Carlton Supporters Club

I'd question the effectiveness of the present Astraz vs the variants , its one thing talking about Blood Clots and the risks but
its not proven against the variants at all and the " its better than nothing approach" doesnt encourage people to have a vaccine that is already under the microscope.

This is an ongoing study following the AstraZeneca rollout in the UK.  It’s not conclusive but it suggests that AstraZeneca is very effective.

As of 12 May 2021, for the UK, 58,065 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech
vaccine, 175,057 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,462 for the
COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 639 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not
specified.

The MHRA has received 374 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in
which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 786 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine
AstraZeneca, 4 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 16 where the brand of vaccine was
unspecified.

And for what - a virus very much like its predecessor and extremely treatable EARLY - Ivermectin or HCQ protocols (and a few others to boot).

"The Yellow Card scheme is a mechanism by which anybody can voluntarily report any suspected adverse reactions or side effects to the vaccine. It is very important to note that a Yellow Card report does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused that reaction or event."

No beyond doubt proven completely useless against COVID.

But Ivermectin / HCG combination is more likely to kill the recipient due to a very specific form of heart arrhythmia that happens in about 10x as many patients as can be expected to get a severe AstraZeneca side effect. An effect being reported in several combinations that combine HCQ with either an antiviral or antibiotic.

you are clueless.

No one has suggested a combination (that comments exceeds stupidity).

10x comment is an abject lie - unsupported by anything but your hubris.

Of course, any medication can be bad for some people with certain existing pre conditions.

That's why doctors do what doctors do.... 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

The studies are in, you're off the pace - again.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk.

Have a great evening LP.

Ironic that you accuse me of posting redundant info, given what you have offered has now been disproved by multiple large scale studies across several different countries. So I doubt you can rain on anything with fake facts and worthless outdated claims.

Put them up - going to cite the Recovery Study?

You're full of hot air.

two tips:

1. don't give near lethal dosages to patients

2. don't give an anti viral to patients once full viral replication has already occurred.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misconduct-faces-legal-action-for-challenging-integrity-of-hydroxychloroquine-study

Dr Didier Raoult cases is vexatious, he was the primary booster for HCQ in Europe and has gone hard at anyone who calls out the rather thin evidence and questionable methods used to come to his conclusions.

Not satisfied to profit from his claims, he's rallied a fanatical US supporter base to threaten whistle-blowers all around the globe. In some cases his group of supporters has been caught publishing the whistle-blower's private address as an intimidation, followed up with the obligatory death threats.

There is some nice coverage of this recently in The Science Friction podcast.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/troublemakers-covid-science-research-integrity/13344772

It's pretty seedy, litigious behaviour from a doctor / scientist. The sort of behaviour that should make one feel immediately uncomfortable and suspicious

The podcast is well worth listening to, it seems there may be a prior history of this behaviour that should have been a warning, but Raoult's claims were championed by Trump and Bolsonaro.

The podcast is well worth a listen, the links below are even more valuable if you are so inclined.