If you didn't get the jab, would you consider having it now?

[AreYouVeryAnti]

You'd better be quick if you're healthy and under 50...

"The Telegraph understands the Government is also preparing to wind down the open offer of the first two doses over the coming months. The move will mean unvaccinated healthy under-50s will soon not be able to get a Covid jab unless one is recommended by a medical professional."

Guff. Ok. I prefer to call it consensus global scientific opinion.

And in terms of personal attacks - I think it’s slightly contradictory to say it’s only coming from one side.

But I’ll add guff to dumb, waffle etc.

What is also contradictory is to link dubious sources like unherd - who are bankrolled by very suspicious multi millionaires. The misinformation and anti science industry is incredibly lucrative in itself. So you have to look at their motives too if you are going to accuse consensus science if having ulterior motives.

Consensus science is fed from a range of sources - not just certain drug companies. There is far more regulation to assure it is as bias free as possible - far more than a political think tank like unherd.

@SkysAreGrey

If your thinking is as jumbled as your writing, I completely understand why you believe what you do. I honestly can't even begin to make sense of that fact-free rant.

Interesting Yale University study here
www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations

And liberal lefty or left wing is never used as an insult?

perhaps in the case of some of these unscientific or with an ulterior motive would be a better description. Telegraph’s science and medical reporting has been awful for years.

MinkyGreen and please spare us some guff about the drug companies acting for the good of humanity and rushing the substandard 'vaccine' out to save the world, Omincron saved or bacon and much misery, it's a miracle tat happened and we should be very thankful for however that cam about, not to a bunch of dodgy drug companies and their crappy products which don't work and are very expensive for non reason and Oxford Astra Zeneca were bullied into not having their vaccine open source for distribution, to say otherwise is really disingenuous, why defend a bunch if half with politicians and barely qualified 'medical experts' with lots of personal bias, in the current environment one can expect a visit from the police for speaking out under the guise of free speech, it's a really tricky situation and the censors are using all they can to supress the free flow of information, which is of course free. One wonders if there will be a knock on my door that I need to check my thinking from the thought police! Not a conspiracy, just facts and whats going on, descension from the narrative is heavily supressed It's a daft thing to say but it would be naive to not see that there is a whole world of mess out there and there is more to life than the Mumsnet chat boards, which are to help people, which is what a lot of people here are trying to do, help one another and find more information in a terrible situation which has harmed many. The online space is dangerous because information cannot be completely controlled to suit specific narratives and profiteering world views, but some do seem to try!

Hmm, I think this inchoherent stream of consciousness says more about you than anything else.

Are you ok HelpfulMonkey/ SkysareGrey ?

You don't seem to sleep much. Take it easy.

@twitterexile

It’s more that the view is biased - and tends to be a right wing or far right bias.

Consensus science aims to be free from political bias.

I’ve asked for credible, reliable, non biased sources to support vaccine hesitancy.

All I’ve seen linked so far is right wing/political sources. Therefore if you accuse consensus science of corruption, why would a source like unherd be more reliable and less likely to be corrupt? Especially when you look behind the scenes of who it associated with/bankrolled by?

I don’t think the criticism is aimed at the poster - it’s aimed at the source.

Still waiting for a bias free source that has better credibility than global scientific consensus opinion.

@sunglassesonthetable perfectly fine thank you for asking.
Hope you are too.

Wishing you a positive day too and hoping you answer questions in good faith as they are asked, if you could take a moment to answer questions in the same way you ask them of others?

Here are some links for you and @Mummyford from things in the above post if you are unaware of the information:

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial
www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Pfizer falsified Covid vaccine trial data, claims UK journal
Cites ex-clinical auditor who claimed firm ignored vital issues
www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/pfizer-falsified-covid-vaccine-trial-data-claims-uk-journal-335281

Covid-19 Drugmakers Pressured Twitter To Censor Activists Pushing For Generic Vaccine
theintercept.com/2023/01/16/twitter-covid-vaccine-pharma/

‘Twitter Files’: Big Pharma pressured platform to censor COVID-19 vaccine debate
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/16/twitter-files-big-pharma-pressured-platform-censor/

The suppression of inconvenient truths about COVID on Twitter
www.ocregister.com/2023/01/15/twitter-files-shine-a-light-on-the-suppression-of-inconvenient-truths-about-covid/

No conspiracies there, just reputable sources of information which it would be interesting to see a rebuttal of, if one is required?

What is your reasoning for the way you deal with others in this forum if I may ask?

That and whatever you were trying to say the other day are a little perplexing and it would be great if you could be bothered to explain yourself instead of avoiding, throwing mud and trying to be a detective, just a clear response? I'm not even questioning your motives, just what you are trying to say without being very deliberately obtuse?

Feel free to make an excuse and behave oddly though, it's your life!

You come across as having a very negative controlling attitude which is a little unpleasant and I don't mean that as an attack, you just seem very spikey and condescending, but I am sure you have something interesting to say if you could only say it directly. Quite amusing to be part of whatever 'conspiracy' you believe is going on here anyway, just not quite sure what is is you are trying to say.
Looking back that post above has lots of typos but I have kids to look after and things in life which aren't just the Mumsnet Covid boards and real life is far more precious and arguing online.

And @MinkyGreen 'consensus science' has lots of political bias and monetary bias too (one is more likely to get funding for some research more than others and can lose ones position for having the 'wrong' opinion).
Just look at the climate change debate - very much bias and based on money and bigger issues than just the environment, with any questioning being labeled as 'denialism', like with COVID, making an association with holocaust denial in the name to add extra weight to the scorn.
Not saying we haven't messed up the planet a lot but the issues are complex, just like Covid and to think they are not is denial in itself!
These boards are however a positive resource for support for people in trouble and who need help. It is great that people can find support and answers on them.

There is a world beyond 'consensus' opinion, new ideas come up all the time thankfully and learning evolves, science can never be settled, that's the point, we keep discovering things and this is all way beyond me and my timid, mediocre existence of home and families and struggling for money

@SkysAreGrey

There is a world beyond 'consensus' opinion, new ideas come up all the time thankfully and learning evolves, science can never be settled, that's the point, we keep discovering things and this is all way beyond me and my timid, mediocre existence of home and families and struggling for money

Do you know what 'peer-reviewed' means?

@SkysAreGrey

I do agree there. Learning does evolve. But the whole point of a consensus is that IF enough evidence becomes available to challenge the consensus then it DOES change. It’s fluid.

I agree that there may be political/monetary bias - therefore the whistleblowing journalist you’ve linked there is not ‘censored’ - he appears in the BMJ! His views are discussed and if they hold sufficient weight then they will feed that consensus opinion. One lone voice may not be correct - one lone study may not be correct. Many voices backing that lone voice is essential : peer review.

@MeetPi I don't mean that that specific journalist has been 'censored', just that there has been censorship going on as those links show.

Glad to know we are in agreement about something.

And yes, I obviously know what 'peer reviewed' means, although it can mean little and studies are often just called trash even if there are peer reviewed because they go against 'consensus science' for whatever reason.

These links might be helpful for you:

The peer review system is broken. We asked academics how to fix it
theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-is-broken-we-asked-academics-how-to-fix-it-187034

One reason peer review is broken: it’s biased in favor of prestigious authors
www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/29/13770988/peer-review-bias-authors

Let's stop pretending peer review works
www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems

It is not very helpful being patronising if you yourself appear to not understand the situation.

@SkysAreGrey

There was really no point in changing your name if you can't do better at changing your posting style, but never mind.

So, to your links.

1. The first two links you've posted are the same story. A woman employed by an outside contractor hired by Pfizer for their clinical trials blew the whistle on some things she saw at one of their testing sites. She provided sources and information to the BMJ and is a credible witness. The outside contractor, Ventavia, is clearly guilty of sloppy practices and should not be employed again in this capacity. The issues, however, were mainly procedural and unlikely to have influenced the data outcome. This company was only responsible for 3 of the 150(something) testing sites and, across their 3 sites, accounted for somewhere around 2% of the total trial participants. Additionally, there is no indication that these practices were an issue at their other two testing sites, although they could have been. I don't think anyone thinks that better overall oversight and monitoring of clinical trials and sites could be a bad thing.
2. The next two links are also essentially the same story in different publications. As above, I don't think anyone is arguing that the profit-driven nature of pharmaceutical companies and research is a particularly good thing. However, given the nature of funding of scientific and medical research and development, it seems to be the only viable system, at least at the moment. It's impossible to deny that the system, while undesirable in many ways, is responsible for the majority of life-saving and life-enhancing treatments we currently have. Do you refuse to take any medications on the basis that pharmaceutical companies are greedy, profit-driven entities? I completely agree that formulas for these vaccines should be shared and out of patent vaccines developed. Dr Peter Hotez is brilliant on this subject (and pretty much everything, frankly). So, both things can be true: the Pharma companies are greedy and the vaccine is largely safe and effective.
3. Matt Tabbai's reading of the twitter files was pretty one-sided and the results have definitely been twisted to suit an agenda. Overall, I give Susan Shelley about as much credibility as I give Julia Hartley-Brewer. They seem to agree on a lot. So, basically, social media platforms did their best to repress potentially dangerous disinformation at a confusing time. Big deal. I think Scott Gottleib is overall a decent guy, but I agree he has too many conflicts of interests overall to look great in a public policy hat.

Ok, guests arriving shortly, so need to get prepared and get lunch going.

@SkysAreGrey

Of course you are going to find examples of fault within peer review. No system is ever 100% perfect. Nothing is. Nor would you expect it to be. And yes that challenge needs to be there in order for things to improve.

Peer review is STILL the best way to get the safest result. Systems for peer review would be better now than say - 50, 100 years ago - and they will be much better in 50, 100 years time as we learn to do it better.

Consensus science is STILL most likely to be the safe/correct opinion despite any challenges that may go against it. It aims to negate that political/monetary bias : and the very fact that articles such as the one you linked exist within consensus science journals means that those factors are not being ignored. It’s in the BMJ - and the opinion piece is reviewed by others.

The alternative - at this point in time - is less likely to be safe until it has robust backing. And then those alternatives would become the new consensus.

@MinkyGreen totally agree, just offering perspective.

twitter.com/matthancock/status/1624408905081147392?s=46&t=tlIvq-5N86nDVQWbAR5bOg

interesting read

Just in case this might change anyone’s mind or help them make a decision: huge study in the entire population of an Italian province.

www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/1/31

TLDR: people with 3 vaccines were less likely to have had covid and less likely to die across all age groups. None of the serious adverse side effects were higher in the vaccinated groups than the unvaccinated ones. Strokes, cardiac arrest, DVT & pulmonary embolism were significantly lower in the vaccinated. This supports finding in the 2 previous large studies.
In people who had never had covid, having 1 or 2 jabs was associated with more death or adverse events compared to having 3, but this is likely to be a statistical anomaly due to selection bias in that group.

Interesting study on Antiviral purchased by UK government does not lower risk of hospital admission, trial shows
£1.1 billion spent
Study

I believe molnupiravir isn't that effective. People need access to Paxlovid which is far better (with the caveat that it can't be taken by everyone, your kidneys need to be working well, for example).

medicalxpress.com/news/2023-02-paxlovid-highly-effective-omicron-variants.html

Not sure why my perfectly reasonable reply has been reported and deleted. Weird.

Yes, in NY the policy has been that you can walk into pharmacies and get paxlovid free if you're covid positive, although that programme might be getting discontinued. I know numerous people who have taken it and say it leaves a terrible taste in your mouth, but all have tested negative after very mild cases that lasted 2-3 days. None have had bounce back infections. I can't put my hand on it right now, but I believe there's some emerging research that it may prevent long covid.

@Mummyford

Yes, in NY the policy has been that you can walk into pharmacies and get paxlovid free if you're covid positive, although that programme might be getting discontinued. I know numerous people who have taken it and say it leaves a terrible taste in your mouth, but all have tested negative after very mild cases that lasted 2-3 days. None have had bounce back infections. I can't put my hand on it right now, but I believe there's some emerging research that it may prevent long covid.

I'm surprised you can do that - are you asked questions re: your health generally? It's a strong drug and can't be taken with certain other medications. I had Paxlovid and it does leave a terrible, lasting metallic taste that isn't helped by pastilles or anything such as that. I did have a bounce-back infection as well and was still testing strongly positive on the 18th day. I'm still grateful for Paxlovid though - it did kill Covid eventually!

@MeetPi did you not consider Ivermectin?
Off label trials seem to shown promising results and it's not giving money to profiteering drug companies.

journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

Paxlovid is expensive and has side effects, why not try something cheap, safe and effective with no noticeable side effects?

I'm just not sure. I had the vaccines and still caught it but I'm stuck wondering would I have got more ill if I didn't have it? I've only just got it for the first time but I wouldn't want to feel worse than I do.