[evan_au]

Ever since Trump suggested using HCQ the media have done nothing but rubbish the treatment even tho the initial paper used to justify the claim has been retracted by the lancet as inaccurate.

Medical doctors took it seriously enough to run a placebo-controlled trial.
- When they found it didn't work, then they stopped the trial, and it didn't make its way into "best practice"
- As I recall, there was a paper that caused a pause in recruiting for the HCQ trial. But after general review, the trial continued.
- In the middle of a pandemic, communication between medical researchers becomes much more time-critical (as does communication between medical researchers and public health advisers and politicians)
- Many journals have sped up their review processes for papers related to COVID-19
- The Lancet in particular seems to have erred on the side of "the biggest peer review committee is everyone who reads the Lancet", and have retracted quite a few papers after this peer review.
- Most researchers don't wait for the traditional scientific press to publicize their results, but are relying on pre-print servers like medrxive. That's why it's vital that the public press append statements like "which has not been peer-reviewed" when breaking the news on the latest research results.

Still you didn't really answer my question. The nanoparticles do allow the possibility of all cells to be effected.

Yes, some nanoparticles will get from the injection site (arm muscle) into the bloodstream, and will reach some cells lining blood vessels in distant parts of the body.

Compare this to the virus, where it is estimated that:
Virus Entry: 10 minutes to infect a cell
Eclipse Period: New virions are budding out of the infected cells in 8-12 hours
Burst Size: Around 600 virions released from each infected cell
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/

So, by the time a person becomes infectious, 4 days after being infected by just 1 virion, in theory (without an immune response) they could produce up to 600^2x4 virions, or 2x10²² virions, far more than the 40 trillion cells in an adult body (4x10¹³).
- So the SARS-COV2 virus really could infect every cell with an ACE2 or TMPRSS2 receptor - which includes vital systems like the lungs, nose, heart, kidneys, gut, brain and blood vessels (which includes all the other organs).
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/receptors-for-sars-cov-2-present-in-wide-variety-of-human-cells-67496

But there is a small number of nanoparticles compared to the number of cells in the human body, so only a small fraction of cells will be affected (most of them in the arm muscle). Unlike the virus, the nanoparticles do not self-replicate.

With HCQ Trump was quoting a French doctor, who had treated patients with it and found success, 
... the (phase III) trials are too short.

So you are happy to trust 1 untrained President and 1 French doctor (who treated an unknown number of patients).
- And the experiment was not blinded (no placebo-controlled trial), so with what was he comparing HCQ?

But a Phase III Trial with 30,000 patients in multiple countries with multiple doctors and close monitoring is "too short"?

Wishful thinking can color our impressions, which is why we need placebo-controlled trials...
- Undocumented factors can affect the results, which is why we need multi-site trials

[Kryptid]

The powers that be clearly do not want an effective treatment that interferes with their vaccination program.

More conspiracy talk.

Literally a fact any doctor who has treated patients and had success with HCQ as just one example on publically suggesting it will be scrubbed from all official sites banned on Twitter and Facebook.

Has HCQ treatment stood up to peer review and replicated experiments? If not, then it's to be expected that some people would get better after taking HCQ through chance alone.

Again since when are Facebook and Twitter medical expert's?

They don't have to be. They just have to be able to cite them.

Good questions phase 1 testing normally takes 2 years for these new vaccines they had 3 months.  And the combined time for phases 2 and 3 is around 7 years all done in 8 months for the new vaccines there has not been enough study, as I have been complaining about for days now.

Which didn't address my questions. Where is the evidence that a significant portion of those who have taken the vaccine experience profoundly negative side effects?

if you are under the age of 70

Do people over the age of 70 not count? Surely you don't consider them expendable just because of their age?

chances of dying are 0.03%

I'm not sure where you get your math from, but since I do consider the lives of those over 70 to be important, then the average chances of dying from COVID-19 are much, much higher than that. The total cases worldwide stand at about 95.8 million, with the number of deaths at 2.58 million. That's about a 2.7% mortality rate. So in order for you to justify your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous that COVID-19, then date rate due to the vaccines needs to be at least comparable. The United Kingdom has vaccinated 4.72 million people as of Jan 18, 2021: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations So if the vaccine is deadlier than COVID-19, we should expect over 127,000 deaths to be caused by it. The reported vaccine deaths are nowhere remotely close to that figure.

