Evidence found - they've been doing the vaccine injections wrongly?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
It's the usual thing. Anything done by the pro's in the covid area is wrong as they don't have a clue what they are doing.

I would be critical about some aspects of gov handling of it but am not stupid enough to feel that they don't have reasons for it. They will have right or wrong depending on who you talk too. Some have been freely admitted to be wrong already - a too flu based plan for instance. More will probably come out from the enquiry. I don't think any blame will fall on advisors.

I expected limited reaction for Xmas, Go back to China and their first wave, They allowed the usual new years parties etc. Big spike, They didn't do that to infect more people and knew that it would. We have an attempt to slow things a little providing people are doing what they should. Being out and about today many are. That will influence figures.

More omicron news. Indications that it's milder. Very early, very tentative and in the news. London though thought to be where it's most widespread cases and hospitalisation up. Wonder what various media will make of that.
 
I've used bold to assist those who only want to get the gist.

JP_ said:
we're all going to die because the NHS and our nurses are wrong,. but bloke on YT isn't.
Click to expand...
Nobody is sayng we're all going to die. Don't be silly. Yes that's calling you a name because it's appropriate - you're being silly.
Yes you have to look at ALL there is easily findable on the internet on the subject, not just the bits which support an argument you've adopted.

----------------------------------------------------------

I posted a question based on Cambell's assertion. I don't know the answer. I wasn't trying to make a case. It looked pretty reasonable as a suggestion.
I found a hole in what he's saying, by finding an unlinked paper which drew conclusions from the data I found reference to but couldn't access.
None of you lazy buggers did.

However, to spell it out again, this is a different sort of injection liquid/delivery system never imagined when the injection protocols were changed.

There IS evidence in mammals that injecting in/near a vein can add danger. That's consistent with part of the practice of testing drug.
Nobody on this forum is in a position to say it can't apply in humans.
(Maybe if there had been more extended testing as is usual before the vaccines were approved, they'd have found it and done something about it.)

We know that I-M injections can deliver the stuff into veins, occasionally.
Linked with the previous paragraph, that's a cause for concern.

Campbell said he had a statistically valid connection between aspiration and a lower incidence of problems.
The Danish doc went along with it. What was presented, strongly implied there was a causal link.
I found that he's mis-ascribing, for the want of a better term, correlation with causation, and mis-stating that there is a statistical evidence to prove causation.

I'm not arguing the case, I'm saying
  • it's a concern worthy of investigation and as a follow up,
  • there's serious doubt about Campbell. (Although, most of the time, he's just assembling numbers, which is useful.)
Much of what's been posted in response is worthless trolling.

Anyone who tries to add to the discussion on the basis of
  • something wholly insignificant, or
  • something they theorize based on a crude drawing and no investigation, or
  • a straw-man objection, or
  • something practiced by people - including experts in their own field - with zero knowledge of the potential problem of new materials,
  • similar childishly selected misleading crap
is in the parlance of a forum, trolling.
It's junk posting.

When called out for it, there is zero defence in "etiquette" for someone who has a history of accusing ulterior motives for no reason, particularly when they show they can't process the question - albeit a simple one.
 
ajohn said:
It's the usual thing. Anything done by the pro's in the covid area is wrong as they don't have a clue what they are doing.

I would be critical about some aspects of gov handling of it but am not stupid enough to feel that they don't have reasons for it. They will have right or wrong depending on who you talk too. Some have been freely admitted to be wrong already - a too flu based plan for instance. More will probably come out from the enquiry. I don't think any blame will fall on advisors.

I expected limited reaction for Xmas, Go back to China and their first wave, They allowed the usual new years parties etc. Big spike, They didn't do that to infect more people and knew that it would. We have an attempt to slow things a little providing people are doing what they should. Being out and about today many are. That will influence figures.

More omicron news. Indications that it's milder. Very early, very tentative and in the news. London though thought to be where it's most widespread cases and hospitalisation up. Wonder what various media will make of that.
Click to expand...
  • "Anything done by pro's...." yes that's the antivaxxers mantra. It doesn't mean pro's get everything right or wrong though.
  • "I don't think any blame will fall on advisors." I think some will. Ferguson said early on (first wave iirc) that we could be looking at 500,000 dead. Maybe he was misquoted but was he actually able to say that?
  • Restrictions - I get the impression things are being driven more by politics than science.
  • Omicron - well we do have South Africa's figures. Gauteng is 12M, whole country is 60M.
    (Gauteng is about the area of one of our typical counties, it's not tiny.)
  1. The number of cases reported depends on testing, so doesn't compare reliably between countries.
  2. The number in hospital & ICU is significant because it bungs up the health service
  3. Deaths are important, ok, but only a worry if they rise a lot
2 and 3 were really quite low for the population/cases involved, in Gauteng. They're both dropping now.
The rise in cases (1) peaked early, as did 2 and 3.
Nothing so far to go against a similar expectation here, though yes it's early.

