TW death etc I think it’s a conspiracy theory but I’m afraid to google!

I think this is meant for @Cappuccinowithonesugarplease

No @Jumpingthruhoops

It very, very clearly states that it is a summary of the the initial findings.

The initial findings in 2020 state : there was insufficient data to advise pregnant women. This is not due to a safety concern.

You cannot change the wording of that text, because it’s a reference to what was known in 2020.

The updates are referring to the links then put in that report to give the change of advice once sufficient data was available.

100% this! The fact that people on here still haven't joined the dots is WILD!

Did you not open the link with the estimate showing based on users and views?

Unless you see his bank account you won't get an exact figure 🤣

Scroll up this page @teanbiscuits . @Cappuccinowithonesugarplease was literally 'that particular poster' you were telling you wouldn't be responding to again.

Make sense of data? You can't even make sense of this thread! 😂😂

ah right< so any opinion different to yours is anti science? OK.
Pointless continuing this discussion then. Enjoy the rest of your evening

Jesus Christ! We could go backwards and forwards like this forever...

The original document from 2020 was updated in 2022 to include the new Pfizer info. I know this because I'd seen the 2020 doc saying pregnant women SHOULD get the jab, then I compared this with the 2022 version saying they should not. The current version updated in August 2024 still says they should not.

The reason these documents say UPDATED is to reflect that they contain new information. Obviously.

The fact is, though, whatever these reports suggest, all that matters is what's going on in the real world. And, in the real world, people are being harmed by these jabs - the BBC (finally) ran a report just today. My conscience is clear. Can you say the same?

@Notmoog

No - I’d call it anti science. Or pseudoscience. Or fringe science.
It’s science of sorts, but not the generally accepted view.
While I think it’s important to have an alternative view, you need that view to be backed up and peer reviewed.

"But I acknowledge I do have bias, I’m pro science"
yes, so am I and good advice for people of all opinions to try to eliminate bias.

"I think others who were vaccine sceptic - would also have a bias, and be drawn towards groups who share anecdotal evidence to back that view." or , you know, drawn to scientific evidence also? You do know that there isn't just "science" as one opinion, one definite?
( Shame you resorted to being so patronising implying your opinion is science based nd others@ is anecdote based: had a vague idea we were having a sensible discussion)

@Notmoog

But surely that’s the same as people who have had vaccine complications. It’s unusual.

I was quite shocked when they told me (and they are boyfriend/girlfriend : both hospitalised at the same time).

And I was hearing other Covid related scare stories too.

But I acknowledge I do have bias, I’m pro science.

I think others who were vaccine sceptic - would also have a bias, and be drawn towards groups who share anecdotal evidence to back that view.

Eliminating bias is hard, but if you look across the globe, take into account the various new sources, health guidelines from UK to Sweden to Australia : the advice was to get vaccinated.

So I believe it was the safest thing to do.

that is very unusual for your friends to be so ill at that age. there again there are always outliers.

@Notmoog

Prior to the vaccine, I knew two friends in their thirties who were hospitalised.

I have to idea why they got it so badly as they were both fit and healthy 30
year olds.
And same reason as why I get the flu vaccine every year. I’m not sure how badly I’m going to get it.

The vaccine dose is a managed, mild dose - which will give immunity protection if I do get flu : and prevent a bad case of flu.

"I wanted the vaccine so I knew I’d hopefully just have a mild case - which is what happened"
How are you so confident it was the vaccine that meant you had a mild case?
100% of the people I know had a mild case whether injected or not.
( mild meaning not requiring hospital treatment which was often cited as the definition of mild)

so it's just a difference in risk assessment.
I also assumed I would get a mild case as I am generally fit and healthy and i was right.
I also assume I have natural immunity as I probably caught covid at least twice (* based on symptoms as I never tested) and as that gives much wider protection than the very targeted injections I concluded the injections would be of no benefit to me but as with all medical substances they contain an element of risk.
I think a lot of the difference in opinion stems from this.
How that then turns into people being called tin foil hatters and accused of believing the vaccine contains chips i don't know.

@Notmoog

I was reasonably concerned about the threat to myself, and aware that it could mutate to be more problematic.

I thought there was a fair chance that I could need NHS/ hospital assistance when I knew there was a huge demand on resources.
I wanted the vaccine so I knew I’d hopefully just have a mild case - which is what happened.
I was aware of the risks when I took the vaccine : as with any medication - I read the risks/potential complications.

Immunity is about your body having sensed something before, and knowing how to react. So now I’ve had 4 vaccines, and Covid twice - I feel I’ll be able to ‘cope’ if I get it this winter.

we were very confidently told that the risk to the vast majority of the population was minimal. That was known right at the beginning

@Notmoog

Covid in 2020 was a new virus. It was mutation prone like flu, but otherwise different from flu and more like SARS.

The threat, across the globe, was how our bodies would cope with a new virus and whether it would mutate to become more deadly.

There were high numbers of deaths and huge demand on hospitals.

Then we had the vaccine roll out across the globe which helped us develop our hybrid immunity.

Now it’s only certain groups that are advised to take the vaccine as the virus is less of a threat and hospitals can cope : including the groups you stated.

I dont know about the 'weird stuff in veins' bit but actually there are a number of people who have developed quite serious medical conditions as a direct result of the covid vaccinations. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. There is no way in the world anyone is sticking that crap in me. Most of the people i know who have had it will not have it again. The evidence is there if you take the time to look for it. It was there way before everyone decided to opt into untested vaccines that there was absolutely no way to prove were actually helpful in preventing the spread or limiting the symptoms of covid.

you've not actually shown at all how much money he has.
I'd have thought it was easy to find as people often confidently state he has made millions. Just wondering if there is any basis to that?

"It encouraged her to stick to the guidelines and not die so I would rather emotionally blackmail her than bury her."
you genuinely still believe that isolating elderly people away from friends and family was the right thing to do? wow. even the most fervent of lockdowners are acknowledging it was a mistake.

"It is indeed true that the risks of serious side-effects of a covid infection reduce significantly if you don't have co-morbidities, although it's not zero. But the risks of contracting covid are only half the equation. If you can't quantify the risks presented by the vaccine then you can't conclude that the vaccine represents a greater risk.
So how did you quantify the risks of the vaccine so you could then compare that against the risks of contracting covid?"

exactly the same as how you reached the conclusion to presumably take the injection.
I looked at the stats released by the ONS each week to showed hospitilizations and deaths by age, co morbidities etc. and compared that to the number of vaccine injuries being reported and decided that for me, the benefits of the injection certainly did not outweigh the risks.

As there was, and still is; a lot of fudging of figures around the whole covid event, I would much rather take the one very small risk of getting ill from covid, rather than increase my risk of illness by adding the relatively unknown element of the injections too.
So far, I am very happy with my decision.
In fact, I only personally know of people who have regretted taking the injections; I'm yet to meet someone who regrets not taking them.

"The risk of complications from Covid are far, far greater than risk of complications from the vaccine"

not if you are under 70, not obese and are otherwise healthy

It encouraged her to stick to the guidelines and not die so I would rather emotionally blackmail her than bury her.

https://us.youtubers.me/dr-john-campbell/youtube-estimated-earnings

The more they post and the more people watch his stuff the more he earns. There is lots of money in conspiracy theories. Big bucks. Enough to motivated to keep on producing videos for the channel

It is indeed true that the risks of serious side-effects of a covid infection reduce significantly if you don't have co-morbidities, although it's not zero. But the risks of contracting covid are only half the equation. If you can't quantify the risks presented by the vaccine then you can't conclude that the vaccine represents a greater risk.

So how did you quantify the risks of the vaccine so you could then compare that against the risks of contracting covid?

And did that calculation include consideration that there's more than one covid vaccine? Eg, do you regard the non-mRNA vaccines as a greater or lesser risk than the mRNA ones?