Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,354
Reaction score
13,959
Points
283
I am sure they will perfect it so that it will be just like a flu shot, once a year. And that 6 month time frame is not proven yet, the data has to include other factors in order to be accurate. And as far as I can tell the "booster" looks like a distracting money grab from a company that is selling a substandard vaccine. Is moderna or Jansen or Astra Zeneca talking about boosters or is it just Pfizer?
Pfizer and Moderna are being used in the UK I think
 

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
333
Points
68
Pfizer and Moderna are being used in the UK I think
Yes, and both of those plus Jansen/Johnson & Johnson are being used in the U.S. I thought Astra Zeneca was also being used in the UK.
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,354
Reaction score
13,959
Points
283
Yes, and both of those plus Jansen/Johnson & Johnson are being used in the U.S. I thought Astra Zeneca was also being used in the UK.
According to the JCVI it isn't recommended.

"The government-funded Cov-Boost study also reviewed the safety and efficacy of vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, none of which the JCVI recommended for the UK’s booster programme.

It means the AstraZeneca jab will likely be left out from the first stage of the booster jab rollout if ministers heed the JCVI’s recommendations.

The decision will likely come as a major blow to the Anglo-Swedish company, which was once touted as the key to Britain’s exit from the pandemic.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, which is delivered using an adenovirus vector rather than mRNA technology, has proven instrumental in the UK’s vaccination campaign to date."

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-not-offered-booster-jab-rollout-1199287
 

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
333
Points
68
I found this. Maybe the boosters that Pfizer is pushing really are to cover up an ineffective vaccine.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att...-034719881.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%.

Meanwhile, Moderna's vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days.
 

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
333
Points
68
According to the JCVI it isn't recommended.

"The government-funded Cov-Boost study also reviewed the safety and efficacy of vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, none of which the JCVI recommended for the UK’s booster programme.

It means the AstraZeneca jab will likely be left out from the first stage of the booster jab rollout if ministers heed the JCVI’s recommendations.

The decision will likely come as a major blow to the Anglo-Swedish company, which was once touted as the key to Britain’s exit from the pandemic.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, which is delivered using an adenovirus vector rather than mRNA technology, has proven instrumental in the UK’s vaccination campaign to date."

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-not-offered-booster-jab-rollout-1199287
Most likely because They are effective and a booster is not needed!
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
3,731
Points
164
I am sure they will perfect it so that it will be just like a flu shot, once a year. And that 6 month time frame is not proven yet, the data has to include other factors in order to be accurate. And as far as I can tell the "booster" looks like a distracting money grab from a company that is selling a substandard vaccine. Is moderna or Jansen or Astra Zeneca talking about boosters or is it just Pfizer?
I don't really care personally, but I'm still at a loss as to why you think the P vaccine is substandard , as long as you're posting this info.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
333
Points
68
I don't really care personally, but I'm still at a loss as to why you think the P vaccine is substandard , as long as you're posting this info.
You don't really care personally so why bother asking?
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99
They won't have enough data to make a public conclusion for another year or two.
hmm.... what makes you say that? then again I don't trust the source that claimed they'd have data in a few weeks. but at the same time I don't have a competing source.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
33,705
Reaction score
44,304
Points
314
Location
East of Suez
I don't really care personally, but I'm still at a loss as to why you think the P vaccine is substandard , as long as you're posting this info.
You don't really care personally so why bother asking?

If I may nip this in the bud.

We're all entitled to ask what we like here, and choose which questions to answer, but if tempers fray, it's time to take a break.
 

