QF mandates Vaccine
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not trying to make a point about Covid vaccines.
I've been trying to make a point about why healthy scepticism is justified - the clue is in the word 'healthy' and why it is counter-productive to accuse any sceptic of being a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer or both. And for some reason people seem to pick the bits out of my posts that suit their argument and ignore the other bits.
Let's take a simple and factual example. The NSW CHO takes a different view to the QLD CHO as to the age group which may appropriately be given the AZ vaccine. Why is that?
I'm not suggesting a 'conspiracy' or 'corruption' or that one of the CHOs is a lizard person from the planet Coosebane. If they are both looking at the same data, how do they come to a different view? If they are looking at different data, why are they looking at different data?
If the explanation is that they just come to different views based on the same data but make different judgments about the risks and rewards implicit in the data, then - please - don't come here anonymously and make absolute statements about what everyone should believe and accuse anyone who's sceptical about that of being a conspiracy theorist or an anti-vaxxer.
I've been trying to make a point about why healthy scepticism is justified - the clue is in the word 'healthy' and why it is counter-productive to accuse any sceptic of being a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer or both. And for some reason people seem to pick the bits out of my posts that suit their argument and ignore the other bits.
Let's take a simple and factual example. The NSW CHO takes a different view to the QLD CHO as to the age group which may appropriately be given the AZ vaccine. Why is that?
I'm not suggesting a 'conspiracy' or 'corruption' or that one of the CHOs is a lizard person from the planet Coosebane. If they are both looking at the same data, how do they come to a different view? If they are looking at different data, why are they looking at different data?
If the explanation is that they just come to different views based on the same data but make different judgments about the risks and rewards implicit in the data, then - please - don't come here anonymously and make absolute statements about what everyone should believe and accuse anyone who's sceptical about that of being a conspiracy theorist or an anti-vaxxer.
One of the big mistakes of this whole period has been too many voices.
It has lead to an understandable confusion about what is the real message. Because there hasn’t been one.
ATAGI should have provided advise to the government on the AZ vaccine behind closed doors and the Government should have made the political , I stress political ,decision about what to do with it. But they didn’t. Really really dumb.
But that doesn’t mean the science is wrong.
Just very badly presented and managed.
Last edited by Grumpy retiree; 12th Sep 2021 at 05:59.
Any data set is open to different interpretations.
One of the big mistakes of this whole period has been too many voices.
It has lead to an understandable confusion about what is the real message. Because there hasn’t been one
ATAGI should have provide advise to the government on the AZ vaccine behind closed doors and the Government should have made the politic , I stress political ,decision about what to do with it. But they didn’t. Really really dumb.
But that doesn’t mean the science is wrong.
Just very badly presented and managed.
One of the big mistakes of this whole period has been too many voices.
It has lead to an understandable confusion about what is the real message. Because there hasn’t been one
ATAGI should have provide advise to the government on the AZ vaccine behind closed doors and the Government should have made the politic , I stress political ,decision about what to do with it. But they didn’t. Really really dumb.
But that doesn’t mean the science is wrong.
Just very badly presented and managed.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Joobs
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny you ask that, Grumps, as I happen to have visited my GP less than a week ago. It also happens I asked her where she got her degree:
UQ, she said
How long did it take?
Four years, she said, for her MD and then four years of internship or whatever. That's eight years, then they let her loose...... as a GP, which is who you suggested people should see for their immunological advice. Now you're on about specialists. Sorry but you aren't consistent there.
Grumps, did you happen to get your BSc from the public purse at a now-defunct off-campus establishment? UNSW?
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Muttley,
You win.
You are clearly beyond help or reason.
I sometimes get a panicky feeling that society is in real trouble when I interact with certain types on the internet.
Bye.
You win.
You are clearly beyond help or reason.
I sometimes get a panicky feeling that society is in real trouble when I interact with certain types on the internet.
Bye.
Alright, have any credible groups of biochemists or pharmacologists or any other discipline published these concerns backed up by verified data?
The NSW CHO takes a different view to the QLD CHO as to the age group which may appropriately be given the AZ vaccine. Why is that?
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a myriad of factors at play that determine health professionals' advice. State Chief Health Officers/medicos are public servants (not politicians). Their job is to provide the best available evidence and opinion to health ministers, whom then choose what to do with it.
I worked in this system for many years. I don't like all that I see and the associated political decisions, but that's the system we have. Prior to covid, most politicians listened very little to the scientific experts. They are certainly following more expert advice than prior to covid's arrival, and this I commend, because without this most politicians are absolutely out of their depth.
No ****? Good for you!
And which out of the QLD CHO and the NSW CHO should we trust in their judgment as to the age group who may safely take AZ?
And which out of the QLD CHO and the NSW CHO should we trust in their judgment as to the age group who may safely take AZ?
Didn't the Qld CHO state that in her opinion it would be criminal to give AZ to anyone under 40? My understanding is that with a State of Emergency declared the politicians must follow the advice of the CHO. So no political pressure at all being applied.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Joobs
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll be pleased to know the TGA has now banned the prescription of Ivermectin out of concern people (except you lot) might not want a dodgy vaccine if there is an effective treatment for the condition using a so-called "wonderdrug." It is not wacko conspiracy theorisim to suggest the big pharma crowd enjoy seeing Ivermectin banned, it is free market economics. Lobbying, influence, kickbacks, job placement, preferential treatment, bribery, etc happen all the time including in our first world. For another aviation parallel, look at the USAF tanker project and what was done to ensure the outcome.
It's also not wackery to think big pharma will encourage the belief that Ivermectin doesn't work (but their pricey vaccines do). I'm sorry to break it to you, Snot, but no one is manufacturing these vaccines out of conviction that the survival of YOUR genes is vital to humanity. They're doing it for cash. Disease is big money. Didn't you read the memo?? Cui bono.
Thank you. Bye.
In this case however NSW is being chased by a dog while QLD isn't. So they come up with different risk assessments.
As in all things in life there is always an element of risk, in this instance it is about managing the risk to provide the safest outcome. If there was zero covid in the world the risk of having a complication from a vaccine for covid would always make it less safe than not having it at all, but as covid is well and truly around for the next little while the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than being vaccinated and so the safest option is to take the vaccine.
Somewhere between the 2 options is where Australia (up until recently) sat, it didn't have Covid and so any vaccine is a greater risk, but it also had a high chance of Covid arriving. And so the medical people tried to balance the risk by limiting the AZ shots while they waited for Pfizer. Unfortunately Covid arrived before Pfizer and so they changed the advise on AZ to meet the greater threat.
Good analogy. I don’t need the GP to design a vaccine for me. They just need to be able to explain how it works. Given the average GP clinic dishes out vaccines all the time for various things, it’s likely explaining a vaccine is exactly what they can do. Just like an airline pilot can explain how all the lift devices work.
We don’t. But your arguments against vaccines ain’t making it. And you don’t like it.
We don’t. But your arguments against vaccines ain’t making it. And you don’t like it.
His book on the subject (also pre COVID 19) has all references linked if you wish to buy it.
https://www.france24.com/en/20181025...seases-measles
It's a risk assesment scenario, if I said you had to jump into the back of a moving car, you would say that's dangerous and probably not do it, but if you were being chased by a rabid dog you wouldn't hesitate to jump on in.
In this case however NSW is being chased by a dog while QLD isn't. So they come up with different risk assessments.
As in all things in life there is always an element of risk, in this instance it is about managing the risk to provide the safest outcome. If there was zero covid in the world the risk of having a complication from a vaccine for covid would always make it less safe than not having it at all, but as covid is well and truly around for the next little while the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than being vaccinated and so the safest option is to take the vaccine.
Somewhere between the 2 options is where Australia (up until recently) sat, it didn't have Covid and so any vaccine is a greater risk, but it also had a high chance of Covid arriving. And so the medical people tried to balance the risk by limiting the AZ shots while they waited for Pfizer. Unfortunately Covid arrived before Pfizer and so they changed the advise on AZ to meet the greater threat.
In this case however NSW is being chased by a dog while QLD isn't. So they come up with different risk assessments.
As in all things in life there is always an element of risk, in this instance it is about managing the risk to provide the safest outcome. If there was zero covid in the world the risk of having a complication from a vaccine for covid would always make it less safe than not having it at all, but as covid is well and truly around for the next little while the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than being vaccinated and so the safest option is to take the vaccine.
Somewhere between the 2 options is where Australia (up until recently) sat, it didn't have Covid and so any vaccine is a greater risk, but it also had a high chance of Covid arriving. And so the medical people tried to balance the risk by limiting the AZ shots while they waited for Pfizer. Unfortunately Covid arrived before Pfizer and so they changed the advise on AZ to meet the greater threat.
You'll be pleased to know the TGA has now banned the prescription of Ivermectin out of concern people (except you lot) might not want a dodgy vaccine if there is an effective treatment for the condition using a so-called "wonderdrug." It is not wacko conspiracy theorisim to suggest the big pharma crowd enjoy seeing Ivermectin banned, .
Your tin hat us in the mail.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 12th Sep 2021 at 23:14.
https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release...ectin-covid-19
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutley , please don’t think that was any sort of complement.
I just cant be bothered anymore.
I’m comforted by the fact that the anti-vaxx movement is self limiting……..
Oh , and just for the record my BSc is from an old fashioned sandstone University way back in the 70s.
A boring conventional education.
Maybe you should try it….
Oh , wait a minute……..
I just cant be bothered anymore.
I’m comforted by the fact that the anti-vaxx movement is self limiting……..
Oh , and just for the record my BSc is from an old fashioned sandstone University way back in the 70s.
A boring conventional education.
Maybe you should try it….
Oh , wait a minute……..
Last edited by Grumpy retiree; 13th Sep 2021 at 05:31.
Mutley, no one cares what you think, get jabbed or don’t. If you don’t your life will be restricted in what you can or can’t do, if you are happy with that then all power to you…. Enjoy.
If you're above me in seniority Muttley I think it very important you stick with your convictions and don't get jabbed. Can't trust those doctors you know. Maybe make a video about it
The vaccine this derived from was terminated Worldwide in a 2 week period starting April 2016 and case numbers are growing.
Below from the WHO - The vaccine was one of the Polio ones, it was very successful until it became the new threat. This derived version has been recorded as active in 2 humans for 6 years on the small test number subjects. Given the termination date of that vaccine and the case numbers in 2020, I think it is fair to say the data should be reviewed on this Polio variant.
"A global update on circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreaks and events is summarized below, as of February 2021.
In 2020, 959 human cases of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) and 411 cVDPV2-positive environmental samples were reported globally from 27 countries, of which 21 countries were from the African Region and six countries from reported from the regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, Europe and the Western Pacific. The number of cVDPV cases and environmental samples increased in 2020 compared to 2019 when 366 cVDPV2 cases and 173 cVDPV2-positive environmental samples were reported."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...-global-update
Below from the WHO - The vaccine was one of the Polio ones, it was very successful until it became the new threat. This derived version has been recorded as active in 2 humans for 6 years on the small test number subjects. Given the termination date of that vaccine and the case numbers in 2020, I think it is fair to say the data should be reviewed on this Polio variant.
"A global update on circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreaks and events is summarized below, as of February 2021.
In 2020, 959 human cases of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) and 411 cVDPV2-positive environmental samples were reported globally from 27 countries, of which 21 countries were from the African Region and six countries from reported from the regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, Europe and the Western Pacific. The number of cVDPV cases and environmental samples increased in 2020 compared to 2019 when 366 cVDPV2 cases and 173 cVDPV2-positive environmental samples were reported."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...-global-update
Last edited by Bend alot; 13th Sep 2021 at 05:57. Reason: Add link