Big Up Big Pharma 2.0

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large

Fantastic news, it seems as well as giving away their medication for free Pfizer are now sharing their data for free. This is a wonderful step towards transparency during these confusing times. I haven’t looked at any of the documents but I’ll definitely do so and hope to be enlightened by reading about the science. 
 

https://phmpt.org/

19
 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Bit late for the first cuckoo of spring, like?

You know what's really suspect about this website?  It claims to be all about transparency.  Here are some of the things it does not tell you, making it almost completely opaque rather than transparent:

  • Who paid for it's design
  • Who pays for it's hosting
  • What kind of organisation they (the "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency 2022"), including (non-exhaustive)
    • The name(s) of the individual(s) with leadership in the organisation 
    • Their charitable or corporate status (if any)
    • The country in which they are registered (if at all)
    • The source(s) of their funding

Got to love these barely verified sign-up lists; this was a new one on me.  Presumably a distant relative of the Janus family.

  • Hugh Garse, MD

Are you going to apply the same standards of transparency to the websites from which you determine your views?  It would be a good first step.  This one sets basically all the alarm bells ringing.

Post edited at 17:41
7
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Regardless of who put it up or what their motives are, I’m sure you’d be able to verify if the documents are ‘real’ or not then decide to read it based upon that? To my mind if the documents are what they are then public availability is a positive thing and gives the opportunity for independent analysis by scientists such as yourself. 

12
In reply to wintertree:

For the sake of balance a website debunking claims made about the documents / false interpretations etc 

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/do-the-recent-80k-pages-of-pfizer-do...

12
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

How do you think that provides “balance” and what is it you think it provides “balance” against? It doesn’t seem to relate to anything said on this thread.

1
In reply to Stuart Williams:

Balance in the sense that interpretations and challenges to interpretations are available. Maybe balance was the wrong word for my attempt to move away from Wintertree’s post and back towards the, in my view,  positive step of these documents being made publicly available 

9
 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> Hugh Garse, MD

Oh, I missed this one:

  • Hugh Recshun, MD, PhD

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

>  Maybe balance was the wrong word for my attempt to move away from Wintertree’s post

In today’s lingo, I believe you’re drawing a line under my post.

1
In reply to wintertree:

Exactly your post was a straw-man argument

11

OK cheers. 

 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Exactly your post was a straw-man argument

No, it wasn’t.  I made concrete points.  One was puerile but that was a direct consequence of content on your link being puerile.

I pointed out the website you linked is based around demanding transparency, whilst itself being totally opaque.  I’m pointing out hypocrisy.  Hard fact, no strawman.

I gave the examples of “Huge Anus” MD and now “Huge Erection” PhD MD to make the point that their list of signatories is clearly an unverified joke.  I’m showing that the hypocritical content you linked is also not trustworthy.

These accusations of hypocrisy and a lack of trust/authenticity are not straw men.  They are real, concrete criticisms with hard evidence behind them.

Can you show me how I am wrong, for example by showing me the bit I missed giving transparency in to who the people behind this are, or by showing me that Hugh Recshun PhD MD is a real person?  Of course you can’t; not through any fault of your own but because the website is a crock of shit.  If you can’t rebut my concrete points, you must accept them and in my view you do so with your failure to rebut.

I don’t know what your concern is, or how you think an FOIA request / reply hosted on a highly opaque website addresses that concern.  The whole thing smacks of a conspiratorial rabbit hole making no meaningful contribution to anything.

5 points to whoever spots and posts the next best comedic signup after Dr Garse and Dr Dr Recshun.

1
In reply to wintertree:

If it’s ok Wintertree I’d rather leave it. Thanks 

11
 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

So you’re unable to rebut my points that:

  • The website you link is fundamentally hypocritical in demanding transparency whilst being totally opaque about its owners and funders
  • The website you link presents a list of signatories that is so poorly verified it’s a literal joke
  • You are unwilling or unable to state what matter is even up for discussion.

That’s all fine.  I’m willing to accept your capitulations through refusal to explain.  

I think you’re probably a person formerly present here as “TradDad” and as I sent to them through a somewhat private communication, I’m worried that you get dragged in to unhealthy rabbit holes through conspiratorial nonsense from agenda wielding manipulators.  My best advice is to forget it and move on to more interesting philosophical questions.

1
In reply to wintertree:

I don’t agree with you wintertree and my point was that regardless of the place the documents are held and who’s bothered to do it - it could be published by Mike Hunt MD of rabbit hole hospital in the far away land of right wing anti everything murky hell - I’d still consider it a positive thing if the hosted documents are authentic. I’d rather leave it as I’m not emotionally equipped to converse with you without losing my shit at some point. 

13
 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> I don’t agree with you wintertree 

My points are that

  1. The website is hypocritical
  2. The website is untrustworthy

You seem utterly unwilling or unable to evidence the basis for your disagreement.   If you can’t evidence my points, particularly (2), why should I or anyone else give a flying fudge about content hosted by the hypocritical and untrustworthy website?

You make claims about the documents the website holds, but I have made a hard case that the website is not trustworthy.  Unless you can counter my case for a lack of trust, why should you, me or anybody else trust the content on it?

You have presented me with a strongly hypocritical website whose front page has content that is clearly devoid in trust. Why should I believe a single word beyond the hypocritical and untrustworthy front page?

You posted this.  You apparently want people to draw some sort of conclusion from this.  The only conclusions I can draw is that

  1. You are not willing to exercise any sort of ability to discriminate garbage from gold
  2. This website is not a trustworthy resource

Can you offer me any assurance that the documents presented by this hypocritical and untrustworthy website are authentic?  If you could do so, you would have done so instead of falsely accusing me of a strawman argument.

Fun fact: “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary.

 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> Hugh Garse, MD

Turns out there were people called Hugh Garse born in 1877, 1915 and 1940

https://www.ancestry.com/1940-census/usa/New-York/Hugh-Garse_30ywf/amp

Not yet found any trace of a real person called Hugh Reschun…

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> if the hosted documents are authentic

if...

1
 MeMeMe 07 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

This is great, I just signed up to the website under my pseudonym, Edwin Penderghast, MD, PhD, SPA. 

In reply to wintertree:

The question of authenticity of the documents is central, I agree. How do we go about proving they are authentic? I believe Pfizer were ordered to release these documents and they have been published online. How would I go about demonstrating authenticity to a level which is acceptable to you? Maybe we could both look? 

4
In reply to MeMeMe:

Info wars, I suggest resorting to first person empiricism, a lunatic is a minority of one etc 

7
 wintertree 07 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> How would I go about demonstrating authenticity to a level which is acceptable to you?

Do you know the word “credible”?  The website you liked is not, IMO, in any way credible.

Look for a credible resource that hosts the documents.  Key indicators of credibility are things like publishing the legal identity of the individual, charity or company behind the resource, not having signatories like “Hugh Reschun”, “Hugh Garse” etc, and perhaps even having some sort of history to the resource that pre-dates the covid bad actors.

In reply to wintertree:

Yes I know the word credible, hey this is a great time to be talking about this stuff, covid appears to be over, at least I can't find anything in the headlines of the BBC webpage about it, so I hope we can relax and explore this stuff without attacking each other. 

