Forum | So much for Vaccines. by A_Fans_Dad

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

So much for Vaccines. 12:41 - Sep 7 with 6420 views

This is what happens when the creators and manufacturers get it wrong.

https://apnews.com/619efb65b9e

Sudanese kids being given polio by the very vaccine that is supposed to protect them.
It appears the Gates foundation is involved.
Who would trust their COVID-19 vaccine?

So much for Vaccines. on 21:37 - Sep 11 with 1109 views

Professor

So much for Vaccines. on 20:27 - Sep 11 by Scotia
I quoted it about 5 posts back. I'm not doing it again. It's clear to most that you post nonsense, but at least read it first.

Azithromycin and HCQ together has an increased mortality rate. There are no credible reports of zinc (another micronutrient needed for normal immune function) on Pub Med or Web of Science. The links I posted yesterday show this . The majority of evidence for HCQ are in early and largely discredited reports ... There are a couple of credible observational studies, but controlled studies show no positive effects and several with increased mortality and others with side effects that were pretty serious.

Whatever the flaws of the publication and peer review system
(And yes there are) it does filter unsubstantiated and anecdotal evidence.

And FJ., I ‘m not a medic either, but have worked in research of human and animal infectious disease for 30 years.

So much for Vaccines. on 21:53 - Sep 11 with 1088 views

Scotia

So much for Vaccines. on 21:34 - Sep 11 by A_Fans_Dad

The actual study is here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/

Unfortunately they were quoting another study, this one.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.10

This study says and I quote "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, 223 vs. 360)."

In other words it was already too late for HCQ.
And no Zinc was used and no Antibiotic was used.

Going back to the Vitamin D study they stated "Although frequencies vary according to series, more than 40 % of patients hospitalized because of COVIDâ€19 pneumonia developed ARDS of which more than 50 % ultimately died "
Therefore 20% normally die.
In this study there were 26 patients not on added vitamin D and 2 died ie 8%.
So a reduction of 12% equaling 8/20 = 40% a 60% reduction in deaths.

[Post edited 11 Sep 2020 21:40]

You've posted two separate links that explicitly state the HCQ is ineffective in treating covid.

Are those links inaccurate?

So much for Vaccines. on 22:02 - Sep 11 with 1084 views

Professor

So much for Vaccines. on 21:53 - Sep 11 by Scotia
You've posted two separate links that explicitly state the HCQ is ineffective in treating covid. Are those links inaccurate?

Furthermore 26 is a very small group. Easily skewed and limited statistical power

So much for Vaccines. on 22:59 - Sep 11 with 1055 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 21:53 - Sep 11 by Scotia
You've posted two separate links that explicitly state the HCQ is ineffective in treating covid. Are those links inaccurate?

They both refer to the same study, which stated that HCQ was ineffective when given to very ill patients.
How many times do I have to repeat it, the medical protocol is
HCQ + Azithromycin + Zinc Sulphate given as early as possible.
What do you not understand about that?

Not HCQ when the patients are already very ill and then compare the outcomes to those that weren't.

Some times I am not sure if you two are being deliberately obtuse.

-2

So much for Vaccines. on 23:01 - Sep 11 with 1052 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 22:02 - Sep 11 by Professor
Furthermore 26 is a very small group. Easily skewed and limited statistical power

They were the control group.
Knock it as much as you like the results were very impressive for the addition of Vitamin D and that is without Zinc.

-2

So much for Vaccines. on 07:12 - Sep 12 with 1030 views

Scotia

So much for Vaccines. on 22:59 - Sep 11 by A_Fans_Dad

I'm deliberately keeping things simple. I realise that they are the same study, but the Mail article directly quotes that HCQ is ineffective.

So you've posted two articles that say it doesn't work but still maintain that it does.

For everyone's benefit stop posting stuff you either haven't read or don't understand. This is a pretty serious situation.

So much for Vaccines. on 20:21 - Sep 12 with 1000 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 07:12 - Sep 12 by Scotia
I'm deliberately keeping things simple. I realise that they are the same study, but the Mail article directly quotes that HCQ is ineffective. So you've posted two articles that say it doesn't work but still maintain that it does. For everyone's benefit stop posting stuff you either haven't read or don't understand. This is a pretty serious situation.

You just don't get it do you.
The study they quote was no damned good, it used HCQ on it's own after the patients were very seriously ill.
Why don't you quote the Lancet study that made up the data, or the Oxford study or the Brazillian study that both gave their patients 4 times the recomended maximum dose, they are also crap studies.
Which is precisely what is wrong with the professor's beloved "meta analysis", the devil is in the details.
Ever since my second post on Quinine/HCQ on the Corona Virus post on the 2nd of April I have been saying HCQ + Zinc, becuase that is what the Science said.
From there on I quoted the front line doctors who said HCQ + Azithromycin + Zinc Sulphate as early as possible at first symptoms.

All you and professor do is quote inappropriate studies and say look it doesn't work.

But Cloroquine on it's own was recommended by Dr Fauci's own NIH for use against SARS1 coronavirus in this 2005 paper.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p

This is my last post on COVID-19 medication because all you two do is lie about what I have said and quote incorrect statements from crap studies.

