https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.No surprie here, just another step in the way to truth. Or at least open minds.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you cannot refute the argument that is at the core of the post and link. No surprise there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there
will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but
overall it is still worth having a major push for population
vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have
saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
In the new study, which has not been peer-reviewed, Iwasaki's team
collected blood samples from 42 people with post-vaccination syndrome
(PVS) and 22 people without it between December 2022 and November
2023.
When they analyzed the patients' immune systems, those with PVS had
different proportions of some immune cells. It’s unclear what these >differences might mean as the researchers couldn't link them to
specific symptoms.
The team also looked at 134 people with long Covid, as PVS symptoms
overlap with it, as well as 134 healthy vaccine recipients.
Both people with long Covid and those with PVS seemed to have
reactivated Epstein-Barr syndrome.
More than nine in 10 adults have had Epstein-Barr at some point in
their lives, a common infection spread through bodily fluids like
saliva or semen.
It causes symptoms like fatigue, fever, and rashes, and once symptoms >disappear, the virus remains dormant in the body, where it can be
reactivated when the immune system is low.
People with PVS also had elevated levels of Covid spike proteins." >___________
So the question for any country facing a new virus that they can see
is causing high death rates, is whether it is worth taking drastic
steps to slow the infection until a vaccine is available? Our
government decided yes and instituted restrictions of international
arrivals and on internal travel. Meantime we saw mass graves being dug
in New York and horror stories from Italy.
Eventually we saw that early vaccines were making a difference, but
they were being directed to countries with very high death rates, so
we had to wait longer.
Vaccines developed, but were being tested "live", and it was not clear >whether any vaccine was better than others. We did what we could, and
started to obtain supplies and make them available.
By the time the crisis largely passed, we discovered that we had very
low infection rates or deaths relating to Covid compared with other >countries. In particular, we are able to assess from the comparison of
actual deaths against pre-covid death rates that, had we followed the >policies of the United States, we could have lost an additional 22,000
lives - our combination of isolation and then encouraging vaccine
saved a huge number of lives.
Yes the complications between dying of Covid and remaining healthy
despite a brief infection can be severe - in effect they must feel
like "partial deaths" - but it is likely that because we had a much
lower percentage of deaths than most other countries, chances are we
had fewer in relative terms of those with harsher experience than
infection but less than death.
So the question for New Zealand (and other countries), is what
policies should now be considered should another infectious virus
outbreak occur? I suspect the answer is not to reject medical science,
and understand that vaccines are not perfect, and balance higher death
rates against the costs to individuals, families and communities, both
short and long term of taking different levels of precautions.
Would you have been happier with fewer restrictions - for example at
the level of those adopted in the USA, and accept 22,000 more deaths
of New Zealanders?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you cannot refute the argument that is at the core of the post and link. No >surprise there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there
will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but
overall it is still worth having a major push for population
vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have
saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
In the new study, which has not been peer-reviewed, Iwasaki's team >>collected blood samples from 42 people with post-vaccination syndrome
(PVS) and 22 people without it between December 2022 and November
2023.
When they analyzed the patients' immune systems, those with PVS had >>different proportions of some immune cells. It’s unclear what these >>differences might mean as the researchers couldn't link them to
specific symptoms.
The team also looked at 134 people with long Covid, as PVS symptoms
overlap with it, as well as 134 healthy vaccine recipients.
Both people with long Covid and those with PVS seemed to have
reactivated Epstein-Barr syndrome.
More than nine in 10 adults have had Epstein-Barr at some point in
their lives, a common infection spread through bodily fluids like
saliva or semen.
It causes symptoms like fatigue, fever, and rashes, and once symptoms >>disappear, the virus remains dormant in the body, where it can be >>reactivated when the immune system is low.
People with PVS also had elevated levels of Covid spike proteins." >>___________
So the question for any country facing a new virus that they can see
is causing high death rates, is whether it is worth taking drastic
steps to slow the infection until a vaccine is available? Our
government decided yes and instituted restrictions of international >>arrivals and on internal travel. Meantime we saw mass graves being dug
in New York and horror stories from Italy.
Eventually we saw that early vaccines were making a difference, but
they were being directed to countries with very high death rates, so
we had to wait longer.
Vaccines developed, but were being tested "live", and it was not clear >>whether any vaccine was better than others. We did what we could, and >>started to obtain supplies and make them available.
By the time the crisis largely passed, we discovered that we had very
low infection rates or deaths relating to Covid compared with other >>countries. In particular, we are able to assess from the comparison of >>actual deaths against pre-covid death rates that, had we followed the >>policies of the United States, we could have lost an additional 22,000 >>lives - our combination of isolation and then encouraging vaccine
saved a huge number of lives.
Yes the complications between dying of Covid and remaining healthy
despite a brief infection can be severe - in effect they must feel
like "partial deaths" - but it is likely that because we had a much
lower percentage of deaths than most other countries, chances are we
had fewer in relative terms of those with harsher experience than
infection but less than death.
So the question for New Zealand (and other countries), is what
policies should now be considered should another infectious virus
outbreak occur? I suspect the answer is not to reject medical science,
and understand that vaccines are not perfect, and balance higher death >>rates against the costs to individuals, families and communities, both >>short and long term of taking different levels of precautions.
Would you have been happier with fewer restrictions - for example at
the level of those adopted in the USA, and accept 22,000 more deaths
of New Zealanders?
The substance of thee post is alleged genetic changes being caused by the >"vaccine".
Perhaps you could address that instead of paroting the usual party handouts.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 19:12:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can continue with your deliberately ignorant posts but the truth is not affected. People better educated and with higher moral standards than you (and that means most people) are slowly being heard, you will one day have to admit your appalling ignorance and refusal to see the truth. It will happen.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So you cannot refute the argument that is at the core of the post and link. >>No
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>>>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there
will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but >>>overall it is still worth having a major push for population
vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have
saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
In the new study, which has not been peer-reviewed, Iwasaki's team >>>collected blood samples from 42 people with post-vaccination syndrome >>>(PVS) and 22 people without it between December 2022 and November
2023.
When they analyzed the patients' immune systems, those with PVS had >>>different proportions of some immune cells. It’s unclear what these >>>differences might mean as the researchers couldn't link them to
specific symptoms.
The team also looked at 134 people with long Covid, as PVS symptoms >>>overlap with it, as well as 134 healthy vaccine recipients.
Both people with long Covid and those with PVS seemed to have
reactivated Epstein-Barr syndrome.
More than nine in 10 adults have had Epstein-Barr at some point in
their lives, a common infection spread through bodily fluids like
saliva or semen.
It causes symptoms like fatigue, fever, and rashes, and once symptoms >>>disappear, the virus remains dormant in the body, where it can be >>>reactivated when the immune system is low.
People with PVS also had elevated levels of Covid spike proteins." >>>___________
So the question for any country facing a new virus that they can see
is causing high death rates, is whether it is worth taking drastic
steps to slow the infection until a vaccine is available? Our
government decided yes and instituted restrictions of international >>>arrivals and on internal travel. Meantime we saw mass graves being dug
in New York and horror stories from Italy.
Eventually we saw that early vaccines were making a difference, but
they were being directed to countries with very high death rates, so
we had to wait longer.
Vaccines developed, but were being tested "live", and it was not clear >>>whether any vaccine was better than others. We did what we could, and >>>started to obtain supplies and make them available.
By the time the crisis largely passed, we discovered that we had very
low infection rates or deaths relating to Covid compared with other >>>countries. In particular, we are able to assess from the comparison of >>>actual deaths against pre-covid death rates that, had we followed the >>>policies of the United States, we could have lost an additional 22,000 >>>lives - our combination of isolation and then encouraging vaccine
saved a huge number of lives.
Yes the complications between dying of Covid and remaining healthy >>>despite a brief infection can be severe - in effect they must feel
like "partial deaths" - but it is likely that because we had a much
lower percentage of deaths than most other countries, chances are we
had fewer in relative terms of those with harsher experience than >>>infection but less than death.
So the question for New Zealand (and other countries), is what
policies should now be considered should another infectious virus >>>outbreak occur? I suspect the answer is not to reject medical science, >>>and understand that vaccines are not perfect, and balance higher death >>>rates against the costs to individuals, families and communities, both >>>short and long term of taking different levels of precautions.
Would you have been happier with fewer restrictions - for example at
the level of those adopted in the USA, and accept 22,000 more deaths
of New Zealanders?
surprise there.
The substance of thee post is alleged genetic changes being caused by the >>"vaccine".
Perhaps you could address that instead of paroting the usual party handouts.
I am not aware of any claims that vaccines, or even the virus, caused
genetic changes to anyone, but certainly it caused extreme problems
for some individuals, and the example given was of extreme
complications, which are acknowledged to have happened in an extremely
small number of cases - probably only one person came through such
problems as were described in that article. I prefer the medical
profession to "party handouts;" ymmv. You may be aware of similar
outliers in development of early vaccines for other diseases - even
now after well over a century of influenza, vaccines are modified at
least annually to cope with new variants, but nobody claims that in
not stopping all infection those vaccines are not worth taking
regularly, particularly for the elderly such as yourself, Tony. Your >"parroting" of unsupported fringe views would be supported by the
Atlas network linked "Free Speech Union," but in reality all they are
doing is telling you that you are entitled to make as many wrong
statements as you like; all they want is for you to think there are
people that share your delusions, so vote ACT!
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Did you miss "As the article said:" ?
wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there
will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but
overall it is still worth having a major push for population
vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have
saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
Estimated by whom?
The big unanswered question in this whole fiasco is; why did some >governments, including the Ardern administration, ban the use of
certain generic drugs as a preventive measure or for early
intervention? If none of them were in any way effective, it would have >quickly become apparent and would therefore have vindicated the likes
of Pfizer in their push to sell their vaccine.
Bill.
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there
will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but
overall it is still worth having a major push for population
vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have
saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:24:55 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Did you miss "As the article said:" ?
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving.
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>>>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there
will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but >>>overall it is still worth having a major push for population
vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have
saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
Estimated by whom?
The big unanswered question in this whole fiasco is; why did some >>governments, including the Ardern administration, ban the use of
certain generic drugs as a preventive measure or for early
intervention? If none of them were in any way effective, it would have >>quickly become apparent and would therefore have vindicated the likes
of Pfizer in their push to sell their vaccine.
Bill.
What products were banned, Bill?
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 18:00:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:24:55 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 20:48:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Did you miss "As the article said:" ?
On 23 Feb 2025 07:20:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14414367/covid-vaccines-new-syndrome-biological-changes-yale.html
First off, this is in the main stream media, so things are improving. >>>>>
Rich, and others, you may wish to add this to your understanding of the >>>>>Covid-19 history, and the phase "Safe and effective".
The child of the link above, if interested.
This is exactly the sort of analysis that does happen after every
major change in vaccine development for a new infection - yes there >>>>will be a small percentage of people that have adverse effects, but >>>>overall it is still worth having a major push for population >>>>vaccination. As the article said:
"The mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer are estimated to have >>>>saved tens of millions of lives globally from Covid, including
3million in the US.
Estimated by whom?
The big unanswered question in this whole fiasco is; why did some >>>governments, including the Ardern administration, ban the use of
certain generic drugs as a preventive measure or for early
intervention? If none of them were in any way effective, it would have >>>quickly become apparent and would therefore have vindicated the likes
of Pfizer in their push to sell their vaccine.
Bill.
What products were banned, Bill?
Doctors were forbidden from prescribing ivermectin for anything
related to covid.
Why?
Bill.
From that article, it appears that while there is no ban on the use of >Ivermectin for treatment of parasites and animals, it was not approved
to prevent or treat Covid-19. That means that Ivermectin continued to
be available for approved uses, but is used in relation to Covid-19,
was considered dangerous and the lack of approval would presumably
have been seen by Doctors as indicating that they would be taking a >professional risk in prescribing for that purpose - they could for
example have to justify the use if a case came before a court.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:26:24 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From that article, it appears that while there is no ban on the use of >>Ivermectin for treatment of parasites and animals, it was not approved
to prevent or treat Covid-19. That means that Ivermectin continued to
be available for approved uses, but is used in relation to Covid-19,
was considered dangerous and the lack of approval would presumably
have been seen by Doctors as indicating that they would be taking a >>professional risk in prescribing for that purpose - they could for
example have to justify the use if a case came before a court.
That sounds like utter bullshit to me. I don't care if it comes from a >government website. Indeed, that makes it even more suspicious. I know
one thing; I don't want the government to be my doctor.
Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug which can be bought over theI am not aware of it being banned in New Zealand.
counter in many countries.
It is also very cheap. If it were shown to
also be an effective prophylactic against covid, it would have put an
end to the villainy imposed on this country by what was arguably the
most dishonest government in this country's history.
Bill.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:44:32 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:See: https://pharmac.govt.nz/news-and-resources/official-information-act/official-information-act-responses/ivermectin-special-authority
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:26:24 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
From that article, it appears that while there is no ban on the use of >>>Ivermectin for treatment of parasites and animals, it was not approved
to prevent or treat Covid-19. That means that Ivermectin continued to
be available for approved uses, but is used in relation to Covid-19,
was considered dangerous and the lack of approval would presumably
have been seen by Doctors as indicating that they would be taking a >>>professional risk in prescribing for that purpose - they could for >>>example have to justify the use if a case came before a court.
That sounds like utter bullshit to me. I don't care if it comes from a >>government website. Indeed, that makes it even more suspicious. I know
one thing; I don't want the government to be my doctor.
And as I showed, the government is not anyone's doctor. But there is a >requirement on doctors, from their professional body, to be able to
justify actions which turn out to cause harm to patients.
I am not aware of it being banned in New Zealand.
Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug which can be bought over the
counter in many countries.
It is also very cheap. If it were shown to
also be an effective prophylactic against covid, it would have put an
end to the villainy imposed on this country by what was arguably the
most dishonest government in this country's history.
That is however a big "If" As I understand it Ivermectin was tested
and found very much wanting in relation to Covid-19 - if you have
any evidence otherwise do let us know. You have not demonstrated any
facts to support your wild assertion about any dishonesty relating to
the NZ government during the Covid pandemic, Bill. Time for you to
apologise?
Bill.
That is however a big "If" As I understand it Ivermectin was tested
and found very much wanting in relation to Covid-19 -
if you have any evidence otherwise do let us know. You have not demonstrated any
facts to support your wild assertion about any dishonesty relating to
the NZ government during the Covid pandemic, Bill.
Time for you to apologise?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:28:13 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,445 |