11
 off-duty 08 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Regardless of who put it up or what their motives are, I’m sure you’d be able to verify if the documents are ‘real’ or not then decide to read it based upon that? To my mind if the documents are what they are then public availability is a positive thing and gives the opportunity for independent analysis by scientists such as yourself. 

I can't work out if you (and the website) is sealioning, just displaying false sincerity, or out and out f@@kwittery.

It's entirely unsurprising that the impact of posting relatively raw data (verified or not) for review by the ill informed is to generate anti-scientific nonsense.

It lends itself to pseudo scientific cherry picking to support a negative anti-vax commentary, because those with the time an inclination to reproduce and misinterpret it are the grifters and charlatans making money out anti-vax nonsense.

Scientists (and the majority of the well informed) don't have the time or the incentive to spend unpaid free time explaining the documentation (usually from first principles to make them comprehensible by the non expert). They've got day jobs, not Patreons, Crowdfunders or other grift dependent on feeding the gullible to earn money.

 Paul Baxter 08 Jun 2022
In reply to wintertree:

Pat U. Down MD?
Joe King PhD (could possibly be real...)?

 wintertree 08 Jun 2022
In reply to Paul Baxter:

Good ones.  I’m going to assume a real person would put themselves down as Joseph King MD…

Mine were:

Tom Jefferson, MD MRCGP FFPHM.
Carl Heneghan, DPhil

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Yes I know the word credible,

Then you might restrict yourself to credible sources, and not make the unsupportable leap that content hosted by a site clearly lacking in credibility has any trustworthiness of its own.

> hey this is a great time to be talking about this stuff, covid appears to be over, at least I can't find anything in the headlines of the BBC webpage about it, so I hope we can relax and explore this stuff without attacking each other. 

I'm still not sure what you're exploring; pointing at a giant dump of data from a massive R&D program is a bit like sticking your head in a fast flowing river.  What do you actually want to explore?  Can you tell me or are you just gishing around some general conspirational noise?

As for Covid being over, far from it and it's been in the news often enough.  I expect that you know as well as I that it's never going to be "over", it's becoming more and more like oen of many other viral nuisances in our lives, and could well be back up in to the top 10 news items at times this coming winter.

Post edited at 09:16
In reply to wintertree:

The point I was exploring is that the publishing of the Pfizer data was a positive step for everyone, yes it's open to interpretations from nefarious bad actors just as it's now open to those who have the will and ability to conduct an independent analysis. With regards the platform on which it's hosted, I understand your point and agree with you, it would be great if it was published somewhere that everyone could have reasonable faith in its authenticity. Now seems to me a good time to talk about it as Covid is less apparent in the news and less visible publicly meaning emotions may have cooled somewhat reducing the chances of the personalising and shit flinging from days of yore. 

7
 wintertree 08 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

What are you looking for in the data?  What do you expect it to tell us?  What importance does any of this have to anyone?  Why were you prepared to trust the content on a hypocritical and untrustworthy website?  

> Now seems to me a good time to talk about it 

To talk about what?  To talk about how we have persistent bad actors hiding behind anonymity and trash grade signatory lists to push vague, anti vaccine agendas just as we’ve seen for the last two years?

What so you want to talk about? Spell it out in simple words.

I’ll leave it there Wintertree, I don’t have a point beyond the one stated and don’t have the will or resilience to get involved with a discussion with you. I don’t disagree with any of your points yet remain comfortably agnostic in a world of polarised certainties driven by The Science and the Anti-Science. 

16
cb294 08 Jun 2022
In reply to wintertree:

What would be the point of looking at ancient trial data, now that we have orders of magnitude more data from the actual use of the vaccines? AFAIK, the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine has been used in > 1 billion people by now, and ist efficacy towards various endpoints has been well documented and compared with other vaccines.

Indeed, there are new and interesting things coming up every day (at least new for me), e.g. omicron based boosters or breakthrough infection being predicted to be possibly less useful than hoped for because of "antigenic original sin" in people vaccinated with an alpha derived vaccine .

This thread and the website linked to above are transparent attempts to sow FUD, even though I do not get the point what that may be good for.

As for someone claiming "covid being over", for me it is a perfect signal that I can stop (or not even start) discussing with such posters right there.

Anyways, a couple of weeks ago I decided that I would participate in larger sports events again, and promptly got a breakthrough infection (presumably BA1/2, there is not much else going round) despite being triple vaccinated.

The respiratory infection itself was not too bad, pretty much cleared up over 24h, but it was interesting to experience in person just how Sars-CoV2 messes with the immune system. My first symptoms were fatigue and all round muscle soreness (expected as I had overtrained quite a bit throughout the week), but then I got massive inflammation in all my previously damaged joints, with my knee ballooning real bad. All OK again after eating fistfuls of Diclofenac, but that was decidely weird!

In reply to Paul Baxter:

When I was at school, I had a Chemistry master who really was a Joe King. He was a serious man.

 Offwidth 08 Jun 2022
In reply to John Stainforth:

My GP as a child was called Paine and Mike Hunt is a well known Peak District climber.

Back on the sub-topic quite a few fully vaccinated people I know had a rough ride when infected with Omicron with incredibly varied symptoms (some very much like cb above)  but none ended up seriously ill in hospital. Yet the NHS remains in more trouble than in it's entire history and covid impact (infection control, sickness absence etc) isn't helping that.

I do have one supporting point for the OP.... it's an international scandal in my view that way too much publicly funded research isn't publicly accessible without payment. I'm not so frightened of genuine information dumps as I would rather we focus on dealing with those generating misinformation directly (as many fact checkers have done during covid, belatedly supported by social media companies). That linked web site sure does smell of rotten intent.

 off-duty 08 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> I’ll leave it there Wintertree, I don’t have a point beyond the one stated and don’t have the will or resilience to get involved with a discussion with you. I don’t disagree with any of your points yet remain comfortably agnostic in a world of polarised certainties driven by The Science and the Anti-Science. 

Only you're not agnostic are you?

The position from which any FOIA request comes is - "I do not trust the science/pharma and I want to Do mY oWn ResEArch.... " 

In reply to Offwidth:

I’m sure there is a Dr Death knocking around Barnsley way, pronounced Dee - ath. 
 

Yes the NHS is sure under a lot of pressure, perhaps represented by the current excess mortality. I wonder what outpatients clinics are like in areas such as Rheumatology, Neurology, Cardiology, Oncology etc 

Re - Agnosticism, that’s a matter of opinion, I don’t believe in almighty sentient God but I do believe - ish in some sort of fundamental truth and consciousness. I’ll call it Gaia 

8
 adi bryant 08 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Fantastic news, it seems as well as giving away their medication for free Pfizer are now sharing their data for free. This is a wonderful step towards transparency during these confusing times. I haven’t looked at any of the documents but I’ll definitely do so and hope to be enlightened by reading about the science. 

>  

Big Up Big Pharma says it all really..

Are you real? Are you a stooge? No profile, no recorded climbs, very recently added 'profile' to this site. I thought this site was for climbers mesen.. 

Fantastic news? Hope to be enlightened by reading about 'the science' ?

Summat stinks to me..

I hope this site can continue to discuss the various merits of the worldwide drug program initiated by pharmaceutical companies that have been taken to court a number of times in the past (and lost) for putting profits above the lives of real people, specifically with regards to vaccination programs. You'll definitely be able to prove me wrong as I'm not very good at science anyway, (can't even be arsed to give it a capital these days), taught it for 20 years in schools and only got an E at A level Biology. Fortunately though, I've known a fellow conspiracy theorist!, anti vaxxer! for 30 years and seen him go from an acid dropping, uneducated taxi driver to a Cambridge PhD, patent holding nanobiotechnological epidemiologist who is currently working on a covid 19 tester. He knows his shit. Better than me.. Or you. I'm going to trust him, not them. When I'm told to follow the science I laugh. Even my bottom set Year 9 illiterate pupils could tell you it has to be questioned, not followed to be enlightened. Fauci - a proven experimental killer of many, Big Pharma - changed the legal definition of vaccine to sell very profitable, potentially very harmful drugs, that can help with symptoms but that don't help with transmission . Says it all really. They wouldn't manupulate the research or the results would they? 

So fire away whoever you are and whatever you represent. .  I don't blooming care. I've seen how this site can turn to poison about the most innocuous and seemingly helpful of subjects. I won't be here, I'll be too busy finding websites to make money from my theories of madness, hoping to avoid the weaponised man made killer that is the vacc---..  sorry, virus.

That or just climbing. 

3
 off-duty 08 Jun 2022
In reply to adi bryant:

Lol. The best thing about that post is that your superb self taught critical thinking skills led you to believe the OP was pro-pharma and pro -vax.

You gave me a laugh anyway.

1
 wintertree 08 Jun 2022
In reply to cb294:

> What would be the point of looking at ancient trial data, now that we have orders of magnitude more data from the actual use of the vaccines?

Well, quite.  We have another poster gish galloping around FOIA stuff and the vaccines with some ill defined theory endowed with conspiratorial overtones.  Meanwhile the scale of deployment and associated follow ups is mind blowing but apparently escapes their attention.  

> The respiratory infection itself was not too bad, pretty much cleared up over 24h, but it was interesting to experience in person just how Sars-CoV2 messes with the immune system.

Be interesting to hear if you have some of those experiences again should you become ill half a year from now.  A stomach bug and then a cold have me feeling close to the low I was in for the two months after my infection circa Jan 2022.   As with then, warm moist air makes everything better so long as I stay in it.

Post edited at 14:37

BigUP to this BigPharma exec. Dude couldn’t take his own medicine 😂. Larf, I nearly cried 

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/thousand-of-spaniards-named-...

 ben b 09 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> I wonder what outpatients clinics are like in areas such as Rheumatology, Neurology, Cardiology, Oncology etc 

A long way behind where everyone would like them to be, for many reasons (the biggest acute one being covid, on top of decades of underinvestment across all levels). 

b

 off-duty 10 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> BigUP to this BigPharma exec. Dude couldn’t take his own medicine 😂. Larf, I nearly cried 

You did read that his company had nothing to do with the third COVID vaccination which he avoided, and the fact that the article also actually states he took his companies anti-covid drug when he had Covid ?

I kind of get the point you are trying to make "Covid drug manufacturer pays for fake COVID vaccine pass" - but if that summary is any reflection of your critical thinking ability, I really do despair.

In reply to off-duty:

Don’t worry I wouldn’t dare make an attempt at critical thinking. I prefer the chaos of it all anyway, the un-knowing 

 off-duty 10 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Don’t worry I wouldn’t dare make an attempt at critical thinking. I prefer the chaos of it all anyway, the un-knowing 

Funny how you get all shy and retiring and become all "chaos" and "agnostic" and 'free thinking' when anyone actually probes the drivel that you post.

It's like listening to a pretentious first year undergraduate who was able to get away with appearing profound to an echo chamber of school kids but suddenly gets introduced to the grown ups.

1
In reply to off-duty:

Haha Christ almighty. An article about a BigPharma exec along with thousands of others caught in a gargantuan act of hypocrisy seemed relevant to BigUP big pharma. I’m disgusted by their deceptions, they should have manned up and just said no thanks pal. 

Post edited at 19:08
1
In reply to off-duty:

Crikey, looking at your posting history I think I’ll duck out of further conversation. Talking about de facto limited hangouts and self appointed guards of the digital gulag. Speak and ye shall appear 😂

10
 john arran 10 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

>  I think I’ll duck out of further conversation. 

You know it makes sense.

 off-duty 10 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Haha Christ almighty. An article about a BigPharma exec along with thousands of others caught in a gargantuan act of hypocrisy seemed relevant to BigUP big pharma. I’m disgusted by their deceptions, they should have manned up and just said no thanks pal. 

"I'll make another post saying something different to my previous post because that was so abjectly dumb that when it got challenged I couldn't really say anything. That way I can pretend I meant to say something different the first time. Maybe no-one will notice."

 off-duty 10 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Crikey, looking at your posting history I think I’ll duck out of further conversation. Talking about de facto limited hangouts and self appointed guards of the digital gulag. Speak and ye shall appear 😂

Lol. At least I have a posting history. 

Still I guess if you can't actually engage in a discussion why not throw around a few character aspersions and add a smiley face to try and pretend you aren't totally out of your depth. 

In reply to john arran:

Agreed! Back to the climbing conversation 👍🏻

In reply to off-duty:

> Lol. At least I have a posting history. 

And you think s_d doesn't...?

In reply to captain paranoia:

No reply? He's on duty atm.... or is that off duty... 

6
 Andy Hardy 10 Jun 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> And you think s_d doesn't...?

Not one he's entirely happy with, no. Maybe he'll get lucky this time?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

As I like to say - happiness is represented by the absence of looking for it, and as Machiavelli said - life is a mixture of luck and courage, the more courage you have, the less luck you need. 

10
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Can someone please explain how on earth that got three down votes already? Lolz etc 

6
 Andy Hardy 10 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Can someone please explain how on earth that got three down votes already? Lolz etc 

1. I didn't downvote your comment.

2. But it belongs in pseuds corner

Hope that helps.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Thanks!

Pseuds corner would contain pretentious, fake, disingenuous verbiage. I’ll hold my hand up to talking shite and straying into that at times..... but what I said above about happiness and courage, that wasn’t that.   

6

It seems the hypocrisy knows no bounds, clearly not FaCT checked. You know the rules 

https://palexander.substack.com/p/hospital-ceos-and-senior-doctors?s=r

5
 off-duty 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

If you want to post anti-vax grift, do you think you could signpost it as anti-vax grift?

But, yes, I too think we should give reasonable consideration to a post making a bunch of un-evidenced claims of anonymous health care professionals approaching the author.

And the amount of consideration I consider reasonable for anonymous unevidenced claims on a grifters website is the square root of f-all.

You can't even pretend to be a critical thinker after posting that.

 wintertree 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Well, that page you linked is one of the most incoherent collection of words I've read in some years.  

How tragic that some people - such as the author of the page you link - are apparently getting drawn so far down a malign rabbit hole that they're destroying their own mental state/ability to the point they basically vomit nonsense like that out of their brains and on to the internet.

In reply to off-duty:

Maybe you misinterpreted - the point is the hypocrisy of these people. The covid vaccine debate is in the wind, everyone who wants one has had one, now it’s just wait and see. What’s left is the political absurdity and corporate corruption, that is what I’m trying to highlight 

6
In reply to wintertree:

Exactly! 

4
 MG 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Maybe you misinterpreted - the point is the hypocrisy of these people. The covid vaccine debate is in the wind,

What does "in the wind" mean?

>everyone who wants one has had one, now it’s just wait and see

Wait and see for what?

 Petrafied 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Am I correct in thinking that this is the Dr Paul Alexander who wrote the article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._AlexanderPaul 

Not sure why you have such a downer on fact checking, but can't help think it would help your case (always assuming you can find fact that help your case, because that blog post seems not to have any).

Post edited at 18:00
In reply to MG:

By in the wind I meant moot point - everyone who wants them has had them, so regardless of opinion the end result is the same.

Wait and see if the efficacy holds up. 

 wintertree 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Wait and see if the efficacy holds up. 

There is no such thing as "the efficacy".

If I recall your previous identity correctly, there was much confusion over this.  Deliberate conflation of different kinds of efficacy - and what they mean in terms of how things play out - has been a hallmark of the bad actors throughout this crisis.

In reply to wintertree:

What I meant was current efficacy against serious illness and death may reduce with time. I think one of the other posters mentioned original antigenic sin (not sure I fully understand what they were alluding to), is this a possible problem on the horizon? 
 

Beyond all that, the corporate and political shenanigans is what interests me 

I can’t remember ever talking about efficacy previously and was blocked from posting for losing my temper. Which wasn’t a great look for me 👍🏻

7
cb294 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> .... I think one of the other posters mentioned original antigenic sin (not sure I fully understand what they were alluding to), is this a possible problem on the horizon? 

See, this is the difference between you and me commenting on a covid thread: I read about this concept, which was at the time new to me, in Science (the journal), but can immediately recognize its implications for immunity following breakthrough infection with omicron or an omicron optimized booster shot.

I still have no answer to my question from the beginning of the thread: What in the world do you hope to glean from the release of trial data, which by necessity was done over the shortest possible time and with only a few tens of thousands of probands, even if you could actually make sense of the technical details?

As I said, there is a much better chance to pick up anything interesting from studies on the actual deployment of the vaccines, which involves orders of magnitude more probands studied over much longer follow up periods and with much higher exposure to virus.

The only reason I can come up is deliberately spreading FUD, but again, cui bono?

CB

1
In reply to cb294:

There's certainly been a lot of FUD pumped out in the last 2 years, I know people who still haven't left their houses, seen their grandchildren or won't walk along a breezy seafront on a sunny day without full covid combat gear. I remember the covid mouth advert with the gun pointing out and the roped off clothes and books in supermarkets, the closed libraries, schools and nurseries, people trapped in homes of abuse, slowly going insane. Playgrounds and park benches closed and countryside parking spaces cordoned off and patrolled by police. People shamed, terrified, abusing each other, abusing themselves, relentless virtue signalling and name calling and relentless attacks in the media. Threats of mandates, job loss, covid passes, one way systems, spots to stand on and the covering of children's faces out of fear of infection in adults. Businesses closed, peoples lives ruined and the laptop class sat at home disgusted with these 'anti-vaxxers' and 'covid deniers'. Innocent people brutalised by police and private security on a huge scale in the UK, France, Australia, Germany. A corrupt and complicit public health system and corporate capture of media, censorship on a scale unimaginable. A virus cooked up in a lab with GOF experiments, by American, British and Chinese scientists, the site specific pathogen having devastating results on the neuro-vascular and immune systems, evidence hidden, lies upon lies. There's the forking FUD.

Then all of a sudden - nothing. No reporting of the ongoing crisis in health care, the continued 10-20% excess weekly mortality or the fact that the steady trickle of covid deaths in a highly vaccinated population since last October is creeping along at a rate beginning to exceed that of the first 'wave' of mass discharge of the elderly into nursing homes. The government turning a blind eye to those whose lives have been irreversible changed through vaccine injury and long covid, Dr's too afraid to be open while whispering behind closed doors. 

https://twitter.com/SusanMichie/status/1532604040575606785?cxt=HHwWgoCzvafQ...

15
 wintertree 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

You’re coming across as a total fool.

You cite the negative impacts of covid control measures.  Sure; nobody denies those but it’s evident beyond argument that the alternative world where the UK didn’t take control measures would have been immeasurably worse.

To deny that is to deny a vast corpus of scientific evidence and a separate vast corpus of lived experienced from nations that failed to moderate the pre-vaccination spread of covid ; absolute horrific scenes played out in several nations despite their order-of-magnitude lower demographic risk.

> Then all of a sudden - nothing. No reporting of […]

Simply not true.  Covid was in the top 5 stories on the BBC this week.  You’re living in cloud cuckoo land. There’s plenty of reporting on covid -variants, rising prevalence, boosters, the coming impact of winter etc.  I’ve read stories on all of those subjects in the past week.

> The government turning a blind eye to those whose lives have been irreversible changed through vaccine injury 

Evidence?

In reply to wintertree:

I don’t mind coming across as a fool. What sort of evidence is suitable for you Wintertree? 

9
 wintertree 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> What sort of evidence is suitable for you Wintertree? 

You said: “The government turning a blind eye to those whose lives have been irreversible changed through vaccine injury”

You provided no evidence for this.

It is clear to me that some people have been harmed by vaccines; that has never been in doubt.  It’s also clear that literally hundreds of thousands of times more people (at least) have had harm averted by vaccines.  It is clear to me because various governments strive hard to collect evidence on side effects of vaccines - anything but turning a blind eye, and because those collected side effects are thousands of times lower than the highly evidenced risks from the virus 

You’ve just shot your gob off that the government is “turning a blind it” to those harmed by vaccines.  It’s not a question of what evidence I require, it’s a matter of fact that you’ve claimed this whilst providing no evidence.  You’re running your gob off without any substantiation.

What are the evidenced grounds for your statement?  Don’t try and make this about me by making it about what “is suitable” for me.  It’s about you running your mouth off without evidence.  You show all of us what the basis for your comment is.

Post edited at 23:11
 Ridge 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Talking about de facto limited hangouts and self appointed guards of the digital gulag.

is that a quote from Russel Brand?

In reply to wintertree:

I understand you’re passionate about this subject Wintertree, ease up on the aggression fellah, it’s not personal and it’s also retrospective, what I say influences nothing, so whatever your investment is I’d be tempted to depersonalise it a wee bit. 

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/uk-cv-family-a-letter-to-my-mp-v2-exclusive-...

youtube.com/watch?v=IMQxOLVBCpc&

14
In reply to Ridge:

No, that one is mine. 

> You cite the negative impacts of covid control measures.  Sure; nobody denies those but it’s evident beyond argument that the alternative world where the UK didn’t take control measures would have been immeasurably 

Where’s your evidence? 

6
 birdie num num 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

I wish Pfizer did a loyalty card. I'm one of their best customers 

1
 wintertree 11 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> ease up on the aggression fellah, it’s not personal  

1. Asking you to substantiate your claims is not aggressive
2. Pointing out where you are basically lying (claiming no reporting when the subject is currently in the BBC news) top 10 is not aggressive
3.  This is not personal re: you; I’ve been very consistent for 2.5 years regardless of whom I reply too

> and it’s also retrospective, what I say influences nothing, so whatever your investment is I’d be tempted to depersonalise it a wee bit.

At this point I don’t even know what you mean.  You ran your gob off without evidence to back it up.  Nothing personal in me saying that; I’ve been blunter with others…

A 52 minute video that within its first minute makes unsubstantiated claims based on assuming that people filing claims are doing so from a factual position.  You could be forgiven for thinking the person talking is a barrister trying to drum up business…

GB News?  Srsly?

 Andy Hardy 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

You've let the mask slip somewhat. Do you see yourself back here in a couple of months time spouting the same shite under yet another new name? 

 wintertree 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

>> You cite the negative impacts of covid control measures.  Sure; nobody denies those but it’s evident beyond argument that the alternative world where the UK didn’t take control measures would have been immeasurably 

> Where’s your evidence? 

Everywhere.  In decent IFR studies from dozens of nations with serological data, in the data on the early spread in hundreds of nations, in the history of events in nations like India and Brazil where they failed to control the spread, from history books of previous events with similar IFRs.  

For all your window dressing, you’re just another person dragged down the rabbit hole of outright denying the implications of this virus in spring 2020.

Twit. Verbose, transparent twit.

Post edited at 00:03
 mondite 12 Jun 2022
In reply to birdie num num:

> I wish Pfizer did a loyalty card. I'm one of their best customers 

Not the Sacklers?

 mondite 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Where’s your evidence? 

I am sure they can find some random youtube video or possibly a WEBSITE complete with ranDOM capIalISaTIon possibly with some gReen highlighting as well.

In reply to wintertree:

> you’re just another person dragged down the rabbit hole 

Seems to have gone down an entire warren of rabbit holes on various, shall we say, 'esoteric' subjects.

In reply to wintertree:

Yup. The thing about reality-disconnected anti vaxx zealots is that in their own eyes they are the reasonable ones, possessed of remarkable insight and clarity of thinking, and it’s the rest of the world who are deluded saps. 
 

It’s now sadly clear that we’re doomed to live in an online Groundhog Day, forever having to reiterate the overwhelming tsunami of evidence that lockdown stopped the catastrophic overwhelming of Britain’s health service with all that would have led to, to prevent the malevolent fiction that it was all unnecessary being allowed to spread uncontested.

It’s funny that “doing their own research” never seems to stretch to looking at a comparison of excess deaths by country, and cross referencing with public health measures by country, then extrapolating the performance of those nations that took limited steps to reduce transmission into a country with the age structure and multi morbidity that the U.K. has. 
 

Or even just looking back at the news reports in feb/March 2020 from northern Italy, Madrid and New York, and cross referencing with the NHS hospital bed occupancy numbers over the course of March that year. 
 

wouldn’t take them long, less time than sitting through one of the you tube links they post. And anyone not already so far down the rabbit hole that the occupants have started to have  Australian accents would very quickly be left under no illusion that we dodged not a bullet, but a nuclear armed cruise missile. 
 

the most dispiriting thing about the whole episode is that this should be being celebrated as one of humanity’s finest hours; within just over 2 years of a pandemic emerging we have developed several highly safe and effective vaccines and administered them to over 5 billion people. Over 10 million have died, tragically- but millions more would be dead were it not for this astounding success of science, medicine, and logistics. Add to that the multiple new treatments, both novel and repurposed, evaluated with unprecedented efficiency, with the U.K. taking a leading role.

instead, our leaders make up lies about the process to score cheap points against their Brexit adversaries across the channel, and the internet becomes a breeding ground for the misinformed and the malicious to eat away at the fabric that got us through it. 
 

so thanks again Wintertree, though it’s a shame your efforts are needed. 

 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> I understand you’re passionate about this subject Wintertree, ease up on the aggression fellah, it’s not personal and it’s also retrospective, what I say influences nothing, so whatever your investment is I’d be tempted to depersonalise it a wee bit. 

Let me be blunt. You are not a scientist. You have no background  in virology or immunology. 

You are a self proclaimed critical thinker who purports to be able to critically think about the evidence and data out there and come to your own conclusions. You do not have the basic intellectual capacity to do that. Sorry. There's a reason people study this sh1t. And yes, I have, to degree+ level.

To be honest, to address the drivel you are posting would require such a back to basic review of biological science from a GCSE level onwards that it really isn't worthwhile.

You are a f@&king idiot, who is propagating a harmful anti-vax ideology.  That is coupled with some sort of pretentious verbose pseuds posting. Point of fact - give a better reference to that Machiavelli quote you made, one I've certainly never heard before, certainly not attributed to Machiavelli.

Sometimes when everyone thinks you are an idiot it's worth taking some time to really reflect on your view. I have no doubt you won't do that.

Post edited at 00:58
In reply to Andy Hardy:

No definitely not. I’m here to stay. Mainly to discuss and share weird ideas about life and climbing. I stand by my view that covid measures were abusive and wrong and should never be repeated. 

11
In reply to off-duty:

On-duty? 

1
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> No definitely not. I’m here to stay. Mainly to discuss and share weird ideas about life and climbing. I stand by my view that covid measures were abusive and wrong and should never be repeated. 

I think it's reasonable to discuss the extent and timing of some of the measures taken - although it's easy to judge harshly based on hindsight.  Hey, it's even reasonable to discuss the enforcement of those measures both at the time and retrospectively as we have, at length, on this site.

It is however just stupid to say " the COVID measures were abusive and wrong" without being extremely clear about what you mean and also explaining your alternative suggestions for how to control the spread of a lethal virus whose transmission was poorly understood, without imposing some form of lockdown measures to limit person to person contact.

Given that you also appear to be anti-vax I'm fascinated* to hear what your solution to COVID would have been.

​​​​​​*Not really.

 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> On-duty? 

I'm not sure what aspect of discussing COVID with an anonymous poster on UKC makes you think I am on duty.

I appreciate that it's a lot easier to pretend that I am posting as a paid operative of the state on a mission to target your campaign to tell the world 'the tRUtH' than actually address the substantive points though.

In reply to off-duty:

It’s straightforward, in my opinion. Isolation, social distancing and lockdowns are fundamentally anti human. That’s why no amount of brain digging will (fully) resolve interpersonal and internal difficulties.

3
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> It’s straightforward, in my opinion. Isolation, social distancing and lockdowns are fundamentally anti human. That’s why no amount of brain digging will (fully) resolve interpersonal and internal difficulties.

An 'answer' that doesn't actually address the problem of tackling a lethal infectious virus but no doubt makes you feel all free thinking and libertarian.

In reply to off-duty:

Re Machiavelli I think the infamous translation is something like 

‘fortune favours the brave’

a good one to draw on when 10 ft out from a shonky runner....

2
 mondite 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> It’s straightforward, in my opinion. Isolation, social distancing and lockdowns are fundamentally anti human.

Which goes back to Off-Duty's question about considering you seem to be anti vaccine as well what do you think the right approach should have been?

In reply to wintertree:

> 1. Asking you to substantiate your claims is not aggressive

> 2. Pointing out where you are basically lying (claiming no reporting when the subject is currently in the BBC news) top 10 is not aggressive

> 3.  This is not personal re: you; I’ve been very consistent for 2.5 years regardless of whom I reply too

> At this point I don’t even know what you mean.  You ran your gob off without evidence to back it up.  Nothing personal in me saying that; I’ve been blunter with others…

> A 52 minute video that within its first minute makes unsubstantiated claims based on assuming that people filing claims are doing so from a factual position.  You could be forgiven for thinking the person talking is a barrister trying to drum up business…

> GB News?  Srsly?

What you’re reacting to is the result of marginalisation 

5
In reply to mondite:

Anti mandate. Agnostic about the vaccine and covid as in, it’s between the devil and the deep blue sea. 

1

Reet, I’ve got a day pass and am off to Craig Arthur to bumble up some mid grade classics I’ve never done before. Catch you all later. 

 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Anti mandate. Agnostic about the vaccine and covid as in, it’s between the devil and the deep blue sea. 

"I would do nothing about the spread of COVID and I'm basically an anti-vaxxer, but haven't got the courage of my ill-informed opinions to actually not have taken it."

Post edited at 08:34
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Re Machiavelli I think the infamous translation is something like 

> ‘fortune favours the brave’

A well known Latin proverb.

Your actual words: "Machiavelli said - life is a mixture of luck and courage, the more courage you have, the less luck you need. "

Let's face it, you are just making stuff up now. I think the term pseud was aptly used.

 magma 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

why did the FDA want to delay release for 75 yrs?

youtube.com/watch?v=sqD_JYAs7pU&

 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to magma:

> why did the FDA want to delay release for 75 yrs?

They didn't.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97544

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> It’s straightforward, in my opinion. Isolation, social distancing and lockdowns are fundamentally anti human.

You know what else sounds “anti-human”? Healthcare being so overwhelmed that millions of people are being turned away at the doors of hospitals, with all sorts of conditions, and left to die unnecessarily.

Life is hard and sometimes there are only “least worst” choices, especially in emergencies when time isn’t on your side. If you’ve never had to make a difficult decision when there was no perfect outcome then you are fortunate.

 magma 12 Jun 2022
In reply to off-duty:

ok, so 500 pp/month over 55 to 75 yrs. not good enough..

the lack of trust in big pharma is understandable given its history and lack of transparency. being forced to release data is not the way to increase vaccine uptake..

Post edited at 11:37
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to magma:

> ok, so 500 pp/month over 55 to 75 yrs. not good enough..

For info:

The office that reviews FOIA requests has just 10 employees, according to a declaration filed with the court by Suzann Burk, who heads the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management. Burk said it takes eight minutes a page for a worker “to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request."

At that rate, the 10 employees would have to work non-stop 24 hours a day, seven days a week to produce the 55,000 pages a month (and would still fall a bit short).

Bit I'm sure it's all a worthwhile use of their time in order to uncover the COnSpiRaSEA...

 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to magma:

> ok, so 500 pp/month over 55 to 75 yrs. not good enough..

> the lack of trust in big pharma is understandable given its history and lack of transparency. being forced to release data is not the way to increase vaccine uptake..

Alternatively you could look at the actual real world impact of the most widely distributed (and probably most intensely studied) vaccines in human history.  

I'm sure that the vast volume of complex information generated by the FOIA won't be pored over and deliberately misrepresented to push anti-vax points...what's that...it already has been?

 magma 12 Jun 2022
In reply to off-duty:

would have had more impact if Pfizer wasn't the least trusted biotech company?

 Ridge 12 Jun 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> You know what else sounds “anti-human”? Healthcare being so overwhelmed that millions of people are being turned away at the doors of hospitals, with all sorts of conditions, and left to die unnecessarily.

> Life is hard and sometimes there are only “least worst” choices, especially in emergencies when time isn’t on your side. If you’ve never had to make a difficult decision when there was no perfect outcome then you are fortunate.

Exactly. It's like survivors of a shipwreck complaining that the lifeboat being cold and damp breached their human rights, and demanding that the other survivors provide proof that drowning would have been worse.

In reply to off-duty:

Can somebody with the knowledge please settle this Machiavellian debacle between on duty and myself? 
 

I’m not sure what sources on-duty finds acceptable so suggest a professor of philosophy or at least a masters level degree. 

8
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Can somebody with the knowledge please settle this Machiavellian debacle between on duty and myself? 

>  

> I’m not sure what sources on-duty finds acceptable so suggest a professor of philosophy or at least a masters level degree. 

Well you could just post the quote you are referencing.

Instead of another quote.

Not by Machiavelli.

 abr1966 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> By in the wind I meant moot point - everyone who wants them has had them, so regardless of opinion the end result is the same.

> Wait and see if the efficacy holds up. 

True colours always show in the end....p**s off...fraud.

 MG 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

You are making the claim that Machiavelli said what you wrote above, if you want people to believe it, you will have to show it to be true, not ask others to do it for you. Or you could just admit.you got it wrong. That's fine.

In reply to off-duty:

C’mon on-duty help me out here, what level of evidence is good enough for you, bearing in mind the lack of a time machine and the potential for something to be lost in translation. What sort of slack are you willing to give 😂

8
In reply to abr1966:

Wut? 

5
 MG 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

FFS, there is no record of Machiavelli ever saying your quote or anything similar.  

In reply to MG:

Wait, I just remembered where I read it. A little history of philosophy by Nigel Warburton. It was quite good, he’s the guy who does the philosophy bites podcast which I can highly recommend ☝️

 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Aside from the fact it's not Machiavelli - "fortune favours the brave" does not - even with a very generous interpretation stretch to:

"life is a mixture of luck and courage, the more courage you have, the less luck you need"

Arguably from my rudimentary knowledge of Machiavelli you could suggest he has made a comment that could be interpreted in isolation along the lines - you are better to be audacious than cautious - which would align with "fortune favours the brave " but that appears to be tempered by the thrust of his argument which appears to be more about working hard avoids a reliance on luck, which is temperamental and which he portrays as a negative element - fortune creating difficulties to be overcome by great leaders, fortune being something to be mitigated against rather than hoped for.

But I'm not the one slinging around the quotes.

 mondite 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Wait, I just remembered where I read it. A little history of philosophy by Nigel Warburton.

The closest I can find is this. Which doesnt really support your case.

"Machiavelli believed that success depends quite a lot on good luck. Half of what happens to us is down to chance and half is a result of our choices, he thought. But he also believed that you can improve your odds of success by acting bravely and swiftly. Just because luck plays such a large part in our lives,

Warburton, Nigel. A Little History of Philosophy (p. 53). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition."

 MG 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Excellent. You'll be able to show us where he say what you claim then, the pdf is here. Machiavelli is about p52 onwards.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ph...

1
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Wait, I just remembered where I read it. A little history of philosophy by Nigel Warburton. It was quite good, he’s the guy who does the philosophy bites podcast which I can highly recommend ☝️

Excellent, I'll have a listen.

In reply to off-duty:

Have the courage to sling On Duty, you never know when you might get lucky 

5
In reply to MG:

Hang on, is that link legal? On-Duty! I think you’re needed 😂

7

Knocking all this crap on the head for a moment, can anyone help me with my Manikins of Horror question - rocktalk thread. I desperately need to know before bedtime. Struggling on an ‘easy for the grade’ e3 5c is enough to ruin a man 

Post edited at 21:21
3
 off-duty 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Have the courage to sling On Duty, you never know when you might get lucky 

Perhaps once more in English?

1
 mondite 12 Jun 2022
In reply to off-duty:

> Perhaps once more in English?

I think it is "Damn I had invented that quote so time for some ad homs to divert things".

Is ad hom a euphemism for making a joke. Christ we are all in trouble. 

4
 wintertree 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> It’s straightforward, in my opinion. Isolation, social distancing and lockdowns are fundamentally anti human. That’s why no amount of brain digging will (fully) resolve interpersonal and internal difficulties.

I know two other posts have already replied along similar lines, but the alternative was more awful.

Imagine over two million people becoming so sick that they need hospital treatment in May and June 2022; then imagine one and a half million of those being unable to get a hospital bed, with the lucky ones being left with little more than palliative care from rapidly re-trained travel industry staff, and the other million being driven around by their weeping children and grand-children going from hospital to hospital begging for a bed, whilst the army start digging mass graves and everyone is wondering where the body bags are going to come from.

If you read the news on happenings in India and Brazil* you'd be clear what the alternative held for us.  Instead of a government supported lockdown with furlough, we'd have had chaotic lockdowns driven by individuals staying home from a mix of fear, debilitating illness and providing desperate home care to their seriously ill, older or unlucky relatives. 

You say it's "straightforwards".  From this idiotic comment, I can only conclude that you're a [edit: redacted] who is wilfully deceiving themselves from recognising the vast quantity of context on where we were and what the alternatives held, or you're a bad actor in all this.

* Both of these have a significantly younger population than us.  It's fully clear that bad health effects increase exponentially with age, meaning the UK had far more hospitalisation potential than these nations.

Post edited at 21:55
cb294 12 Jun 2022
In reply to wintertree:

...and even worse, what would releasing the vaccine trial data, which started this entire sorry thread, teach us about the efficacy or not of the lockdown measures?

Conflating these issues is a deliberate attempt at sowing FUD.

CB

In reply to cb294:

I think the thread moved on from the trial data to my rant about FUD, no conflation intended, for FUD's sake. 

I can't see how comparing India and Brazil to the UK works, can you imagine lockdown in the slums of Dehli, I listened to an interview with an aid worker over there during lockdown. What he described was starvation and poverty manufactured on a huge scale. 

6
 wintertree 12 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> I can't see how comparing India and Brazil to the UK works, can you imagine lockdown in the slums of Dehli

Are you being deliberately slow?

It's not about imagining lockdown in India and Brazil, it's about evidencing what the absence of lockdown looked like.

Despite their orders of magnitude lower demographic risk.

But we don't need to look aboard to understand the consequences of less strict control measures in the UK - we need simply to look at the hospitalisation and death numbers from Q2 2020 in the UK contextualised by the serology data from that period which shows most people had not caught Covid.  Adjust the hospitalisations to a scenario where most people caught it (because less control measures) and we get a staggering number of people going to hospital - more than all the Nightingales could have provided for - and once healthcare is exhausted, fatality rates go through the roof and we're back to problems like "no freezer space for the bodies" > "no boy bags left" > "get the army digging some trenches".

To be clear, I think you're a dishonest bad actor, because I don't see how anyone can be this ducking stupid and be able to tie their own shoelaces and use a computer.

In reply to wintertree:

Have you done Manikins of Horror at Craig Arthur? I need closure on the route finding before sleep. 

6
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Sorry, can’t help you with that one.

But perhaps if you can’t sleep, you could use the time productively and do some research…

Track down these data, all readily available with a bit if googling, no FOIA requests needed:

Countries compared by excess death rates 2020/2021

Countries compared by lockdown measures 

age structures of U.K. compared to countries with limited infection control measures 

covid death rates by age of person contracting it

Then join the dots

The truth is out there…

Post edited at 23:38
 Maggot 13 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Just checked in and I see this shitshow of a thread is still rumbling on. FFS, surely you guys have got better things to do?

1
cb294 13 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Sure, threads do drift, but you have never bothered to answer my question with regard to the opening post: Why do you support a dodgy looking initiative to publish the trial data? What is it that you, or if not you then the few bona fide experts on the signatory list, hope to learn from it?

As wintertree and I have emphasized, any honest attempt at understanding the benefits and risks of the various vaccines (which absolutely is a valid question to ask) is much better answered from the - largely publically available - data on the actual deployment: Much larger cohort sizes and longer follow up times to start with than in trials that were squeezed to the absolute minimum time before licensing.

As long as you cannot answer this simple question your post looks like a transparent attempt to cast a vague doubt on the vaccines, insinuating that there must be some sinister thing hidden in the trial data...

This also ties in neatly with switching to a criticism of the public health response when your original pitch found little traction.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Maybe time to tank this thread? 

4
 wintertree 13 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Maybe time to tank this thread? 

On a scale of 0-10, how closely did it pan out vs your intent?

In reply to wintertree:

About 8/10 FUD gate and the on-duty Machiavelli debacle sealed the deal 

 MG 13 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

So despite all the above, you feel somehow vindicated?

In reply to MG:

My honest answer to that is one of complete neutrality. I feel neither one way or the other. 

3
In reply to John Stainforth:

My Arkala in cubs was Richard Head. As I was a cub, through innocence I didn't pick up on it at all . Then I went to scouts.......

 tehmarks 14 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> No definitely not. I’m here to stay. 

Christ.

 off-duty 14 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> About 8/10 FUD gate and the on-duty Machiavelli debacle sealed the deal 

I agree, you did start to look even more foolish.

In reply to off-duty:

Hang on a minute, I was enjoying our discussion about Machiavelli. It's very disappointing that you resort to humiliation On-Duty. Last year I enjoyed reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck, a friend introduced me to it in 1998 whilst on a 3 month climbing road trip in South Africa. I re-read it out of a desire for nostalgia and yearning for old times. There was a bit that really jumped out to me and summed my feelings - 

“A sad soul can kill you quicker, far quicker, than a germ.” 

Let's not manufacture sad souls. 

5
 off-duty 14 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Hang on a minute, I was enjoying our discussion about Machiavelli. It's very disappointing that you resort to humiliation On-Duty. Last year I enjoyed reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck, a friend introduced me to it in 1998 whilst on a 3 month climbing road trip in South Africa. I re-read it out of a desire for nostalgia and yearning for old times. There was a bit that really jumped out to me and summed my feelings - 

> “A sad soul can kill you quicker, far quicker, than a germ.” 

> Let's not manufacture sad souls. 

You believe in germs? 

In reply to off-duty:

Touche 😂

In reply to wintertree:

> You said: “The government turning a blind eye to those whose lives have been irreversible changed through vaccine injury”

> You provided no evidence for this.

Talking about anti vaxxers, I came across this army of trolls clearly being manipulated by bad actors to destabilise the west with their twittersphere degeneracy. These people! Someone must be making billions out of this disinformation! 
 

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/CanWeTalkAboutIt?src=hashtag_click

4
 wintertree 16 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

If someone got run over by a bus in the month after their vaccine, would you blame the vaccine?

None of those people appear to be presenting any evidenced link.  All those conditions happen in people who did not get vaccinated, and many of those conditions have increased prevalence after a covid infection.  There was a lot of covid about at the time.

Try and engage some basic critical thinking ey?

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis post covid vaccination: 1.4 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval 1.0-1.8 per 100,000)

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665

rate of myocarditis post covid infection: 2.4 per 1000

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056817

#canwetalkabouthownoonesaysvaccinesnevercausesideeffectsbuttheseare100timeslowerthanactuallygettingcoronavirus

In reply to wintertree:

I’m with you on this one Wintertree, these people are deluded at best and most likely bad actors. They are likely suffering with post covid syndrome and need 3 or 4 more vaccinations to help resolve it. 