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
333
Points
68
hmm.... what makes you say that? then again I don't trust the source that claimed they'd have data in a few weeks. but at the same time I don't have a competing source.
You always have to have something to tell you what to think? I am familiar with the process of testing drugs and vaccines. Look up how long it usually takes for a vaccine to be approved for the general public, what kind of data collection is required etc. The only vaccines it makes sense to fast track are the two that use the method that has been used for almost 100 years to create a vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are experimental and have not gone through the 10 year process that includes keeping track of the participants in the studies to log all the side effects and the efficacy of those vaccines. I don't think I fit on this website, no one here seems to think about anything, just regugutates what someone posted online whether with no thought or research to determine whether it is useful information or not, then questions anyone who mentions something outside of those who they decided to quote.
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,721
Points
159
You always have to have something to tell you what to think? I am familiar with the process of testing drugs and vaccines. Look up how long it usually takes for a vaccine to be approved for the general public, what kind of data collection is required etc. The only vaccines it makes sense to fast track are the two that use the method that has been used for almost 100 years to create a vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are experimental and have not gone through the 10 year process that includes keeping track of the participants in the studies to log all the side effects and the efficacy of those vaccines. I don't think I fit on this website, no one here seems to think about anything, just regugutates what someone posted online whether with no thought or research to determine whether it is useful information or not, then questions anyone who mentions something outside of those who they decided to quote.

I think you are just a little to trusting, JaHaRa. They (FDA) no longer require long term studies and have not required scientist to do long term studies before giving approval since the the late 1980's.

THIS Is Why You Can’t Trust Big Pharma


 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99
I think you are just a little to trusting, JaHaRa. They (FDA) no longer require long term studies and have not required scientist to do long term studies before giving approval since the the late 1980's.

THIS Is Why You Can’t Trust Big Pharma


Also this is why you collect data. It's not about finding people to tell you what to think. it's about finding information you can use to make a decision. This is a good example of why I don't trust the FDA.
 

Vardoger

Make mine a 99
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
6,268
Reaction score
6,446
Points
314
Location
Valaskjalf (Ex. pat.)
I think you are just a little to trusting, JaHaRa. They (FDA) no longer require long term studies and have not required scientist to do long term studies before giving approval since the the late 1980's.

THIS Is Why You Can’t Trust Big Pharma


Why do a British comedian comment on what US government institutions do?
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
4,749
Reaction score
5,500
Points
214
A lot of other countries follow what the FDA say, as they haven't got the resources to do it all themselves.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
33,705
Reaction score
44,304
Points
314
Location
East of Suez
We're all entitled to ask what we like here, and choose which questions to answer, but if tempers fray, it's time to take a break.
You always have to have something to tell you what to think?
I don't think I fit on this website, no one here seems to think about anything, just regugutates what someone posted online whether with no thought or research to determine whether it is useful information or not, then questions anyone who mentions something outside of those who they decided to quote.

You are very welcome here if you enjoy reading and posting, but would you please omit the sharp-tongued bookends to your posts?

The alternative is that I can remove them for you in future.

This is not Twitter or Facebook.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
9,227
Reaction score
13,063
Points
299
I think you are just a little to trusting, JaHaRa. They (FDA) no longer require long term studies and have not required scientist to do long term studies before giving approval since the the late 1980's.


Can you elaborate?
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,721
Points
159
Can you elaborate?

I'm not sure I understand. You want me to repeat what is on the video, or do you want me to list a link to FDA guidelines?

Or do you want my own opinion on how the FDA gets funding?
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
9,227
Reaction score
13,063
Points
299
I'm not sure I understand. You want me to repeat what is on the video, or do you want me to list a link to FDA guidelines?

Or do you want my own opinion on how the FDA gets funding?
Sorry I won't watch anything with Russell Brand in it. I also don't usually watch a talking head on YouTube as a form of an argument. It's quite common on here these days.

Not having a go at you personally a few others do it and I find it boring and lazy.

What I'm assuming was that you were talking drugs and how they get approved?
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,721
Points
159
Sorry I won't watch anything with Russell Brand in it. I also don't usually watch a talking head on YouTube as a form of an argument. It's quite common on here these days.

Not having a go at you personally a few others do it and I find it boring and lazy.

What I'm assuming was that you were talking drugs and how they get approv
It's okay to lump me in with those others and I am sorry that you see it as boring and lazy. Not all of us are adept at expressing ourselves with the written word. I have a very difficult time expressing myself on the internet for several reasons. When I try once or twice to explain my point of view and find that I am not being understood. I tend to look for other means to get the subject across so I will look for someone on youtube who has a clip or video that is similar to what I am trying to express.

Yes, I am talking about drugs and how they get approved. I came across this article that said 75% of FDA funding is by pharma companies.

As pharma companies underwrite three-fourths of the FDA’s budget for scientific reviews, the agency is increasingly fast-tracking expensive drugs with significant side effects and unproven health benefits.

Nuplazid, a drug for hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease, failed two clinical trials. In a third trial, under a revised standard for measuring its effect, it showed minimal benefit. Overall, more patients died or had serious side effects on Nuplazid than after receiving no treatment.


Patients on Uloric, a gout drug, suffered more heart attacks, strokes and heart failure in two out of three trials than did their counterparts on standard or no medication.


Nevertheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved both of these drugs — with a deadly aftermath. Uloric’s manufacturer reported last November that patients on the drug were 34 percent more likely to die from heart disease than people taking an alternative gout medication. And since the FDA fast-tracked approval of Nuplazid and it went on the market in 2016 at a price of $24,000 a year, there have been 6,800 reports of adverse events for patients on the drug, including 887 deaths as of this past March 31.

https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-repays-industry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-market

Then earlier this evening I came across this article dated September 20th 2021.

A drug used to treat gout could also help combat COVID-19, a new study has found.

Probenecid is medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating the condition that causes tenderness and pain at the joints.

Research published by a team from the University of Georgia finds the drug may also be able to inhibit the replication of virus cells like SARS-CoV-2 - which causes Covid - and prevent infection.

There are currently limited treatments available for the virus, and many non-virus treating drugs have been studied as potential treatments.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...s-promise-fighting-viruses-like-COVID-19.html

So even though the death toll is high when tests were done on this medication in 2016 and even though it costs an outrageous amount of money $24,000 a year for patients to use, the FDA is pushing it forward as a possible cure/treatment for covid 19 today. I can only imagine the price hike will be since 2016.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
9,227
Reaction score
13,063
Points
299
It's okay to lump me in with those others and I am sorry that you see it as boring and lazy. Not all of us are adept at expressing ourselves with the written word. I have a very difficult time expressing myself on the internet for several reasons. When I try once or twice to explain my point of view and find that I am not being understood. I tend to look for other means to get the subject across so I will look for someone on youtube who has a clip or video that is similar to what I am trying to express.

Yes, I am talking about drugs and how they get approved. I came across this article that said 75% of FDA funding is by pharma companies.



https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-repays-industry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-market

Then earlier this evening I came across this article dated September 20th 2021.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...s-promise-fighting-viruses-like-COVID-19.html

So even though the death toll is high when tests were done on this medication in 2016 and even though it costs an outrageous amount of money $24,000 a year for patients to use, the FDA is pushing it forward as a possible cure/treatment for covid 19 today. I can only imagine the price hike will be since 2016.

I find youtube clips boring and lazy not the poster.

The FDA are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation and it's been that way for years since they were crucified over the lack of progress over Aids treatment. There was also a lack of new drugs generally coming to the market as the process was taking too long.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1985/5/cj5n1-10.pdf

The FDA was for several years constantly under threat of having its funding cut. https://www.massdevice.com/white-house-proposes-30-cut-to-fda-headcount-reorganization/

Even if this wasn't the case its government funding only covers half of its budget. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance.

This is what I don't understand and I'm no fan of "Big Pharma" either, but if people are prepared to vote in governments that don't provide enough funding then those people shouldn't really moan when organizations have to seek their funding elsewhere. What is it 10 dollars a year an average American pays towards the FDA?

Re: the cost of treatment - yes it's awful but I read recently, it takes a billion and a half to get a drug from concept to the shelves, and then the company only has the patent for 20 years, (around half that if you consider the time it takes for testing). Like it or not, (and it's mostly a not for me), drug companies are businesses and are there to make money.

As I've said drug companies have been operating this way for years and nobody has batted an eyelid, people are happy to look the other way.

Something big comes along that impacts everyone's freedom and it's all of a sudden Big Brother is watching us, trying to kill us, tracking us, stopping me from buying shit from the shop. Even though people have been voting in governments on both sides that have negligently unfunded institutions that were there to protect us for years.
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,721
Points
159
I find youtube clips boring and lazy not the poster.

