvious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Instant contradiction generator

Re: Coronavirus
 

How does the immune system ward off attacks by viruses and bacteria that are not yet inside the body?

Many types live on our skin and are ignored. But once they get inside (infect), the war begins, helped by vaccines that have taught the immune system what they look like, act like and what toxins they produce.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I got my 4th shot and flu jab last Wednesday, no ill effects at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had mine last Thursday and felt fine, no aching this time either.

On Friday I was extremely tired, so much so that I basically slept from Thursday night until this morning.

I suppose this will have been the vaccine working it's way into my system.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For gods sake, don't. More and more research data is coming out that implicates the cabs in myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, sudden death, a lowering of immune function and all sorts of other nasty side effects.
The CDC followed about 10 million jabbed people and their data (released after a year of foi requests and two court orders) shows that 7.8% of people who got the jab needed medical treatment afterwards and 25% couldn't go to work or school for a period of time after the injection.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Indeed, and the EU just got a pfizer exec to admit under oath that the jabs don't and were never designed to prevent transmission.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Take it from me, my immune system is doing just fine. ;)
Just so you know, I have had multiple flu jabs, and multiple covid jabs, and not a single side effect from any of them.

Of course, you could equally say that 92.2% of people who got the jab (which jab ?) needed no medical treatment afterwards, and that 75% could go straight back to school or work again. :)

As Ive posted in the past, all vaccines do is prepare your body to deal with a virus, they do not prevent, or cure.
However, if they do the job well, your body kills off the invading virus before you notice, so it appears they prevent infection.
By the same token, if the virus in you gets killed off quickly, there is little chance of you passing it on, so it appears to prevent transmission.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N31F20E

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sigh

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1665872436

Re: Coronavirus
 

The myocarditis occurrences and the fact the latest vaccine does not touch the latest variants have made me decide to swerve the latest round

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank heavens for some sensible people on this site.Paul,Hugh and Chris.:clap:

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about the covid death occurrences, 597 in the last week. Balance of risks.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsu...20even%20lower.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lol. You do know that Reuters and Pfizer share top execs? It's a revolving door. I wouldn't take the Reuters fact check service at face value when it comes to Pfizer products.


edit: Anyway, I'm not saying anymore on this subject. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

What's your source and who are the top execs participating in this "revolving door"?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Research online. The info isn't all that hard to find :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone with a smartphone and 10 minutes on the bog can do it ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah, feck it: https://rumble.com/v1oehth-bbc-repor...-cant-dis.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

If,you really want to know, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency report side effects reported to them on a monthly basis through the Yellow Card scheme. Here is their current report - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting

This is the raw data so there might or might not be a real link between the reported issue and the vaccine and the reports are very clear on this.

Anyone can report side effects here - https://coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/

Re: Coronavirus
 

.. and the thread hits a new low.

Sorry but I have zero tolerance for conspiracy nuts and their websites.

Any fool can “do their research”. The problem is, fools lack the analytical skills to evaluate raw data and reach balanced conclusions.

Covid vax conspiracies are the domain of fools. And that’s really all there is to it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you aware that the yellow card scheme is underreported to the tune of 90-99%? (They aren't sure of the exact number)
It's the same for VAERS in the USA.

---------- Post added at 18:00 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Did you watch the clip?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I will, when I have time to explore it fully and in context. I have no plans to watch it in isolation, with the cast put on it by a website with an obvious agenda. This is precisely the point I was making earlier, and why a great many keyboard warriors who claim to have done their research have in fact done no such thing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Please do. It's from GB news. It's interviewing a vaccine damaged BBC reporter. Also discusses the young BBC presenter who died due to the jab.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty startling if true. The report gives a figure of 145,086,498 doses given and 1,511,966 side effects reported which is pretty much 1%. If the actual figure is 100 times this, then everyone is getting side effects. I agree that there will be underreporting for the common already noted side effects such as fever, fatigue and headaches. If anything, there will be a bias towards more severe side effects being reported.

You can only work with the data you have of course. The Yellow Card scheme is not a clinical trial level of data collection as it relies on active reporting. However, it does give a guide to what is happening in the field.

I did watch the clip. She is claiming that the vaccine caused her issues. That may or may not have been the case. If it was, that is a terrible thing for her but all the evidence points to this type of side effect being very rare. No drug is without risk but that risk needs to be balanced against the clinical need.

No one is hiding the potential side effects of these vaccines, a leaflet was handed out at the time of administration. The Yellow Card scheme is useful to highlight rare but serious side effects that only are seen when the pool of people having the vaccine gets much larger.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even if you did believe the yellow scheme is underreported to the tune of 99% or whatever then you also need to assume that every other regulatory body across Europe and the Western world, i.e ones we trust, are wrong too. America, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Australia.....

Re: Coronavirus
 

:clap::clap::clap:

Re: Coronavirus
 

That seems to be the case.
edit: and the underreporting isn't what I believe. I was taught it 30+ years ago and current literature states the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And that’s the essence of the conspiracy theory mindset. You pick your conclusion, then make the facts fit. No matter how bonkers the results.

Re: Coronavirus
 

GB News doesn't have a good reputation on the Covid front
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ark-steyn-show

But the key thing is surely the statitical significance - two people out of a UK population of 65m is a low number.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you saying the guardian does?

Lmfao. I trust GB News a lot more than that hard lefty rag, I wouldn’t mop up cat piss with.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it's up to the individual to consume information from all corners and decide for themselves.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Chris. I was taught that in Uni by a GP, a surgeon and a neurologist in 3 separate classes 30 years ago and nothing has changed since ( I keep an eye on the literature from time to time).
It's common knowledge in the medical professions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be fair Mick that's the one thing it's actuall good for.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I guess the under reporting would be an issue if you took the Yellow Card data in isolation. However the MHRA works hard to account for the variables in the reporting system including the issue of under reporting. The MHRA discuss this here - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...y-surveillance

Under reporting is an issue but once you have a handle of when and why potential adverse reactions are not reported, you can at least correct for it to some extent. It’s not ideal but the self reporting system most regulatory bodies including the MHRA use is the ‘least worst’ option for post-market surveillance

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm talking about GB News's two investigations by Ofcom over its Covid 19 content, not The Guardian. The paper here is merely reporting an Ofcom announcement.

You read find the Ofcom story on other sources than The Guardian if you like eg https://pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-gb-news/ https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre...ews-mark-steyn

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you for that link. I was cautiously optimistic when I read the first few sections, it looks good, but then my hopes were dampened by a few things there.

It was published a year and a half ago so I thought I'd do a search on https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ to see what the MHRA had found and published. I couldn't find anything on this subject using the search terms "MHRA" & "COVID-19 vaccine safety", "Commission on Human Medicines" & "Expert Working Group" & "COVID-19 vaccine safety"

That page states that there will be "Four main strands of our proactive vigilance":

The first is that they will keep an eye on the yellow card reports....great, those are rubbish to begin with.

The second is a form of active surveillance known as ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’. This method involves proactive, weekly analysis of a range of pre-defined events (theoretical side effects) to quickly identify safety signals. The trouble is that Pfizer and our Govt deny that there are any side effects/they can choose to only look for side effects that they know will be very rare (not the first time that kind of thing has been done)

The third is targeted active monitoring of certain groups of vaccinees. This might bear fruit. However, the CDC did a similar type of thing and it took a FOI and two court orders to get the data out of them. Their data showed 7.8% needing medical treatment for side effects and 25% not being able to work or go to school for some time after the jab. It remains to be seen whether the MHRA will find similar results. But as I said above, I've not seen anything published by them either way. There is also plenty of room to monkey about with the data as it seems to be a case control type study.

The fourth are formal epidemiological studies. Just glancing at the overview of the HPV study that is linked to I see a few problematic issues:
It relied on the yellow card system
It used estimates of vaccination coverage
That's without doing a deep dive into the full paper.....

That page finishes off with "The MHRA will operate a transparent process. On a regular basis, the MHRA will produce an up to date summary of the safety experience, including aggregate Yellow Card reports, on our website."
I clicked the link and found that they have published all the vaccine manufacturers data from the yellow card scheme:
Non lethal adverse events: 156996
Deaths:103
Remember, yellow card data is a fraction of what is actually happening.

iirc, the swine flu vaccine was pulled after something like 25 deaths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The report does acknowledge the limitations of passive monitoring of side effects, namely the Yellow Card system. The strands 2 to 4 are in place to supplement the passive system. They will also enhance knowledge of the sensitivity of Yellow Card reporting to utilise what data is collected in the most meaningful way.

We now have probably the biggest cohort for any post marketing surveillance in history. We are also developing better and better tools to analyse the data gathered, cross linking vaccination records with other medical records. If the post market surveillance for the COVID vaccine scheme is not sufficient to give confidence in the products, then I would be very wary of almost any other drug on the market as in almost all cases, the monitored population will be less than seen here

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jab 4 now installed :D

[ Pfizer again .... ]

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jab #4 booked for the 11th of November.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was quite detailed about the failings of this system. The CDC followed about 10 million jabbed people so, no, we don't have the biggest cohort. (and they found significant side effects, as did the MHRA) Did you actually read what I wrote?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apologies, I wasn’t clear in what I wrote. In terms of cohort size, the standard passive post market surveillance cohort (Yellow Card for example) is the entire vaccinated population of not just the UK but the world. Regulatory bodies can and do share data.

On top of that, the Rapid Cycle Analysis discussed in that previous link actively data mines 13 million patient records in the UK.

There are of course rare incidences of serious side effects but there will always be a risk/benefit calculation performed
=================================
Edit - Found the global database of adverse drug reactions. Vigibase run from Uppsala in Sweden is the WHO run database

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think there are other benefits to the vaccination programme that are harder to measure. For example if those vaccinated are not going to A&E for "covid symptoms" that they don't need to turn up for because they are vaccinated and believe the vaccine will "protect them" then you reduce demand/load on A&E. (Conversely some won't turn up when they should for the same reasoning.)
Some people will feel better because they are vaccinated because they believe they will not get as sick. Mental attitude can affect physical health.
I'm sure there are other factors too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:tu: , nevertheless, that's passive. The CDC actively followed about 10 million.

Re: Coronavirus
 

An interesting paper:https://insulinresistance.org/index....le/view/71/224

Re: Coronavirus
 

Scaremongering.:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

omg, he's an eminent consultant cardiologist. Besides, the official MHRA figures show "In the United Kingdom, since the vaccine roll-out there have been almost 500000 adverse event reports recorded (via the Yellow Card system) in association with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations involving over 150000 individuals. In terms of the number of reports per person (i.e. having received at least one dose), the MHRA figures show around 1 in 120 suffering a likely adverse event that is beyond mild. However, the MHRA are unclear about the rate and furthermore do not separate out the serious adverse events. Nevertheless, this level of reporting is unprecedented in the modern medical era and equals the total number of reports received in the first 40 years of the Yellow Card reporting system (for all medicines– not just vaccines) up to 2020"

Would you rather not know?!

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...9-vaccination/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Think I'd rather not die a horrible death from COVID to be honest.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What's the definition of a beyond mild adverse event, coz I felt like crap the day after first two vaccines and had to have the day of work, price well worth paying imho, is that beyond mild or is it worse?

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’d be in a very small percentage for that to happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

True, but you'll have a greater chance of being in that small percentage if you don't get jabbed. The numbers are rising again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which has killed more, the virus, or the vaccine ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The death rate is rising, though case numbers are still low (probably because testing is very low these days).

Reporting is still every 7 days. This graph is for the period from 1st January this year to today.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Going to have another jab tomorrow.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They wanted to give us our jabs at 3 different locations on 4 different days. I called them and arranged for all 4 of us to have them tomorrow at the same local location.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Got my Jab booked for 11th Nov, it was annoying as I got the NHS letter weeks ago saying I was now able to book it but when trying to it said I wasn't yet eligible, it's only now the site lets me and I didn't have to answer any stupid questions like.... Am I pregnant? I'm male for god's sake!!! I gave my NHS number so they should know this!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes I know what you mean but they have my NHS number which is 54 years old. Lol

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's all 4 of us jabbed. In-and-out in 6 minutes. Comirnaty bivalent for me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not heard of that one before.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The new Pfizer one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then why not just say that? One can also assume the other three got a different one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because Comirnaty is the regulated product name for the covid vaccine produced by Pfizer/BioNTech and that’s what it says on the patient information leaflet you get with your jab. Comirnaty may be more prominent on the leaflet than the manufacturer name. He’s not the first person to call it by its brand name in this thread and seeing as a good number of us have had this jab the name shouldn’t be unfamiliar.

Comirnaty Bivalent indicates that it’s the new vaccine with protection against original covid and Omicron.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fair enough I had the other one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's what was written on the vaccination card.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...2280963v1.full

Re: Coronavirus
 

Spikevax.

Moderna vaccine (Spikevax bivalent) triggers a strong immune response against both Omicron (BA.1) and the original 2020 strain. In an exploratory analysis the bivalent vaccine was also found to generate a good immune response against the Omicron sub-variants BA.4 and BA.5.

My undemanding is that Comirnaty is currently being tested for its effect on Omicron sub-variants BA.4 and BA.5.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not disputing the numbers you've posted but if you could do something to reduce the chance of being one of the people to die then I think you should do it. The chances of dying my be low, but the low odds are no consolation if you're one of those people.

If you don't want to be vaccinated that's up to you but I think it's wrong to push you're agenda on other people. I do however feel people who make the choice not to be vaccinated for no reason other than they don't want to should expect to pay the cost of their care (or a good chunk of it) if they subsequently end up in hospital.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You might call it pushing an agenda, I call it warning people. After that it's their choice.
Regarding the unvaxxed paying for their own care, fine, just give me back my tax and NI that I've payed towards the nhs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had Covid at the beginning of July and gave it to my dad.