7
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Anti mandate. Agnostic about the vaccine…

of course you are…

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Of course it is. 

4
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The delusion is strong with you guys, defending a pharmaceutical giant and outdated vaccine down to the last man. One could be mistaken for thinking you’re bad actors and conspiracy theorists 

6
 wintertree 16 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

>  I’m with you on this one Wintertree, these people are deluded at best and most likely bad actors.

You’re displaying massively dishonest debate here.  I never claimed delusional status, let alone bad actor status for the individuals posting on Twitter.  You introduced the feed with those claims, then when I didn’t make them you accused me of doing so anyhow.

Drawing false inference of causality based on proximity of events is a pretty standard human trait that takes education and experience to quell.

That Twitter account appears to be reinforcing and broadcasting said human trait, so the only likely bad actors here are the people behind the Twitter account, and those deliberately misrepresenting informed skepticism of their content.  The later would be you, although - as ever - I’m willing to consider that you’re a very gullible fool with less critical thinking than a lump of rock rather than a bad actor.

Post edited at 23:04
In reply to wintertree:

You crack me up Wintertree 😂 defending the jab from now to eternity! It’s safe AND effective god dammit 

6
 wintertree 16 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

I’m not defending the jab, I’m calling out fundamentally broken arguments made by apparent fools.

I wish I could live in a fortress of delusion as you appear to.  Although I suspect it would have its downsides.

Post edited at 23:11
In reply to wintertree:

Not defending the jab? Oh man that’s priceless  😂😂😂😂😂

5
 wintertree 16 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Fool.

In reply to wintertree:

Another successful mission corporal Wintertree...... supporting our Globonations* fight against mis and disinformation. 🤣
 

3
 wintertree 16 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

You forgot to define your asterisk.

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> You crack me up Wintertree 😂 defending the jab from now to eternity! It’s safe AND effective god dammit 

Yes, it is…

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665
 

near 90% reduction in hospital admissions

#tellingitlikeitisusingpeerreviewedjournalarticlesnottwitter
 

ps have you looked up the information I suggested the other night? 
 

#thetruthisstilloutthere

In reply to wintertree:

On a serious note I’ve found this excellent product for you die hard jab enthusiasts, never let your sleeves roll down again, you can’t be sure when the next windows update sorry mRNA jab is due.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣 sleeve garters! 

1 Pairs Anti-slip Metal Shirt Sleeve Holders Stretchy Garter Elastic Armbands https://amzn.eu/d/d9mg709

4
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The scotch eggs are still repeating on me 

3
In reply to wintertree:

Oh yeah! Sorry 

3
In reply to wintertree:

I think he might be saying we are all fat? Hard to tell, my iPads filter for rendering his posts into something understandable seems to be glitching tonight…. 🤔

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> The scotch eggs are still repeating on me 

I warned you that six was too many! Eyes bigger than your belly. No more scotch eggs for you…

 wintertree 16 Jun 2022
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> I think he might be saying we are all fat? 

I have good evidence to prove that covid shifted the BMI thresholds up by +4.5…

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> On a serious note I’ve found this excellent product for you die hard jab enthusiasts, never let your sleeves roll down again, you can’t be sure when the next windows update sorry mRNA jab is due....

that’s a lot of crap. I’ve had three doses and I still can’t get a decent 5G reception. Can I sue Bill Gates? 

Or Gareth Gates, for that matter. 
 

In fact, are they not actually the same person? I bet you you’ve never seen both of them at the same event together…

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No but you can bill Sue Gates. I look forward to hearing how 4,5 and 6 go 😬

1

Nite chaps, I’m signing off. This has actually been fun! No joke. Take it steady fellas 

2
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> No but you can bill Sue Gates.

I’ve heard she ducks bills. 

I look forward to hearing how 4,5 and 6 go 😬

probably much the same as 1,2 and 3. And flu jabs . I will feel lousy for 12 hours the next day, then will bask in the reassurance I’m an order of magnitude less likely to end up with severe complications from catching COVID than if I hadn’t had it. Small price to pay etc….

Stay safe out there, s_d…
 

Post edited at 23:59
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

ROFL

I’m not sure the rank and file share your enthusiasm for the state sponsored poison Scotch. Even the most die hard screaming covidian loons appear to be reluctant for another dose of nano-lipid particles orchestrating havoc in their spleens. I’ve come to believe a phd is the minimum requirement for the dedicated cult member. Sleeve garters may not be enough, you may need to go full sleeveless 😆 

*At some point the cult may need to deprogram it’s own zombies 🧟‍♂️ 

Post edited at 06:55
2
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Gosh, you didn’t manage to keep up the “agnostic” lie for very long did you? 

Reading all that felt like I was watching a lonely child humiliate themselves in the playground, desperately trying to convince themselves they are being laughed with, not at.

Find another way of feeling connected to people; turning yourself into a caricature can’t be gratifying.

 Ridge 17 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> ROFL

> I’m not sure the rank and file share your enthusiasm for the state sponsored poison Scotch. Even the most die hard screaming covidian loons appear to be reluctant for another dose of nano-lipid particles orchestrating havoc in their spleens. I’ve come to believe a phd is the minimum requirement for the dedicated cult member. Sleeve garters may not be enough, you may need to go full sleeveless 😆 

> *At some point the cult may need to deprogram it’s own zombies 🧟‍♂️ 

Whatever you were on last night, the effects seem to be persistent. Maybe stop drinking the toilet duck, I hear it's full of nanoparticles.

I actually think you might be trolling rather than deluded, but you've pushed it much too far to be credible.

 mondite 17 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Can we get back to the pseudophilosophy rather than pseudoscience?

It made a nice change.

 wintertree 17 Jun 2022
In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> Even the most die hard screaming covidian loons appear to be reluctant for another dose of nano-lipid particles orchestrating havoc in their spleens

Didn't take long for your present incarnation to fully jump the shark, did it?

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

> ROFL

> I’m not sure the rank and file share your enthusiasm for the state sponsored poison Scotch. Even the most die hard screaming covidian loons appear to be reluctant for another dose of nano-lipid particles orchestrating havoc in their spleens. I’ve come to believe a phd is the minimum requirement for the dedicated cult member. Sleeve garters may not be enough, you may need to go full sleeveless 😆 

> *At some point the cult may need to deprogram it’s own zombies 🧟‍♂️ 

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

87% of U.K. population has been double vaccinated 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

Nearly 5 billion people have had two vaccinations, with another 6million doses being administered every day


https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL

its over. Your side picked Piers Corbyn as your poster boy, and picketed intensive care units. The world shook their heads in disgust, then got vaccinated and moved on. 
 

You are increasingly like one of those soldiers in Vietnam, lost in the jungle and still refusing to believe the war ended years ago. Scorn, or pity; that’s your options for how people will view you. Not a great choice, to be honest.
 

Time to find another hobby horse, this one’s long since been flogged to death. 

Post edited at 08:17
1
 wintertree 17 Jun 2022

In reply to schrodingers_dog:

Only if “science agnostic” means “anti-vax plonker”.

 MG 17 Jun 2022
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> that’s a lot of crap. I’ve had three doses and I still can’t get a decent 5G reception. 

I can get it in the garden now. You just have to wait a bit.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...