So I will leave you two UN & government sponsored doom & gloom, end of the world is nigh merchants and reserve the good news on COVID-19 to anyone who appreciates it.

-1

So much for Vaccines. on 23:14 - Sep 12 with 991 views

Scotia

So much for Vaccines. on 20:21 - Sep 12 by A_Fans_Dad

I'm just pointing out flaws in what you have posted.

You've championed HCQ and then posted two links that say it doesn't work. I don't get it.

So much for Vaccines. on 14:19 - Sep 14 with 938 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 23:14 - Sep 12 by Scotia
I'm just pointing out flaws in what you have posted. You've championed HCQ and then posted two links that say it doesn't work. I don't get it.

Because the links have nothing whatsover to do with HCQ, they are about Vitamin D.
The fact that you can't see referring to a crap paper as part of the report is inconsequential to the main story and it is all that you can focus on is sad.

[Post edited 14 Sep 2020 14:23]

-1

So much for Vaccines. on 14:53 - Sep 14 with 927 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 23:14 - Sep 12 by Scotia
I'm just pointing out flaws in what you have posted. You've championed HCQ and then posted two links that say it doesn't work. I don't get it.

Let's just consider a scenario.
A group of very good Medical Researchers have identified a new Vaccine for Chicken Infectious Bronchitis for which there is currently no treatment even though many researchers have been looking for the holy grail.
They develop a vaccine and test it, it requires a dose of 0.1ml/kg of bird and it must not exceed 0.15ml/kg of bird and it must be given within 10 days of hatching.
They produce and print their study.
A major vaccine competitor commissions a 1000 chick study giving the birds 0.6ml/kg of the new vaccine, the birds are made seriously ill, have stunted growth and are worthless as producers. They immediately notfiy the authorities that the vaccine doesn't work and not only that it is dangerous and should be banned.
While this is going on a small vaccine producer carries aut a 100 chick study as per the study guidelines and get excellent results, which they publish.
Another carries out a 25 chick study and also gets excellent results, which they publish.
Another big one one carries out a 1000 chick study but gives the vaccine 30 days after the chicks have hatched and it doesn't work, 50% of the chicks get Brochitis and die, which they publish.
A major caccine producer see the results of the first 1000 chick study and are very concerned, so they reproduce it, with the same results and publish it.
The largest chicken vaccine producer in the world is looking for the holy grail of Infectious Bronchitis to put in to production so he does a search of study papers (meta analysis anyone) and finds 5 studies, 2 are really too small to be statistically significant.
The other 3 all say that the Vaccine either doesn't work and/or is dangerous and therefore does not go ahead and produce the vaccine.

Boy are that original research team pissed.

Of course something like that couldn't possibly happen could it?

So much for Vaccines. on 17:34 - Sep 14 with 919 views

Professor

So much for Vaccines. on 14:53 - Sep 14 by A_Fans_Dad

Sorry that's just word salad. Makes no sense.

So much for Vaccines. on 19:05 - Sep 14 with 907 views

Gwyn737

So much for Vaccines. on 17:34 - Sep 14 by Professor
Sorry that's just word salad. Makes no sense.

Any thoughts on the Pfizer vaccine announcement, Prof?

So much for Vaccines. on 19:14 - Sep 14 with 904 views

Professor

So much for Vaccines. on 19:05 - Sep 14 by Gwyn737
Any thoughts on the Pfizer vaccine announcement, Prof?

They seem confident - must show something in the early phase work. Won’t harm the share price either!

So much for Vaccines. on 20:37 - Sep 14 with 881 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 17:34 - Sep 14 by Professor
Sorry that's just word salad. Makes no sense.

So, you don't recognise it then?

So much for Vaccines. on 20:58 - Sep 14 with 873 views

Scotia

So much for Vaccines. on 14:19 - Sep 14 by A_Fans_Dad
Because the links have nothing whatsover to do with HCQ, they are about Vitamin D. The fact that you can't see referring to a crap paper as part of the report is inconsequential to the main story and it is all that you can focus on is sad. [Post edited 14 Sep 2020 14:23]

The point is that you are frequently posting contradictory links.

You've posted a link extolling the virtues of vitamin D, but that link says HCQ is useless. You have previously said HCQ was a game changer, but now vitamin D is? Or is it Zinc or Azithromycin? I'm getting confused.

I'm leaving it to the experts or at the very least I'll read links I post.

So much for Vaccines. on 21:30 - Sep 14 with 870 views

A_Fans_Dad

So much for Vaccines. on 20:58 - Sep 14 by Scotia
The point is that you are frequently posting contradictory links. You've posted a link extolling the virtues of vitamin D, but that link says HCQ is useless. You have previously said HCQ was a game changer, but now vitamin D is? Or is it Zinc or Azithromycin? I'm getting confused. I'm leaving it to the experts or at the very least I'll read links I post.

As I have said before, which "experts" do you believe.

So much for Vaccines. on 19:44 - Sep 15 with 835 views

A_Fans_Dad

It looks like the fix is in regarding US sales of the Oxford Vaccine.

https://www.c40.org/case_studi

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread