Dr Nick Coatsworth Who Helped Lead Australia's Response to COVID - Recommends NO MORE JABS - OPINIONS

mickrb30 on 12/06/2024 - 21:12
Last edited 13/06/2024 - 08:06 by 1 other user

Dr Nick Coatsworth makes a STUNNING admission about the Covid jab

Dr Nick Coatsworth (left) who helped lead Australia's response to Covid-19, has made a shock revelation about vaccinations for the virus. And it's not the first controversial statement Dr Coatsworth - Australia's former deputy chief health officer - has made about the Covid vaccine. HE HAS WOKEN UP _ SAYS HE WILL NOT TAKE ANY MORE JABS - whats your SAY ? ?
Will you follow his lead, his advice ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13520171/doctor-n…

sorry spelled typo, Opinion wrong in heading, wont let me fix it know.

Health & Beauty COVID-19 Vaccination

Comments

  • spackbace on 12/06/2024 - 21:18
    +181

    OPIONS

    Well, that sums up this post…

    • AngoraFish on 12/06/2024 - 21:27
      +33

      sorry spelled typo, Opinion wrong in heading, wont let me fix it know.

      Let me think, what is wrong with this sentence?

      • spackbace on 12/06/2024 - 21:28
        +32

        sorry spelled typo, Opinion wrong in heading, wont let me fix it know.

        Umm what is right with that sentence? 😂 Maybe the full stop at the end?

      • fredblogs on 13/06/2024 - 13:03
        +30

        This makes me wonder, is there an inverse relationship between education and anti-vax sentiment?

          • fredblogs on 13/06/2024 - 13:44
            +3

            @7ekn00: Hope this is not what you consider "proven" :)
            https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52409/are-peopl…

              • El cheepo on 13/06/2024 - 14:11
                +18

                @7ekn00:

                The sheep

                Uh oh, here we go…
                Whos got the popcorn 😂

                • May4th on 13/06/2024 - 14:31
                  +4

                  @El cheepo: I don't have popcorn I'm too busy grazing on my patch of freshly sunbaked hay. Mew?

                • poppingtags on 13/06/2024 - 18:49
                  +5

                  @El cheepo: It's always a free demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect with this lot.

                  • El cheepo on 13/06/2024 - 19:01
                    +3

                    @poppingtags: I agree, but funnily enough it can go both ways on this topic (although the larger* % of the DKE is usually on the anti vax side)

                    Thus adding to the entertainment.

                    *larger - from what i observe.

              • SBOB on 13/06/2024 - 14:46
                +4

                @7ekn00:

                But your bias is now obvious!!!

                does the fact you put so much faith into the (facebook survey sourced data) study which only had a 2.1% participation rate of PhD students (and does not differ between the level or area of study behind the PhD) not also display a little bit of bias on yourself?

                What if some of those PhD students were awarded PhD for their research into cherry picked data studies, would that count?
                What if some of those PhD students lied in their facebook survey?

                • 7ekn00 on 13/06/2024 - 16:41
                  -6

                  @SBOB: Haha, it's not even the study I was talking about …

                  The link was an assumption by fredblogs that then went on to debunk his own link ;)

                  I was talking about a German worldwide survey of alumni from different institution around the world that were simply asked "how many covid vaccination did you get?" (hence the comment about prevalence, you can not determine prevalence unless it is retrospective) …

                  But folks around here sure like to assume and put words into others mouths !!!

                  • SBOB on 13/06/2024 - 17:36

                    @7ekn00: My bad, assumed you were supporting your own 'fact' instead of disproving someone else's. It's a rather pointless 'fact' anyway, as for any study that found 'a', an opposing one could find 'b', due to being purely selective and easily sample biased, which was my point.

                    Would be interested in the summary/conclusion section of the paper that came to your version of 'fact', as I doubt it simplifies it or defines it as 'exact' a fact as you claimed.
                    PhDs are 15x more likely not to be experimentally vaxxed

                  • Eeples on 14/06/2024 - 14:27
                    +1

                    @7ekn00: A study through a Facebook survey?

                    No wonder there are so many people with phd’s.

              • coolfriendjoachim on 14/06/2024 - 13:49
                +3

                @7ekn00: A paper on medrxiv doesn't mean it's published. Anybody can upload to medrxiv - it doesn't mean it's been published or peer reviewed. It's what we in academia call a "preprint server" - somewhere you submit your work before it's been peer-reviewed, in the hope it might still be useful to people.

              • ColtNoir on 18/06/2024 - 09:21

                @7ekn00: There’s a difference between published, peer reviewed and reference rate.

          • AddNinja on 14/06/2024 - 10:47

            @7ekn00: I looked at your linked article. They mainly talk about covid vax hesitancy. The numbers they offer are very different to the ones you stated. For example, PhDs had a covid vax hesitancy rate of about 23% over the course of the study. "High School Graduates" (which I'd guess would be "Some College" on their graphs) have a covid vax hesitancy rate of about 28-20% (over the same time period). I would probably ascribe this largely to age rather than education level given data presented elsewhere in the paper.

            • 7ekn00 on 14/06/2024 - 11:11
              -3

              @AddNinja: Read the thread, I never linked an article for the 15x prevalence (because it is behind a paywall) ..

              The only link I provided was the study that was referenced and armchair debunked by the assumption fredblogs made ..

              • AddNinja on 14/06/2024 - 11:34
                +1

                @7ekn00: Ok - you said this right?

                “PhDs are 15x more likely not to be experimentally vaxxed (ie. COVID specific - they are fine with things like Polio) than high school graduates …”

                Can you support this? It is a surprising claim and is not supported by other linked articles. Feel free to copy and paste the relevant sections from your article, along with its reference.

                  • AddNinja on 14/06/2024 - 14:29
                    +2

                    @7ekn00: Oh dear child! Listen, study hard in school and I promise you that you will be able to argue for a claim with supporting evidence. And more importantly, with time you will be mentally strong enough to lose the occasional debate without losing your sense of self worth.

                    • 7ekn00 on 14/06/2024 - 15:47
                      -3

                      @AddNinja: Ah, the typical condescending sheep emerges .. didn't take long, just a "no" from an internet random …

                      Yes daddy government, you must be right on everything and I will follow you into anything you wish - please conscript me for fighting in Ukraine!

                      • Gehirn on 14/06/2024 - 16:01
                        +5

                        @7ekn00:

                        Ah, the typical condescending sheep emerges .. didn't take long, just a "no" from an internet random …

                        You call the prior commenters sheep first before they even criticise you, yet you are offended when they retort back?
                        This could have been solved if you just posted your source but instead you play the victim.

          • massafiri on 14/06/2024 - 16:04

            @7ekn00: I think the definition of "experimental" is key here.
            There is a difference between absolutely no data, vs some data to an experiment.

            In a way we're are experiments to everything.
            Fire was "experimental" to humans at one stage.

          • freefall101 on 14/06/2024 - 17:44
            +1

            @7ekn00: I love how after over a billion doses and several years, people still think the covid vaccine is "experimental". What testing exactly are you after at this point? Why aren't people dropping dead in the streets if there's the widespread issues with the vaccine that people still claim exist?

            The polio vaccine also went through many versions and had plenty of issues that were much greater than the covid vaccine. Although I hope telling you that won't send you on a rant about the polio vaccine and make you forget how many lives it saved from an atrocious disease

            • mrdean on 14/06/2024 - 17:48
              +1

              @freefall101:

              and make you forget how many lives it saved from an atrocious disease

              If you're not willing to question fundamental beliefs about vaccines (safe & effective: which is what all of us originally believed), then it won't matter what we respond with.

              • freefall101 on 14/06/2024 - 17:53
                +6

                @mrdean: This isn't a question of fundamental beliefs, this is very specific beliefs. But that doesn't matter when you selectively quote my post instead of answering the very clear question I asked (it even ends with question marks).

                Why is polio considered "safe" despite having been developed, improved and had emergency releases? Why is the covid vaccine "experimental" despite having over a billion doses go into people?

                Stop assuming I'm pro-anything and I'll stop assume anti-vax people are just idiots with no concept of how medicine works.

                • mrdean on 14/06/2024 - 17:57
                  -2

                  @freefall101:

                  This isn't a question of fundamental beliefs, t

                  How can it not be?

                  When everything that comes after is built on it? The way you think about vaccines, illnesses, viruses is all based on the theory of virology. Unpacking that in terms of "how medicine works" is no easy task. But it is up to you to question it. You said to stop assuming you're pro-anything, & yet in your previous post about polio, you clearly state the belief the vaccine saved lives.

                  • freefall101 on 15/06/2024 - 00:42
                    +2

                    @mrdean: I was replying to someone who said the polio vaccine works.

                    If you don’t believe viruses exist, then I don’t know how to help you.

            • bigticket on 14/06/2024 - 18:12
              -3

              @freefall101:

              people still think the covid vaccine is "experimental"

              Thats because it is experimental and still is. Vaccines take ~10 years to be finally approved. Facts don't care about your feelings, surely you can do the maths. Hence the emergency use authorisation before been released to the public.

              Why aren't people dropping dead in the streets.

              They are. There is a ~20% increase is all cause mortality around the world. This really needs to be investigated.

              • buckster on 14/06/2024 - 22:07
                +3

                @bigticket: Nonsense lol.

                Tell me you've never been involved in R&D without telling me you've never been involved.

              • freefall101 on 15/06/2024 - 01:28
                +3

                @bigticket: What is it with you lot and snipping parts of what I say and ignoring everything else? The polio vaccine had emergency use authorisation recently, is it unsafe?. The covid vaccine is no longer authorised under emergency use but full approvals, despite the lack of 10 years, because 10 years isn't the standard for approval - it's going through all the testing stages. It has been through all the stages now.

                Facts don't care about your feelings and the fact that most of the human race has had a covid vaccine with no widespread problems trumps your feelings that there's something sinister going on. That takes a little more logical processing than "1 year is less than 10 years!" but I'm sure you're up to it.

                They are. There is a ~20% increase is all cause mortality around the world. This really needs to be investigated.

                There's a 900% increase in statistics without any kind of source too, we should investigate that as well. Total global deaths increased substantially after 2019, but there was sort of this global infectious pandemic that caused that one.

                • bigticket on 15/06/2024 - 23:14

                  @freefall101: I just wonder how the covid vaccine received full approval (and the polio vaccine for that matter) way under the mandatory 10 year period? Any thoughts? No? I'll tell you;
                  The corrupt FDA whose conflict of interest (80% of FDA funding is from pharmaceutical companies) is well known so much so that legislation is put is place to allowing it.

                  The regulators and the pharma are one and the same. The head of security is a fox. It is truly laughable that vaxxers cannot understand this simple concept. I do this not to convince you, just to highlight to others the delusion(ism) waking amongst us.

                  That takes a little more logical processing than "1 year is less than 10 years!" but I'm sure you're up to it.

                  Tell that to people who have been vaccinated in the decades previously that have had severe vaccine injuries that surfaced ~ 6 years later or cases of mothers passing vaccine injuries years later to their offspring. 10 years is the absolute minimum for any drug but FDA (or pharma; these terms are interchangeable) will bring that down to a zero day approval.

                  There's a 900% increase in statistics without any kind of source too…

                  Just a head up, mortality data is really hard to fake.

                  • SBOB on 16/06/2024 - 07:33

                    @bigticket:

                    mandatory 10 year period?

                    Where is this 'mandatory' time detailed in policy/regulations?

                    • bigticket on 16/06/2024 - 18:18
                      -2

                      @SBOB: Pardon me. I meant to imply a 10 year mandatory should be the standard.
                      Short approval times serve commercial interests rather than public health.

                      • May4th on 16/06/2024 - 22:21
                        -1

                        @bigticket: there's been articles written on this if anyone cared to look. they got full approval so quickly is because the different stages of the approval process were all done concurrently to expedite its approval - whereas usually there's a lot of red tape each step would occur sequentially and subject to a lot of administrative delay. also never before has there been a roll out of a provisionally approved vaccine on such a scale there is literally billions of doses of data

                        • bigticket on 17/06/2024 - 12:06
                          +2

                          @May4th: You are missing the point. Sure the process can be streamlined, but unfortunately that means the drug lacks any long term data. It is well documented that severe adverse affects can occur many years down the track and drugs need to be assessed over longer periods to show up the adverse effects if any.

