Select to expand quoteok said..remery said..Flying Dutchman said..
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
There's about 20 Australians under 20 who have died of COVID.
You better not look up suicide rates for young people after the government locked everyone in their own homes. Those 20 deaths were people who already were immune compromised. Covid was just the straw that broke the camels back. We literally put the lives of fit healthy people on hold or destroyed them for the sake of fat lazy people to not get hospitalised by a flu.
I wonder when Dr Peter Mcullogh is going to get an apology for being right about everything he said. 
Haven't got age specifics yet, but suicide deaths per hundred thousand.
2019: 12.9/100,000
2020: 12.1/100,000
2021:. 12.0/100,000
No dramatic jump there.
Not sure why people keep claiming it's just a flu. I mean when was the last time we had 10 million flu cases in a year?
Not sure why you feel the need to blame fat, lazy people?
Large proportion of our population isn't young any more, loads of them even need young people to look after them.
Young, fit, healthy people still get sick, still pass disease on to the non-young, unfit, aged, immune compromised
Select to expand quotejapie said..D3 said..
While we don't fully understand the mechanism as to how homeopathy works, it is so incredibly safe, there seems little reason not to give it a try.
I can think of one reason. I could spend my money on something that actually works, rather than overpriced sugar pills and bottled water that are supposed to function in complete defiance our understanding of Physics, chemistry and biology.
What precisely has this to do with Andrew Hill's u-turn on his endorsing ivermectin anyhow?
Video is too inefficient a medium to absorb information quickly, I can't 'speed listen '
I prefer text.
So did he uturn into an endorser or from an endorser? I'm tired and didn't really catch it from the context
Really Yarpie
You should look into things a little closer.
Founded in 2021, World Council for Health is a non-profit initiative of EbMCsquared CiC,
Tess Lawrie is the CEO of EbMCsquared CIC
Surely that is a pattern that any self respecting CTer would think is fishy
PS the directors and and steering Committee of both Not For Profit company are the same people
And here is a bit of info you should read about Homeopathy
Since the beginning of the 21st century, a series of meta-analyses have further shown that the therapeutic claims of homeopathy lack scientific justification.[73] This had led to a decrease or suspension of funding by many governments. In a 2010 report, the Science and Technology Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons recommended that homeopathy should no longer receive National Health Service (NHS) funding due its lack of scientific credibility;[73] NHS funding for homeopathy ceased in 2017.[28] They also asked the Department of Health in the UK to add homeopathic remedies to the list of forbidden prescription items.[29]In 2015, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia found that "there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective".[74] The federal government only ended up accepting three of the 45 recommendations made by the 2018 review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation.[75] The same year the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a hearing requesting public comment on the regulation of homeopathic drugs.[76] In 2017 the FDA announced it would strengthen regulation of homeopathic products.[77]The American non-profit Center for Inquiry (CFI) filed a lawsuit in 2018 against the CVS pharmacy for consumer fraud over its sale of homeopathic medicines.[78] It claimed that CVS was selling homeopathic products on an easier-to-obtain basis than standard medication.[79] In 2019, CFI brought a similar lawsuit against Walmart for "committing wide-scale consumer fraud and endangering the health of its customers through its sale and marketing of homeopathic medicines".[80][81] They also conducted a survey in which they found consumers felt ripped off when informed of the lack of evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, such as those sold by Walmart and CVS.[82][83]In 2021, the French healthcare minister phased out social security reimbursements for homeopathic drugs.[30][31] France has long had a stronger belief in the virtues of homeopathic drugs than many other countries and the world's biggest manufacturer of alternative medicine drugs, Boiron, is located in that country.[84] Spain has also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies.[32] In 2016, the University of Barcelonacancelled its master's degree in Homeopathy citing "lack of scientific basis", after advice from the Spanish Ministry of Health.[85] Shortly afterwards the University of Valencia announced the elimination of its Masters in Homeopathy.
I think we can all agree that past 3 years have sucked for pretty much every body. And the immediate future is looking pretty rough as well.
OK, in particular, you got a raw deal. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to minimise or make light of what has happened to you
But also, in an ideal world, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined and lost directly due to this disease as well as affected indirectly by it.
Select to expand quotejapie said..ok said..remery said..Flying Dutchman said..
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
There's about 20 Australians under 20 who have died of COVID.
