WOULD YOU VACCINATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH SPORTS

[supercoach]

There are still people who don’t believe compulsory wearing of seat belts even though the medical evidence is conclusive they think it’s their right not to use them.

So I am not surprised there are so many anti vax and anti mask people out there. The trouble is, they are only thinking about no1, and could not give a dam about anyone else

 

[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.

How anyone can trust the FDA and WHO is beyond me

Haha who do you trust then, if not FDA? WHO, maybe WHO could be politicised because they are a global body. But FDA only has remit in the United States.

What do you reckon, FDA are actively working against their own citizens? To what end?

OK but you aren't an American I don't think. Do you also not trust TGA, Centrelink, Department of Transport, Education or any other Aussie government institutions?

Do you take any medications of any kind? They've all been researched and approved by the same mechanisms as the COVID vaccines. Every single one.

 

[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

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.

The reason the data is poor is because FDA and WHO have deemed it illegal to treat covid with absolutely no basis whatsoever. If a Doctor uses this to treat covid, their license is revoked. Where then is the incentive for medical practitioners to follow through with a therapy that works?

 

[jirskyr]

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

How naive, to (a) think a vaccine thread won't have dissenters, and (b) to suggest there isn't consistent "chest pumping" or "know-it-alls" in every thread on this forum, perhaps even more so in the football threads.

 

[earl]

The reason the data is poor is because FDA and WHO have deemed it illegal to treat covid with absolutely no basis whatsoever. If a Doctor uses this to treat covid, their license is revoked. Where then is the incentive for medical practitioners to follow through with a therapy that works?

I have already stated the data is poor and why this is the case. My understanding is not the same as yours and I suggest your understanding is factually incorrect. Please refer to the document that I provided. Patients are being treated with it.

The results though with that data aren't good. They appear to be better than doing nothing but they don't have anywhere near the effectiveness of the vaccines.

 

[cochise]

Whats the point of getting vaccinated against covid then? Why not just let your immune system deal with it? Thats what our natural immune system is meant to do. Attack foreign material

So you'd be happy to get infected and test the theory?

I think most of us would prefer a stimulated immune response.

It amazes me that at 4.3 MILLION deaths already we're still debating whether protection is a good idea. Not to mention the many millions more with long COVID and who my never live a normal life again.

Ive had 20 of my relatives overseas contract covid and ALL 20 have recovered. Including 1 aunty who is a 75 year old diabetic and another aunty whi had no symptoms at all.

COVID is definitely real but it mass vaccinations are not the answer. Most of the hospitalisations in UK and Israel are from people who have already been vaccinated.

Im not here to change anyone's mind. But coercion to get vaccinated is absolutely criminal. Especially considering numerous doctors on the frontline were having fantastic results using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But do a google search on the drug and

You are asking for problems if your research is based on family, friends and google.

 

[earl]

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

How naive, to (a) think a vaccine thread won't have dissenters, and (b) to suggest there isn't consistent "chest pumping" or "know-it-alls" in every thread on this forum, perhaps even more so in the football threads.

Being ignorant is cool. Facts suck.

 

[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

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.

The reason the data is poor is because FDA and WHO have deemed it illegal to treat covid with absolutely no basis whatsoever. If a Doctor uses this to treat covid, their license is revoked. Where then is the incentive for medical practitioners to follow through with a therapy that works?

Called a clinical trial. Not illegal if you can get the study approved. That's how 100% of drug development works. Develop a protocol, submit it to the FDA and Ethics review board, get it approved. Conduct the study, do your analysis, submit your findings in a peer paper, prepare a dossier to the FDA and request approval to market.

Or in Australia, you don't need the FDA at all, and the TGA only get involved once you are finished. Develop a protocol, get Ethics Committee approval, develop a consent process for subjects, find some doctors and away you go. Totally legal if you can get it approved.

BUT you aren't allowed to treat patients off-label just because you feel like it.

Again, I do this for a living. No offence to anyone on here but I consider myself the forum's foremost expert on drug development, unless there is another in my profession lurking about.

 

[jirskyr]

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

How naive, to (a) think a vaccine thread won't have dissenters, and (b) to suggest there isn't consistent "chest pumping" or "know-it-alls" in every thread on this forum, perhaps even more so in the football threads.

Being ignorant is cool. Facts suck.

No it's just the commentary that they are avoiding threads with know-it-alls and chest-pumping. That's every thread on Tigers in 2021.

 

[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

Haha who do you trust then, if not FDA? WHO, maybe WHO could be politicised because they are a global body. But FDA only has remit in the United States.

What do you reckon, FDA are actively working against their own citizens? To what end?

OK but you aren't an American I don't think. Do you also not trust TGA, Centrelink, Department of Transport, Education or any other Aussie government institutions?

Do you take any medications of any kind? They've all been researched and approved by the same mechanisms as the COVID vaccines. Every single one.

Covid jab has not been fully approved! Its still in phase 3 trials.

Simply it all comes down to $. The c

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

Haha who do you trust then, if not FDA? WHO, maybe WHO could be politicised because they are a global body. But FDA only has remit in the United States.

What do you reckon, FDA are actively working against their own citizens? To what end?

OK but you aren't an American I don't think. Do you also not trust TGA, Centrelink, Department of Transport, Education or any other Aussie government institutions?

Do you take any medications of any kind? They've all been researched and approved by the same mechanisms as the COVID vaccines. Every single one.

Covid Jab has NOT been fully approved

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

Haha who do you trust then, if not FDA? WHO, maybe WHO could be politicised because they are a global body. But FDA only has remit in the United States.

What do you reckon, FDA are actively working against their own citizens? To what end?

OK but you aren't an American I don't think. Do you also not trust TGA, Centrelink, Department of Transport, Education or any other Aussie government institutions?

Do you take any medications of any kind? They've all been researched and approved by the same mechanisms as the COVID vaccines. Every single one.

Covid Jab has NOT even been fully approved. Its still in phase 3 trials.

It all comes down to dollars. The covid industry is worth Billions. Good profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA who consistently hire and find high paying jobs for congressmen and women after they leave congress?

 

[philgood]

Whats the point of getting vaccinated against covid then? Why not just let your immune system deal with it? Thats what our natural immune system is meant to do. Attack foreign material

So you'd be happy to get infected and test the theory?

I think most of us would prefer a stimulated immune response.

It amazes me that at 4.3 MILLION deaths already we're still debating whether protection is a good idea. Not to mention the many millions more with long COVID and who my never live a normal life again.

Ive had 20 of my relatives overseas contract covid and ALL 20 have recovered. Including 1 aunty who is a 75 year old diabetic and another aunty whi had no symptoms at all.

COVID is definitely real but it mass vaccinations are not the answer. Most of the hospitalisations in UK and Israel are from people who have already been vaccinated.

Im not here to change anyone's mind. But coercion to get vaccinated is absolutely criminal. Especially considering numerous doctors on the frontline were having fantastic results using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But do a google search on the drug and

You are asking for problems if your research is based on family, friends and google.

My research is based on health professionals and experts.

 

[jirskyr]

The reason the data is poor is because FDA and WHO have deemed it illegal to treat covid with absolutely no basis whatsoever. If a Doctor uses this to treat covid, their license is revoked. Where then is the incentive for medical practitioners to follow through with a therapy that works?

I have already stated the data is poor and why this is the case. My understanding is not the same as yours and I suggest your understanding is factually incorrect. Please refer to the document that I provided. Patients are being treated with it.

The results though with that data aren't good. They appear to be better than doing nothing but they don't have anywhere near the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Everyone could just read this. It explains the FDA's position:
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

And if I'm not mistaken, Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is proposed to be given to patients with COVID, not as prophylaxis. So it doesn't prevent hospitalisations or curtail infections, it's only proposed as a treatment when you are seriously ill. Doesn't do the job that vaccines do, to keep people out of hospital in the first place.

If you could imagine 50 thousand cases per day, 10% ending up in hospital and all of them clamouring for Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). In worse-off countries they can't even keep up with standard things like saline and oxygen for the hospitalisations.

 

[earl]

Called a clinical trial. Not illegal if you can get the study approved. That’s how 100% of drug development works.

The thing with Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is that they are using it right now on sick patients because it's an option to possible help. It's a cheap drug that is already produced so I doubt anyone will fund the clinical trial.

I'm 100% confident drug development isn't perfect but I'm also 100% confident that Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is no miracle cure. The available data is not very compelling.

 

[voice_of_reason]

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!

Apologies if I'm one of the arrogant, know it alls. I'm happy to see myself out.

I like to think I take a reasoned tone in discussions here but prefer to see vehement statements backed by scientific facts rather than discredited, fraudulent conspiracists.

 

[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

How naive, to (a) think a vaccine thread won't have dissenters, and (b) to suggest there isn't consistent "chest pumping" or "know-it-alls" in every thread on this forum, perhaps even more so in the football threads.

There is already a coronavirus thread which is out of control , now we have another which started out more of a general yes / no thread to the OP original question.
But carry on …

 

[Pascoes_barber]

Called a clinical trial. Not illegal if you can get the study approved. That’s how 100% of drug development works.

The thing with Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is that they are using it right now on sick patients because it's an option to possible help. It's a cheap drug that is already produced so I doubt anyone will fund the clinical trial.

I'm 100% confident drug development isn't perfect but I'm also 100% confident that Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is no miracle cure. The available data is not very compelling.

If nothing else, at least the patients will be tick, worm and lice free for the undertaker.

 

[philgood]

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.

Lets start with

Americas Frontline doctors
Dr Robert mason
Dr Tess Lawrie
Dr Samuel White (UK)
Dr geert vanden bossch

 

[Guest]

Appreciate the vigorous discussion here guys and gals - it's obvious however that there are two points of view to this scenario - those who have been/are/believe in the vaccination, and those who don't.

Don't waste energy trying to convince one or the other who is right - it's an argument that will continue in circles. All I will say to those who don't believe in getting vaccinated - I hope you don't contract COVID, I know of more than one person who either didn't believe in COVID or the vaccination, only to contract COVID. Their tune has since changed.

 

[philgood]

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!

Apologies if I'm one of the arrogant, know it alls. I'm happy to see myself out.

I like to think I take a reasoned tone in discussions here but prefer to see vehement statements backed by scientific facts rather than discredited, fraudulent conspiracists.

Is Dr Robert Mason, inventor of mRNA technology a discredited fraudulent conspirator?

 

[jirskyr]

Covid Jab has NOT even been fully approved. Its still in phase 3 trials.

It all comes down to dollars. The covid industry is worth Billions. Good profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA who consistently hire and find high paying jobs for congressmen and women after they leave congress?

No actually Pfizer completed their primary Phase 3:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

What they are doing is collecting more data for another 2 years. I am going to guess you don't have expertise in how clinical trials are designed, so I can tell you that no matter the planned duration of a study, you can analyse the data at any predetermined time. It's very common for studies to have primary endpoints at a specific timepoint (say 6 or 12 months) then later analyses at another timepoint (say 24 months). This is not to say the data at the primary endpoint is unfinished or invalid - it's a planned analysis.

For example, if I did a study on seatbelt fatalities, I might decide to collect data on 1000 crashes and present my findings. I can also keep going for another 1000 crashes and present that data as well, but it doesn't remove the validity of my analysis of the first 1000 crashes.

And if not the FDA, what about the TGA then? FDA has 0% jurisdiction in Australia. They just have a lot of funding and a large population to govern. But TGA is solely responsible for Australia. You have issues with the TGA? What about the PMDA in Japan? Or the EMA in Europe? Do you have specific issue with the MFDS in Korea? The MHRA in Britain? They all approved COVID vaccines.