CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Scolmore said:
J210 said:
That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ?
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.Do you have a source please?
And VanTam who was plucked from a very lucrative role in the pharmaceutical industry to a s
tty paid government job as chief medical officer just in time for a pandemic where he did his job got knighted now works for Moderna.There are loads more dots like this you can follow.
21st Century Man said:
jameswills said:
21st Century Man said:
Oh I dunno. Most peoples risk of dying is miniscule, doubling it is still miniscule. Frying my bacon in vegetable oil doubles my risk of dying, it's on that level.
Well yes good point. However I must say me wearing my funny hat through Covid halved my risk, so thankfully I managed to balance it all out. Didn't catch covid, did put on 2 stone though.
kerplunk said:
Hants PHer said:
mko9 said:
And it is always bullst. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1!
I tend to agree. The willingness of some posters in this thread to substitute correlation for causation is astonishing. Especially when that correlation is achieved by dubious means.t. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1! It's perfectly acceptable to present two datasets on a graph in support of an hypothesis
If people leap to conclusions purely on the correlation then more fool them - it's not the graph's design at fault
Rollin said:
ChocolateFrog said:
On The Rest is Politics podcast they asked a question in their survey.
What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
They should've asked Spode, seems like everyone he knows are dropping like fliesWhat percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
RSTurboPaul said:
Is the assertion that because anaphylaxis has been recorded at least once as an ADR within 14 days, all similar instances from that point forward have been captured and (therefore) there are no occurrences that have not been recorded?
Various ADRs have been recorded. The point is that not all ADRs are being recorded / ADRs are not being called ADRs, they are just 'coincidences'.
Are all ADRs reported to MHRA verified to determine they actually occurred? Various ADRs have been recorded. The point is that not all ADRs are being recorded / ADRs are not being called ADRs, they are just 'coincidences'.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 9th May 19:34
J210 said:
Scolmore said:
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.
Do you have a source please?
I do Yes. Do you have a source please?
Its on the 2022 abpi disclosure list
https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk
Row 3181 if you have the full excel. Or can use the quick search what shows
No context to what the money relates to.
Also that £22k is for 2022 which is a little bit later than any initial rollout of any COVID vaccines. There was nothing in 2020 or 2021
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 10th May 09:20
pavarotti1980 said:
He will have sat on advisory boards which the drug companies have with a multitude of different healthcare professionals. Their rates of pay (based on personal experience) are quite high so it wouldn't take a lot to get to that figure.
Also that £22k is for 2022 which is a little bit later than any initial rollout of any COVID vaccines. There was nothing in 2020 or 2021
It was paid via his talent agency for TV appearances.Also that £22k is for 2022 which is a little bit later than any initial rollout of any COVID vaccines. There was nothing in 2020 or 2021
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 10th May 09:20
The fact he has taken money from a AZ and has contained to this day to say their product is safe on live TV . Shows a conflict of interest
J210 said:
andyA700 said:
The BBC's darling Dr Ranj was on this morning, talking about the vaccines and how rare the injuries were, so myself and some others who have been injured, asked some polite questions on his FB page and guess what - the comments were deleted.
That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ? J210 said:
It was paid via his talent agency for TV appearances.
The fact he has taken money from a AZ and has contained to this day to say their product is safe on live TV . Shows a conflict of interest
Does it? Fees paid in 2022 for something he may have done/said 2 years previously?...The fact he has taken money from a AZ and has contained to this day to say their product is safe on live TV . Shows a conflict of interest
Scolmore said:
J210 said:
That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ?
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.Do you have a source please?
https://twitter.com/Artemisfornow/status/178855732...
pavarotti1980 said:
Saying what?
If he said go and jump in the Thames would you do it?
Has he been on national TV for the last 3 years telling everyone he is a DR and that the Thames in in fact safe and effective, why receiving money from the Thames. If he said go and jump in the Thames would you do it?
Even after news from multiple counties and court rulings saying the Themes is dangerous and has side effects. But he has not mentioned this ?
Do you see no issue with that ?
J210 said:
Has he been on national TV for the last 3 years telling everyone he is a DR and that the Thames in in fact safe and effective, why receiving money from the Thames.
Even after news from multiple counties and court rulings saying the Themes is dangerous and has side effects. But he has not mentioned this ?
Do you see no issue with that ?
I was being facetious. Even after news from multiple counties and court rulings saying the Themes is dangerous and has side effects. But he has not mentioned this ?
Do you see no issue with that ?
Only paid by AZ last year. Unless you are suggesting that there is some conspiracy to delay his payment to prevent a correlation? Also as AZ make more than COVID vaccine there is a high chance his ad board fees will be for other things.
pavarotti1980 said:
I was being facetious.
Only paid by AZ last year. Unless you are suggesting that there is some conspiracy to delay his payment to prevent a correlation? Also as AZ make more than COVID vaccine there is a high chance his ad board fees will be for other things.
2 years ago.Only paid by AZ last year. Unless you are suggesting that there is some conspiracy to delay his payment to prevent a correlation? Also as AZ make more than COVID vaccine there is a high chance his ad board fees will be for other things.
So you're OK with someone taking money in 2022 and continue to keep promoting their products with everything thats been going on....
r3g said:
Elysium said:
Don’t take my word from it. This was the view of one of our most prominent statisticians:
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...
The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.
If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.
If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.
*YAWN*https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...
The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.
If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.
If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.
4 year redundant article and underlying source : ONS.
ONS = Office for Ficticious Statistics
United Kingdom's principal government institution in charge of statistics and census data
This is the same ONS where they move the goal-posts every few months on how they measure and record data when the numbers start to get ugly.
BigMon said:
If you're up against a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, don't trust the 'gubbermint' or 'authora-tay' then it's pretty difficult to be on the same page when discussing statistics or pretty much anything really related to Covid or anything else.
Indeed.Reality: Data from the ONS clearly shows that vaccines greatly reduced mortality from Covid.
Fantasy: Data from the ONS contradicts my loopy theory that the vaccines had no effect on a non-existent virus, and actually harmed people. Therefore, the ONS must be falsifying data in order to fit The Official Narrative.
Yeah, sure, the ONS are in on it too, of course they are. Unhinged.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff