OneGuyFromBarlick

As an ignorant consumer I shall avoid overthinking any of these complicated matters and do what I have always done, take any vaccination offered and trust the doctors. It's worked so far.....

My own GP appears to have gone into purdah screening himself from patients. Never seen him for 4 years simply getting passed on practice nurses for who I have great respect.
Yesterday's doppler check was really interesting. Blood flow pressure taken in the arms compared with the return pressure in the feet. Plenty of pressure cuffs being blown up and whooshing noises from the blood flow. What goes down should come up sort of thing. Test passed OK so another 5 years added to my theoretical life span.

I had the pleasure of seeing my GP not long since. I was laid in the foetal position and he had his finger up my bottom. I said to him "Funny old game this doctoring isn't it". He told me not to make him laugh while he was doing that.

Stanley wrote: ↑10 Feb 2023, 03:01 As an ignorant consumer I shall avoid overthinking any of these complicated matters and do what I have always done, take any vaccination offered and trust the doctors. It's worked so far.....

Agreed

And the scientists, immunologists, virologists and bacteriologists. All highly trained and knowledgeable in these things in ways that most of us will never understand. RNA vaccines had been researched for a long time and trialled, i believe, they were not a sudden new untested development

Here is an extract from a scientific paper following the progressive history on mRNA over many many years


2019 and beyond: worldwide implications

Synthetic mRNA has crossed over into immunology in a larger way in recent years, building upon the mountains of research that’s come before now. Researchers began to use mRNA with a broad range of pharmaceutical applications, including different modalities of cancer immunotherapy. With the current rapid and large-scale manufacturing of mRNA, researchers like Beck et al. in 2019 aimed for not only-off-the-shelf cancer vaccines but also personalized neoantigen vaccination [15]. Since nucleoside modification and elimination of double-stranded RNA can reduce the immunomodulatory activity of mRNA and increase and prolong protein production, Beck et al hypothesized that mRNA could be harnessed for applications such as chimeric antigen receptor-modified adoptive T-cell based cancer therapeutics. Due to mRNA’s versatility, researchers are able to look beyond therapeutic cancer vaccination and towards CAR-T cell therapy, which in Beck’s case, successfully moved into clinical testing [15]. This leap from vaccine discoveries by Conry et al is a testament to the dedication of researchers as well as to the current state of research technology [12].

It was this same dedication and technology that allowed for the quick manufacturing of the COVID-19 vaccine. In late 2019, the first cases of COVID-19 began popping up across the globe. What was initially thought to be a small-scale issue soon grew into a global pandemic that required timely and effective therapeutics. Synthetic mRNA in liposomes became the focus as they can be seen as the most refined and safe options. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine developed by BioNTech and Moderna—which was modeled after vaccines such as Mumps, Measles, and Rubella—became the third RNA therapeutic ever approved in December 2020 [16,17]. In the next few years, based on the development and success of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, research will be amplified to use mRNA-based therapies for other disease models. As of March 10, 2022, more than 10.9 billion doses of COVID vaccines have been administered worldwide, with 4.45 billion people fully vaccinated [18].

Sue wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 08:05 As of March 10, 2022, more than 10.9 billion doses of COVID vaccines have been administered worldwide, with 4.45 billion people fully vaccinated [18].

All scientists are saying is that 4.45 billion people given the Covid mRNA vaccine without first doing long term trials even on a small group of people and especially children is a big ask. (ten mice don't really count) Pfizer has also been given indemnity, security against or exemption from legal liability for one's actions, by the UK government. Thankful that the vaccine was available in the early days when the Alpha and Delta variants were killing people the risk was worthwhile but now we have moved into less serious variants we need to take stock of the situation and spend the money in more meaningful ways.

PS Engineers have been using 'G' = gravity in their equations for years but still don't understand what it is.

I think scientists know what mRNA is, how it forms and the job it does, being different for every protein. I am not up to date on the modern chemistry and cannot claim to know all the ins and outs but the chemical components of mRNA are well known . As is DNA its close chemical with which it works to translate all our genetic material in to functioning chemicals in the cell. If we know the codon sequence for a gene we know the anticodon sequence of the mRNA. I don’t think this can be likened to G

I think I have found the Scientific paper you are referring to. I think there is a lot more to this, even reading the paper. In sufficient evidence to say the vaccine is the cause of higher than normal mortality. There are many sociological factors at play here. I found another article which I hardly understood statistically. There is obviously grounds for research but not rejection of the virus. It saved the lives if more than it may have benn affected by it ……


Quote
A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats.

On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic.

However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time.

At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients.

In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021.

Since its publication in pre-print, the Stabell-Benn study has received very little coverage in the media. As Dr Stabell-Benn told Freddie Sayers in her UnHerd interview, she has become used to this reticence:

I have been in this game for now almost thirty years, studying vaccines and finding these non-specific effects which have been very controversial. There are strong powers out there that don’t really want to hear about them. But to me this is good news: it means that we can optimize the use of vaccines to not only be strong protective effects against vaccine disease, but we can also optimize their use in terms of overall health.
- PROFESSOR CHRISTINE STABELL-BENN, UNHERD
The reaction

For a study with such a consequential conclusion, review from independent experts is crucial. In the past, such peer-review took place in anonymity, behind the closed doors of a scientific journal, with a single editor or associate editor serving as an umpire. Because of the small number of people involved in the review, the peer-review process is subject to well-known biases and long delays (months or longer). Worse, the public never had access to these deliberations and was asked to take it as an article of faith that a published peer-reviewed paper presented accurate conclusions.

A better process for the scientific review of some important papers has emerged during the pandemic – open peer review whereby the public can see the conversation among scientific experts. Though the Danish team released their paper in early April, it was an online review by vaccine safety expert and world-renowned epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff that catalyzed a discussion by scientists about it.

In his review, Kulldorff pointed to the clear implication of the results of the Danish paper. When both mRNA and adenovector vaccines are available, it’s better to take the vaccine with good randomized evidence of reductions in all-cause mortality rather than taking a vaccine where we cannot tell from the best evidence whether it reduces mortality. Kulldorff called for a new randomized controlled trial of the mRNA vaccine to find out if they can compete with the adenovirus-vector vaccines – as should occur in medicine whenever an effective intervention exists and another intervention seeks to show that it is as good or better. He also suggested that it is inappropriate to mandate vaccines for which the randomized clinical trials show a null result for mortality.

Kulldorff’s open peer-review stoked some discussion among scientists about the feasibility of running a randomized trial comparing the vaccines. Mortality rates from covid infection – due partly to high levels of population immunity from covid recovery – are low, so a large sample size would be necessary to detect a difference. Whether such a study is even feasible is an open question, as is the importance of such a study. This kind of constructive discussion happens all the time in science.

However, some scientists – including zero-covid advocate Deepti Guradsani – reacted to Kulldorff’s article with public smears, false accusations of spreading vaccine misinformation, and the usual claims about right-wing connections. Even Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust and a prominent architect of the pandemic policy in the UK, joined the fray by promoting such smears on his Twitter feed.

Kulldorff is a prominent vaccine scientist who has presented his honest views on the covid vaccines, even when they go against the established narrative. In March 2021, he lost his position as an advisor to the US CDC for recommending against pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for older Americans – an action that effectively killed the demand for the adenovirus vector vaccines in the US. He is the only person I know who the CDC has fired for being too pro-vaccine.

When scientists slander prominent vaccine scientists, that damages vaccine confidence. Scientists should be encouraged to evaluate, compare and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different vaccines, and to be free to advocate for one vaccine over another. Farrar’s promotion of the lies is particularly insidious because it sends a signal to scientists who might be interested in funding from the Wellcome Trust to shy away from voicing their honest thoughts about the Danish study or vaccines in general.

The stakes in the discussion about this paper are tremendously high. Of course, for the public at large, what covid vaccine is best for them is literally a life-and-death question. For scientists, at stake is the ability to participate honestly in open scientific reviews of hot button topics without having to face smears and reputational damage based on lies by other prominent scientists. If scientists lose their ability to reason publicly about studies like the ground-breaking Danish study, physicians will have no solid basis for their advice to patients on this topic or much else, and the public will have no reason to trust physicians and scientists.

Always keen to keep up to date. Found loads of scientific papers looking in to this and none conclusive

I'm pleased that some scientists are looking into and questioning the current vaccine approach. That's how it should be. Aldus Huxley's 'Brave New World' suggested that a single solution medication fitted all wasn't the right road to go down. We only have to look at the list of 'common' side effects on even the more ubiquitous drugs to realise that people are different.

I'm trying to stay out of this discussion, but if you'd had my experiences of the last five months - I think you would tend towards Plaques' version.

I agree we should continue to research but it is dangerous game to write mRNA vaccines off till proven otherwise . The world without vaccinations is not a place I would like to live in and these vaccines have huge promise, as far as I understand it. As I have said I trust immunologists etc to get it right . I am sure there has been and will be continuous research since the mRNA vaccinations were introduced. Perhaps, however, I do not trust commerce to get it right and more so I do not trust the media to report it correctly. Which is why I have done and will do further research into scientific papers about this issue. So far I have not been convinced that the mRNA vaccine has caused the increase in present death rates , and neither have any of the papers I have read, though I admit to not understanding the statistics or in the in-depth scientific discussions. At the end of the day its all about balance, balancing success of the vaccine against its problems.

I also have never implied that one remedy suits all . We are all different, we have different genetics, different metabolism, different lifestyles and Drs strive to find the best to sit their individual patients, and their situations and its certainly not easy . As you said, You only have to look at the side effects of all the various medications we all take, listed as 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 etc to realise that. No one can expect to find that one medication or vaccine suits all. I honestly think no one does expect that, certainly not in the scientific world. It may have been expected or hoped for once but certainly not now .

I'm aching to respond - line by line - to the above - but I won't.

Suffice it to ask - which other "vaccine" allows you to become infected after four doses (all mRNA) in 15 months, when an infected person walks past the end of your bed in a 'green' (Covid protected) hospital ward? Confirmed verbally by the Consultant Physician in Geriatric Medicine who wore full space suit PPE to speak to me.

That's much more than I intended to say, and I'm done now.

Do your own research as they say on the internet.

Tripps wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 14:19 I'm aching to respond - line by line - to the above - but I won't.

Suffice it to ask - which other "vaccine" allows you to become infected after four doses (all mRNA) in 15 months, when an infected person walks past the end of your bed in a 'green' (Covid protected) hospital ward? Confirmed verbally by the Consultant Physician in Geriatric Medicine who wore full space suit PPE to speak to me.

That's much more than I intended to say, and I'm done now.

Do your own research as they say on the internet.

You know the reason, it mutated, faster than a new vaccine could be produced.

I thought we were discussing the cause for the present higher than normal death rates which some have said is because the mRNA vaccine has caused other illnesses/ death after a long period of time, not the efficacy of the vaccine itself in preventing covid , that we all know was not 100% effective, but actually I believe more effective than the flu vaccine.

As has been identified by many researchers it is not possible to say there is one reason why the death rate is higher than normal, and at this stage not possible to say that the main cause is the vaccine. One of the many causes appears to be that people did not seek or could not get medical help when they needed it, particularly with reference to cardio vascular disease. People with dementia deteriorated faster than normal due to lack of social interaction, again told to my neighbour by her consultant whose husband recently died of said disease.

We could discuss this for ever, but I am not sure we are actually discussing the same thing. Ie did the mRNA virus cause the present day higher than normal mortality rate . As I see it this has not been validated by research at the present and research is ongoing, and yes Tripps I am doing my research . I have read 5 papers this morning and none of them as yet seem to support the hypothesis,

If the hypothesis is that the mRNA virus is 100% effective ´no one ever said it was, and it was always stayed that a better version was necessary to address the mutating forms. This is being created if it hasn’t already been

As I understand it if a person tested positive for covid and subsequently died then they would have been put down as excess deaths due or partially due to covid. Now pops up another factor suggesting that the treatment itself may have helped them on their journey. Deaths in the Pandemic. . We now have two problems, 1) is the spike in deaths greater than it should have been because of the way it was treated, 2) Is the continuing higher rate of excessive deaths due to covid or something else.
Until someone starts looking at this in a serious way the mRNA vaccines may sink unjustifiably under the social media conspiracy theories to our collective disadvantage.

And my assumption is that someone is looking at this. If the question has been asked then someone usually is trying to find the answer. However I do not like the blame inference. If the disease has never been met before than neither has a treatment. So no one knows the consequences of medical action. By all means research it but do not blame what was done in good faith

However I still thought we were discussing present deaths not deaths during the pandemic. If that is not the case I apologise for misunderstanding the discussions. It is reasons for present raised mortality that I have been researching and not during the pandemic

Sue wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 21:18 And my assumption is that someone is looking at this. If the question has been asked then someone usually is trying to find the answer. However I do not like the blame inference. If the disease has never been met before than neither has a treatment. So no one knows the consequences of medical action. By all means research it but do not blame what was done in good faith

However I still thought we were discussing present deaths not deaths during the pandemic. If that is not the case I apologise for misunderstanding the discussions. It is reasons for present raised mortality that I have been researching and not during the pandemic

1) On looking at it. No doubt someone is looking at it. Excess deaths outside the pandemic years is happening in all advanced countries. We the UK should be identifying who is going to do the looking.

2) On blame inference. I hope I'm not inferring that our government or Pfizer are at fault for applying a novel vaccine for a novel illness. At the time of the pandemic the risks from the vaccine were perhaps small and unknown whereas the risk from covid were very high and predictable.

3) Deaths during the pandemic. The two 'spike' years have been put down to covid but now there is a suggestion that the treatment guidelines may have been adding extra numbers to those spikes.

4) Present rate of mortality. I'm grateful for your research on this topic which can only add to a better understanding but then we return full circle to (No 1) who is looking at it.

A very difficult subject with lots of multiple factors. There are statisticians out there who could unravel these numbers but whether the media would make any sense out of them is another matter.

"A very difficult subject with lots of multiple factors."
I've read all of the above and think that covers it. I will still take all the vaccines offered to me.

Thank you for your summary plaques. As usual I will keep my eyes and ears open . Sadly all my friends who used to do research in such issues are now retired. I do have one but as we only keep in touch once a year it may be next Christmas before I hear from him. My own daughter has moved out of medical research ( where she was technical support for many research establishments) and into another area of expertise. She used to tell me little research gems over the years. My interest still remains in this area but time marches on and I don’t have the ability to understand the technical papers like I used to. Most research establishments keep quiet about what they are doing , especially if it may be of commercial value. As I understand some are commissioned to do certain projects and I am sure this is happening with respect to the issues we have discussed

I think we can now see 'the new normal'. It's a constant background level of Covid that apart from outbreaks in closed communities like care homes (We have one locally at the moment.) is looked on more like winter flu but often less severe than that.
I am also aware from family experience that long term Covid is still with us, some cases more serious than others. I often wonder whether the fact that spicy food makes my nose run like a tap when it didn't used to is a Covid symptom or simply a concomitant of old age.

Stanley wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 04:19 I think we can now see 'the new normal'. It's a constant background level of Covid that apart from outbreaks in closed communities like care homes (We have one locally at the moment.) is looked on more like winter flu but often less severe than that.
I am also aware from family experience that long term Covid is still with us, some cases more serious than others. I often wonder whether the fact that spicy food makes my nose run like a tap when it didn't used to is a Covid symptom or simply a concomitant of old age.

I think the latter Stanley

Surely not Sue....

Both of us are still recovering from whatever it is. All the symptoms of a very nasty cold dropping sinus rubbish down for recycling. Tried the Rapid flow checks which came up 'void' possibly because they are now years old. Replacements now on the shopping list.

Back to Dr John Campbell's statement on NICA's possible ill advised guidelines of drug administration to treat shallow breathing for covid. I would have thought that patients would have first been put on mechanical ventilation with Doctors doing everything possible before using morphine based drugs. I think Dr Campbell has jumped the gun on this one and caused some unnecessary concern.

Ken, sorry to hear you are both still under the weather. Daughter Susan is experiencing the same thing but in her case she has a diagnosis of Sarcoidosis, very rare and an auto immune problem. I have a feeling a lot of ailments that are about are related to the immune system. But what do I know about matters like these. I just keep taking the Lea and Perrins!
As for the testing kits. Call in and see me Ken and take mine before you spend money. I haven't had them all that long.....