Taking a look at Norway, this article states that 23 possible deaths of the elderly might be attributed to vaccinations (while 42,000 people in total were vaccinated): https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations Assuming that every single one of those deaths was indeed caused by the vaccine and not mere coincidence, that's a death rate of 0.055%, which is far, far less deadly than COVID.

We have barely started.

So how long is it supposed to take for the vaccines to start killing people? Vaccinations have been going on for over a month now.

Not to mention the risk of death as has been shown in animal testing once they come into contact with the wild virus

And what, statistically speaking, is that death rate?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The powers that be clearly do not want an effective treatment that interferes with their vaccination program.

More conspiracy talk.

There is a clear conspiracy. The empirical evidence points in that direction. You really want keep the CIA talking point as a simplistic means to label 'invalid'. Its clearer by the day covid is a laboratory creation.  You only need two people to have a conspiracy the world is full of them.
So repeating this CIA tool is really a unmeaningful.

Literally a fact any doctor who has treated patients and had success with HCQ as just one example on publically suggesting it will be scrubbed from all official sites banned on Twitter and Facebook.

Has HCQ treatment stood up to peer review and replicated experiments? If not, then it's to be expected that some people would get better after taking HCQ through chance alone.

As I have pointed out repeatedly doctor actually caring for people are seeing positive results and studies are being conducted unfortunately as the video I posted before the studies generally fail to use Zimc, do not start early in the treatment of patients or miss other factors. They are as Dr Martin's points out 'often bad studies'

Early treatment HCQ with vitamin C and zinc. If any study didn't do that its invalid. You miss zinc HCQ cant work.

Again since when are Facebook and Twitter medical expert's?

They don't have to be. They just have to be able to cite them.

Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionals

Good questions phase 1 testing normally takes 2 years for these new vaccines they had 3 months.  And the combined time for phases 2 and 3 is around 7 years all done in 8 months for the new vaccines there has not been enough study, as I have been complaining about for days now.

Which didn't address my questions. Where is the evidence that a significant portion of those who have taken the vaccine experience profoundly negative side effects?

Obviously miss that time will tell, there have not been enough time to note the side effects,  11 months of trails should take 9 years.

What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.

if you are under the age of 70

Do people over the age of 70 not count? Surely you don't consider them expendable just because of their age?

At 70 the death rate is 0.05 it's a 99.5% survival rate. The vaccination program is for everyone.

chances of dying are 0.03%

I'm not sure where you get your math from, but since I do consider the lives of those over 70 to be important, then the average chances of dying from COVID-19 are much, much higher than that. The total cases worldwide stand at about 95.8 million, with the number of deaths at 2.58 million.

If these numbers are accurate.  They have been listing covid as cause of death for anyone who tested positive, even if they get hit by a car. 

That's about a 2.7% mortality rate. So in order for you to justify your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous that COVID-19, then date rate due to the vaccines needs to be at least comparable.

Right so if covid will kill 2 million and the vaccine only
1.9 million the vaccine is ok. That's your position.

The United Kingdom has vaccinated 4.72 million people as of Jan 18, 2021: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations So if the vaccine is deadlier than COVID-19, we should expect over 127,000 deaths to be caused by it. The reported vaccine deaths are nowhere remotely close to that figure.

You are only considering death there are potentially long term health effects from the vaccine did you miss the video I posted.

Taking a look at Norway, this article states that 23 possible deaths of the elderly might be attributed to vaccinations (while 42,000 people in total were vaccinated): https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations Assuming that every single one of those deaths was indeed caused by the vaccine and not mere coincidence, that's a death rate of 0.055%, which is far, far less deadly than COVID.

No it isn't that's effectively the same

We have barely started.

So how long is it supposed to take for the vaccines to start killing people? Vaccinations have been going on for over a month now.

