he claims people are anti vaxer's
The 21st Century is the age of spin..
not the age of reason
labels such as antivaxer fringe science are prolific..
as the BMJ notes.
Wyttenbach is clearly a very bad person
" vaccine critics, collectively labelled "anti-vaxxers", who are clearly very bad people. "
Source..The great Ad Hominem: why can't vaccine lobbyists address deficiencies in vaccine science instead of attacking critics
Here is a description of vaccine derived polio. It is only a problem -- and can only be a problem -- in places with inadequate third-world public health. With a properly administered immunization program it will not happen. Since 2000, vaccination has prevented roughly 13 million cases, and caused 760 cases. It should have caused 0 cases, and it would have were it not for disruption, poverty and politics.
https://www.who.int/news-room/…-is-vaccine-derived-polio
. . . Oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains an attenuated (weakened) vaccine-virus, activating an immune response in the body. When a child is immunized with OPV, the weakened vaccine-virus replicates in the intestine for a limited period, thereby developing immunity by building up antibodies. During this time, the vaccine-virus is also excreted. In areas of inadequate sanitation, this excreted vaccine-virus can spread in the immediate community (and this can offer protection to other children through ‘passive’ immunization), before eventually dying out.
On rare occasions, if a population is seriously under-immunized, an excreted vaccine-virus can continue to circulate for an extended period of time. The longer it is allowed to survive, the more genetic changes it undergoes. In very rare instances, the vaccine-virus can genetically change into a form that can paralyse – this is what is known as a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV).
It takes a long time for a cVDPV to occur. Generally, the strain will have been allowed to circulate in an un- or under-immunized population for a period of at least 12 months. Circulating VDPVs occur when routine or supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) are poorly conducted and a population is left susceptible to poliovirus, whether from vaccine-derived or wild poliovirus. Hence, the problem is not with the vaccine itself, but low vaccination coverage. If a population is fully immunized, they will be protected against both vaccine-derived and wild polioviruses.
Since 2000, more than 10 billion doses of OPV have been administered to nearly 3 billion children worldwide. As a result, more than 13 million cases of polio have been prevented, and the disease has been reduced by more than 99%. During that time, 24 cVDPV outbreaks occurred in 21 countries, resulting in fewer than 760 VDPV cases. . . .
FUD: Alert! THH guarantees you 100% protection (vaccine work) from a flue vaccination!!
No, the document he quoted said 30% to 60%. 30 to 60 does not equal 100. Why did you just say it does?
Display MoreHere is a description of vaccine derived polio. It is only a problem -- and can only be a problem -- in places with inadequate third-world public health. With a properly administered immunization program it will not happen. Since 2000, vaccination has prevented roughly 13 million cases, and caused 760 cases. It should have caused 0 cases, and it would have were it not for disruption, poverty and politics.
https://www.who.int/news-room/…-is-vaccine-derived-polio
. . . Oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains an attenuated (weakened) vaccine-virus, activating an immune response in the body. When a child is immunized with OPV, the weakened vaccine-virus replicates in the intestine for a limited period, thereby developing immunity by building up antibodies. During this time, the vaccine-virus is also excreted. In areas of inadequate sanitation, this excreted vaccine-virus can spread in the immediate community (and this can offer protection to other children through ‘passive’ immunization), before eventually dying out.
On rare occasions, if a population is seriously under-immunized, an excreted vaccine-virus can continue to circulate for an extended period of time. The longer it is allowed to survive, the more genetic changes it undergoes. In very rare instances, the vaccine-virus can genetically change into a form that can paralyse – this is what is known as a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV).
It takes a long time for a cVDPV to occur. Generally, the strain will have been allowed to circulate in an un- or under-immunized population for a period of at least 12 months. Circulating VDPVs occur when routine or supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) are poorly conducted and a population is left susceptible to poliovirus, whether from vaccine-derived or wild poliovirus. Hence, the problem is not with the vaccine itself, but low vaccination coverage. If a population is fully immunized, they will be protected against both vaccine-derived and wild polioviruses.
Since 2000, more than 10 billion doses of OPV have been administered to nearly 3 billion children worldwide. As a result, more than 13 million cases of polio have been prevented, and the disease has been reduced by more than 99%. During that time, 24 cVDPV outbreaks occurred in 21 countries, resulting in fewer than 760 VDPV cases. . . .
You are going to quote the WHO - who we now know is complacent and culpable in Covid misinformation. At the beginning of Covid they claimed "no evidence of human-to-human transmission" which may be one of the stupidest, vile things ever written. Everyone knows that SARS (original) was human-to-human and had super spreaders - go open a microbiology textbook, it's not secret knowledge.
Until you know how they are cooking the books on Polio you can't understand how wrong this is. I've already told you, and you admitted sanitation and ill health account for most of the historical decent of Polio. It has a fecal-oral route of transmission - think about that.
WHO is paying you to keep blogging about Polio half-truths?
The entire history of Polio is about the complexity of vaccines - not about "vaccines saved the world." Could Polio be eracidated without a vaccine - yes, it was trending toward that in the west rapidly. There are tons of lessons here, but they require deep understanding rather than declaring victory laps and pounding your fist at antivaxxers.
You are going to quote the WHO - who we now know is complacent and culpable in Covid misinformation.
No, we do not know that. That is nonsense. The W.H.O. experts visited China and made excellent recommendations in February. The warning came early enough to avoid harm. Countries that followed their recommendations avoided serious harm, and economic harm. The U.S. and other nations that ignored them suffered catastrophic harm. It was entirely the fault of the U.S. government. The W.H.O. is blameless. it was not complacent or slow-moving; the W.H.O. experts urged immediate action. Every single thing they predicted and warned about happened just as they said it would.
See the W.H.O. presentation here:
I think if the implication is that Gates somehow engineered Covid then that's a pretty big conspiracy going on there.
Absolutely not, in no way shape or form would I ever suggest anything remotely like that.
Bill Gates is an incredible philanthropist
and does more good than we possibly will ever know.
However, I would not put it past him to
“make dang sure” his investment in vaccine was 1st in political pecking order for trials, approvals, samples, and government funded purchases etc.
The W.H.O. is blameless.
Click on this link
As you can see the WHO could read any med students simplest text and find the likely answer. There is no excuse.
Bill Gates is an incredible philanthropist
and does more good than we possibly will ever know.
However, I would not put it past him to“make dang sure” his investment in vaccine was 1st in political pecking order for trials, approvals, samples, and government funded purchases etc.
https://www.thelibertybeacon.c…s-but-offers-no-evidence/
Yet there is at present little evidence that “severe side effects” are common in COVID-19 patients who take hydroxychloroquine, with the majority of reported adverse events being relatively mild and only a small fraction of reported effects so far being dangerous and/or fatal."
Bill Gates is an incredible philanthropist
and does more good than we possibly will ever know.
claiming that using the drug to treat the coronavirus carries with it the risk of “severe side effects”
The guy is a vaccine and virus freak. You have to be wearing a dunce hat not to see it. He won't be at your funeral, so don't do a love in for him. Incredible philanthropist, lol. Even a moderate amount of due diligence will tell you this guy is part of a very ugly system.
Australian Sky News excoriates illiberal, authoritarian Leftist governments'
and bureaucrats' disastrous failed Covid lockdowns, drug bans, ...--
History to 'vindicate Swedish COVID-19 strategy'
-- citing articles like --
Sweden’s success shows the true cost of our arrogant, failed establishment
Shocking incompetence has unnecessarily wiped billions of pounds from the UK economy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne…ant-failed-establishment/
Lockdown supporters cannot bear the thought that Sweden has got it right
An honest appraisal of how the Scandinavian country has fared raises plenty of
awkward questions for politicians in the rest of Europe
UD: Alert! THH guarantees you 100% protection (vaccine work) from a flue vaccination!!
More Wyttenfacts!
I said 30-60%
"Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19
By George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California
"You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions.
Not on this thread!
Nor it seems in much of the US media...
Display MoreThe 21st Century is the age of spin..
not the age of reason
labels such as antivaxer fringe science are prolific..
as the BMJ notes.
Wyttenbach is clearly a very bad person
" vaccine critics, collectively labelled "anti-vaxxers", who are clearly very bad people. "
Source..The great Ad Hominem: why can't vaccine lobbyists address deficiencies in vaccine science instead of attacking critics
I don't label people pointing out fairly the real challenges and problems in vaccine development, or that vaccines like all drugs do have some (very small) chance of nasty side-effects, anti-vaxxers.
I reserve that for those who falsely and ludicrously claim vaccines are much more dangerous than they really are. like W saying that taking Flu vaccine , for most people, is worse than getting Flu. Obviously untrue. As my mother, father, all UK people older than 65 will attest.
Bad people? I'm not God, I won't judge. My feeling is everyone here wants what is best for everyone - just some don't think. Dangerous to the world at the moment when take up rate of (not very tested) COVID vaccines will determine how quickly we beat this virus and get back to normal? Absolutely.
I will stand on real facts not Wyttenfacts.
RB - do you want to call me out on this? Are you agreeing that Wyttenbach's characterisation of Flue vaccine is correct? Or are you saying that such misinformation is not dangerous to the world (and particularly the US) at the moment?
I'm interested in how you think on this, how you spin my fair comment as spin?
Best wishes, THH
The guy [Gates] is a vaccine and virus freak. You have to be wearing a dunce hat not to see it.
I have no idea why you think this, other than that you perhaps read only stuff from the far bottom right of this chart. Or maybe you reckon everything else is propaganda that the other 99% of dunceheads mistakes for less biassed factual content?
Display MoreAustralian Sky News excoriates illiberal, authoritarian Leftist governments'
and bureaucrats' disastrous failed Covid lockdowns, drug bans, ...--
History to 'vindicate Swedish COVID-19 strategy'
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
-- citing articles like --
Sweden’s success shows the true cost of our arrogant, failed establishment
Shocking incompetence has unnecessarily wiped billions of pounds from the UK economy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne…ant-failed-establishment/
Lockdown supporters cannot bear the thought that Sweden has got it right
An honest appraisal of how the Scandinavian country has fared raises plenty of
awkward questions for politicians in the rest of Europe
Not quite sure what this strand of argument has to do with the pic of HCQ - which Stefan says Swedish doctors he talks to don't rate.
But, overall, I am glad we can discuss this example of a country that took a brave no-lock-down but also do what is needed to keep hospitals OK stance. I agree they may eventually, by historians, be considered wise. I'm not sure.
Stefan's point here I agree with that you need a lot of analysis before comparing different strategies. For example the UK lockdown would have been 2 weeks shorter, and death rate half, if we had locked down 7 days earlier. (Figures maybe not exactly correct).
THH
As you can see the WHO could read any med students simplest text and find the likely answer. There is no excuse.
Easy to blame people for mistakes looking back, is it not?
Wow - lots of posts this morning. Sorry everyone. Except the anti-vaxxers, who deserve it!
https://www.thelibertybeacon.c…s-but-offers-no-evidence/
"Bill Gates this week added more flame to the fire in the ongoing debate over the usage of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, claiming that using the drug to treat the coronavirus carries with it the risk of “severe side effects” and arguing that medical officials should instead pursue the numerous “good therapeutic drugs” currently in development.
Yet there is at present little evidence that “severe side effects” are common in COVID-19 patients who take hydroxychloroquine, with the majority of reported adverse events being relatively mild and only a small fraction of reported effects so far being dangerous and/or fatal."
Shane, I know probability is one of those geeky things you reckon red-blooded men should not dirty their hands with but...
Gates was saying there is a risk of severe side effects, not that severe side effects are common. The disagreement is on how much, if any, benefit you get from taking HCQ. I agree that if it were shown to be effective at prevention - say even as much as Flu vaccine - doctors could dose everyone prophylatically in high COVID areas. That is because unlike the anti-vaxers (RB please note the extra helping of spin here) I accept small risks of serious side effects for overall benefits. I'm not sure most doctors would agree. Primum non nocere (within risk/reward limits).
One weirdness in the "political" aspect of this debate. The same people who are negative about risk/reward of very thoroughly tested vaccines are positive about the risk/reward of unproven prophylatic drugs! Interested to hear comments from those here this applies to - maybe I am wrong? Gates is also an example of this contradiction - except he would claim that vaccines are much, much, safer than HCQ, and also that vaccines are much more efficacious than HCQ. Anyone want a careful discussion of this? I think we really can't yet know how effective is HCQ at prophylaxis. One think we do know, HCQ would not be a permanent solution because of the long term retinotoxicity.
Stats for prophylactic dosing.
You are 70 year-old man (say).
Your mortality estimate if you get COVID (as defined by symptoms) is 5%. (I don't guarantee this is correct - it is difficult to calculate).
You live in a very high-risk COVID area - in the end:
60% in your area will have caught the disease. Of those, 30% will clear it with T-cell immunity.
30% of the population will be seropositive. of those 15% will have no or minimal symptoms.
15% however will have obvious symptoms.
So your chances of dying are 0.75%, and say 0.75% again of being seriously disabled but not dead.
1 in 70 chance of a very nasty result.
What chance of severe harm from the drug to you accept for:
(1) a one-off vaccine shown based on extensive testing to have 50% efficacy for your age group?
(2) a prophylactic drug that might be efficacious - but no-one knows what are the chances of this?
Obviously you can brew your own numbers here - this is only an example...
Statistical caveat. This calculation underestimates your risk by up to 4X! Why?
It is likely that both T-cell immunity and "minimal symptom" seropositive COVID correlate negatively with age. So a 70 year old will be less likely than typical to be T-cell immune or asymptomatic.
It is really difficult to be confident about these risk estimates, even knowing all we do now.
(EDIT - 30% seropositive is 2X London - the hardest hit part of the UK).