The FDA are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation and it's been that way for years since they were crucified over the lack of progress over Aids treatment. There was also a lack of new drugs generally coming to the market as the process was taking too long.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1985/5/cj5n1-10.pdf

The FDA was for several years constantly under threat of having its funding cut. https://www.massdevice.com/white-house-proposes-30-cut-to-fda-headcount-reorganization/

Even if this wasn't the case its government funding only covers half of its budget. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance.

This is what I don't understand and I'm no fan of "Big Pharma" either, but if people are prepared to vote in governments that don't provide enough funding then those people shouldn't really moan when organizations have to seek their funding elsewhere. What is it 10 dollars a year an average American pays towards the FDA?

Re: the cost of treatment - yes it's awful but I read recently, it takes a billion and a half to get a drug from concept to the shelves, and then the company only has the patent for 20 years, (around half that if you consider the time it takes for testing). Like it or not, (and it's mostly a not for me), drug companies are businesses and are there to make money.

As I've said drug companies have been operating this way for years and nobody has batted an eyelid, people are happy to look the other way.

Something big comes along that impacts everyone's freedom and it's all of a sudden Big Brother is watching us, trying to kill us, tracking us, stopping me from buying shit from the shop. Even though people have been voting in governments on both sides that have negligently unfunded institutions that were there to protect us for years.

I understand and accept your point of view, Naughty_Felid. I do, really, and I am very appreciative of your input considering how you feel.

I guess it's a matter of "pick your battles" and as long as I am able, I will fight because my flight response died decades ago.

I am not trying to spread any untruths and it is imperative to me that both sides have equal time to weigh in. Time is important and it catches up with all of us. It is my wish for everyone to make informed decisions when it comes to themselves and their loved ones.

The bottom line is that this is not something that is "all of a sudden" for me. I grew up with Big Brother watching me then and now. I even worked for them in one capacity or another for 30 years.

Don't kid yourself, they're watching.

To quote Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory, "I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested." lol
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99
Suddenly? depends on who you talk to, I know people who've been raging about the evils of big pharma for over 30 years. to me it's like "oh more people noticed now".
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,721
Points
159
Suddenly? depends on who you talk to, I know people who've been raging about the evils of big pharma for over 30 years. to me it's like "oh more people noticed now".

I also don't think that they are out to get any one individual either. I think it's a matter of money and power. Whoever controls the money has all the power and because there is so such a large turnover in these companies, there is very little accountability.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
855
Points
99
I also don't think that they are out to get any one individual either. I think it's a matter of money and power. Whoever controls the money has all the power and because there is so such a large turnover in these companies, there is very little accountability.
And very little transparency since "trade secrets" covers almost every possible avenue of inquiry.
 

Ascalon

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
528
Reaction score
1,306
Points
154
Interesting developments here re: Ivermectin.

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

Ivermectin has been called a Covid "miracle" drug, championed by vaccine opponents, and recommended by health authorities in some countries. But the BBC can reveal there are serious errors in a number of key studies that the drug's promoters rely on.

For some years ivermectin has been a vital anti-parasitic medicine used to treat humans and animals.

But during the pandemic there has been a clamour from some proponents for using the drug for something else - to fight Covid and prevent deaths.

The health authorities in the US, UK and EU have found there is insufficient evidence for using the drug against Covid, but thousands of supporters, many of them anti-vaccine activists, have continued to vigorously campaign for its use.


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,354
Reaction score
13,959
Points
283
Interesting developments here re: Ivermectin.

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

Ivermectin has been called a Covid "miracle" drug, championed by vaccine opponents, and recommended by health authorities in some countries. But the BBC can reveal there are serious errors in a number of key studies that the drug's promoters rely on.

For some years ivermectin has been a vital anti-parasitic medicine used to treat humans and animals.

But during the pandemic there has been a clamour from some proponents for using the drug for something else - to fight Covid and prevent deaths.

The health authorities in the US, UK and EU have found there is insufficient evidence for using the drug against Covid, but thousands of supporters, many of them anti-vaccine activists, have continued to vigorously campaign for its use.


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
It always makes me laugh that 'anti vaxxers are promoting this drug whilst rallying against the covid vaccine when the 2 drugs are likely to be made by the same companies or the 'big pharma's anti-vaxxers are so down on
 
Top