WOULD YOU VACCINATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH SPORTS

[voice_of_reason]

Only thing thats fake is your blind trust to an experimental jab. Instead we have many doctors like Dr Mcullough who have had great results treating covid.

If you believe in someone who is discredited by his peers, is being investigated for fraudulent COVID claims and isn't even working in his area of expertise it's you that's blinded. He hasn't had great results, he's lying about fake treatments. I'm sad you can't see that.

You choose to believe every government in the world, democracies, autocracies, communist, Islamist have somehow cooperated in a global experimental drug conspiracy? This is as bad as Q-anon and Donald Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon coming to save us from the global pedophile ring.

I refer to my previous post on Cognitive dissonance - sadly you're a poster child. You're beyond reason so I'm not going to bother trying.

 

[philgood]

Only thing thats fake is your blind trust to an experimental jab. Instead we have many doctors like Dr Mcullough who have had great results treating covid.

If you believe in someone who is discredited by his peers, is being investigated for fraudulent COVID claims and isn't even working in his area of expertise it's you that's blinded. He hasn't had great results, he's lying about fake treatments. I'm sad you can't see that.

You choose to believe every government in the world, democracies, autocracies, communist, Islamist have somehow cooperated in a global experimental drug conspiracy? This is as bad as Q-anon and Donald Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon coming to save us from the global pedophile ring.

I refer to my previous post on Cognitive dissonance - sadly you're a poster child. You're beyond reason so I'm not going to bother trying.

Covid is not a conspiracy. Its real. They way it is being dealt with is appalling when there are therapies out there that can treat it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393

 

[earl]

Doesnt all the censorship on vaccines cause red flags for anyone? Robust and healthy discussion is whats needed. Yet all the health experts with a differing view on the covid experimental jab are censored. Thats dangerous! Even me coming on here to discuss and everyone is triggered if my opinion differs from the mainstream narrative

This is not a political issue. It's a health and science issue. We need to use the same facts. The facts are not at all what you are stating and therein lies the problem.

Agree on the facts and then add your opinion in relation to the facts.

You don't do that. It's got nothing at all to do with robust discussion. You need to have some facts to back up your point of view and you don't have that.

Here's some facts for you. Double blind study too
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

This is how you guys get it all wrong. I've commented on this previously. I think it's a fantastic option for what it is.

You didn't actually link though a study on this. I provided a link a couple of days ago.

I'll sum it up for you. The data is poor but it is very promising in treatment options in poorer countries. I think we should be using it to try and help people who are already sick.

It doesn't work anywhere near as well as the vaccines. The vaccines are just killing it at the moment.

 

[jirskyr]

Doesnt all the censorship on vaccines cause red flags for anyone? Robust and healthy discussion is whats needed. Yet all the health experts with a differing view on the covid experimental jab are censored. Thats dangerous! Even me coming on here to discuss and everyone is triggered if my opinion differs from the mainstream narrative

This is not a political issue. It's a health and science issue. We need to use the same facts. The facts are not at all what you are stating and therein lies the problem.

Agree on the facts and then add your opinion in relation to the facts.

You don't do that. It's got nothing at all to do with robust discussion. You need to have some facts to back up your point of view and you don't have that.

Here's some facts for you. Double blind study too
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

That's a media article about a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed. It's not technically published. I am going to assume you know what this means?

Shall I quote the FDA (US therapeutic approval agency) for you, regarding invermectin:
>FDA has not approved Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

Or by all means, go take ivemectin if you think it helps. Let us know if you can get your hands on it, and how you go self-medicating. Odd that you would potentially be in favour of an unproven and unapproved therapy when the government will happily give you a real proven and approved one.

 

[philgood]

You’re NOT ok in my book when you start being rude to others because they made a decision that was BEST for them.

Remember that guy who got high and drunk and ran over those kids. He believed his right to drink and drive was more important than any lives he put at risk.

He made the best decision for him but his decision impacted other people.

Your argument simply doesn't cut it.

No that wont work. I shouldnt have to take the vaccine in order to help protect someone else who has either had or hasnt had the vaccine. Makes no sense. Vaccines are meant to create immunity. This jab does not

It makes complete sense. I don't know if you even understand what immunity means in a medical context.

"the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells."

Resist is the key word. There isn't a vaccine on Earth, literally, that induces 100% disease destruction. A few are close, none are perfect. If enough people are resistant, the disease struggles to obtain a foothold in the population, and declines. That is how vaccines have dampened many significant diseases and eradicated one or two.

Vaccines are far less effective if a significant % of the population doesn't have them, because the disease just breeds in the unvaccinated population. That's the entire strategy of vaccines, to induce population-wide resistance to disease.

So yes you do need to get vaccinated to protect both yourself and others. If you do not, you significantly increase the chance of negative COVID outcomes for yourself and your family. Fact.

If the disease breeds in the unvaccinated, those who are vaccinated should be protected. If not, why bother getting vaccinated. Surely you can understand that

 

[earl]

That’s a media article about a paper that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. It’s not technically published. I am going to assume you know what this means?

