Covid Deniers and Anti Vaxxers

[quilp]

[ricardo]

Anyone interested in facts about vaccinations, rather than dogma, soon discovers these are far from simple - nor are they the misinformation peddled by the pharma industry. Smallpox for example - the supposed ‘flagship’ of early vaccination programs - was actually defeated by improving sanitary conditions. The reality is that thousands who received early vaccinations against smallpox were damaged and many died - this is why there was an early backlash against them. Polio, the other supposed great ‘success’ of vaccination has not been defeated but rather re-named as acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) - there were over 200 recorded cases in 2018. Vaccines are not only far from the great success portrayed by the pharma-medical industry, the great harms caused by them are suppressed. This is widely known within the medical industry. And probably by many on this forum.

A good friend spent some years as an area business manager for Pfizer pharmceutical. Her role - as with all pharma representatives - was to ‘persuade’ doctors to prescribe their drugs, although ‘bribe’ would be a better word. It was shocking to witness the amount of money lavished upon doctors young and old, senior and junior, to encourage them not only to prescribe, but to ‘toe the line’. Supposed medical professionals would vie with one another to be invited not only to expensive dinners, but to travel with their partners to expensive holiday resorts to attend so-called ‘conferences’. But this is just the thin end of the wedge - the other end is people like Prof Chris Whitty, the UK's Chief Medical Officer, receiving in excess of £30 million to fund research. Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK's Chief Scientist, is a former Vice President of Glaxo Smith Kline - a major vaccine producer. It is laughable to claim these people as independent. The reality is that the medical industry is ‘in the pocket’ of the pharmaceutical industry. It is only very brave and honest medical professionals who have the courage to speak out.

 

At risk of repeating myself, one of these is Doctor Tess Lawrie. Dr Lawrie is not only a consultant to the World Health Organisation but her main clients are the pharma industry so she is likely to lose her business as a result of talking openly, ie; she is a woman of principle and integrity. If anyone is genuinely interested in facts the interview with Dr Lawrie below makes compelling viewing:

 

https://www.oraclefilms.com/tesslawrie

Few are denying there is a virus going about and few are saying there is no benefit to TRIED AND TESTED vaccines. However the facts are not as we are presented. But we adults can do our own research and make our own choices. 

Please dig a little deeper before putting your children forward for vaccination.

[John Wright]

32 minutes ago, ricardo said:

. It is only very brave and honest medical professionals who have the courage to speak out.

 

At risk of repeating myself, one of these is Doctor Tess Lawrie. Dr Lawrie is not only a consultant to the World Health Organisation but her main clients are the pharma industry so she is likely to lose her business as a result of talking openly, ie; she is a woman of principle and integrity. If anyone is genuinely interested in facts the interview with Dr Lawrie below makes compelling viewing:

.

Except she keeps on making false claims or misrepresents the results and conclusions to be drawn  from her commentaries on the tests, results, research of others.

Another one who  wholly discredited.

[squelch]

54 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 Polio, the other supposed great ‘success’ of vaccination has not been defeated but rather re-named as acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) - there were over 200 recorded cases in 2018.

 

Polio. Polio vaccine was licensed in the United States in 1955. During 1951-1954, an average of 16,316 paralytic polio cases and 1879 deaths from polio were reported each year (9,10). Polio incidence declined sharply following the introduction of vaccine to less than 1000 cases in 1962 and remained below 100 cases after that year. In 1994, every dollar spent to administer oral poliovirus vaccine saved $3.40 in direct medical costs and $2.74 in indirect societal costs (14). The last documented indigenous transmission of wild poliovirus in the United States occurred in 1979. Since then, reported cases have been either vaccine-associated or imported. As of 1991, polio caused by wild-type viruses has been eliminated from the Western Hemisphere (16). Enhanced use of the inactivated polio vaccine is expected to reduce the number of vaccine-associated cases, which averaged eight cases per year during 1980-1994

The reduction in recorded cases to 200 in 2018 shows that polio vaccination worked.

[The Phantom]

Is nothing sacred 🤣

 

[display name]

Fixed.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Anyone interested in facts about vaccinations, rather than dogma, soon discovers these are far from simple - nor are they the misinformation peddled by the pharma industry. Smallpox for example - the supposed ‘flagship’ of early vaccination programs - was actually defeated by improving sanitary conditions. The reality is that thousands who received early vaccinations against smallpox were damaged and many died - this is why there was an early backlash against them. Polio, the other supposed great ‘success’ of vaccination has not been defeated but rather re-named as acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) - there were over 200 recorded cases in 2018.

Smallpox is actually only passed from person to person, so improved sanitation wouldn't have made much effect (unlike say with cholera).  Obviously the sort of places that get themselves organised to improve sanitation tend to be the sort of places that also organise vaccination, but the two aren't directly linked as any close examination of the evidence shows.

Technically the early measures against smallpox were inoculations (or variolation) using the live virus from a smallpox victim.  It did indeed carry the risk of damage or death but people were still prepared to take that chance because the risks were much less than that of smallpox.  It later was replaced by vaccination a related virus, cowpox, (which is why it's called vaccination) and variolation was banned in the UK in I think the 1830s.  Oddly enough any backlash against vaccination (especially in India) came from those who wanted to stick with the older more dangerous method.

These facts rather than your dogma are readily available on the internet (here's the Wiki for smallpox for example), and though I doubt you will move from your approved holy texts, others might be interested.

As for AFP, while polio may have been the main cause of it in the past, it's not the only one - other viruses may be involved for a start.  It's very rare however (maybe 50 a year in busy times).  The last case of natural polio infection acquired in the UK was in 1984 (or 1993 is you include those with unknown causes); the last imported case in 1988 and the last derived from a vaccine in 2000.

Strangely enough the last person to be infected with one of the two forms of smallpox, died in 2013 when he was helping in a campaign to eliminate polio in Somalia.  Though he died of malaria.

[ricardo]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Smallpox is actually only passed from person to person, so improved sanitation wouldn't have made much effect (unlike say with cholera).  Obviously the sort of places that get themselves organised to improve sanitation tend to be the sort of places that also organise vaccination, but the two aren't directly linked as any close examination of the evidence shows.

Technically the early measures against smallpox were inoculations (or variolation) using the live virus from a smallpox victim.  It did indeed carry the risk of damage or death but people were still prepared to take that chance because the risks were much less than that of smallpox.  It later was replaced by vaccination a related virus, cowpox, (which is why it's called vaccination) and variolation was banned in the UK in I think the 1830s.  Oddly enough any backlash against vaccination (especially in India) came from those who wanted to stick with the older more dangerous method.

These facts rather than your dogma are readily available on the internet (here's the Wiki for smallpox for example), and though I doubt you will move from your approved holy texts, others might be interested.

As for AFP, while polio may have been the main cause of it in the past, it's not the only one - other viruses may be involved for a start.  It's very rare however (maybe 50 a year in busy times).  The last case of natural polio infection acquired in the UK was in 1984 (or 1993 is you include those with unknown causes); the last imported case in 1988 and the last derived from a vaccine in 2000.

Strangely enough the last person to be infected with one of the two forms of smallpox, died in 2013 when he was helping in a campaign to eliminate polio in Somalia.  Though he died of malaria.

 

Hi Roger

Thank you for your well-informed response.

It is almost certainly true that cholera disappeared as a consequence of improved sanitation. The history books omit to mention that Dr Charles Campbell and others, believed smallpox was actually transmitted by mites, bedbugs etc, which also diminished with better hygiene and sanitation. Few doubt this was aided by effective vaccination, nor the value of TRIED AND TESTED vaccines. I am simply saying the vaccination story is not as clear-cut as usually presented.

 

Dr Thomas Cowan writes knowledgeably about these subjects in his book ‘The Contagion Myth’. Dr Cowan has supposedly been ‘discredited’ but is well-researched - the fact his views are opposed by mainstream media and medicine does not make them any less valid. Dr Cowan took the principled step of giving up his licence to practice rather than 'toe the line' of the pharma-medical industry. Ultimately we must do our own research, decide who we wish to trust, and draw our own conclusions.

 

My sole point was that whilst the covid vaccines remain in their trail period parents may feel it prudent to do a little more research before making the choice to vaccinate their children. It is not without reason the UK joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI) declined to recommend covid vaccines for our children.

 

[Gladys]

42 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 

Hi Roger

Thank you for your well-informed response.

It is almost certainly true that cholera disappeared as a consequence of improved sanitation. The history books omit to mention that Dr Charles Campbell and others, believed smallpox was actually transmitted by mites, bedbugs etc, which also diminished with better hygiene and sanitation. Few doubt this was aided by effective vaccination, nor the value of TRIED AND TESTED vaccines. I am simply saying the vaccination story is not as clear-cut as usually presented.

 

Dr Thomas Cowan writes knowledgeably about these subjects in his book ‘The Contagion Myth’. Dr Cowan has supposedly been ‘discredited’ but is well-researched - the fact his views are opposed by mainstream media and medicine does not make them any less valid. Dr Cowan took the principled step of giving up his licence to practice rather than 'toe the line' of the pharma-medical industry. Ultimately we must do our own research, decide who we wish to trust, and draw our own conclusions.

 

My sole point was that whilst the covid vaccines remain in their trail period parents may feel it prudent to do a little more research before making the choice to vaccinate their children. It is not without reason the UK joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI) declined to recommend covid vaccines for our children.

 

The problem with doing "your own research" is that many of us are unable to distinguish between the scientifically valid commentary and claptrap. 

[Stu Peters]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

The problem with doing "your own research" is that many of us are unable to distinguish between the scientifically valid commentary and claptrap. 

Same with climate change. I've not been trained (nor am I smart enough) to read or digest peer reviewed papers on scientific matters, so like most lay people I read articles and watch documentaries by people who probably are. The trouble with that is the bias shown by the opposing factions means you are reduced to applying your own common sense judgement to decide which argument makes more sense to you. I may have made a mistake having the jabs, time will tell. I might also be wrong about climate change, again only time will tell.

[ricardo]

11 hours ago, John Wright said:

Except she keeps on making false claims or misrepresents the results and conclusions to be drawn  from her commentaries on the tests, results, research of others.

Another one who  wholly discredited.

 

3 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Same with climate change. I've not been trained (nor am I smart enough) to read or digest peer reviewed papers on scientific matters, so like most lay people I read articles and watch documentaries by people who probably are. The trouble with that is the bias shown by the opposing factions means you are reduced to applying your own common sense judgement to decide which argument makes more sense to you. I may have made a mistake having the jabs, time will tell. I might also be wrong about climate change, again only time will tell.

 

When asked for guidance about the vaccination issue the best our own health minister was able to offer Manx citizens was "Do your own research online". Although on one level this seems feeble advice, the reality of our World is that ultimately we must all make our own decisions, based on our own interpretation of the information available. Which will always be conflicting. Our position is basically as outlined by Stu Peters above. Except we are not 'reduced' to applying our own common sense judgement. It is common sense, and judgement based on our intuition, that has allowed humanity to survive and evolve. We fail to use, and underrate, this faculty at our peril.

 

John Wright - forum moderator

As you are surely aware, it is not true that Dr Tess Lawrie, nor the hundreds of other doctors who have expressed grave concerns about the vaccination program, has been "wholly discredited". Nor is it true she has made "false claims" or "misrepresented results". What is true is that she, and many others, have stated 'facts' and 'presented results' then given a perspective on these that differs from the mainstream. However, since the mainstream perspective is basically the position of the pharma-medical industry - which has huge vested interest in a vaccination program - it is wholly biased, and is hotly contested by extremely well-informed people - such as Dr Lawrie. It is common sense to seek out other informed views.

I invite you to take the brave, and honourable, step of renaming this thread the less emotive, and more balanced, "Covid issues". It ought rightfully to be a place where these important subjects can be discussed and debated in an informed and balanced way.

Ideally there ought to be a balanced and well-informed public debate where the issues can be aired and discussed so the Manx public can hear the information and perspectives, then use their own common sense and judgement. With the media present.

Perhaps Stu Peters might like to chair that?

 

[TheTeapot]

3 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

I may have made a mistake having the jabs, time will tell. 

Oh hello.

[John Wright]

25 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 

 

When asked for guidance about the vaccination issue the best our own health minister was able to offer Manx citizens was "Do your own research online". Although on one level this seems feeble advice, the reality of our World is that ultimately we must all make our own decisions, based on our own interpretation of the information available. Which will always be conflicting. Our position is basically as outlined by Stu Peters above. Except we are not 'reduced' to applying our own common sense judgement. It is common sense, and judgement based on our intuition, that has allowed humanity to survive and evolve. We fail to use, and underrate, this faculty at our peril.

 

John Wright - forum moderator

As you are surely aware, it is not true that Dr Tess Lawrie, nor the hundreds of other doctors who have expressed grave concerns about the vaccination program, has been "wholly discredited". Nor is it true she has made "false claims" or "misrepresented results". What is true is that she, and many others, have stated 'facts' and 'presented results' then given a perspective on these that differs from the mainstream. However, since the mainstream perspective is basically the position of the pharma-medical industry - which has huge vested interest in a vaccination program - it is wholly biased, and is hotly contested by extremely well-informed people - such as Dr Lawrie. It is common sense to seek out other informed views.

I invite you to take the brave, and honourable, step of renaming this thread the less emotive, and more balanced, "Covid issues". It ought rightfully to be a place where these important subjects can be discussed and debated in an informed and balanced way.

Ideally there ought to be a balanced and well-informed public debate where the issues can be aired and discussed so the Manx public can hear the information and perspectives, then use their own common sense and judgement. With the media present.

Perhaps Stu Peters might like to chair that?

 

Here you go

CLAIM

“The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.” 

SOURCE: Tess Lawrie, America's Frontline Doctors, The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy

Published: 16 Jun 2021

Misleading: The number of medical issues (adverse events) recorded after vaccination does not indicate that the vaccine caused them or that the vaccine is unsafe. The Yellow Card scheme allows regulators to identify unexpected rare side effects following an investigation. The British health regulator has done this for side effects identified in this way and concluded that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their known risks.

 

CLAIM

“Ivermectin is the only thing we have that treats COVID at all stages […] Ivermectin substantially reduces deaths from COVID and prevents infections”; 50 studies “show ivermectin is not just effective, but highly effective” 

SOURCE: Craig Kelly, Tess Lawrie, Sky News

Published: 25 Apr 2021

Unsupported: As of late April 2021, there isn’t reliable evidence supporting the claim that ivermectin effectively treats or prevents COVID-19. Many clinical trials that studied ivermectin thus far were limited by issues such as a small study population and high risk of bias, while better-designed studies found that ivermectin provided no benefit to COVID-19 patients.

 

 

CLAIM

Ivermectin reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 

SOURCE: Tess Lawrie, YouTube

Published: 22 Mar 2021

Unsupported: There is no scientific evidence demonstrating that ivermectin is effective for treating COVID-19 patients. Ivermectin’s safety profile is established only for treating parasitic infection, not for treating viruses, including the one that causes COVID-19. 
Misleading: There are design flaws and methodological limitations of the clinical studies that support the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. However, the video presented these studies as guaranteed proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19 patients, while disregarding the most recent studies showing that ivermectin has no beneficial effects for COVID-19 patients.

 

You see, @ricardo Tess Lawrie does exactly the thing you allege scientists and Dr who have been bought or are toeing the line. She makes things up, she misrepresents, she relies on faulty research, poorly designed, she jumps the gun. Ivermectin  will take years to properly test and evaluate. Yet she recommends taking it now, untested in humans, for Covid.

 

You fall into the same position as Ann, Mandy and others. Your “research” isn’t broad, you only read the stuff that meets your criteria and viewpoint. You dismiss the majority of the peer reviewed mainstream because they must be bought. 
 

To be fair, you do the same here. You confuse my role as moderator with my personal posts and views.

[ricardo]

44 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Here you go

CLAIM

“The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.” 

SOURCE: Tess Lawrie, America's Frontline Doctors, The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy

Published: 16 Jun 2021

Misleading: The number of medical issues (adverse events) recorded after vaccination does not indicate that the vaccine caused them or that the vaccine is unsafe. The Yellow Card scheme allows regulators to identify unexpected rare side effects following an investigation. The British health regulator has done this for side effects identified in this way and concluded that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their known risks.

 

CLAIM

“Ivermectin is the only thing we have that treats COVID at all stages […] Ivermectin substantially reduces deaths from COVID and prevents infections”; 50 studies “show ivermectin is not just effective, but highly effective” 

SOURCE: Craig Kelly, Tess Lawrie, Sky News

Published: 25 Apr 2021

Unsupported: As of late April 2021, there isn’t reliable evidence supporting the claim that ivermectin effectively treats or prevents COVID-19. Many clinical trials that studied ivermectin thus far were limited by issues such as a small study population and high risk of bias, while better-designed studies found that ivermectin provided no benefit to COVID-19 patients.

 

 

CLAIM

Ivermectin reduces the risk of death from COVID-19 

SOURCE: Tess Lawrie, YouTube

Published: 22 Mar 2021

Unsupported: There is no scientific evidence demonstrating that ivermectin is effective for treating COVID-19 patients. Ivermectin’s safety profile is established only for treating parasitic infection, not for treating viruses, including the one that causes COVID-19. 
Misleading: There are design flaws and methodological limitations of the clinical studies that support the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. However, the video presented these studies as guaranteed proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19 patients, while disregarding the most recent studies showing that ivermectin has no beneficial effects for COVID-19 patients.

 

You see, @ricardo Tess Lawrie does exactly the thing you allege scientists and Dr who have been bought or are toeing the line. She makes things up, she misrepresents, she relies on faulty research, poorly designed, she jumps the gun. Ivermectin  will take years to properly test and evaluate. Yet she recommends taking it now, untested in humans, for Covid.

 

You fall into the same position as Ann, Mandy and others. Your “research” isn’t broad, you only read the stuff that meets your criteria and viewpoint. You dismiss the majority of the peer reviewed mainstream because they must be bought. 
 

To be fair, you do the same here. You confuse my role as moderator with my personal posts and views.

 

What is certainly true is that Dr Lawries’s claims - as those made by virtually everyone in this debate - are disputed. This does not make them any less valid.

The vaccine issue was re-ignited in 1998 when Dr Andrew Wakefield made claims about possible connections between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Dr Wakefield was subsequently struck off  the UK’s medical register by the General Medical Council and amidst massive publicity the British Medical Journal found his studies ‘fraudulent’. It is nonetheless true that the World has experienced a huge rise in autism, which has closely paralleled increased use of MMR vaccination. Despite the findings of the BMJ many well-informed people, and medical professionals, continue to believe there is substance to Dr Wakefield’s claims.

 

The ‘benchmark’ of statistics and findings related to the covid pandemic - as quoted in the media - is John Hopkins University. John Hopkins University receives a significant proportion of its’ funding from the deeply questionable Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are no unbiased sources in this arena.

 

I repeat - media publicised public debate is the appropriate way for these issues to be aired.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

 

https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-awards-40-million-to-johns-hopkins-school-of-public-health

 

 

[TheTeapot]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Despite the findings of the BMJ many well-informed people, and medical professionals, continue to believe there is substance to Dr Wakefield’s claims.

 

 

 

Absolutely no one credible believes there is substance to ex-Dr Wakefields claims.

Of course he has moved to the US where he has found a grateful audience of braindead morons and religious types and is happily grifting away spreading his lies.