Carlton Supporters Club

I have been crook EVERY time I've had it, some worse than others. My wife also has pretty bad reactions.

How old is your brother Thry?

And that is the way it has to be for a vaccine to work!

PS: @Thryleon asked why they haven't tested his brother for COVID-19, of course just after vaccination, when you start to get an immune reaction you'll have antibodies and of course you'll test positive. So the test is somewhat pointless, they've already given you a light dose, without a count of the viral load which is really only done to those in quarantine or hospital for a confirmed COVID-19 infection they couldn't tell if it was the vaccine or if you coincidentally already had COVID-19.

He's 46.

He described typical Covid symptoms.  Fever, sore throat, runny nose.  Symptoms persisted for 48 hours and he stayed in bed the whole time except post vaccine without the cough he had when he ruptured the blood vessel in his throat.  Has been to hospital twice since November.


His ruptured blood vessel in his throat was back in December.

To date, he confirms as having had COVID, and yet never got tested.

They are guessing he had covid because his first hospitalisation wasnt because of COVID, his second might have been, but either way they didnt test him, but confirmed he had it and told him to isolate.

^^

Possibly.

That doesn't fill many with confidence when they report daily numbers though, considering even the tests have their limitations on accuracy.

If they are counting people with flu like symptoms that dont need hospitalisation as covid positive, then what does that mean for the stats on positive cases?

And the research says that it’s all good:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00528-6/fulltext

The actions in the EU are about politics and money, nothing to do with science, efficacy or safety.

The reports use words like "may have' or "associated" to infer causation without stating it, they can't state it because it doesn't exist and they risk litigation if the publish false claims.

They sow doubt without delivering supporting evidence for the allegations they make, and when you point that out, they link you to further articles full of more opinions and zero evidence. You can link to a billion wrong opinions, they are still wrong, but despite being scientifically worthless those opinions are powerful political tools.

in your opinion.

By the by, it's terrific that you know better than the governments of three Nordic nations!

It's pretty obvious the Health minister Hunt has had an 'adverse event' reaction to the vaccine.

Be 'funny' (not in a laughing way, maybe ironic) if Dopey Dan has suffered the same fate!

The conspiracists are victims of correlation, positive reinforcement of a coincidence, who can't set their mind free of it and it has trapped them in misery!

Unfortunately, as everyday goes by the foolishness of those still peddling the HCQ and Ivermectin type claims grows greater and greater, almost exponentially. It's the little boy still holding his finger in the dyke to stop the flood, but the big people drained the dam long ago! The wall of vaccine derived immunity grows bigger and more resilient, every day at a staggering rate, a marvel of science and engineering.

The sky is no longer falling, the sun still shines, go outside and fell the warmth on your face, .............. but take a mask as you'll never know who you might stand next to!

I'll never understand why, as millions are saved by the day, that the naysayers misery still grows. Perhaps they did their dough on some dodgy imports!

So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first
thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe. Common sense tells us this, that a
medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses
worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant
women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an
illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. In fact, a study by researchers at the
University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older
rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for
patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. The Oxford investigators also looked at
cardiac arrhythmias and found no increase for hydroxychloroquine users. This was in more
than 900,000 hydroxychloroquine users. This is examined at length in my paper in the
American Journal of Epidemiology in May. Now, the FDA posted a warning on July 1 on its
website about hydroxychloroquine used in outpatients, but we can discuss this later; the FDA
has had no systematic evidence in outpatients and erroneously extrapolated from hospital
inpatients to outpatients, what I said earlier was invalid.

About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and
there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil;
199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226
nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care
institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi
Arabia. All these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients—and all
showed about 50 percent or greater reductions in hospitalization or death. The Saudi study
was a national study and showed 5-fold reduction in mortality for hydroxychloroquine plus zinc
vs zinc alone. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia was reported among these thousands of
patients attributable to the hydroxychloroquine. These are the non-randomized but controlled
trials that have been published.

Now we also know that all of the outpatient randomized controlled trials this year also together
show statistically significant benefit. These six studies comprised generally much younger
patients, only a fraction of whom were at high risk, so they individually had too few
hospitalizations or deaths to be statistically significant. But they all suggested lower risks with
hydroxychloroquine use, and when they were analyzed together in meta-analysis as my
colleagues and I found, this lower risk was statistically significant across the studies.