You better not look up suicide rates for young people after the government locked everyone in their own homes. Those 20 deaths were people who already were immune compromised. Covid was just the straw that broke the camels back. We literally put the lives of fit healthy people on hold or destroyed them for the sake of fat lazy people to not get hospitalised by a flu.
I wonder when Dr Peter Mcullogh is going to get an apology for being right about everything he said.
Peter McCullough is a fool according to The Sage ??
Peter McCullough is a dick. I remember making the effort to listen to his rant/podcast and it was rubbish. It's amazing what crap you CT people will believe when it aligns with what you want to believe.
Most of you haven't even bothered to listen to it either, although I can't blame you, it's ****, and you guys have poor concentration spans at the best of times.
It's lucky people send you summaries of what to think when they send you the link.
Select to expand quoteIanR said..
Really Yarpie
You should look into things a little closer.
Founded in 2021, World Council for Health is a non-profit initiative of EbMCsquared CiC,
Tess Lawrie is the CEO of EbMCsquared CIC
Surely that is a pattern that any self respecting CTer would think is fishy
PS the directors and and steering Committee of both Not For Profit company are the same people
And here is a bit of info you should read about Homeopathy
Since the beginning of the 21st century, a series of meta-analyses have further shown that the therapeutic claims of homeopathy lack scientific justification.[73] This had led to a decrease or suspension of funding by many governments. In a 2010 report, the Science and Technology Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons recommended that homeopathy should no longer receive National Health Service (NHS) funding due its lack of scientific credibility;[73] NHS funding for homeopathy ceased in 2017.[28] They also asked the Department of Health in the UK to add homeopathic remedies to the list of forbidden prescription items.[29]In 2015, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia found that "there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective".[74] The federal government only ended up accepting three of the 45 recommendations made by the 2018 review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation.[75] The same year the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a hearing requesting public comment on the regulation of homeopathic drugs.[76] In 2017 the FDA announced it would strengthen regulation of homeopathic products.[77]The American non-profit Center for Inquiry (CFI) filed a lawsuit in 2018 against the CVS pharmacy for consumer fraud over its sale of homeopathic medicines.[78] It claimed that CVS was selling homeopathic products on an easier-to-obtain basis than standard medication.[79] In 2019, CFI brought a similar lawsuit against Walmart for "committing wide-scale consumer fraud and endangering the health of its customers through its sale and marketing of homeopathic medicines".[80][81] They also conducted a survey in which they found consumers felt ripped off when informed of the lack of evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, such as those sold by Walmart and CVS.[82][83]In 2021, the French healthcare minister phased out social security reimbursements for homeopathic drugs.[30][31] France has long had a stronger belief in the virtues of homeopathic drugs than many other countries and the world's biggest manufacturer of alternative medicine drugs, Boiron, is located in that country.[84] Spain has also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies.[32] In 2016, the University of Barcelonacancelled its master's degree in Homeopathy citing "lack of scientific basis", after advice from the Spanish Ministry of Health.[85] Shortly afterwards the University of Valencia announced the elimination of its Masters in Homeopathy.
Thank you for the information on homeopathy. Tess Lawrie has an impeccable record as a professional medical scientist. You will be unable to find any negative criticism of her dating back to before she promoted her meta analysis on ivermectin. Since then the machine went to work in its usual fashion as it has with virtually every other serious scientist that spoke out and criticised the narrative.
There are more than a handful of high achievers including Nobel Laureates who are in the same position. Likewise there are many individuals whose eyes have been opened to the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.
I used to find it so perplexing as to how seemingly intelligent people refuse to look at the content or listen to the message being delivered because they have an opinion on a matter.
I know now that this is an ego thing.
But to get back to Tess Lawrie and her meta analysis of ivermectin. Andrew Hill was charged with the task of making a recommendation on ivermectin to the WHO.
He is on record as being enthusiastically supportive after reviewing the data. In the time ensuing his personal assessment something happened to cause him to reassess his initial professional opinion in favour of a recommendation that further trials were necessary.
The video I posted covers the whole saga in detail. It is quite transparent as to what actually occurred.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
I think we can all agree that past 3 years have sucked for pretty much every body. And the immediate future is looking pretty rough as well.
OK, in particular, you got a raw deal. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to minimise or make light of what has happened to you
But also, in an ideal world, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined and lost directly due to this disease as well as affected indirectly by it.
Well we can all agree with that statement.
A lot of the argument comes down to epidemiology. We blindly followed the miscalculations of that egotistical windbag Dr. Bhatt who was generally out by a factor of 50, while ignoring and belittling the very accurate work of Professor Ioannidis.
And we are still following inaccurate data and wild misrepresentations.
Select to expand quotejapie said.
Thank you for the information on homeopathy. Tess Lawrie has an impeccable record as a professional medical scientist. You will be unable to find any negative criticism of her dating back to before she promoted her meta analysis on ivermectin. Since then the machine went to work in its usual fashion as it has with virtually every other serious scientist that spoke out and criticised the narrative.
There are more than a handful of high achievers including Nobel Laureates who are in the same position. Likewise there are many individuals whose eyes have been opened to the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.
I used to find it so perplexing as to how seemingly intelligent people refuse to look at the content or listen to the message being delivered because they have an opinion on a matter.
I know now that this is an ego thing.
But to get back to Tess Lawrie and her meta analysis of ivermectin. Andrew Hill was charged with the task of making a recommendation on ivermectin to the WHO.
He is on record as being enthusiastically supportive after reviewing the data. In the time ensuing his personal assessment something happened to cause him to reassess his initial professional opinion in favour of a recommendation that further trials were necessary.
The video I posted covers the whole saga in detail. It is quite transparent as to what actually occurred.
So, because she hasn't been wrong before, she can't be wrong now?
For Joe
TLDR: her story reads a bit like the parable of the great bridge builder, but she didn't stop with one goat
I'm not saying that we should ignore a scientists track record when reviewing current claims, but to use that as the only argument to support those claims, well that doesn't seem a very evidence or science based proof.
It has been well noted that experts can get things wrong, especially when they stray outside of their area of expertise.
Regarding her promotion of ivermectin for Covid, well I haven't read her meta analysis or any criticism of it. But when I see she has then gone further to promote Ivermectin as a cure for cancer (not a specific one, but cancer in general) as well as Homeopathy to cure Covid, i it does raise some concerns about the quality of that meta-analysis.
When other meta-analyses authored by scientists, who do not promote magical treatments that are no better than placebos, conclude that Ivermectin is not a safe or effective treatment for Covid. You can see why she comes across more as just wrong rather than a 'silenced brave maverick '
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..D3 said..
I think we can all agree that past 3 years have sucked for pretty much every body. And the immediate future is looking pretty rough as well.
OK, in particular, you got a raw deal. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to minimise or make light of what has happened to you
But also, in an ideal world, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined and lost directly due to this disease as well as affected indirectly by it.
Well we can all agree with that statement.
A lot of the argument comes down to epidemiology. We blindly followed the miscalculations of that egotistical windbag Dr. Bhatt who was generally out by a factor of 50, while ignoring and belittling the very accurate work of Professor Ioannidis.
And we are still following inaccurate data and wild misrepresentations.
Please do tell where Professor Ioannidis was accurate with his prediction of "mid range estimate 10,000 deaths" in the USA or "Worst case scenario of 40million deaths world wide"?
I agree that his early calls that we did not have enough data to accurately assess the threat were correct.
Where he went wrong was then using that very same insufficient data to try prove how little impact this new virus would have. And then using these same predictions to influence policy against instituting wide spread non-medical interventions until more was known about how the disease would impact the USA and the World.
And when more data was available that contradicted what he'd predicted, he questioned the accuracy of that data rather than review his prediction.
Then when people legitimately asked him how he could stand by his inaccurate prediction based on insufficient data, he claims that he was being attacked and silenced.
So silenced, that he kept publishing. But haven't seen too many of his predictions recently
Select to expand quoteD3 said..psychojoe said..D3 said..
I think we can all agree that past 3 years have sucked for pretty much every body. And the immediate future is looking pretty rough as well.
OK, in particular, you got a raw deal. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to minimise or make light of what has happened to you
But also, in an ideal world, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined and lost directly due to this disease as well as affected indirectly by it.
Well we can all agree with that statement.
A lot of the argument comes down to epidemiology. We blindly followed the miscalculations of that egotistical windbag Dr. Bhatt who was generally out by a factor of 50, while ignoring and belittling the very accurate work of Professor Ioannidis.
And we are still following inaccurate data and wild misrepresentations.
Please do tell where Professor Ioannidis was accurate with his prediction of "mid range estimate 10,000 deaths" in the USA or "Worst case scenario of 40million deaths world wide"?
I agree that his early calls that we did not have enough data to accurately assess the threat were correct.
Where he went wrong was then using that very same insufficient data to try prove how little impact this new virus would have. And then using these same predictions to influence policy against instituting wide spread non-medical interventions until more was known about how the disease would impact the USA and the World.