I suspect we'll have a lot of trouble with people testing +ve and taking time off work, but less than folk may be expecting for 2 and 3.
It may all explode in x weeks time, dunno, but it seems unlikely?
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Justin Passing said:
"I don't think any blame will fall on advisors." I think some will. Ferguson said early on (first wave iirc) that we could be looking at 500,000 dead. Maybe he was misquoted but was he actually able to say that?
Click to expand...
.

I think I remember that was the suggested figure and unless something happened to prevent it, I doubt we would have been far short of that number the way things were going at the start of all this. The number quoted was intended to shock the populace and the government into action - it worked, we had the lock-downs, the vaccine developed and the rest of the precautions. The initial response was slow, but it soon picked up speed.


Justin Passing said:
It may all explode in x weeks time, dunno, but it seems unlikely?
Click to expand...

Only time will tell, the UK is very different from SA, but hopefully you will be correct.
 
IT Minion said:
Source? That just looks like you're making things up.
Click to expand...

Only looks like that to an ignorant lazy individual who wants it to be made up to justify his accusation, and is unwilling to think for himself or look it up. It was referred to by Campbell already and I've mentioned it in this thread. . Give your head a wobble?

Common knowledge for anyone who's ever looked up how the vaccines work.. Lipid nanoparticles containing genetic material for Pf and M. These are New. Nanoparticle use at all is recent and mostly for hepatocytes.
ACE-2 receptor target for the spike for all. Reliance on this spike protein is new and there's conspiracist-feeding uncertainty about how well it "sticks" for the vaccines.

And no I don't have a link because I didn't have to look anything up.
 
Harry Bloomfield said:
.

I think I remember that was the suggested figure and unless something happened to prevent it, I doubt we would have been far short of that number the way things were going at the start of all this. The number quoted was intended to shock the populace and the government into action - it worked, we had the lock-downs, the vaccine developed and the rest of the precautions. The initial response was slow, but it soon picked up speed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, standard susceptible infected recovered model ties with errm, frequencies, effect of exposure and overall impact. That should be close, but a bit which is making modellers think again, and again, is that the spreads of the things really does self limit somewhat mysteriously at some point. It's relatively easy to use a number for transmission, which will mean everyone gets infected until the virus has nowhere to go - unless it can change and reinfect really fast.

Put another way it's simple to use "R" to work out what proportion of the populus has to be immune to achieve herd immunity,...... but that gets screwed if people can carry it again and spread it without the disease developing symptomatically. (Like delta is doing in the vaccinated).
(That's an exponential curve steep at the start which flattens the rate to zero as the ratio of infectors to infectables decreases.)

It's oddly lumpy in reality, stopping and starting and in pockets. I saw an article listing a whole string of factors which they're realising have to go into the model but they're all fairly random and depend on non-medical influences like personal behaviour, motivation, sick pay yada yada and constraints like supply of PPE in the clinical environment. That's separate from say, the weather which is a known buggeration factor for the UK. Viruses love coolth, then add in other contributors such as people shutting the windows.
Big factor, is that for some diseases everyone is equally susceptible, though for others even without vaccines, random people just don't catch it.

A bit like trying to work out the Drake equation, but where most of the numbers are close to 1. We hope ;).
 
Last edited:
Justin Passing said:
Only looks like that to an ignorant lazy individual who wants it to be made up to justify his accusation, and is unwilling to think for himself or look it up. It was referred to by Campbell already and I've mentioned it in this thread. . Give your head a wobble?

Common knowledge for anyone who's ever looked up how the vaccines work.. Lipid nanoparticles containing genetic material for Pf and M. These are New. Nanoparticle use at all is recent and mostly for hepatocytes.
ACE-2 receptor target for the spike for all. Reliance on this spike protein is new and there's conspiracist-feeding uncertainty about how well it "sticks" for the vaccines.

And no I don't have a link because I didn't have to look anything up.
Click to expand...
Just like every other vaccine then.
 
Justin Passing said:
Only if it's all completely beyond your understanding.
Click to expand...
It isn't. The various Vaccines for Covid in the UK are all IM Vaccines which like every other vaccine I know of do not require aspiration, because Aspiration is an outdated practice that hasn't been recommended for at least 19 years.
 
That you know of... It doesn't apply to all vaccines delivered IM. It depends what's in the liquid. Go look it up.
Don't ask noseall, his language is buckets and spades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top