                          There is no way around it unless you are willing risk public health. Short approval times only benefit the drug manufactures and not the public.

                          Case in point, currently there is a significant increase in excess mortality worldwide. Long term data may or may not have indicated this is long term covid trials. At this point the cause is unknown and no one cares to find out.

                          Check your sources. Those articles are "sponsored by Pfizer"

        • RefusdClassification on 15/06/2024 - 19:28

          Dumb people (the sheeple) mindlessly do and think whatever the government, the TV and social-ist media tells them to do. Smart people will sometimes go along with the flow, but it is only because it is helpful to their career, not because they believe it (eg gender fluidity, the planet is boiling, what's good for the rich is good for the poor aka trickle down, co-vid vaccines are extremely effective and safe, Russia is evil but America is good, etc).

          People, start thinking for yourself. Question everything. You have been programmed from birth to never question authority and the ideology of the people in power. You probably won't reach the same conclusions as me, but what's important is simply undoing some of the brain-washing.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/06/2024 - 10:47

            @RefusdClassification: Ok I'm going to think for myself and question everything. First question is to you tho, what evidence do you have a mass population brainwashing?

            • lukeghulm on 16/06/2024 - 13:40
              -2

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: "diversity is our strength"
              "a real man can have a vagina/a real woman can have a penis"
              "mass immigration does not raise house prices and lower wages"
              and so on

    • timthetoolman on 13/06/2024 - 06:25
      +10

      You only think it's 'opinions' because that's what big pharma want you to think, sheep. Do your own research

      • Nugs on 13/06/2024 - 06:53
        +24

        I thought it was supposed to be ONIONS
        .

        • smog on 13/06/2024 - 10:31
          +2

          Love me some Onyo

        • PeterSnoot on 13/06/2024 - 14:24

          Well, apparently Tony Abbott never caught Covid

        • nobro25 on 16/06/2024 - 11:07

          I thought it was OPIODS

      • Joey2scoops on 13/06/2024 - 08:46
        +5

        User name checks out😂

      • FlyingMiffy on 13/06/2024 - 10:30
        +50

        Lol lets focus on the science then. This dailymail stuff tends to pick and choose what they want to focus on. In the very limited extract of the on air conversation, Nick Coatsworth says that he wont be getting more booster shots as he has had 3 already as is supported by science. The science of vaccines is that it boosts your immunity to viruses, it doesnt prevent it. It is also intended to compliment your immunity, not replace it. So theres actually nothing wrong with what he said and theres no u turn from his time as the chief health officer… but hey, read what you like and believe what you like.

          • Gehirn on 13/06/2024 - 22:16
            +8

            @sn00ze: deflection - changing the topic

          • SBOB on 13/06/2024 - 22:21
            +7

            @sn00ze:

            Last week the US Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruled the Covid-19 jab is not actually a vaccine

            Not exactly what the appealant court determined.
            The appeals court determined that based on the case law from 1905, and it's 1905 legal definition of vaccine and the laws regarding how it can be mandated, the prior dismissal of the lawsuit based on this precedent /case law was overturned.
            The lawsuit can therefore be reraised by the litigating party.

            But sure, your summary click bait title might also be the alternate summary

        • markathome on 14/06/2024 - 00:16
          +2

          Coatsworth, if you followed him, has always been a pretty moderate figure in the pandemic.

          Among the things the article lists, he has also elsewhere expressed relief at the dropping of mask mandates.

          The reality is: 260+ days of lockdown was excessive and the person who authorised that should have been kicked to the kerb.

          As a number of economists pointed out the lockdowns came at immense cost (especially in social and mental health terms). It saved some lives but a large fraction just died at a slightly later date (e.g. when COVID deaths peaked in 2022 and became the third leading cause of death).

          I don't think Coatsworth's views are flawless, but I think Australia's response to the pandemic was objectively bad as illustrated by the number of days Victorians spent in lockdowns.

          • RecklessMonkeys on 14/06/2024 - 13:03
            -1

            @markathome:

            As a number of economists pointed out the lockdowns came at immense cost

            The pandemic came at immense cost. Our reaction to it arguably saved money because we prevented the health system from collapse, and made it relatively safe for people to go about their business. That is not to be dismissive of the toll it took on mental health and broader societal impacts.

            It saved some lives

            It saved a lot of lives. Not just in term of deaths, but in term of broader consequences such as long Covid.

            a large fraction just died at a slightly later date

            That was when we opened up. They tended to be unvaccinated. Covid continues to kill people, but many people reduce that risk by being up to date with vaccinations.

      • rumblytangara on 13/06/2024 - 11:12
        +24

        some amazing psychology in the voting here.
        What do you focus on?
        Trivial spelling error VS I possibly made a error along with millions of other > Australians by taking an experimental gene therapy for a trumped up cold

        The problem is that there might be some serious points to make behind this, but the OP has some serious strikes against him:

        • semi-literate DOENT NO HOW T USE CAPS or punctuation /s
        • Is quoting the Daily Mail as a source.

        It heavily influences any point he's trying to make. Which is unfortunate.

        If hobo reeking of vomit and piss walked up to me spouting algebraic formulae, it might be genius or it might be insanity. But we operate on heuristics to save time, and these heuristics include "don't pay credence to obvious crazies."

        Edit: Just scanned the thread for more of the OP's comments. And yeah, he's an obvious semi-literate crazy. Whatever message he is trying to push, he is doing a massive disservice to it. Or simply trolling. Hard to tell, and overall not worth paying any more attention to.

        • Randolph Duke on 13/06/2024 - 11:33
          +14

          Plus the previous posts on this topic by OP

          Vaccination status: unconfirmed
          Cooker status: confirmed.

        • sn00ze on 13/06/2024 - 22:01

          deflection again - focus on the source of the information (the OP), not the actual information ie. I may have been sold a lemon

          • rumblytangara on 14/06/2024 - 10:54
            +3

            @sn00ze: The source? You mean the Daily Mail?

            I already addressed that.

            If you're going to try to make an argument, use trustworthy sources.

        • bigticket on 13/06/2024 - 23:15
          -3

          It is common knowledge that ad hominem attacks are used by those lacking knowledge and or intelligence to respond.

          • rumblytangara on 14/06/2024 - 01:18
            +5

            @bigticket: And by those who don't have the inclination to humour fools.

            Everyone knows the adage about arguing with idiots, so why bother playing that game. It's a total waste of time.

            • bigticket on 14/06/2024 - 12:56
              +1

              @rumblytangara:

              And by those who don't have the inclination to humour fools.

              Your rant requires a TL;DR.

              • rumblytangara on 14/06/2024 - 17:23
                +3

                @bigticket: I'm sorry that you have difficulty parsing more two sentences :D

                • bigticket on 14/06/2024 - 21:38

                  @rumblytangara: Check your maths.

                  • buckster on 14/06/2024 - 22:10
                    +2

                    @bigticket: 3 is more than two.

                    Check MATE

                  • rumblytangara on 16/06/2024 - 13:05

                    @bigticket:

                    bigticket on 14/06/2024 - 21:38
                    Check your maths.

                    Can't even count using the fingers on one hand? You couldn't have set yourself up harder for an own goal if you tried, thanks for the good laugh.

                    (This reminds of of Ralph Wiggum.)

    • Bunnyburger on 13/06/2024 - 14:59
      +1

      I want my opiums

  • Gdsamp on 12/06/2024 - 21:22
    +12

    Clearly he has offloaded his holdings in CSL ….

    AZ utterly poo vaccine, a shame we couldn't manufacture a better one here.

      • Sinnerator on 13/06/2024 - 08:29

        class action?

        • Assburg on 13/06/2024 - 09:40
          +8

          Pretty sure there's legislation to the effect of making it impossible to sue for vaccine related issues… though as always dyor.

          • bigticket on 14/06/2024 - 13:07
            +6

            @Assburg: The vaccine manufacturers themselves are immune form legal action, but our government can be sued. Good luck with that.

            It is ironic they produced a product that provided no biological immunity, but provided 100% legal immunity.

      • richadam on 13/06/2024 - 09:40
        +30

        There is a small risk of getting COVID but you will get over it.

        I don't think everyone got over it… Plenty are dead or dying form it

        • randomvis on 13/06/2024 - 12:36
          +1

          A lot of people died— but mostly above 70. The risk of young people dying was statistically insignificant.

          Morbidity matters, not just mortality.

          Which is worse, (i) an 80 year old dying of Covid or (ii) a 20 year old living with life-long vaccine induced heart or nervous damage?

          This may seem callous, but the trade-off of 'risking vaccine injury to save grandma' is completely backwards. I'd rather see a hundred people die at the end of their life expectancy than see a single young person suffering their whole life. Isn't that what normal humans do? Sacrifice for the young?

          We, as a society, expected young people to sacrifice everything to protect the 'most vulnerable'. We forced students to go online for a year, took away their social lives, pushed back marriages, took away children's playgrounds, sporting clubs, shoved masks over them. In early childhood terms our response was detrimental.

          What I didn't hear at the time were older generations saying, "the young have sacrificed enough of their future for our safety". There wasn't any reciprocal selfless sacrifice— and I don't think the youth will forget it.

          • sardines on 13/06/2024 - 14:15
            +4

            @randomvis: What about the young people (under 65) with long covid or other issues from an infection which apparently becomes more likely with repeated infections. The current data suggests long term heart issues, cancers etc in the young are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated young people. Though any virus can cause organ damage, not just covid.

            • richadam on 13/06/2024 - 15:03
              +4

              @sardines: I know quite a few with long covid amongst people my age. Though most cookers would blame that on the vaccine rather than the virus. Helps them sleep better at night that way.

            • randomvis on 13/06/2024 - 18:23
              +6

              @sardines: Young is under 65 now?

              Also, totally missed the point. I know nobody who has never contracted covid. Vaccinated and unvaccinated at contracting covid at the same rate.

              You know the irony of WA being locked down so hard is that we were one of the few places in the world where there was no significant spread of covid until AFTER the vaccine rollout. Which means we are one of the minuscule number of places where you can study the impact of just the vaccine.

              If you bother doing your research, you'd see that volume of cardiological Medicare billing codes (e.g., ECG's by GPs and cardiology consults) charged were 30 to 50% higher during the rollout. This rate never really changed when the virus became wide spread.

              I think it's cope when people deflect and say, 'but the virus causes heart and nervous problems' when there are very few places in the world that could independently isolate the medical impact of the vaccine without the presence of the virus.

              • sardines on 14/06/2024 - 11:58
                +1

                @randomvis: I didnt miss the point - Covid vaccines are not a total prophylactic - it simply trains your body the blueprints to fight the virus hopefully before your body becomes overwhelmed — it does not prevent you getting covid. I just stated that the data suggests if your vaccinated your period of spreading the germs is shorter and passing a smaller viral load.

                All the side effects of viruses on the heart and other organs has been going on long before covid - just now its studied which is great.

                We do have to look at both sides as there is no long term studies of the covid vaccines and its the first mass mrna vaccine as i understand - though mrna has decades of research behind it, this is the first mass trial and it didnt help with the shady pharmaceutical grants and some politicians and policy makers overseas getting rich via stock.. There is also newer studies of training the body on a specific SARS viruses via vaccines can cause the immune system to be blind to some key sequences - though reading papers on it, its way beyond my understanding — hopefully we get a neutral summary in the future of these findings

              • whyisave on 15/06/2024 - 14:41
                +1

                @randomvis:

                I think it's cope when people deflect and say

                We don't know what it is, but we know what it isn't

            • Chiyoko on 14/06/2024 - 11:07
              +4

              @sardines: The current data actually does not even support your hypothesis. The total number of unvaccinated people in the hospital system is almost non-existent.

              The hospitals were full of vaccinated patients last I heard before they just stopped publishing those numbers starting from last year because it looked so bad after adjusting the number for the percentage of people that had 2 boosters. The data is still being collected and leaked access to that data is still possible, for one I noticed that Dr John Campbell the nurse, not a medical doctor, has access to some of this through some whistleblowers.

              On another note:
              This thread basically confirmed my suspicions about the toxicity of the pro-vaccine movement. I thought I was imagining it, but the first few comments were a dead giveaway about how this thread was going to flow.