That probably saved his life, as a week later he had a perforated ulcer of the bowel and the limited amount of food in his system meant the infection he had could have been a lot worse, but 3 times I slept on my sister's sofa waiting for the call to come and say goodbye, but he's pulled though and should be home soon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt the majority of the country would agree with repaying tax and NI to people who could easily be described as willing to play fast and loose with the limited resources available to the NHS.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well you've warned us.We however don't have to pay you any mind about it.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

They've already paid for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"fast and loose"?! I'll repost the link to data that shows cov to be far less deadly than originally claimed. Please read it.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...2280963v1.full

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

As is your right :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

One more thing about the MHRA:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...essofresearch1https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ion-foi-21-624

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quack.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You poor thing, you must not be able to sleep at night! :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

What makes you think that? :confused:

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Ditto... :confused:

edit: Did either of you actually click the links to get through to the peer reviewed, medical research papers?....and read them?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I clicked through and scanned enough to recognise the classic conspiracist mindset behind the alarmist bullet points and even worse link text you chose to summarise it with.

Studies which are actually reviews of other studies rather than newly designed and conducted research have serious limitations, amongst them the risks of selectivity and confirmation bias. Sure, you have a veritable rogue’s gallery of all the very worst things that could happen as a result of having a covid vaccination, but you don’t need to trawl the internet for that sort of stuff. Every packet of paracetamol has a leaflet in it with a list of horrible things that can occur if you take it. A list of things that could happen when you take medication does more harm than good when it is divorced from its context, which is what you very effectively did here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, if I read the [possible] effects of the tablets I take, I should be dead. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

File under "confirmation bias". The capital letters are a give away!

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is a peer reviewed paper and rather then read it and think about what it says you are choosing to simply look at the bullet points that it posted and conclude that the summary in the paper is even worse? Do you know how to read a research paper? Have you been taught to read a research paper? I have. I've even written one. Please look at the paper (and the dozens of others that I posted below it) with an open mind.
Here are links to the wikepedia/linkedin pages of the authors (that you called quacks) so you can look at their credentials(look at their education):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-...alSubdomain=gr

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Christ. It's in upper case....so it must be misinformation?!
Really?....I simply couldn't be bothered to change it to lower case.

Click the link. :dozey:

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

No. They are POSSIBLE side effects and they have been on the market for (probably) decades. The mrna cov vaxxines have been on the market for less that 3 years after about 6 months trial.(normal trial for a vax is much longer)
btw...The total side effects for the cov vax's (in the last 2.5 years) are more than all side effects for all vaccines in the last 40 years.
Latest one, iirc, was tested on 6 mice!

---------- Post added at 22:34 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

I have no words. I'm posting up to date medical research and you are judging my posts because they have bullet points that you find upsetting and the url link is in capitals? Realy? That's your argument?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said no such thing, I suggest you stop insulting people [above] and making baseless accusations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You said: I said: So...I didn't insult you.

edit: What accusations am I making that you are upset about?

btw.....Chris called me a quack....that's an insult. I'm insulted now. Care to comment?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re being alarmist and you know it. ‘Peer reviewed’ is not the same as ‘correct’ or ‘consensus’. It means it has been competently produced. Again, you know this.

I have less issue with the limitations of a ‘survey of surveys’, which is what this study is, than I do with the headline you chose to put on it. You’re obviously pursuing an agenda. I don’t need to read the entire research paper to know that.

And yes, I could if I was so motivated. While neither of my degrees are in the sciences, I believe I’m competent to read and evaluate the material adequately well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, I'll comment.

1. I said people, not me, but you knew that already.
You are perfectly well aware what you said, and to who, since you went back and edited it again after I removed it (we store all edits).
2. Are you blind, or just playing dumb. I quoted it.
3. No, he didnt, I suggest you go back and read it again.

TBH, I think you are just playing the troll now.
I advise you to move on and not to continue picking this fight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1) How am I being alarmist by posting peer reviewed papers on this subject?
2) You do need to read the entire research paper, and you should know that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From the first of RamRod's Wikipedia links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

I think that link tells us all we need to know about the report's credibility! And ironically, it was provided by RamRod himself in an attempt to support his case!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know you store them all. Yes, I was angry, it was a mistake and I edited my posts in good time. There is nothing there that is insulting now. How am I playing dumb and what should I read again?

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I said, just playing the troll now, I have no interest in your games, have a break from this topic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On peer review, and by extension randomised controlled trials, and as is Friday night and I’ll declare myself as being five bottles of beer in I present the PARACHUTE study. Proving that jumping out a plane your survival chances, or chances of injury, are unchanged based upon parachute use.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D:D:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Please have a look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_a...cal_Toxicology

See section controversies

"In 2022, after a call from the editor for articles on alleged adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccine,[7] Seneff et al. published a paper alleging various mechanisms for various diseases that the authors intend to link to Covid-19 vaccination.[8] Several scientists have warned of the biases and shortcomings that this article contains.[9][10][11][12]"

Let's wait and see whether the paper you mention will be retracted as the other one.

Seneff is well known, she is an expert on many things including weedkillers. See her wiki page, it is full of controversies. She publishes in MDPI journals that are not really reputable.