-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Carlton player Liam Jones refusing vax - Update: Jones retires from AFL
- Thread starter 2ballz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
"The most recent data show 99% of sequenced and genotyped cases across the country are the delta variant."
(British Medical Journal). https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1596
- Banned
- #1,628
Now you've posted a different link and got so far from the original subject that not shown "significant efficacy" is "futile."
Merck says they had not shown efficacy and the other company asking to terminate the trial "An Aurobindo spokesperson did not comment on the effectiveness of the drug in its trial. The spokesperson said the company had "faced challenges in patient recruitment at this juncture" for its trial in moderate COVID-19 patients, adding "we are evaluating the further course of action."
Maybe you should argue with Gruffles about efficacy V efficient V futile, but because their trials of Merck's red pill, either for safety or not shown "significant efficacy" at least for moderate or hosptilistised patients COVID-19 patients, it's withdrawn.
If the car is green I will say it's green.
You did say "People do not die with "Covid" as a cause of death, people die from things that covid causes." and I said "In February 2020 the WHO ordered COVID -19 whether identified or not identified, but having symptoms, is instructed to be coded as the cause of death."
Whether Covid is the cause of death or people died from things covid causes, it is true that COVID-19 is written as the cause of death.
Last edited:
No it is not true, no matter how much you wish it were so.
"A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma)"
... and as they spell out:
"Note: Persons with COVID-19 may die of other diseases or accidents, such cases are not deaths due to COVID-19 and should not be certified as such."
This is from the WHO's INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR CERTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION (CODING) OF COVID-19 AS CAUSE OF DEATH
Given your skills at digging up studies and research papers, I'm sure you'll have no issue finding it. It even includes an example of someone killed in a car accident but who was Covid positive, where they've written in big red letters with an exclamation mark "Not Covid-19 death".
(You might also note the use of the word "Guidelines" there. WHO don't "Order" anything.)
Sigh.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
BlueE rather than lolling at posts and getting called out for incorrect stupid assumptions over and over again...
Can you imform everyone how vaccines kill people? What is the mechanism? I think this is really important otherwise virtually everyone will end up getting vaccinated thinking it's non-lethal. Cheers.
Can you imform everyone how vaccines kill people? What is the mechanism? I think this is really important otherwise virtually everyone will end up getting vaccinated thinking it's non-lethal. Cheers.
- Banned
- #1,631
Your quote or the vaccine explanation made no sense and was incorrect whatever language you wanted to use. Then you accused me of not using my own words, copy and pasting which I didn't, so now it seem using correct terms is the problem!
I see you now accept there are differences between traditional attenuated virus vaccines like the flu vax, which Sinovac is an example, genetic vaccines which mRNA and AZ are examples and "recombinant nanoparticle vaccine" or protein sub unit like Novavax. I've explained all and the point of difference with Novavax is it contains a set number of spike proteins rather than the unknown amount, coded and reengineered by genetic vaccines.
You say "it's true that they (genetic vaccines) are designed to not be broken down. This is what increases vaccination efficacy", but this is dangerous becasue the mRNA keep telling the body to produce S spike proteins. There is no turn off switch, until the lipo nanoparticle (LNP) envelope breaks down and the genetic material degrades. LNP on its own also has it's possible allergenic problems
Professor Clancy in one of his Quadrant articles eloquently summarises why making unknown large amounts of S spike proteins is a big problem.
You've also said that vaccines are designed to travel in the bloodstream which you may have removed, because it is exactly what they're not designed to do becasue of large numbers of adverse effects.
Unfortunately this happens in significant amounts in circulation and concentrating in organs with the genetic vaccines, both in trials in mice with LNP and vaccine substitute (Pfizer's Compliance study) and in the small human study (Brigham and Women's Hospital) which found spike proteins still circulating after 2 weeks.
mRNA failed for 30 years to be approved as a vaccine, with vaccine enhanced infection or ADE as the main reason the trials didn't progress from animal studies. The FDA recongised this is a problem and asked Pfizer to complete animal trials to test for ADE, but they have not.
Yet you say with complete lack of knowledge of this and the narrow, short lasting protection against only one of 20 proteins in SARS CoV 2, and many other problems that are occurring, "We have a very good idea what these MRNA vaccines do and that is to initiate the immune response to protect against SARS-Covid-2."
Both Pfizer and Moderna make it clear "No mRNA drug has been approved in this new potential class of medicines, and may never be approved as a result of efforts by others or us. mRNA drug development has substantial clinical development and regulatory risks due to the novel and unprecedented nature of this new class of medicines."
- Banned
- #1,632
I posted both the WHO guidelines and the Australian ones 18 months ago with examples, so I not sure what point you're making of a conversation that happened between Kingswood who was saying COVID -19 is not a cause of death.
Each country had it's own interpretations, some included every death within 28 days as long as they had a +ve test, which is why "all cause" deaths per 100,000 are a better indication of deaths or excess deaths.
- Banned
- #1,633
Haven't seen much that you've been correct about yet.
Added to incorrectly claiming I think the Novavax is better and I think the genetic vaccines change your DNA you seem to have this strawman fixation that everyone has to tell you how vaccines kill people!
I've made the point that you're going to end up in Court for years trying to prove adverse events and deaths after taking the vaccines, were caused by these vaccines.
Big Pharma is indemnified. Australia is still trying to develop a compensation scheme, which only included TTS and myopericarditis and only compensation up to $20,000 when I looked at it a few weeks ago, so that means possibly 10 years of long, difficult and expensive Court battles.
Good luck.
He may well be eloquent, but that's about all he has going for himself, especially in regards to Covid where like you, he's out of his depth:
"According to a staff listing on the University of Newcastle's website, Robert Clancy is an emeritus professor in the School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, focusing on immunology and microbiology. The university, however, recently distanced itself from Professor Clancy in a statement issued in the name of its vice-chancellor, Alex Zelinski.
"While the University always respects freedom of speech, Robert Clancy is not speaking on behalf of the University of Newcastle when offering his opinion on this issue," Professor Zelinski said.
"The University has not funded his research since 2009 and he retired in 2013.
"The University does not consider Robert Clancy a subject matter expert on COVID-19.""
If Clancy is such a wizz and his cough "research" cough has validity, why isn't he publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal rather than a scabby right-wing rag like Quadrant? (rhetorical question ... we all know why he isn't publishing in a reputable journal.)
Just laughable that you earnestly trot out this discredited BS from fringe elements and outliers as if it means something or has some kind of validity.
Last edited:
Clearly.
Here's what you wrote: "Whether Covid is the cause of death or people died from things covid causes, it is true that COVID-19 is written as the cause of death."
Wrong.
BTW, kudos for the use of the technical term "things covid causes". So much neater to refer to the range of pathologies and conditions that Covid causes as "things". Brilliant.
I think that you have a hard time accepting that some trials fail during interim analysis and are stopped because they fail to show efficacy and it would be futile to continue.....
In regards covid deaths. As I said in the last discussion about this, from a medical perspective, the COD will always be what they died of as written as the COD on the death cert.
Covid-19 will not be "written as the cause of death" on a death cert....ever. What will happen is that when the death is coded, if covid is listed as starting the chain of events that lead to death, then it will be coded as a covid death. If covid is listed as something else the person had, but died from a non-covid related cause, it wont be coded as a covid death.
You started by writing "coded as the cause of death" and concluded with "written as the cause of death"....these are 2 different things.
I asked a month ago: I dont have a problem with that, do you?
I don't understand why it's a challenging thing for someone to grasp that if a trial medication is not showing much promise (efficacy) when given to very sick people in ICU, it makes sense to cease giving the medication (continuing the trial is futile).
This does not mean that there were safety concerns, it just means it's a waste of time going on for both the company and the patient.
The trial is continuing for mild covid patients... For some reason you continually ignore this point. Could it possibly be because it doesn't quite suit your argument?
From the website:
"The scheme will cover the costs of injuries $5,000 and above due to administration of a TGA approved COVID-19 vaccine or due to an adverse event that is considered to be caused by a COVID-19 vaccination. The recognised side effects to the COVID-19 vaccines are included in the approved Product Information and include thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine and myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine."
"The evidence requirements for claims $20,000 and over, including death, are still being developed and will be advised as part of additional information on the scheme in the future. Claims relating to a death will not require evidence of hospitalisation."
So, I guess 50% of your sentence was correct. 5/10 = D
- Jun 14, 2017
- 4,118
- 6,874
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
- Banned
- #1,640
Actually they made 3 claims and only 1 was right. 3/10 = fail.
Over 1000 per month hospitalised for the last 4 months. 60% no underlying conditions. Of the hospitalised, 1 in 100 don't make it.
- Apr 23, 2016
- 40,629
- 63,288
- AFL Club
- Essendon
How did kingswood and Gruffles miss this pearl of wisdom?
- Banned
- #1,644
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
BlueE was saying that it has been incorrectly claimed that they think the mRNA vaccines change patient cell DNA; meaning BlueE doesn't think that (that's how I interpret that whole sentence, anyway).
I haven't seen them say specifically that they think the mRNA vaccines alter DNA.
- Banned
- #1,646
but but but....i thought kids were completely invulnerable to covid...
I hadn't seen that data before. Thanks for posting.
As time goes on, it seems there is more evidence to support the value of vaccinating children.
- Banned
- #1,648
honestly i never understood the proposition that it wouldnt be. theyre obviously spending longer (will probably be over a year longer by the time we approve it, if its not already been that long) to test the vaccines for children, undoubtedly to make extra sure its safe. once its known to be safe, theres really no reason why not. the risk of covid vs vaccine side effects arent even close even in the most at risk groups for the vaccine and 'safe' groups for covid.
Last edited:
Dogs_R_Us
Space Traveller
Delta changed the game for everyone
- Banned
- #1,650
I find your soapbox is a strange thing and am trying to get used to it.
I was aware of all the three categories and that they hadn't finalised any compensation over $20,000 as yet.
When I last looked they had only approved TTS and Myopericarditis as recognised side effects for any category and this still seems to be the same. Hopefully this will change for the 3000 serious adverse events and over 650 deaths that are listed on DAEN as they finalise the scheme, becasue it leaves difficult, expensive, protracted Court action for many.
Not only that, it completely underestimates the very poor myocarditis prognosis which wouldn't be known for up to 5 years, so accepting a deal where you receive $20,000 and not able to apply for any more is stupefying.