Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

A third jab is needed because the first 2 haven't worked?


Democorruptcy
 Share

Recommended Posts

ashestoashes
11 minutes ago, onlyme said:

Read the other day the special booster, the one designed to beat the Delta variant that is getting around vaccines is nothing more than the same vaccine, if so really don't know how they are going to get away with this.

thought it boosts non protection back up to 85%

  • Lol 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

swiss_democracy_for_all

They should stop calling them vaccines, which (to me at least) implies that infection is prevented. It obviously isn't.

Another word needs to be used, one that indicates that they may make the infection slightly less severe for some, all that they've achieved is changing the severity/death numbers a bit. Which isn't nothing, to be fair.

 

To my mind, apart from the travel freedom, which is clear is gone, the UK is doing the right thing for  the moment - letting it rip and accepting the small numbers of hospitalisations/deaths. 31K infections a day yesterday - that's >11 million a year, and it will accelerate after schools re-open.

If an accurate recovered-from-covid test is developed, and this is accepted as ok for movement within the UK (they aren't in charge of what other countries do), then that seems fine - all those who don't want the vaccine will eventually be infected. The question is - will recovered-from-covid ever be accepted as equal to vaccinated? Big pharma would obviously prefer not.....

  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

They should stop calling them vaccines, which (to me at least) implies that infection is prevented. It obviously isn't.

Another word needs to be used, one that indicates that they may make the infection slightly less severe for some, all that they've achieved is changing the severity/death numbers a bit. Which isn't nothing, to be fair.

 

To my mind, apart from the travel freedom, which is clear is gone, the UK is doing the right thing for  the moment - letting it rip and accepting the small numbers of hospitalisations/deaths. 31K infections a day yesterday - that's >11 million a year, and it will accelerate after schools re-open.

If an accurate recovered-from-covid test is developed, and this is accepted as ok for movement within the UK (they aren't in charge of what other countries do), then that seems fine - all those who don't want the vaccine will eventually be infected. The question is - will recovered-from-covid ever be accepted as equal to vaccinated? Big pharma would obviously prefer not.....

At the end they say, no matter, if it doesn't prevent infection, carrying and spread, what it does is reduce serious symptoms.

That makes it a therapeutic - especially if it requires repeat does to afford protection.

Anything that reprograms human cells in the body to do something they do not naturally do is a gene therapy, somebody convince me otherwise and that suggesting otherwise is quite simply an outright lie.

Edited by onlyme
  • Agree 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heart's Ease
11 minutes ago, onlyme said:

At the end they say, no matter, if it doesn't prevent infection, carrying and spread, what it does is reduce serious symptoms.

That makes it a *therapeutic - especially if it requires repeat does to afford protection.

Anything that reprograms human cells in the body to do something they do not naturally do is a gene therapy, somebody convince me otherwise and that suggesting otherwise is quite simply an outright lie.

*A therapeutic which is being used under emergency license which means that other therapeutics which might exist and which have decades of safe use cannot be used and are demonised by the MSM and tptb.

  • Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Heart's Ease said:

*A therapeutic which is being used under emergency license which means that other therapeutics which might exist and which have decades of safe use cannot be used and are demonised by the MSM and tptb.

Together trial says no.

Apparently.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/column-major-study-of-ivermectin-the-anti-vaccine-crowds-latest-covid-drug-finds-no-effect-whatsoever/ar-AANdt9s

Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

  • Informative 1
  • Lol 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear Hug
36 minutes ago, onlyme said:

Together trial says no.

Apparently.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/column-major-study-of-ivermectin-the-anti-vaccine-crowds-latest-covid-drug-finds-no-effect-whatsoever/ar-AANdt9s

Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

A slide used in the article is from here:

https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/GR-Slides-08-06-21.pdf

 

  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
2 hours ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

If an accurate recovered-from-covid test is developed, and this is accepted as ok for movement within the UK (they aren't in charge of what other countries do), then that seems fine - all those who don't want the vaccine will eventually be infected. The question is - will recovered-from-covid ever be accepted as equal to vaccinated? Big pharma would obviously prefer not.....

They don't want this.

At the moment, having had covid within the last six months, or a jab at any time is valid.

To my mind, if they were following the science, these should be reversed.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

swiss_democracy_for_all
2 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

They don't want this.

At the moment, having had covid within the last six months, or a jab at any time is valid.

To my mind, if they were following the science, these should be reversed.

Yeah, the science - but what IS the science?

It's an odd little bastard, this virus. One of the British Olympic swimmer medallists claims to have had it twice, second time much worse at Christmas 2020 and he feared for his preparation. I certainly know some people who have had it twice. (all healthcare workers) but they were more like you'd expect - slightly less bad 2nd time around.

The strange stuff associated with infection by Covid has unfortunately provided wriggle room for the government to say whatever the hell they like and always be at least a tiny bit right.

If they stay open when the back-to-school surge starts in late Sept/Oct and don't start insisting on boosters for anyone except the vulnerable, IMO that'll be a sign that the UK gov are at least trying to do the right thing. I'm not that hopeful it will be the case, I suspect pharma will start loading up the coffers of the political parties again and pushing to vaccinate kids and booster everyone.

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yeah, the science - but what IS the science?

It's an odd little bastard, this virus. One of the British Olympic swimmer medallists claims to have had it twice, second time much worse at Christmas 2020 and he feared for his preparation. I certainly know some people who have had it twice. (all healthcare workers) but they were more like you'd expect - slightly less bad 2nd time around.

The strange stuff associated with infection by Covid has unfortunately provided wriggle room for the government to say whatever the hell they like and always be at least a tiny bit right.

If they stay open when the back-to-school surge starts in late Sept/Oct and don't start insisting on boosters for anyone except the vulnerable, IMO that'll be a sign that the UK gov are at least trying to do the right thing. I'm not that hopeful it will be the case, I suspect pharma will start loading up the coffers of the political parties again and pushing to vaccinate kids and booster everyone.

 

 

 

Late Sept/Oct it will be jab the kids and re-up jabs on the over 50's.  

And blame the unjabbed in some way. 

Edited by feed
  • Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
8 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

eah, the science - but what IS the science?

It's an odd little bastard, this virus. One of the British Olympic swimmer medallists claims to have had it twice, second time much worse at Christmas 2020 and he feared for his preparation. I certainly know some people who have had it twice. (all healthcare workers) but they were more like you'd expect - slightly less bad 2nd time around.

That makes some sense.

One of the biggest reasons people are giving for not getting jabbed is that they have already had covid.

If the second time you caught it was as bad, if not worse, then the MSM would be all over it. The fact that they aren't tells us all we need to know.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

They should stop calling them vaccines, which (to me at least) implies that infection is prevented. It obviously isn't.

Another word needs to be used, one that indicates that they may make the infection slightly less severe for some, all that they've achieved is changing the severity/death numbers a bit. Which isn't nothing, to be fair.

 

To my mind, apart from the travel freedom, which is clear is gone, the UK is doing the right thing for  the moment - letting it rip and accepting the small numbers of hospitalisations/deaths. 31K infections a day yesterday - that's >11 million a year, and it will accelerate after schools re-open.

If an accurate recovered-from-covid test is developed, and this is accepted as ok for movement within the UK (they aren't in charge of what other countries do), then that seems fine - all those who don't want the vaccine will eventually be infected. The question is - will recovered-from-covid ever be accepted as equal to vaccinated? Big pharma would obviously prefer not.....

how about "Vacebo"

Edited by snaga
  • Lol 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, onlyme said:

Together trial says no.

Apparently.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/column-major-study-of-ivermectin-the-anti-vaccine-crowds-latest-covid-drug-finds-no-effect-whatsoever/ar-AANdt9s

Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

They've got the same problem as the UK trial.

They give ivermectin within 7 days of onset of symptoms.  Worse, they're only using on admission to hospital (ie, likely onset of severe covid).

From the evidence from other trials ivermectin shoiuld be used as close as possible to onset of symptomatic disease.  The presumption is that it is doing something in the early stages that supports clearing the virus.

By waiting until symptoms are severe enough to warrant seeking medical attention they've shifted the disease into the 'serious covid' stage.   This appears to be an ADE type condition, and thus early stage treatments wouldn't have much effect (you need something to dampen the cytokine storm, not something to support viral clearance).

I'm also very surprised at the findings being promoted at all -- there's barely a single slide on ivermectin, yet it is 'proof that ivermectin doesn't work', whereas the majority of trials that show positive effects aren't considered good enough even where there is publication of the full trial plus peer review.

All that said, this trial does offer useful information -- if you catch covid you want to use ivermectin as soon as possible; if you wait until things are bad enough to send you to hospital it is too late for that particular treatment.

  • Agree 4
  • Informative 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dgul said:

They've got the same problem as the UK trial.

They give ivermectin within 7 days of onset of symptoms.  Worse, they're only using on admission to hospital (ie, likely onset of severe covid).

From the evidence from other trials ivermectin shoiuld be used as close as possible to onset of symptomatic disease.  The presumption is that it is doing something in the early stages that supports clearing the virus.

By waiting until symptoms are severe enough to warrant seeking medical attention they've shifted the disease into the 'serious covid' stage.   This appears to be an ADE type condition, and thus early stage treatments wouldn't have much effect (you need something to dampen the cytokine storm, not something to support viral clearance).

I'm also very surprised at the findings being promoted at all -- there's barely a single slide on ivermectin, yet it is 'proof that ivermectin doesn't work', whereas the majority of trials that show positive effects aren't considered good enough even where there is publication of the full trial plus peer review.

All that said, this trial does offer useful information -- if you catch covid you want to use ivermectin as soon as possible; if you wait until things are bad enough to send you to hospital it is too late for that particular treatment.

Yes, by that stage you are trying to use  a compound with apparent anti viral properties  as an anti inflammatory / cytokine suppression drug. 

You would have thought that a load of Bill and Melinda Gates funded entities would have known that.

  • Agree 2
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogtania
6 hours ago, onlyme said:

At the end they say, no matter, if it doesn't prevent infection, carrying and spread, what it does is reduce serious symptoms.

That makes it a therapeutic - especially if it requires repeat does to afford protection.

Anything that reprograms human cells in the body to do something they do not naturally do is a gene therapy, somebody convince me otherwise and that suggesting otherwise is quite simply an outright lie.

I've said this to other people a few times when questioned why people are saying it's not a vaccine.  

1.  A vaccine i thought was specifically meant to innoculate or aim to prevent the likelihood of catching a bug.

2.  I thought the way vacinees worked was that they introduced a bit of said virus and -this bit is crucial to me- your body learnt to mount a response (on its own accord).

This 'vaccine'  is neither afaikt.

I'm happy to be corrected.  I also realise that there may new technologies emerging, or out there,  that change the above - but from my perspective they are thus experimental/ new. 

In no way is the NHS BBC gov campaign saying this.  This message on face value is clear - this is a vaccine and very easily available, everyone who is eligible should take at first opportunity, no questions asked.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd Germs
36 minutes ago, Dogtania said:

I've said this to other people a few times when questioned why people are saying it's not a vaccine.  

1.  A vaccine i thought was specifically meant to innoculate or aim to prevent the likelihood of catching a bug.

2.  I thought the way vacinees worked was that they introduced a bit of said virus and -this bit is crucial to me- your body learnt to mount a response (on its own accord).

This 'vaccine'  is neither afaikt.

I'm happy to be corrected.  I also realise that there may new technologies emerging, or out there,  that change the above - but from my perspective they are thus experimental/ new. 

In no way is the NHS BBC gov campaign saying this.  This message on face value is clear - this is a vaccine and very easily available, everyone who is eligible should take at first opportunity, no questions asked.

 

When people ask me whether I've had a Corona vaccine I reply "No - have they developed one yet?"

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
  • Bogged 1
  • Lol 5
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogtania
7 minutes ago, Syd Germs said:

When people ask me whether I've had a Corona vaccine I reply "No - have they developed one yet?"

Nice, maybe for some of the sanctimonious BBC know-it-all that would work better than trying to discuss.  And less of a waste of breath it's becoming apparent

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Allegro
On 13/08/2021 at 12:47, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yeah, the science - but what IS the science?