He doesn't get it. I'll go and find the proper link and provide it for people to read.

 

[philgood]

Doesnt all the censorship on vaccines cause red flags for anyone? Robust and healthy discussion is whats needed. Yet all the health experts with a differing view on the covid experimental jab are censored. Thats dangerous! Even me coming on here to discuss and everyone is triggered if my opinion differs from the mainstream narrative

This is not a political issue. It's a health and science issue. We need to use the same facts. The facts are not at all what you are stating and therein lies the problem.

Agree on the facts and then add your opinion in relation to the facts.

You don't do that. It's got nothing at all to do with robust discussion. You need to have some facts to back up your point of view and you don't have that.

Here's some facts for you. Double blind study too
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

That's a media article about a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed. It's not technically published. I am going to assume you know what this means?

Shall I quote the FDA (US therapeutic approval agency) for you, regarding invermectin:
>FDA has not approved Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

Or by all means, go take ivemectin if you think it helps. Let us know if you can get your hands on it, and how you go self-medicating. Odd that you would potentially be in favour of an unproven and unapproved therapy when the government will happily give you a real proven and approved one.

How anyone can trust the FDA and WHO is beyond me

 

[hobbo1]

I thought this would’ve been a simple yes / no thread .. never mind ..

 

[earl]

Doesnt all the censorship on vaccines cause red flags for anyone? Robust and healthy discussion is whats needed. Yet all the health experts with a differing view on the covid experimental jab are censored. Thats dangerous! Even me coming on here to discuss and everyone is triggered if my opinion differs from the mainstream narrative

This is not a political issue. It's a health and science issue. We need to use the same facts. The facts are not at all what you are stating and therein lies the problem.

Agree on the facts and then add your opinion in relation to the facts.

You don't do that. It's got nothing at all to do with robust discussion. You need to have some facts to back up your point of view and you don't have that.

Here's some facts for you. Double blind study too
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

That's a media article about a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed. It's not technically published. I am going to assume you know what this means?

Shall I quote the FDA (US therapeutic approval agency) for you, regarding invermectin:
>FDA has not approved Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

Or by all means, go take ivemectin if you think it helps. Let us know if you can get your hands on it, and how you go self-medicating. Odd that you would potentially be in favour of an unproven and unapproved therapy when the government will happily give you a real proven and approved one.

How anyone can trust the FDA and WHO is beyond me

These comments don't help you at all. These sources are significantly better than anything that you have provided.

Here is a link to a study on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective).

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

Try and understand the conclusions here are not like a proper peer reviewed paper with awesome testing like the vaccines go through. So the data looks good but it's not reliably tested like vaccines. So if you accept this you'd be showing an extreme level of bias not to accept the data on the vaccines.

The results on the vaccines are much better than Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective).

 

[philgood]

That’s a media article about a paper that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. It’s not technically published. I am going to assume you know what this means?

He doesn't get it. I'll go and find the proper link and provide it for people to read.

Dr Mcullough's published study

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

 

[jirskyr]

You’re NOT ok in my book when you start being rude to others because they made a decision that was BEST for them.

Remember that guy who got high and drunk and ran over those kids. He believed his right to drink and drive was more important than any lives he put at risk.

He made the best decision for him but his decision impacted other people.

Your argument simply doesn't cut it.

No that wont work. I shouldnt have to take the vaccine in order to help protect someone else who has either had or hasnt had the vaccine. Makes no sense. Vaccines are meant to create immunity. This jab does not

It makes complete sense. I don't know if you even understand what immunity means in a medical context.

"the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells."

Resist is the key word. There isn't a vaccine on Earth, literally, that induces 100% disease destruction. A few are close, none are perfect. If enough people are resistant, the disease struggles to obtain a foothold in the population, and declines. That is how vaccines have dampened many significant diseases and eradicated one or two.

Vaccines are far less effective if a significant % of the population doesn't have them, because the disease just breeds in the unvaccinated population. That's the entire strategy of vaccines, to induce population-wide resistance to disease.

So yes you do need to get vaccinated to protect both yourself and others. If you do not, you significantly increase the chance of negative COVID outcomes for yourself and your family. Fact.

If the disease breeds in the unvaccinated, those who are vaccinated should be protected. If not, why bother getting vaccinated. Surely you can understand that

They are strongly protected, not entirely protected. I understand it well, I do drug research for a living. I personally know people who worked on the Pfizer COVID vaccine study, my company ran the study overseas. We are also doing the Novavax studies. I've been working on drug development for 20 years, and I have a degree in it from Sydney University.

I'll give you an analogy - seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives. Most car trips do not involved accidents or near-accidents and for the most part seatbelts don't have an active role in a standard safe care trip. But when an accident does happen, seatbelts are a key safety mechanism to prevent death and serious injury. Now you can decide not to wear a seatbelt, and it's illegal to do so, but in the case of an accident you are at much higher risk of serious injury and death.

It would be true therefore to say that if you don't wear a seatbelt, on most trips you would be OK. But the first time you have a high-velocity accident or near-accident, you are guaranteed to be in trouble.

 

[cochise]

No and not to travel, go to the movies or anything else that they are threatening to bar me from
Coercion is a dangerous thing
And before I get told to follow the science, that can be bought and paid for and much of it is

Just wondering ... what's your thoughts on climate change?

Please refer to my last sentence

Ahhh ...ok. No surpirse there. Are you in Sydney? Did you got to that protest rally in the city a couple of weekends ago?

Would you care to share a clear face pic of yourself? Just askin'

I’m happily married Tragic, try your luck elsewhere

And the 1974 NASA article about the coming Ice age

You don't think we've come some way since 1974? 1974 was 47 years ago, which is closer to Word War II (by a significant margin) than it is to today. They didn't have home computers or smartphones. They even there was vegetation on Mars.

As @mike said - the beauty of science is you keep testing your hypotheses and making improvements or corrections if you find new evidence.

But that is not to say that because some folks made incorrect predictions 50 years ago that all predictions are wrong, or will be proven wrong, or are pointless. Einstein made a hell of a lot of predictions between 1900-1955 and they were correct. Climate change is no longer a prediction, because they knew about global warming in the 1980s. The evidence is in - increased CO2 in the atmosphere, record temperatures year after year and increase in extreme weather.

Even the very computer or phone you use to visit the internet, the internet itself, the car you drive, any medications you take, your television and radio, toaster, microwave, fridge, lawnmower - all developed by scientists and engineers. Funny how you don't seem to have an issue with that?

My lawnmower turned on me the other day, the uprising has started!

 

[voice_of_reason]

I shouldnt have to take the vaccine in order to help protect someone else who has either had or hasnt had the vaccine. Makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. We all do things to protect the rest of society. We can choose not to, but we sacrifice our right to do certain things. Why would you NOT want to help the rest of society?

You must love being in lockdown.

 

[jirskyr]

It doesn’t work anywhere near as well as the vaccines. The vaccines are just killing it at the moment.

Bad turn of phrase there.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

I thought this would’ve been a simple yes / no thread .. never mind ..

Lol never! The arrogant ‘know it alls’ are always here to lecture us all on how right they are and everyone who disagrees with them is an imbecile - gives me the sh!ts!

 

[earl]

That’s a media article about a paper that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. It’s not technically published. I am going to assume you know what this means?

He doesn't get it. I'll go and find the proper link and provide it for people to read.

Dr Mcullough's published study

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

Have you looked at this. It doesn't back up anything at all like what you are stating. There is no data at all.

Can you please read the CDC report I showed that details the reduction in infections, hospitalizations and deaths from the vaccines.

Just compare the two sources and see if you change your mind. If not please explain why you don't change your mind and please explain why you choose to ignore the facts.

It's like me stating the Tigers are the best team in the comp and pointing to our long record without any finals games.

 

[hobbo1]

I thought this would’ve been a simple yes / no thread .. never mind ..

Lol never! The arrogant ‘know it alls’ are always here to lecture us all on how right they are and everyone who disagrees with them is an imbecile - gives me the sh!ts!

Yeah I’m blocking this thread as I have with the other one .. too much chest pumping from basement nerds for me lol

 

[jirskyr]

There are benefits and risks to every medical procedure. Doing the “right thing” means you’ve weighed the risks and benefits for yourself, and are making an informed decision. The only wrong decision IMO is made purely out of fear, social pressure or emotional reactivity. If you have researched your decision and are comfortable with it…great!

What if the decision is made out of fear, just a different kind? Fear of the government or of established medical practice?

The issue with vaccines is we need the strong majority of people to do it, otherwise they are less effective. It's not the same as individualised medical care. Infectious diseases don't work that way when they are highly infectious.

For example if you want to become a PR / citizen of Australia, you have to prove you don't have TB. You need a medical checkup and clearance. It is fact that they discriminate against people with TB. There's a reason for that - TB is highly infectious, it's a devastating disease and damaging to the population. They need to keep it out of Australia.

Now they are never going to force vaccination on people, that just won't happen. Nobody is going to be tied down and drugged. But they will incentivise it very strongly. They will provide privileges for those who get vaccinated.

It therefore becomes a choice to decline those privileges.

 

[earl]

It doesn’t work anywhere near as well as the vaccines. The vaccines are just killing it at the moment.

Bad turn of phrase there.

Probably. Anyhoo.

 

[jirskyr]

From the horse's mouth
https://www.facebook.com/107999601094256/posts/257129532847928/

He’s a cardiologist. His is talking outside his area of expertise. That makes him as about as relevant as you and I.

Mate what are you talking about. He was one of the doctors on the frontline treating covid patients when other doctors were telling them to go home and wait it out. He was the first doctor to write a published paper on how to treat covid.

He has made multiple false claims about Covid19 and the Covid19 vaccinations and natural immunity. He’s irrelevant. He is just a cardiologist and way out of his area of expertise. A lackey of a certain previous President.

False because the pharmaceutical company who is profiteering from experimental jab said so?

No, false because they are false.

Again, MANY doctors with first hand evidence.

Who? Names please and evidence.