Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Everything is worth investigating. Hydroxychoroquine + zind and Ivermectin are proven successful treatments of pre and during hospitalisation of covid in the far east e.g. Taiwan and were dissed in the west from the start. early last year.

And still are ... despite their proven success elsewhere.

It's either all about the money ... or something worse.
Can you share some links to reports of the success for these treatments?
 
Doctors in Norway have been advised to assess severely frail and terminally ill patients to determine whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of possible side effects, after reports indicated that vaccine side effects may have led to deterioration and death of some patients.

Reports of 33 suspected adverse drug reactions with fatal outcomes after administration of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine had been received by the Norwegian Medicines Agency as at 17 January. All the people who died were over 75. Around 42 000 people are believed to have received the first dose of the vaccine so far in Norway.

The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.

The UK was the first country to roll out the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has yet to publish any data on adverse reactions to it.


 
Last edited:
On the last/previous page.
Got it, thanks.

As you say a long read. Interesting too. Seems like the main conclusion was to go with HCQ and IVM early and vaccinate everyone too. Given the article was only written a few days ago, maybe the lower cost prophylactic approach will be more widely rolled out. I guess the Brazilian data set will help.
 
Doctors in Norway have been advised to assess severely frail and terminally ill patients to determine whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of possible side effects, after reports indicated that vaccine side effects may have led to deterioration and death of some patients.

Reports of 33 suspected adverse drug reactions with fatal outcomes after administration of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine had been received by the Norwegian Medicines Agency as at 17 January. All the people who died were over 75. Around 42 000 people are believed to have received the first dose of the vaccine so far in Norway.

The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.

The UK was the first country to roll out the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has yet to publish any data on adverse reactions to it.


Interesting.

But setting aside this particular issue with some of the frail older people, you still support the vaccination programme in general, right?
 
Interesting.

But setting aside this particular issue with some of the frail older people, you still support the vaccination programme in general, right?
Tragic is the word i would use. Setting aside this particular issue?

Voluntary informed consent is the established convention regarding consent to treatment.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Interesting.

But setting aside this particular issue with some of the frail older people, you still support the vaccination programme in general, right?
Tragic is the word i would use. Setting aside this particular issue?

Voluntary informed consent is the established convention regarding consent to treatment.

So is it a Yes or a No? I seem to remember that you were adamant that the second shot should be given no more than 3 weeks after the first shot, for optimal protection. This sounds like you are in favour of the vaccine. Just checking if this was indeed your opinion at the time, and if it hasn't changed since.
 
So is it a Yes or a No? I seem to remember that you were adamant that the second shot should be given no more than 3 weeks after the first shot, for optimal protection. This sounds like you are in favour of the vaccine. Just checking if this was indeed your opinion at the time, and if it hasn't changed since.
Voluntary informed consent is the established convention regarding consent to treatment. Yes or No does not cut it.

As part of this informed consent i would rather not put the issue explained above aside. I am staggered you think this issue is not of some relevance. Norway only started there vaccination programme in late December after Christmas. At the very least in light of the actions of Harold Shipman a full investigation needs to take place. Maybe informed consent is not the established convention for a medical procedure in Norway is one option.
 
Last edited:
Good article by Freddie Sayers on why scepticism, critical thinking and challenging the prevailing orthodoxy is vitally important - and more so than ever in a crisis:
 
Everything is worth investigating. Hydroxychoroquine + zind and Ivermectin are proven successful treatments of pre and during hospitalisation of covid in the far east e.g. Taiwan and were dissed in the west from the start. early last year.

And still are ... despite their proven success elsewhere.
Proven success .....

How do you define that ..... ?

When the Covid outbreak started friends in SE Asia were asking about Hydroxychloroquine and there was more than a hint in superiority from one doctor I know there who was adamant it worked. The only evidence that it worked seemed to be hearsay that was being recirculated. And of course Mr Trump recirculated it too.

So you mention Taiwan. They seemed to decide fairly early on that it wasn't effective. Malaysia came to the same conclusion a bit later.

I believe there are still some private ventures pushing variations on treatment. So interesting that you should mention money.

The situation with Hydroxychloroquine is a shocking example of how time can be wasted and people can be misinformed (moreover that doctors can be misinformed) via the internet and media and weight of discussion and authorative assertion of what amounts to hearsay of over basic facts.
 
Proven success .....

How do you define that ..... ?

When the Covid outbreak started friends in SE Asia were asking about Hydroxychloroquine and there was more than a hint in superiority from one doctor I know there who was adamant it worked. The only evidence that it worked seemed to be hearsay that was being recirculated. And of course Mr Trump recirculated it too.

So you mention Taiwan. They seemed to decide fairly early on that it wasn't effective. Malaysia came to the same conclusion a bit later.

I believe there are still some private ventures pushing variations on treatment. So interesting that you should mention money.

The situation with Hydroxychloroquine is a shocking example of how time can be wasted and people can be misinformed (moreover that doctors can be misinformed) via the internet and media and weight of discussion and authorative assertion of what amounts to hearsay of over basic facts.
Have a read of the article(s) linked by @Swotty #8,628

Certainly raises some good points.
 