It's an odd little bastard, this virus. One of the British Olympic swimmer medallists claims to have had it twice, second time much worse at Christmas 2020 and he feared for his preparation. I certainly know some people who have had it twice. (all healthcare workers) but they were more like you'd expect - slightly less bad 2nd time around.

The strange stuff associated with infection by Covid has unfortunately provided wriggle room for the government to say whatever the hell they like and always be at least a tiny bit right.

If they stay open when the back-to-school surge starts in late Sept/Oct and don't start insisting on boosters for anyone except the vulnerable, IMO that'll be a sign that the UK gov are at least trying to do the right thing. I'm not that hopeful it will be the case, I suspect pharma will start loading up the coffers of the political parties again and pushing to vaccinate kids and booster everyone.

 

 

 

No chance. It's been clear (to me at least) that the government has been acting with ill-intent since May 2020; if they genuinely had acted in a panic instead of rationally, they had many chances to climb down with their dignity intact but refused all of them.

  • Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Allegro
On 13/08/2021 at 12:49, feed said:

Late Sept/Oct it will be jab the kids and re-up jabs on the over 50's.  

And blame the unjabbed in some way. 

Yep. Plus the move to vaxpasses/digital IDs. Boris will have been watching France with interest and will know now that the way to get them introduced is gently and stealthily, not in a desperate rush like Micron.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy

I think I upset a "free" man today: The moment the first booster goes into someone's arm, you will be downgraded from fully vaccinated to double jabbed. The places you think your 2nd jab has enabled you to go, might start asking for 'fully vaccinated only'. He said he isn't having any more. I told him full vaccination is just around the corner but I don't know which corner.

  • Agree 6
  • Lol 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the gardener
On 13/08/2021 at 14:42, dgul said:

They've got the same problem as the UK trial.

They give ivermectin within 7 days of onset of symptoms.  Worse, they're only using on admission to hospital (ie, likely onset of severe covid).

From the evidence from other trials ivermectin shoiuld be used as close as possible to onset of symptomatic disease.  The presumption is that it is doing something in the early stages that supports clearing the virus.

By waiting until symptoms are severe enough to warrant seeking medical attention they've shifted the disease into the 'serious covid' stage.   This appears to be an ADE type condition, and thus early stage treatments wouldn't have much effect (you need something to dampen the cytokine storm, not something to support viral clearance).

I'm also very surprised at the findings being promoted at all -- there's barely a single slide on ivermectin, yet it is 'proof that ivermectin doesn't work', whereas the majority of trials that show positive effects aren't considered good enough even where there is publication of the full trial plus peer review.

All that said, this trial does offer useful information -- if you catch covid you want to use ivermectin as soon as possible; if you wait until things are bad enough to send you to hospital it is too late for that particular treatment.

That is all so obvious but nobody will notice it. Ivermectin = bad. That's all they'll see.

All of the trials that were set up to fail are like saying a fire blanket and extinguisher are useless to keep in the house because they have no effect on putting out a fire that you allowed to engulf the entire building before reacting.

  • Agree 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the gardener said:

That is all so obvious but nobody will notice it. Ivermectin = bad. That's all they'll see.

All of the trials that were set up to fail are like saying a fire blanket and extinguisher are useless to keep in the house because they have no effect on putting out a fire that you allowed to engulf the entire building before reacting.

That's excellent!  The analogy isn't perfect but it gets the message across.

[I think I'll steal it...  I'll reference you of course...:)]

  • Agree 5
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XswampyX
24 minutes ago, dgul said:

That's excellent!  The analogy isn't perfect but it gets the message across.

[I think I'll steal it...  I'll reference you of course...:)]

You could use the 'vaccine' as a analogy.

We tested the 'vaccine' 7 days after infection and it didn't work. Hell we tested the 'vaccine' 3 months before infection and it didn't work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
20 minutes ago, XswampyX said:

You could use the 'vaccine' as a analogy.

We tested the 'vaccine' 7 days after infection and it didn't work. Hell we tested the 'vaccine' 3 months before infection and it didn't work!

We don't do testing any more.

We find it easier to rely on teacher estimated grades.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chewing Grass
14 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

We don't do testing any more.

We find it easier to rely on teacher estimated grades.

 

Government inflated testing strikes again, how many PCR cycles did GCSEs get this year.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...