That's great, but realistically how many people are going to source and read scientific papers? I'm certainly not going to, and I probably wouldn't understand them if I did
COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion
- Thread starter ThundyCat
- Start date
That's great, but realistically how many people are going to source and read scientific papers? I'm certainly not going to, and I probably wouldn't understand them if I did
Of course it did. Why else would China refuse entry to their lab for soo long? Anyone who swallowed the 'wet-market' hypothesis is/was gullible.
I didn't claim you were anything. But you don't seem likely to be in the silent majority I was referring to anyway.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,547
- Location
- Falling...
No one in my family has ever had the flu so I guess until I realise how bad it is I probably won't feel it necessary! i know that's a silly way of looking at it. I just don't like being jabbed with stuff when I don't see the need - but that's personal perspective, not backed by rationality of course. It's like health supplements, i don't believe there's any need to pop dozens of supplements - especially when there's no clear need or evidence for it. I'm not expecting to convince nor am I trying to convince people not to get their flu jabs by the way! I'd rather they gave them to those that desperately need them.
As for MMR i know it was discredited, that's what I mean, but, there was still a LOT of debate and had OcUK had the same voracity about it as covid back in the 90s there would be probably a 100+ page thread on it. However in spite of that, enough doubt was cast... now with 2025 social media and chatbots and so on I fear that the MMR debacle would have been a lot bigger than it was. I remember friends being worried about it. I'm just using that as an example before social media and mass hysteria, it still caused a lot of debate / issues. It still took time for people to accept it was well and truly false even at that time. This is is the example I'm drawing parallels to based on modern society and connectivity.
Oh I agree that blind leading the blind is dangerous - but at the same time when you see debates from MDs and other PhDs and there's not always agreement it's only fair that people feel it worthy to cast a little bit of doubt no? You're not going to stop people discussing things which fall within their bias or confirmation bias, there may even be a bit of cognitive dissonance, but the mind is a funny thing!
Well yea and i respect someone’s right to choose, however as i said before it's not just about if it's really necessary for the individual.
It's about, for example, people undergoing cancer treatment, people with HIV, and people who can't take the vaccine because they have compromised immune systems.
As drastic as it sounds, and my intention isn't to use an appeal to emotion fallacy, when you made that choice did the fact, all be it slim, that there was a possibly you could kill someone enter into the equation?
I knew such a person, They died wishing they had taken the vaccine
Someone doesn't know what confirmation bias is.
BowdonUK (a user on here) has the same thing due to Long COVID and it's also pretty common in ME/CFS (which as I've said before is very similar to Long COVID).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,547
- Location
- Falling...
That thought never entered my mind as I don't see it as cause and effect. That said, something more overt, like putting on PPE when visiting a cancer ward (which i did waaaaay before covid - back in the 2000s) felt absolutely sensible and normal.
You make a claim, you back it up. I've looked up the studies, I've linked quite a few here in the last few days. Have you? Where's your links to the papers showing your claim? I can post as many papers as I like that don't meet your claim, I cannot find one that does meet it.
That's great, but realistically how many people are going to source and read scientific papers? I'm certainly not going to, and I probably wouldn't understand them if I did
And yet it's the people who deny the science and accept any old claim, that are labelled the sceptics? And the sheep are the ones who merely "follow" the science?
Why would a specialist pathology team lie? The coroner was absolutely right to ask for it, but you are claiming now that a specialist team deliberately lied and manipulated the facts? They simply don't work that way.
Yes, you likely have POTS which is a form of dysautonomia. I had this following COVID but thankfully mine has substantially improved ( I don't have a fast heart rate at all now ) with time and treating underlying MCAS - again caused by COVID. Good luck with finding a specialist in the UK ; there are very few - and most of those are down in southern England. It's important to have tests like an echocardiogram etc to exclude other conditions but they won't show anything in relation to POTS. The gold standard test is a tilt-table, but unfortunately most hospitals in the UK don't have them. As an alternative a simple standing test ( for 15 mins ) can suffice - if your heart rate increases by 30 bpm or more then you probably have POTS. I'd also strongly recommend you speak to your doctors about MCAS ; 70% of PACS sufferers have MCAS as a comorbidity. The most experienced people in dealing with MCAS are immunologists, but again the UK is lacking in them.
Stop bleating and go and look up the articles on PubMed. A cursory search on Google, where the majority of serious articles on COVID have been removed/curated, won't suffice. If you are genuinely interested in learning and reading the full articles you'll do as I said. But you won't because you are just trolling.
Not what I was saying at all. I'm saying neither of the made-up groups I came up with, that I suggest make up the silent majority (i.e. most normal people), are likely to source and read scientific papers.
Don't see why that would be controversial, I'd suggest it's undeniable??
Last edited:
And that's kind of the point I'm making, people say it's my choice and like i said i respect that however how can someone who's made that choice know that they’re not going to pass it onto someone with a compromised immune system?
It's not like people on immunosuppressant drugs go around with a sign around their neck or that we should tell them they need to isolate themselves until their immune system recovers whenever that maybe.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,292
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Garbage but then again working in a hospital with people dying of Covid and needing their Wills witnessed I knew of loads and if you read a bit above we only recently went to an unjabbed patient who wish they had it done.
We've even had many complaints/claims from the unjabbed who were now being treated for Covid and demanding the vaccine there and then which we weren't able to give.
They may not have deliberately lied, especially as it was a developing situation at that time - I wasn't present for that part but the coroner wasn't happy with the findings and asked the immediate family if they wanted to pursue it further but they understandably declined.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,292
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
As much as a sheep I am, Freefaller having the jab wouldn't have stopped him getting Covid and passing it on.
I've had all mine + every booster and I've had Covid 3 times.
It was never meant to stop you getting Covid, just lessen the severity of which I'm eternally grateful.
Which articles?
This review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572821002927
This one: https://link.springer.com/article/1...ritislzuJdNg88gimlkoOSZzMZyVr1xiu6NXe3Q7ewc-Y
This one?: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0035378722008256
This one? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10108897/
I dislike that last one though. Very small groups, no one in the control developed any neurological conditions, and yet somehow they manage to claim that the vaccine is a risk factor towards causing MS. I assume they did this because some of the MS sufferers were triggered. Terrible setup, there should have been at least a 3rd group of MS sufferers who didn't take the vaccine, to try and get an idea of background rates (again, sample size was probably too small for this anyway), and another control of people who didn't have MS and didn't take the vaccine (though I guess the fact that no one who didn't have MS, and took the vaccine, developed symptoms removes the need for it somewhat).
The 2 reviews are fairly low numbers as well, and the actual case study of patients who developed MS after the vaccine, point out that there's no evidence actually linking the MS with the vaccine (out of their 7 cases, 4 of them already suffered similar demyelinating diseases already). It's very possible that they developed their MS symptoms coincidentally around the same time as the jab.
Where's yours with the 1 in 300 rate for causing MS.
I'd recommend google scholar by the way, but that's personal preference, easy to access, easy to do a big search etc, covers all the bases that way.
It's what you said... Sceptics vs Sheep. I class sheep as people who just do as they're told with no investigation, and it is a derogatory term. I class a sceptic as someone who questions, I do not consider this a derogatory term. Both groups in your descriptions are potentially sheep. Only one group trusts recognisible authorities on the subject matter (I wouldn't class behaving that way as being a sheep), the other trust people with no recognisable authority.
Last edited:
But (afaik) it would've reduced that chance of passing it on due to a shorter infection window.
By lessoning the severity you shortened the duration when you were contagious and risked spreading to immunocompromised people.