Again death is not the only issue. Wow a month.

Not to mention the risk of death as has been shown in animal testing once they come into contact with the wild virus

And what, statistically speaking, is that death rate?

As far as I remember with the sar cov1 vaccine all the ferrets involved died

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Ever since Trump suggested using HCQ the media have done nothing but rubbish the treatment even tho the initial paper used to justify the claim has been retracted by the lancet as inaccurate.

Medical doctors took it seriously enough to run a placebo-controlled trial.
- When they found it didn't work,

Go check the study I guarantee they not only missed Zinc they also started in a late stage of the virus infection.


Go check seriously

then they stopped the trial, and it didn't make its way into "best practice"
- As I recall, there was a paper that caused a pause in recruiting for the HCQ trial. But after general review, the trial continued.
- In the middle of a pandemic, communication between medical researchers becomes much more time-critical (as does communication between medical researchers and public health advisers and politicians)
- Many journals have sped up their review processes for papers related to COVID-19
- The Lancet in particular seems to have erred on the side of "the biggest peer review committee is everyone who reads the Lancet", and have retracted quite a few papers after this peer review.

Yeah and the initial study claiming HCQ didnt work was retracted by the Lancet.

- Most researchers don't wait for the traditional scientific press to publicize their results, but are relying on pre-print servers like medrxive. That's why it's vital that the public press append statements like "which has not been peer-reviewed" when breaking the news on the latest research results.

Still you didn't really answer my question. The nanoparticles do allow the possibility of all cells to be effected.

Yes, some nanoparticles will get from the injection site (arm muscle) into the bloodstream, and will reach some cells lining blood vessels in distant parts of the body.

Compare this to the virus, where it is estimated that:
Virus Entry: 10 minutes to infect a cell
Eclipse Period: New virions are budding out of the infected cells in 8-12 hours
Burst Size: Around 600 virions released from each infected cell
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/

So, by the time a person becomes infectious, 4 days after being infected by just 1 virion, in theory (without an immune response) they could produce up to 600^2x4 virions, or 2x10²² virions, far more than the 40 trillion cells in an adult body (4x10¹³).
- So the SARS-COV2 virus really could infect every cell with an ACE2 or TMPRSS2 receptor - which includes vital systems like the lungs, nose, heart, kidneys, gut, brain and blood vessels (which includes all the other organs).
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/receptors-for-sars-cov-2-present-in-wide-variety-of-human-cells-67496

But there is a small number of nanoparticles compared to the number of cells in the human body, so only a small fraction of cells will be affected (most of them in the arm muscle). Unlike the virus, the nanoparticles do not self-replicate.

With HCQ Trump was quoting a French doctor, who had treated patients with it and found success, 
... the (phase III) trials are too short.

So you are happy to trust 1 untrained President and 1 French doctor (who treated an unknown number of patients).

It was 3000 at the time. Sure it's a lot more now.

- And the experiment was not blinded (no placebo-controlled trial), so with what was he comparing HCQ?

He wasn't conducting a study he was actively treating patients.

But a Phase III Trial with 30,000 patients in multiple countries with multiple doctors and close monitoring is "too short"?

Yes too short 3 months for phase 1. 8 months for 2 and 3 combined is too short.

Wishful thinking can color our impressions, which is why we need placebo-controlled trials...
- Undocumented factors can affect the results, which is why we need multi-site trials

They need more time.

[Bored chemist]

As I have pointed out repeatedly doctor actually caring for people are seeing positive results

Yes.
They are seeing the result of a billion years of evolution.
We have quite good immune systems.
If ew are lucky, we recover from infections.
This is true regardless of the power of prayer or of hydroxychloroquine.

That's why you need a proper trial.
When we did one, it turned our that HCQ isn't any good.

You miss zinc HCQ cant work.

Most people are not zinc deficient. Indeed, since it's present in meat, most non-vegetarians have stacks of it.

Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionals

They are doing it on the advice of medical professionals (the sort who understand proper trials).

11 months of trails should take 9 years.

And with 1600 people dying each day in the UK that's about a tenth of the population gone.
Now, I realise that's not the way the stats really work out, but 9 years is simply far too long to wait.