              It's better just to sit back and read the responses because you can see the general trend which is a movement away from "trust the science" back to real science and logic.

              • sardines on 14/06/2024 - 11:45
                +4

                @Chiyoko: Getting your information from Dr John Campbell ? He has been discredited and has been exposed misinterpreting the data, using preprints or using withdrawn peer reviewed articles. what whistleblowers are you talking about? In Australia at least under strict privacy conditions researchers etc can apply to data mine the databases - its not as if covid and vaccinated/unvaccinated is top secret data.

                Prof Steven Faux that is the director/founder of the long covid clinic at st vincent is worth listening to… he recently did an interview with Karl Kruszelnicki and other interviews. Unlike Dr John Campbell he works in the field and he dosnt pretend he knows the answers unless he has the data . His stance on long covid and hospitalization is he thinks being vaccinated reduces the risk on both counts.

                I suspect it depends what your views are whether pro or anti vaccination is where you think the toxicity lies. I do agree that pharmaceutical can do shady shit and there are people who get vaccine injuries - I think also depends on your age, health, genetics and your Drs recommendation whether it is worth you getting the covid vaccine.

                • mrdean on 14/06/2024 - 12:15
                  +3

                  @sardines:

                  I do agree that pharmaceutical can do shady shit

                  There are many tricks they use to show effectiveness. In the 80's xanax became popular & the trials that reported effectiveness used one such trick, it is explained around the 50 minute mark of this recent documentary called Medicating Normal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ4F_ZF3u9M

                  In simple terms the trial showed effectiveness for the drug against placebo up to around the 8 week mark: https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/442669/113384/medicati…

                  When they published in the scientific literature, they focused on that early period, removing the latter period which showed harms. https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/442669/113385/medicati…

                  It's a good example of how date is massaged in order to sell a product.

                  In terms of the countermeasures, in the Pfizer trial other sleight of hand was done, for example the delaying of reporting suspected deaths in the treatment group which ended up giving a favourable profile to the countermeasure (more deaths in placebo group rather than treatment when in fact it was the opposite). Or the most disturbing one was the determinations by one of the investigators in the trial that SAE's or death that they didn't think it was caused by the jabs. This is unscientific, it should be assumed to be caused by the treatment given & included in the overall results so that the trial has integrity.

              • Gehirn on 14/06/2024 - 13:39
                +2

                @Chiyoko:

                This thread basically confirmed my suspicions about the toxicity of the pro-vaccine movement. I thought I was imagining it, but the first few comments were a dead giveaway about how this thread was going to flow.

                This thread started on a false premise, but it's the comments on a spelling error that dictated the flow?

                I think twisting a Dr's words to fit your narrative is more toxic than typo jokes.

              • whyisave on 15/06/2024 - 14:58
                +2

                @Chiyoko:

                they just stopped publishing those numbers

                Remember this?

                NSW Health ‘erased’ data used in weekly Covid surveillance reports (28 May 2023)
                https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/nsw-he…

                That Sydney lady wrote these letters, …

                … to the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet
                - https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/PMC-C…

                … Infrastructure.gov.au
                - https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/docume…

            • bigticket on 14/06/2024 - 13:13

              @sardines:

              in the young are much more likely to occur in unvaccinated young people.

              You mean the data funded by the vaccine manufacturers.

            • Binchicken22 on 15/06/2024 - 13:42
              -2

              @sardines: Long covid isn't a thing, the medical community has even said that now.

              It was dubious to begin with, but it's been proven to but just the same ongoing symptoms as someone who's had the flu.

              • Binchicken22 on 15/06/2024 - 14:12
                -1

                @Binchicken22: Covid cookers downvoting me…

                It's funny how all of a sudden their "anecdotal" experience is all of a sudden valid… When they've screamed "listen to the science!!" For years now… Such narcissists.

                Well, here is the science covid cookers, exactly what I just said above in my downvoted post.

                https://www.smh.com.au/national/long-covid-doesn-t-exist-as-…

                • Gehirn on 15/06/2024 - 14:21

                  @Binchicken22: The 'science' there says it exists, it just shouldn't have a special name of 'long covid' separating it from other post-viral syndromes.

                  However others say the term is needed. The community didn't say it's not a thing.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join