Which remains accurate. The only way you more than 40 million global deaths in 2020 is if you count people dying 'with' Covid instead of more accurately measuring the rise in all cause mortality.
Unless you believe that Covid magically reduced arteriosclerosis mortality.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
So what? Do you accept Government propaganda?
Yes. We live in the lucky country.
Is there a country that doesn't have government propaganda?
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..D3 said..psychojoe said..D3 said..
I think we can all agree that past 3 years have sucked for pretty much every body. And the immediate future is looking pretty rough as well.
OK, in particular, you got a raw deal. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to minimise or make light of what has happened to you
But also, in an ideal world, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined and lost directly due to this disease as well as affected indirectly by it.
Well we can all agree with that statement.
A lot of the argument comes down to epidemiology. We blindly followed the miscalculations of that egotistical windbag Dr. Bhatt who was generally out by a factor of 50, while ignoring and belittling the very accurate work of Professor Ioannidis.
And we are still following inaccurate data and wild misrepresentations.
Please do tell where Professor Ioannidis was accurate with his prediction of "mid range estimate 10,000 deaths" in the USA or "Worst case scenario of 40million deaths world wide"?
I agree that his early calls that we did not have enough data to accurately assess the threat were correct.
Where he went wrong was then using that very same insufficient data to try prove how little impact this new virus would have. And then using these same predictions to influence policy against instituting wide spread non-medical interventions until more was known about how the disease would impact the USA and the World.
Which remains accurate. The only way you more than 40 million global deaths in 2020 is if you count people dying 'with' Covid instead of more accurately measuring the rise in all cause mortality.
Unless you believe that Covid magically reduced arteriosclerosis mortality.
So your saying for his worst case scenario to even be close to accurate, the entire world ignored his advice.
He argued that shutting down would cause more harm than good.
But it was by the entire world working to limit the spread of this disease that the death toll was as low as it was.
In the 12months from his prediction, the USA had recorded deaths more in the order of 500,000 than 10,000.
An that's with at least some parts of the country trying to limit the impact.
And here in Australia where we did better with limiting spread, there was less than 1000 deaths.
Here's an interesting exercise for you, using the professor's own prediction of Case Fatality Rate. Back in April 2020, he calculated it was 0.3%. if you apply that to the number of cases we had in 2020 (approx 1% of our population), it predicts about 700 deaths compared to our recorded 900. Not bad, except he predicted only 1% of USA population would be infected without lockdown, missed the mark a bit there.
But say we didn't lock down and wait for effective medications and vaccines and we had 5 million cases (we had 10million+ last year but apparently omicron is more transmissible but about as dangerous as original).
Then we should see something in the order of 15,000 deaths.
But thanks to lockdowns, masks, social distancing, new antivirals and vaccines. That did not happen, it took over 10 million cases to reach that number.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Flying Dutchman said..
So what? Do you accept Government propaganda?
Yes. We live in the lucky country.
Is there a country that doesn't have government propaganda?
North Korea. There it is called 'the people's will'.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
Yes. We live in the lucky country.
Is there a country that doesn't have government propaganda?
Yeah I know mate, it was just the way our Government were scaring everyone senseless with these dramatic ads. Compare that to the Government's message from a developing country like El Salvador.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..myscreenname said..
Yes. We live in the lucky country.
Is there a country that doesn't have government propaganda?
Yeah I know mate, it was just the way our Government were scaring everyone senseless with these dramatic ads. Compare that to the Government's message from a developing country like El Salvador.
Seriously you are quoting something from El Salvador where you are likely to be killed in city streets by a knife or gun instead?
Interesting choice of 'good government' 
"Developing" is not what you want it to be.
When are you moving there?
www.wola.org/2022/09/corruption-state-of-emergency-el-salvador/
I wonder if Venezuela had a similar response? "Nothing to see here, and if you need a hospital, good luck with that one"
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Seriously you are quoting something from El Salvador where you are likely to be killed in city streets by a knife or gun instead?
Which ad do you think is better for the public. The Aussie one or the El Salvador one?
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..FormulaNova said..Seriously you are quoting something from El Salvador where you are likely to be killed in city streets by a knife or gun instead?
Which ad do you think is better for the public. The Aussie one or the El Salvador one?
Which ad promotes the issue as if its not an issue and there is no help? Well the El Salvador one.
The ad that scares the public into taking it seriously? The Aussie one clearly.
El Salvador is a basket case. You are seeing an ad that effectively is telling you 'nope, there is nothing we are doing, make sure you try and get healthy (by yourself)'.
I have not looked into how they handled the pandemic. Did they do lockdowns? Did they lose a lot of people? Did your post from someone else with that ad include that detail?
Further to this, I think El Salvador had 4k deaths from 180k cases. Australia had 8k deaths from 8.5 million cases.
Work out those percentages and tell me which appears to have been the better response?
Not withstanding anything else in this thread I think the 'point' of a government ad, or any government information, should be to present the facts (and the available options if applicable)# such that the public can make an informed decision.
Not to "scare the public" into doing or not doing something that the political party of the day decides is its current policy and propaganda.
What other aussie government ads use fear and propaganda to get a message across ?
(#Unless you live in Victoria of course. Then the only point of any government action is to maintain power for Dan which everyone down there seems to accept is fine, so good on them)
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Further to this, I think El Salvador had 4k deaths from 180k cases. Australia had 8k deaths from 8.5 million cases.
Work out those percentages and tell me which appears to have been the better response?
Or to look at it another way...
El Salvador had 180k cases from a population and 6.3 million and Aus had 8.5million cases from a population of 22 million.
Work out those percentages, stick them in ya pipe and smoke'em.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..psychojoe said..D3 said..psychojoe said..D3 said..
I think we can all agree that past 3 years have sucked for pretty much every body. And the immediate future is looking pretty rough as well.
OK, in particular, you got a raw deal. In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to minimise or make light of what has happened to you
But also, in an ideal world, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined and lost directly due to this disease as well as affected indirectly by it.
Well we can all agree with that statement.
A lot of the argument comes down to epidemiology. We blindly followed the miscalculations of that egotistical windbag Dr. Bhatt who was generally out by a factor of 50, while ignoring and belittling the very accurate work of Professor Ioannidis.
And we are still following inaccurate data and wild misrepresentations.
Please do tell where Professor Ioannidis was accurate with his prediction of "mid range estimate 10,000 deaths" in the USA or "Worst case scenario of 40million deaths world wide"?
I agree that his early calls that we did not have enough data to accurately assess the threat were correct.
Where he went wrong was then using that very same insufficient data to try prove how little impact this new virus would have. And then using these same predictions to influence policy against instituting wide spread non-medical interventions until more was known about how the disease would impact the USA and the World.
Which remains accurate. The only way you more than 40 million global deaths in 2020 is if you count people dying 'with' Covid instead of more accurately measuring the rise in all cause mortality.
Unless you believe that Covid magically reduced arteriosclerosis mortality.
So your saying for his worst case scenario to even be close to accurate, the entire world ignored his advice.
He argued that shutting down would cause more harm than good.
But it was by the entire world working to limit the spread of this disease that the death toll was as low as it was.
In the 12months from his prediction, the USA had recorded deaths more in the order of 500,000 than 10,000.
An that's with at least some parts of the country trying to limit the impact.
And here in Australia where we did better with limiting spread, there was less than 1000 deaths.
Here's an interesting exercise for you, using the professor's own prediction of Case Fatality Rate. Back in April 2020, he calculated it was 0.3%. if you apply that to the number of cases we had in 2020 (approx 1% of our population), it predicts about 700 deaths compared to our recorded 900. Not bad, except he predicted only 1% of USA population would be infected without lockdown, missed the mark a bit there.
But say we didn't lock down and wait for effective medications and vaccines and we had 5 million cases (we had 10million+ last year but apparently omicron is more transmissible but about as dangerous as original).
Then we should see something in the order of 15,000 deaths.
But thanks to lockdowns, masks, social distancing, new antivirals and vaccines. That did not happen, it took over 10 million cases to reach that number.
Yeah, tell it to the feds or a social worker.
There's so much more to epidemiology than hospital admissions.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..TonyAbbott said..
So many young people dieing, so many people with heart problems. Never seen anything like it.
I regret getting The Vax. I am sure it has no significant negative impact on me, but it has had zero positive impact either. I am definitely not getting any booster, ever.
People that did not get it have no regrets. They call themselves 'pure bloods'. They wear this title as a badge of honour and are proud of their now vindicated choice.
I wonder if people who got it will start denying that they did so they can claim some honour back. Steal valour as a 'pure blood'
Why are so many young people using a die? No idea, beats me.
Your logic is very hard to prove or disprove. You have no idea if the vaccine helped you or hindered you.
"Pure bloods" - pure wankers as far as I am concerned, but I am sure plenty will disagree with me. A badge of honor for not doing anything and not aiming to help the rest of society? Sure, whatever works for them.
As for the choice being 'vindicated'? Under what logic is that? If the rest of us hadn't got vaccinated would the whole of us, your buddies included, have had a hard time of it and had a random but high chance of dying? Check back on the 1918 Flu pandemic to see the results of that. Millions died. More than in the actual world war.
If I can summarise, you are saying that these 'pure bloods' are vindicated only because the rest of us took the hit and helped out by trying to reduce the transmission in the community. What marvels of modern society they are.
As for 'never seeing anything like it'; the modern news cycle means that you can find a lot of things almost instantly and find more if you go looking for it. It's like watching the evening news and wondering why the world is going to hell, yet its the same as it has always been.
Your whole argument is false and no longer supported the science
"Abstract
Problem
The determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal remain poorly understood. We assessed the general population of Pune after visiting tertiary care hospital for their willingness to accept the vaccine and the reason for their hesitancy and refusal.
Methodology
A six-month descriptive cross-sectional study with 386 community members over the age of 18 who visited the Tertiary Hospital OPD was conducted. The vaccine acceptance and hesitancy was assessed using a self designed detailed questionnaire with a one-time face-to-face interview.
Results
Acceptance for vaccine was observed in 235 (60.8%) participants, while 151 (39.2%) hesitated and refused. Participants with lower education (P < 0.00001), no employment did not readily accept the vaccine (P < 0.00001). Pregnant, breast-feeding women (21.8%) hesitated vaccine because of lack of evidence regarding vaccine safety. Participants (73.6%) were readily accepting (third dose) booster dose of vaccine when available. The reason for vaccine hesitance was the concern about side effects (58.2%) and reason for acceptance was to get immunity against COVID-19 (76.1%). Vaccine information source appears to be an influential aspect, as participants who obtained vaccination information from healthcare providers had no concerns regarding vaccination.
Conclusion
The study has found a link between average education level, unemployment and vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. Factors influencing vaccine hesitancy include lack of vaccine information, vaccine side effects, and misinformation spread via social media. Clinical pharmacists can play an important role in boosting up vaccine acceptance by providing appropriate information in community."
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398423000702
This should be in the funny images thread but unfortunately poisoning people and ruining families for profit isn't the slightest bit funny.
IF THEYRE SO SAFE AND EFFECTIVE WHY DO THEY NEED INDEMNITY???? Still indemnified after all this time, starts to make you wonder..
Select to expand quotehitch_hiker said..
Would make an excellent bday present for FN & D3- anyone want to chip in? 
I'd wear one.
Select to expand quoteok said..
This should be in the funny images thread but unfortunately poisoning people and ruining families for profit isn't the slightest bit funny.
IF THEYRE SO SAFE AND EFFECTIVE WHY DO THEY NEED INDEMNITY???? Still indemnified after all this time, starts to make you wonder..
I imagine they've made that change because the original vaccine is now not particularly effective against the latest round of Omicron variants.
Been replaced by the Bi-Valent vaccines
Select to expand quoteok said..
This should be in the funny images thread but unfortunately poisoning people and ruining families for profit isn't the slightest bit funny.
IF THEYRE SO SAFE AND EFFECTIVE WHY DO THEY NEED INDEMNITY???? Still indemnified after all this time, starts to make you wonder..
"At this stage of the pandemic, data support simplifying the use of the authorized mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccines and the agency believes that this approach will help encourage future vaccination," said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
While the authorities are saying they've downgraded the vaccine recommendations (to "consider" for healthy adults under 65) due to hybrid immunity, there's another possible reason no one's talking about much - the mRNA vaccines are resulting in immune system tolerance, with boosted people seemingly showing an unintended change in their white blood cell profile (more IGg4, which has little in the way of neutralising effect). Similarly the FDA are now recommending yearly shots.
Don't be surprised if the mRNA vaccines are quietly replaced by something that's more like Novavax.
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
"on the basis of the results of the studies discussed here and other theoretical considerations, future clinical studies need to evaluate the effectiveness of temporal spreading out of mRNA vaccine boosts-possibly no more than once a year. Other approaches worth investigating would be the use of smaller quantities of mRNA for booster doses"
"Innumerable large studies from across the world have established that mRNA and adenoviral coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines protect immunized participants in a major way from hospitalization and severe disease"