What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.

What about the effects of the virus that occur in year 2?
Your answer is meaningless.

If these numbers are accurate.  They have been listing covid as cause of death for anyone who tested positive, even if they get hit by a car.

Most people who died in the UK yesterday died from covid.
We can actually ignore very nearly every other possible cause of death as too small to bother with.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Small quantities of hydroxychloroquine and sodium hypochlorite kill viruses. True.

Large quantities kill idiots. Also true.

Problem is that you need to ingest or inject a large quantity in order to kill a small amount of virus hidden inside an idiot.

What are you talking about?

HCQ is a malaria medication taking by millions of people all over the world routinely.  It is a very well known, very safe and widely used anti viral medication. It has also according to many doctors around the world been shown in combination with vitamin C and zinc to have profound impact on treating people with covid 19.You are taking nonsense.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html

[Kryptid]

There is a clear conspiracy.

Then how about showing us unambiguous evidence for that from a reputable source?

The empirical evidence points in that direction.

Then show us that evidence. So far, you've posted a combination of conspiracy websites and non-sequiturs.

As I have pointed out repeatedly doctor actually caring for people are seeing positive results and studies are being conducted unfortunately as the video I posted before the studies generally fail to use Zimc, do not start early in the treatment of patients or miss other factors. They are as Dr Martin's points out 'often bad studies'

So where are those peer-reviewed, replicated studies that show it does work?

Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionals

Not when they are citing the medical majority as evidence against the claims of the fringe (In before, "the medical majority are part of the conspiracy").

Obviously miss that time will tell, there have not been enough time to note the side effects

Then you are admitting that not enough time has passed for us to be alarmist about the side effects and that not enough evidence has been gathered to show that the vaccine is worse than COVID.

What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.

You're obviously talking about complete speculation. You don't know that there will even be such side effects in year two or beyond. So no evidence to justify an alarmist position.

At 70 the death rate is 0.05 it's a 99.5% survival rate.

What is your source? What about people older than 70?

If these numbers are accurate.

Do you have a reason to show that they are not?

They have been listing covid as cause of death for anyone who tested positive, even if they get hit by a car. 

Evidence?

Right so if covid will kill 2 million and the vaccine only
1.9 million the vaccine is ok. That's your position.

COVID isn't done killing. It's only 2 million so far. What we are looking for is if the vaccine will reduce the total number of deaths. The existing evidence strongly suggests that it will.

You are only considering death there are potentially long term health effects from the vaccine did you miss the video I posted.

And again, you need to show us that the long term health effects are the rule and not the exception.

No it isn't that's effectively the same

You do know that 2.7% is far greater than 0.055%, don't you? If you have a different COVID death rate, then please post the source (and make sure that it is reputable and not a conspiracy website).

Again death is not the only issue. Wow a month.

And, again, show us that the complications you are worrying about are statistically more common than COVID complications.

As far as I remember

Your memory isn't exactly a reputable source.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.

You're obviously talking about complete speculation. You don't know that there will even be such side effects in year two or beyond. So no evidence to justify an alarmist position.

Again it's not alarmist, I wonder why you think we should bother with any trial? why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything. That is highly irresponsible idea

You didn't watch this.
https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html

Right so if covid will kill 2 million and the vaccine only
1.9 million the vaccine is ok. That's your position.

COVID isn't done killing.

Neither is the vaccine, so that is your position. Science is a very soulless pursuit

It's only 2 million so far. What we are looking for is if the vaccine will reduce the total number of deaths. The existing evidence strongly suggests that it will.

Existing evidence is limited, and again death isnt the only issue

[Kryptid]

Again it's not alarmist

Implying that the vaccine will injure and kill more people than COVID without evidence is alarmist.

I wonder why you think we should bother with any trial? why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything.

That's just it, though. Trials were done. The evidence for harm done during those trials was minimal. Given the way that we know the vaccine works and the way the immune system works, there is no reason to claim that it is as harmful as COVID. It produces the same spike protein as COVID, but without the other parts of the virus necessary to cause infection.

You didn't watch this.
https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html

Do you remember when I said that this was the exception and not the rule? Bad things can come from people driving cars too. But we need cars right now (just like we need the vaccine right now). Car accidents are, like negative vaccine side effects, the exception and not the rule. If you want to prove me wrong, then get me some actual numbers that support your position.

Neither is the vaccine, so that is your position. Science is a very soulless pursuit

Deaths from COVID are at massively higher rates than from the vaccine (and I've shown you the math to back that up), but since I've already said that, I'm not sure what you're not getting.

Existing evidence is limited

Which is why your alarmist position is irrational in the face of a pandemic. If you are going to propose that the vaccine "might" have severe side effects for a significant number of people months or years down the line, then you are going to have to provide a good reason for us to expect those kinds of effects. Please do so using known biology while staying away from speculation.

death isnt the only issue

It isn't for COVID either.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 18:24:37
Small quantities of hydroxychloroquine and sodium hypochlorite kill viruses. True.

Large quantities kill idiots. Also true.

Problem is that you need to ingest or inject a large quantity in order to kill a small amount of virus hidden inside an idiot.

What are you talking about?

HCQ is a malaria medication taking by millions of people all over the world routinely.  It is a very well known, very safe and widely used anti viral medication. It has also according to many doctors around the world been shown in combination with vitamin C and zinc to have profound impact on treating people with covid 19.You are taking nonsense.

One of the world's largest studies - the Recovery trial run by Oxford University - has involved 11,000 patients with coronavirus in hospitals across the UK and included testing hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the disease, along with other potential treatments.

It concluded that "there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with Covid-19" and the drug has now been pulled from the trial.

HCQ is an antimalarial (malaria is a parasite, not a virus) and anti-inflammatory. It was hoped it might reduce COVID symptoms (it didn't) but its antiviral properties have never been demonstrated.

[Bored chemist]

why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything. That is highly irresponsible idea

So, you worked out that what Trump was doing when he was talking about disinfectant and HCQ is irresponsible.

That's a good start.

Everyone else knew it when this happened.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/03/23/man-dead-from-taking-chloroquine-after-trump-touts-drug-for-coronavirus/

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Again it's not alarmist

Implying that the vaccine will injure and kill more people than COVID without evidence is alarmist.

We don't know what the vaccine will do, as the initial point of this thread raised, scientists are concerned about damage to the placenta that potentially could leave all women infertile. They also raised concerns about the SARS cov1 vaccine and ferrets that died once they came into contact with the wild virus, that's their implication, not alarmist, it's a potential reality, and it's highly irresponsible to go ahead ignoring that potential. That's not even discussing the other side effects we are not seeing,  people have lost motor function In facial muscles, some.people as the Russia today report showed and the video I posted here have consistent convulsions and others have died not from contact with the wild virus but from the vaccine.

I wonder why you think we should bother with any trial? why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything.

That's just it, though. Trials were done. The evidence for harm done during those trials was minimal.

The science behind the trials is well established and should take years.  To ignore the standard and rush ahead is highly irresponsible. To do so with an unproven experimental technology is even more so.

Given the way that we know the vaccine works and the way the immune system works,

This is not true there is much about man still not understood,  hence this is arrogance speaking.

there is no reason to claim that it is as harmful as COVID. It produces the same spike protein as COVID, but without the other parts of the virus necessary to cause infection.

That's not the only thing these vaccines contain there are also many metals added, God knows what else.

You didn't watch this.
https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html

Do you remember when I said that this was the exception and not the rule? Bad things can come from people driving cars too.

Too early to say.

But we need cars right now (just like we need the vaccine right now). Car accidents are, like negative vaccine side effects, the exception and not the rule. If you want to prove me wrong, then get me some actual numbers that support your position.

Neither is the vaccine, so that is your position. Science is a very soulless pursuit

Deaths from COVID are at massively higher rates than from the vaccine

To be listed as a covid death in Britian you have to die 28 after being given a positive result to the virus, that's it. There is nothing to say the people that died didnt die of something else. The number are being manipulated.

(and I've shown you the math to back that up), but since I've already said that, I'm not sure what you're not getting.

Existing evidence is limited

Which is why your alarmist position is irrational in the face of a pandemic. If you are going to propose that the vaccine "might" have severe side effects for a significant number of people months or years down the line, then you are going to have to provide a good reason for us to expect those kinds of effects.

No that's what years of trails are meant to do, rushing ahead as they are and saying no evidence yet is utterly reckless.

Please do so using known biology while staying away from speculation.

death isnt the only issue

It isn't for COVID either.

Sure. Do you even understand what I am actually arguing for in this thread Kryptid? Please tell me your words what you think I am arguing for

,

Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionals

Not when they are citing the medical majority as evidence against the claims of the fringe (In before, "the medical majority are part of the conspiracy").

Sorry if there is a disagreement between different experts Facebook and Twitter have no qualification to pick a side. Your point is nonsense.

"There are no Authorities in science at best there are experts" Carl Sargan

[alancalverd]

"There are no Authorities in science at best there are experts" Carl Sargan

True, and I believe that Carl Sagan also said it.
Anyway I am about to become an expert. Cultural poseurs will note that the French word for experiment is the same as for  experience. I have been invited for my first vaccination on Saturday. If you don't hear from me again,  you may assume Jolly's case is proved.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The utter lack of skepticism present in this thread is utterly shocking. Is there an actual scientist here?

"If we are not able to ask sceptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes along" Carl Sargan

You are all sold on an experimental treatment, actively defending it, theres no real independent verification all data is in the hands of the producers,  debate is being closed down critics and skeptics removed and purged from Facebook Twitter and the internet in general, by authorities that should have no say over science at all. And you all go along.  There isnt a scientist here as best I can tell

[Bored chemist]

The utter lack of skepticism

We are very sceptical.
That's why we noticed things like Trump kept lying about stuff.
We noticed that the proper trials of HCQ showed that it didn't work.
We noticed lots of things.
Why don't you see them?

scientists are concerned about damage to the placenta that potentially could leave all women infertile.

Not any more, because they actually did science.

They also raised concerns about the SARS cov1 vaccine and ferrets

I'm sorry but if it's a choice between people and ferrets- screw them.
The good news is that people are different from ferrets.

The science behind the trials is well established and should take years.

We do not have years; people are dying today.

To ignore the standard and rush ahead is highly irresponsible.

Not nearly as irresponsible as letting the virus kill people.

To do so with an unproven experimental technology

It has been proven.
That's what the trials are for.

This is not true there is much about man still not understood

Speak for yourself.
Seriously, if we didn't know how the immune system worked, how did we come up with a selection of vaccines so quickly?

Your point is obviously false.

That's not the only thing these vaccines contain there are also many metals added,

My breakfast cereal also has metals added to it.
So what?

To be listed as a covid death in Britian you have to die 28 after being given a positive result to the virus, that's it. There is nothing to say the people that died didnt die of something else. The number are being manipulated.

That might have been a point some months ago.
Today, most people who died died within 28 days of having tested positive for covid.
But most people people in the UK were not tested.

So covid must be the cause o, at least, the majority of the deaths attributed to it.

You can stop arguing about that now.

COVID IS THE BIGGEST KILLER IN THE UK TODAY; THERE AREN'T ENOUGH "OTHER CAUSES" TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE DEATH TOLL.

There isnt a scientist here as best I can tell

Then you are an idiot.

[alancalverd]

Being a proper scientist, I was among those asked to evaluate certain vaccine and treatment development program proposals.

Can't say more for reasons of confidentiality but I'm satisfied with the trial outcome of the vaccines currently available in the UK.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Being a proper scientist, I was among those asked to evaluate certain vaccine and treatment development program proposals.

Can't say more for reasons of confidentiality but I'm satisfied with the trial outcome of the vaccines currently available in the UK.

They have all been rushed,  I could accept a rushed trail phase for traditional inactivated virus vaccines there is a wealth of historic data related to them and issues that can arise.

However a  rushed trial phase for a new experimental technology that hardly any scientists have experience with, that has never before been used in humans, where the data is literally being withheld by the producers, and there is no historic data to understand any of the potential problems,  that is intended to vaccinate an entire population even planet is the height of insanity. In my opinion. And now unnecessary as we have traditional vaccines ready.

[Kryptid]

We don't know what the vaccine will do, as the initial point of this thread raised, scientists are concerned about damage to the placenta that potentially could leave all women infertile.

And those scientists you speak of are in the minority and (at least as far as the evidence in this thread has shown), not made a compelling case for their claims.

They also raised concerns about the SARS cov1 vaccine and ferrets that died once they came into contact with the wild virus, that's their implication, not alarmist, it's a potential reality

So how about showing us the details of that experiment where the ferrets died?

it's highly irresponsible to go ahead ignoring that potential.

It's the lesser of two evils. You are talking about something which only might be more dangerous than COVID (based on speculation). It would be even more irresponsible to let COVID go on injuring and killing when you have yet to demonstrate a good, biologically-informed reasoning as to why the mRNA vaccines are more dangerous than COVID.

That's not even discussing the other side effects we are not seeing,  people have lost motor function In facial muscles, some.people as the Russia today report showed and the video I posted here have consistent convulsions and others have died not from contact with the wild virus but from the vaccine.

When are you going to give us some actual numbers to work with?

The science behind the trials is well established and should take years.  To ignore the standard and rush ahead is highly irresponsible. To do so with an unproven experimental technology is even more so.

It's the lesser of two evils. You are weighing a "might be" (the vaccine) against a "certainly will be" (COVID). So it's better to choose the vaccine.

This is not true there is much about man still not understood,  hence this is arrogance speaking.

So then go ahead and give us a biologically-informed reason as to why we can expect these vaccines to cause grave injury and death in the future. Phase I trials for the Pfizer vaccine were started in April of 2020. That was about nine months ago. So how long, exactly, are we supposed to wait before the volunteers who took part in those trails are supposed to experience the dire side effects you postulate? So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the vaccines are more dangerous than we currently know them to be, not on us to show that they aren't.

That's not the only thing these vaccines contain there are also many metals added, God knows what else.

Those metals you speak of are sodium and potassium. Guess what the body already contains? Sodium and potassium.

Too early to say.

Obviously not, otherwise nobody would be having those convulsions yet in the first place.

To be listed as a covid death in Britian you have to die 28 after being given a positive result to the virus, that's it. There is nothing to say the people that died didnt die of something else. The number are being manipulated.

Please supply a reputable source for this information.

No that's what years of trails are meant to do, rushing ahead as they are and saying no evidence yet is utterly reckless.

I would agree with you if we had the luxury of time. We don't.

Do you even understand what I am actually arguing for in this thread Kryptid? Please tell me your words what you think I am arguing for

You seem to be arguing that we should stop vaccinating people based on things that only might happen and on bad things that we know have happened but are unable to give us an incident rate for.

Sorry if there is a disagreement between different experts Facebook and Twitter have no qualification to pick a side. Your point is nonsense.

That's like saying evolution vs. creationism is a disagreement between different experts. It's not quite that extreme, but the point stands.

You are all sold on an experimental treatment, actively defending it, theres no real independent verification all data is in the hands of the producers,  debate is being closed down critics and skeptics removed and purged from Facebook Twitter and the internet in general, by authorities that should have no say over science at all. And you all go along.  There isnt a scientist here as best I can tell

We are not saying that the vaccine is totally safe. It isn't. We acknowledge that some people have negative side effects. What we are saying is that it isn't as bad as the pandemic.

Then you are an idiot.

Cut it out. I'm serious.

[Bored chemist]

However a  rushed trial phase for a new experimental technology that hardly any scientists have experience with, that has never before been used in humans

No
In 2000, German biologist Ingmar Hoerr published an article on the efficiency of RNA‐based vaccines, which he studied as part of his doctoral degree
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

As far as I can tell, this thread asked a question; and that question has been clearly answered.
It is now only acting as a focal point for more disinformation.
Perhaps it should be closed.