Voluntary informed consent is the established convention regarding consent to treatment. Yes or No does not cut it.

As part of this informed consent i would rather not put the issue explained above aside. I am staggered you think this issue is not of some relevance. Norway only started there vaccination programme in late December after Christmas. At the very least in light of the actions of Harold Shipman a full investigation needs to take place. Maybe informed consent is not the established convention for a medical procedure in Norway is one option.

All good points. And I am sure that NICE, the CDC, and the WHO will all agree with this principle. However, I have asked for your view on the matter. E.g., do you agree with the Government's policy of rolling-out the vaccines as soon as possible? And, are you going to get vaccinated yourself, once offered to you? Of course, you are not obliged to share your personal opinion with us.
 
All good points. And I am sure that NICE, the CDC, and the WHO will all agree with this principle. However, I have asked for your view on the matter. E.g., do you agree with the Government's policy of rolling-out the vaccines as soon as possible? And, are you going to get vaccinated yourself, once offered to you? Of course, you are not obliged to share your personal opinion with us.
I have expressed my view. I will for example tell my 90+ year old aunty about the cases in Norway so she can make an informed decision. Your other Piers Morgan style questions will go unanswered.

In the interest of balance a 50 something year old healthcare professional i know has had the Pfizer vaccine stage 1 before Christmas with no ill effects. His own welfare whilst at work however is put in doubt by a policy of half vaccinating contrary to manufacturers guidelines and he knows it.
 
Proven success .....

How do you define that ..... ?

When the Covid outbreak started friends in SE Asia were asking about Hydroxychloroquine and there was more than a hint in superiority from one doctor I know there who was adamant it worked. The only evidence that it worked seemed to be hearsay that was being recirculated. And of course Mr Trump recirculated it too.

So you mention Taiwan. They seemed to decide fairly early on that it wasn't effective. Malaysia came to the same conclusion a bit later.

I believe there are still some private ventures pushing variations on treatment. So interesting that you should mention money.

The situation with Hydroxychloroquine is a shocking example of how time can be wasted and people can be misinformed (moreover that doctors can be misinformed) via the internet and media and weight of discussion and authorative assertion of what amounts to hearsay of over basic facts.
Investigations into the use of pre-existing anti- inflammatory drugs such as HCQ and Invermectin is to be expected for Covid-19, a disease characterised by an overexuberant inflammatory response.
 
Last edited:
All good points. And I am sure that NICE, the CDC, and the WHO will all agree with this principle. However, I have asked for your view on the matter. E.g., do you agree with the Government's policy of rolling-out the vaccines as soon as possible? And, are you going to get vaccinated yourself, once offered to you? Of course, you are not obliged to share your personal opinion with us.

I have expressed my view. I will for example tell my 90+ year old aunty about the cases in Norway so she can make an informed decision. Your other Piers Morgan style questions will go unanswered.

In the interest of balance a 50 something year old healthcare professional i know has had the Pfizer vaccine stage 1 before Christmas with no ill effects. His own welfare whilst at work however is put in doubt by a policy of half vaccinating contrary to manufacturers guidelines and he knows it.

OK. I will assume that this is as much as you are willing to share, and I'll move on.
 
Last edited:
What is missing from the Norway data clip above, is that all the deaths occurred in patients who had numerous aliments and were quite unwell.
Having had the 1st dose of the vaccine, I can report to feeling somewhat lethargic the week after administration.
 
Having had the 1st dose of the vaccine, I can report to feeling somewhat lethargic the week after administration.
My 91 year-old father, who is in generally good health, had his first Pfizer shot last Wednesday and said exactly the same when I spoke with him yesterday afternoon.
 
Investigations into the use of pre-existing anti- inflammatory drugs such as HCQ and Invermectin is to be expected for Covid-19, a disease characterised by an overexuberant inflammatory response.

But what has happened here is that despite repeated trials and repeated assessments about its effectivene we still see people peddling it as a treatment that is being (a) used elsewhere and (b) is being deliliberately ignored in the west.

I had the privilege of watching the Hydrochloroquine emerge in the initial French 'study'and watched it virally propogate - to the point where a senior hospital doctor I know in SE Asia were telling me it was the best treatment and asserting how effective it was. That's because they were all propogating this damned hearsay. Ask them where the evidence was and there was none - it was an 'effective' treatement because they were using it and recommending it - not because it worked. After a couple of months they had stopped using it - their local study backed the information coming from other countries that it wasn't useful.

It's right and proper to approach things with an open mind. The problem here is that the orginal information that suggrested this was an effective treatment took on a momentum that went beyond the actual facts. That momentum meant that it has acted as a dangerous distraction.

And it is still being peddled as being a solution on the internet with false assertions that it is being used successfully in other countries (when it is not).
 
His own welfare whilst at work however is put in doubt by a policy of half vaccinating contrary to manufacturers guidelines and he knows it.
What exactly does he know?

And what do you mean by 'half' vaccinating? Half the effectiveness, or half the number of injections. Or almost twice the number of people vaccinated over 12 weeks (I think in simple terms it would be 75% more and not 100% more).

The decision to extend the time between the first and second vaccinations to get more people vaccinated may well have been inspired. Time will tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom