Mark78L

(Forced out of retirement lol) See what I mean? The key phrase in beecee's response is this very telling admission: "However, as there are limited safety data, full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring." Limited safety data is referring to the fact there is no long-term safety data (because the phase III trial is ongoing and doesn't finish until March 2023), you are part of the vaccine trial making it an experimental vaccine. As pointed out by beecee, it will be given a "license" (different from emergency approval) only after the data on this live trial on the population is collated and compiled to reveal there are no long-term side effects. Until that point (March 2023) long-term safety is unknown - confirming that it is false to claim that this vaccine has been proven to be safe. Notice how beecee omitted the main point about the phase III trial not finishing until 2023 - you'd think if you were being honest that would be an important point to include. I rest my case.

I have to hand it to you guys and applaud your persistence in ignoring, deflecting, creating strawman arguments, and continuing to make misleading statements in a convincing manner. I take my hat off to you, that is a skill - you'd make very good politicians, I hear Klaus Schwab is looking. beecee is a prime example of this, ever keen to keep pushing the false notion that covid19 vaccines are safe and effective despite me pointing out on many occasions that this is incorrect - how can any vaccine or drug be claimed to be effective, with any shred of honesty, when it is still in it's trial phase, and when the vaccine / drug company / medical authority refuses to release all the data? The Pfizer covid19 vaccine's phase III trial doesn't finish until March 2023. I think it's time to stop flogging a dead horse. I thank you for opening my eyes to the realisation that some people are wedded to a particular narrative, cannot think outside the box, and will stick to that narrative regardless. With that I will take my leave and wish you all well.

That's six million over two years of the total global population. Each year 10 million die of cancer - which is set to dramatically increase due to healthcare around the world prioritising covid over all other diseases. Furthermore, that's people dying WITH covid, not directly OF covid (the figure is an exaggeration). Prior to 2019, if you counted flu deaths within 28 days of a pcr positive test and where flu was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, as opposed to only those that died OF flu, then the flu death figure would be a lot higher than it is. Not to mention that many at the beginning of the pandemic were classed as covid based purely on symptom diagnosis (flu-like symptoms) meaning that many were likely misdiagnosed. I saw an article not long ago that even in early 2021 approximately 30% of covid deaths were misdiagnosed as covid. There's also been a huge rise in non-covid excess deaths, heart attack, dementia and suicides etc due to the lockdowns and measures that have prioritised covid over all else. So you have to take this into context. Stating one figure in the manner you have is misleading. How many have died because the lockdowns have prevented other children in poorer countries from getting vaccines for other diseases such as TB? Or aid for famine ravaged countries? There is a concern that the global covid measures may kill more people than covid itself. It's naive to focus only on covid and take the official figures at face value to justify lockdowns etc... when it's clear there are major anomolies and other consequences of lockdown measures that threaten greater loss of life elsewhere. Unhealthy people and at risk children have been vaccinated - the point being there's no justification for taking away freedoms of unvaccinated healthy people because many have natural immunity, the vaccine will protect those who've taken it, and a vaccine does not prevent transmission to warrant mandating it at the cost of civil liberties and freedom of choice. In essence, the threat is lower than you propose - the loss of freedom measures are likely causing more harm than good and are not justified against the healthy and unvaccinated scientifically or ethically. And if the vaccines work, then the vulnerable and at risk children are protected. Do you think you're getting carried away with the fear narrative that's been pushed?

Yes but loss of freedoms have to be justified in accordance with the threat. If both do not correlate then we risk causing more harm than good and there's always the risk of increased power being abused to benefit those in privileged positions. The looming cancer crisis caused by prioritising covid above all else, and the devastating decision to move elderly patients back to care homes without testing them for covid, resulting in covid being spread and killing the very people we were trying to protect, are examples showing how state control and decision-making can be detrimental. Couple that with the suppression of open dialogue between scientists and policy makers (the suppression of free speech we have seen), and the detrimental effects towards societal health and freedom become exacerbated. Another example are the pointless vaccine passports we have seen introduced worldwide. In Scotland and Wales they have provided no discernible benefit compared to England who did not implement them. There is no scientific justification for them while their implementation discriminates. There are only two conclusion to be drawn here, either politicians are misinformed or this crisis is also being used as an opportunity to implement greater control over citizens. Regardless, both are detrimental to health and society, and only stands to highlight that state power should not exceed a certain level. It is naive to assume that the loss of freedoms and increase of state power can only be a good thing. With Whooping cough that's reasonable because it's a vaccine that's proven safe and effective. The differences are many with the covid vaccine though, one being that the covid vaccines are experimental and their long-term safety has not been proven. Another is that most people do not need the vaccine, partly because the disease is largely mild in healthy individuals and partly because these 'unvaccinated' restriction fails to take into account those who've already been infected and developed natural immunity - thus discriminating against those who actually protect others. Not to mention that vaccination does not stop transmission, we are seeing the same viral load in the vaccinated and unvaccinated (naive to the virus). This is demonisation of a select group of individuals who refuse to take an experimental vaccine for which the vast majority do not need or want. Informed consent is important. These people are not being given a choice, a choice is which do I choose to drink tea or coffee, take the vaccine or we will remove your freedoms and prevent you from working is not a choice, it's blackmail and coercion. When the science doesn't support the actions of the state, discrimination abounds and blackmail/coercion are undertaken, then it's time to recognise that the state has overstepped its authority and is causing more harm than good.

That all depends on whether the removal of freedoms and liberties and introduction of vaccine passports is a step forward. And whether you see the demonising of the unvaccinated as justified. For me there has been very little scientific justification for most of the restrictions and certainly no ethical justification for the draconian, authoritarian response. It is not befitting of a free democratic society to prevent people from earning a living based on a refusal to accept an experimental vaccine - for a disease that is of little threat to them. We've completely done away with informed consent and body autonomy. I think we're setting a very dangerous precedent when we allow governments dictatorial powers to enforce rules that are largely unjustified and threaten our freedoms and liberties. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/covid-australian-state-darwin-nt-lockdown-unvaccinated-b975266.html

There has been no such proof. The situation in Oz and NZ is now getting worse because they attempted a zero covid policy, it has now backfired with the ramping up of restrictions as opposed to the reduction of restrictions as seen in the UK. All they've done is prolong the inevitable at arguably greater cost to the economy, liberty and life. I'm happy for you. Sorry, I reject your interpretation of reality.

No, if Arete says he's male then he's male obvs, I wasn't disputing it - I was just explaining why I referred to him as a her, as anyone else would, being as though Arete is a female name. But hey, let's focus on names, because that's more important than acknowledging the attempt of Arete to mislead others by drawing a false conclusion - a classic deflection tactic. To anyone with half a brain reading this, the 'group think' echo chamber you operate within is clear. Should be focus on the use of misleading data and call Arete out for it...or should we focus on a nonsensical gender issue to deflect away from Arete's misleading interpretation of the data.... your agenda is clear. Again, a petty nonsensical response. The attributes assigned to a name bear no relation to the competence of the person with that name...this is like having a conversation with a child. I think it's time to find a real science forum

Arete is a female name according to the most popular baby-naming websites - as your gender is not available on your profile it would be safe to assume that using a female name indicates you are indeed female. No I didn't - please highlight my misquote. You claimed that "acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine." I pointed out the limitation of that data and your misinterpretation of it - which was incidentally mentioned in the study you presented - did you read it fully?: "The findings in this study are subject to at least six limitations. First, the risk estimates from this study reflect the risk for myocarditis among persons who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 during an outpatient or inpatient health care encounter and do not reflect the risk among all persons who had COVID-19." It is therefore disingenuous to assert that the 0.146% figure is representative of the overall risk of acute myocarditis in people infected with Covid, and then compare that figure to teh VAERS vaccine data, as you do. Furthermore, I highlighted that the 0.0071% figure you presented from VAERS, was an underestimation because this is a passive monitoring system - the article you shared even highlights this. In the meantime you've provided a paper that confirms my point!!! Albeit higher than the 1-10% I stated. Regarding capturing of anaphylaxis sensitivity ranged from 13-27% for 6 vaccines and only 1 vaccine was 76% - thus confirming that the figure you've presented (0.0071%) is a gross under-estimation. The bad faith appears to be on you. The 0.0071% figure is not presented within the paper - maybe I missed it, hence why I asked you to clarify - which shouldn't have been difficult being as though it's "so obvious". I also note that this paper states "The risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are unclear." And yet you present the 0.0071% figure as if it is clear - and you provide a link that contradicts your assertions, confirming that VAERS does indeed under-report the risk. Fair enough, I didn't provide evidence for my 1-10% under-reporting claim, I thought it was common knowledge. But what's interesting, you go on to provide another paper shooting yourself in the foot, this paper looking into the sensitivity of VAERS actually confirms that VAERS under-reports the risk - do you not read the papers you cite?!!!! I think you need to take your own advice. Ultimately, my original point stands, you continue to be disingenuous. Every positive PCR test is classed as a case (certainly in Britain), and every case is deemed infectious by SAGE / government. Case numbers have been driving policy (ideology around lockdown, masks, distancing, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports). I wonder, can you tell me: are all positive PCR cases infectious?

Ha ha ha... so predictable. I think the reason why you refuse to attempt to answer even one of those points is because each one of them proves that the narrative you champion is wrong... and the cognitive dissonance would be far too great for you to be able to deal with... "Ludicrously tight questions"... oh dear, a poor excuse. If I didn't ask 'clear-cut questions' you would complain they weren't specific enough. "I see this as a complete and total waste of my time"... yes because it would prove you wrong, and you can't be seen to be wrong in an echo chamber, you have an ego to protect after-all. Let me express why you refuse to answer these questions - : You can't prove the vaccine trials have finished because the Pfizer phase III clinical trial for the covid vaccine (long-term safety data) doesn't finish until March 2023 - you would therefore have to admit that the vaccine is experimental which goes against the narrative you are presenting. You can't prove the long-term safety of the vaccine because you know the phase III trial doesn't finish until March 2023 - but you refuse to answer this simple question because you'd have to admit that the vaccine cannot be classed as safe, which goes against the narrative you are presenting. You know that PCR testing is being misused and that a positive 'case' does not confirm it is an infectious case - but this would expose the nefarious narrative being presented and would destroy your argument. Hence your refusal to even comment on it. It takes 10 seconds to find the Infection Fatality Rate, particularly the paper accepted by the WHO and written by John Ioannidis - which shows the IFR to be 0.05% (half that of the flu) for people under 65 - but you know this makes a mockery of the mainstream narrative you support - so better to keep silent. Providing the adverse reaction risk for the vaccine for a specific age group is pivotal to making an informed decision - if this risk is higher than the IFR risk for covid, then mandatory vaccination is not justified - but to admit this would be to go against the narrative you support. To highlight the Absolute risk reduction figure of the vaccine would be to show that the vaccine provides a miniscule 0.8% absolute benefit (Pfizers own trial data) - and this would expose the way in which Pfizer have used the 95% Relative figure to mislead the public into thinking the vaccine is far more effective than it actually is. Such a small improvement in a reduction of symptoms only, again would not justify mandatory vaccines - showing that this challenges your preferred narrative. Highlighting the difference between people dying WITH covid and OF covid would also highlight that the threat of covid has been greatly exaggerated and intentionally misconstrued - this goes against the fearful narrative you have chosen to support. The thing is, knowing the data above is CRITICAL when it comes to making an informed decision on whether to take the vaccine, and whether it's justified in mandating a vaccine for others. If you aren't aware of this data then you're opinion is worthless and holds no credibility - you cannot make a credible judgement unless you know this data. Your narrative runs contrary to this data, which indicates that you are either greatly misinformed, or your intention here is to misinform others. Is this why you refuse to answer these critical questions? Cue demeaning responses and further excuses as to why you don't have to answer any of them, or the presentation of questionable data and misrepresentation of that data similar to the approach taken by Arete. Then watch as the other components within this echo chamber give this a negative rating and are outraged at my preposterous, but logical view. P.s I notice Arete has failed to respond regarding my take-down of the misleading information she presented... Cue, a defense of her data and further character assassination... with no presentation of credible scientific data to justify your views... This forum is so predictable it's embarrassing. You have literally just described yourself...

The UK government. Let's just allow iNow to answer the questions... No confusion, just asking for the two figures that are provided regarding death certificates.

A death certificate will state what a person died OF (primary cause of death), and what they died WITH (other conditions that were also present but were not the primary cause of death). For instance, we hear each year that between 15,000 to 25,000 people in the UK die OF the flu/pnuemonia each year. The government also keeps data on people who've died WITH flu mentioned anywhere on their death certificate, but this figure is rarely presented as clearly this will skew the death figures as many people have several other conditions. Another hyperthetical example would be person may die of a heart attack after a prolonged operation, or from a stroke, but during their time in hospital they may contract covid, but covid didn't kill them, the heart attack or stroke did. Therefore they died OF a heart attack, WITH covid mentioned on the death certificate, Covid was not the cause of death. I'm just asking for both sets of the government figures as this will cover all angles of your question to prevent confusion. Thanks. You misunderstand. The government provides statistics for deaths cataloguing where people died OF a disease and WITH a disease if applicable, because some people also have co-morbidities - this is government policy. If you have an issue with it take it up with the government. It has nothing to do with me, I didn't design the system. I'm just asking for the statistics the government provides - people dying WITH covid mentioned anywhere on the death certificate and people dying OF covid directly, they do this for all other diseases.

Okay, it's good to start afresh. The evidence that may change my mind on this topic, if you can find it, would be this: Please provide the evidence that the Pfizer vaccine isn't experimental, that all relevant long term safety testing has been complete and that it's Phase 3 trial phase has finished. Please provide the evidence confirming that longitudinal safety testing has been complete and shows no significant risk of accelerated dementia, myocarditis, or infertility for healthy people between the age of 40-50. Policy is being driven by positive case numbers, which is provided by PCR testing - all positive cases are deemed infectious. No attempt has been made by SAGE or government officials to differentiate between infectious and non-infectious PCR cases. Please provide evidence that this is incorrect and that either the gov are checking CT values and adjusting the figures accordingly or that all PCR positive cases are infectious to justify the lockdown, mask wearing and social distancing measures being pursued. Please provide the Infection Fatality Rate for my age range between 40-50 Please provide the risk of adverse reactions from the vaccine for 40-50 year olds. Please confirm the endpoints of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms and hospitalisation, and then provide the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine for 40-50 age range of healthy individuals, taken from their trail data in 2020. We all know the Relative risk figure of 95%, but what is the Absolute Risk Reduction figure of the Pfizer vaccine and what does this mean in context? How many people died WITH covid in 2020 and 2021, and how many died OF covid in the same two years? Only from this data can anyone make an informed decision and convince me I've developed the wrong impression and that government policy (lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine mandates) are justified.

Sums up the closed-mindedness right there, making sweeping incorrect statements such as this. I've had every vaccine under the sun (clearly not anti-vax) But apparently I'm the foolish one for questioning new vaccine technology that's still in its trial phase and has been rushed through in 11 months. And questioning the governments justification of removing informed consent and considering forced vaccination for healthcare workers, at least 70% of which have already been infected and acquired natural immunity, and therefore don't need the vaccine and will protect patients to a far better degree than those vaccinated and uninfected. Based just on that premise alone it's clearly not foolish to be sceptical and ask important questions over efficacy and safety and regarding government action. What's the phrase? "Only fools rush in".... and here you are rushing in, making claims of efficacy and safety that are unsubstantiated and supporting draconian government dictates that aren't supported by the science. And that's not even considering the following: The re-classification of categorising Covid based on 'flu-like' symptoms, (hugely inflated figures) Testing positive within 60 days (later 28 days) and listing all deaths 'WITH' covid as opposed to 'OF' covid (hugely inflated figures) Using flawed PCR testing without presenting or referring to CT values and claiming all to be infectious when the vast majority aren't. (hugely inflating infection figures) Ignoring natural immunity and even attempting to claim that vaccine immunity is better. No transparency in the trial data and the presentation of Relative risk instead of Absolute risk reduction figures - which misled the public as to the efficacy of the vaccine The implementation of lockdowns without evidence supporting their use - with the evidence now confirming they are useless. The attempt to present zero covid as an option (impossible to achieve) at great cost to human lives The implementation of Masks during the summer with the bulk of evidence showing a lack of effectiveness Measures implemented without a cost/benefit analysis performed. These are just a few of the major flaws and anti-scientific rhetoric that's been pushed by the 'consensus' in power that you seem to think shouldn't be questioned and we should blindly support. To accept this nonsense without question and even promote it as the norm, indicates that either you've lost the ability to critically think, or your intention is to mislead because no self respecting intelligent person would consider any of this normal practice, because clearly it isn't. But I'm sure even though I've put forward a reasonable and fair argument here, this message will still be down-voted because it challenges the agenda to support the mainstream narrative that this forum seems to have. Have you finished throwing your tantrum? Blimey, "we know your type" (echo chamber), how self-righteous (egotistical), deluded (closed-minded) and petty can one person be to claim these things against someone making valid points? ...but oh no, like you said, there's no echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play here... (oh dear)

That response tells me everything I need to know. The words, echo chamber, bruised ego's, and closed-mindedness spring to mind when describing this forum.

I haven't. Only the points I disagree with that are not a genuine attempt to present an objective argument, or attempts to demean: For example how is implying I'm sealioning (The Vat) a constructive contribution? It's not, so it gets a down vote. And yet I put forward many reasonable arguments, and yet they are down-voted. This is hardly an objective forum. Arete has clearly been disingenuous with the figures presented, I point that out as any critical thinker should do - and it gets down-voted? I'm sorry, are we not allowed to point out when people are wrong? You lot seem to be more than happy to dish it out, just not so happy to receive it back. Shame, and petty.

Am I getting voted down for pointing out major errors? Making accusations of intent to mislead? Or simply because you don't like it when someone challenges your opinions with reasonable arguments? Nothing I've said here is controversial - maybe a little adversarial - but certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

Your interpretation of the data is disingenuous, and conclusion incorrect which appears to expose your intention to mislead. I can accuse you of the latter because you are a biology expert, and should therefore be aware of the following major errors in your conclusion - which you did not draw attention to: The 0.146% figure you quote is only for hospitalised patients with Covid not all cases of covid! Naturally excluding the vast majority of people who test positive (or have covid) without needing to be hospitalised means that the true risk of myocarditis in the population who get infected would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the 0.146% figure you disingenuously claim is the figure that represents the overall risk of myocarditis from catching covid. Underlying medical conditions and alternative etiologies for myocarditis (e.g., autoimmune disease) were not ascertained or excluded. The spurious vaccinated figure of 0.0071% not only seems to be a miscalculation on your part (please provide your workings) but this figure is taken from VAERS, which as you know, is a passive reporting system - meaning the data is greatly inaccurate. It is claimed that only 1-10% of vaccine injury cases are reported, in other words your conclusion is gross under-calculation of the actual threat. It's extremely concerning that someone of your alleged medical expertise has ignored these major limitations, failed to point them out and presented misleading data to generate what is essentially a glaringly obvious false conclusion. I recommend you consider your own confirmation bias. I just find it very odd on a science forum that very few appear to be open-minded, choosing instead to defend the status quo as if the majority are always correct, that's not objective critical thinking, it's defending dogma. It's also strange that you are mentioning conspiracy theories when all I've been doing is questioning the science - scientists and politicians do get things wrong you know, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It seems like you are implying that the official narrative is always correct - meaning politicians and scientists never get things wrong. Besides the word conspiracy is synonymous with corruption - are you saying conspiracies don't exist? Because if you are this implies that corruption doesn't exist. This type of thinking echo's that of a closed-mind.

I think the point you are missing is that more relevant / recent data is available - why use old data? Doing so indicates a misinformed view or confirmation bias. Please provide the evidence for these statistics.

You're unfortunately using old data based upon the alpha and delta variant, we are now into Omicron. A similar study in the Lancet found that transmission in vaccinated was 25% compared with 38% in unvaccinated, this was again with delta https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext Here it was found that the viral load was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v6 Please see previous comments regarding long term studies, and the fact that the current vaccine trail doesn't finish until 2023, highlighting that all the safety data isn't collated yet.

No, the science doesn't justify all methods currently being proposed and used to reduce the spread. I thought this was a scientific forum - none of these claims have any basis in science regarding the current zeitgeist the evidence is quite the opposite of the opinion you just expressed - I get the impression that this forum has devolved into an echo chamber for those who simply want to believe in the official narrative. And rather than using evidence, misguided opinion seems to be the order of the day. How condescending are you? I like how your approach is to a discussion that challenges your perspective is to make it appear as though the other person is misinformed. For your information I used the data presented in the respected medical journal 'NATURE' the link is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 How can a 'biology expert' be so wrong on so many points? You've made many misconceptions I'm afraid. Each vaccine's efficacy and safety need to be taken in context and on their own merits. Yes vaccination is good, but not all vaccines are made equal, it is naive to assume that all vaccines are good. Vaccinating a child at near zero risk of covid, with an experimental vaccine that has no long-term safety data when that child has already developed natural immunity is immoral, unethical and scientifically unjustifiable especially given the increased risk of myocarditis, and the fact that this risk has not been studied, not to mention over stimulation of the immune system. Since when has it been acceptable to experiment on children? I think you should look up the word logic, because I'm afraid you've not applied it here.

3) Interesting response where you make false statements that make it appear to others that I've misunderstood the subject matter - this is misleading and disingenuous. 1, 2) Phase 1 trials were dropped, already this is questionable. Phase II studies started in May. Phase III started in Aug. Vaccine was approved for use in some countries in December. That's approximately 4 months of data in the Phase III trial before it was approved. As we've already determined, Phase 3 longitudinal studies last at least a year - unless of course you're not bothered about identifying long term complications such as infertility, myocarditis, brain damage for multiple vaccines and their boosters, etc... You are defending the indefensible, why? 4) Even so, this is not a measure of vaccine safety, efficacy nor is it any sort of justification for making these experimental vaccines mandatory. I've also not mentioned the scrapping of the mandate. It's clear that unbiased discussion is not your intent: You did exactly what I expected, again dismissive, making excuses and you've not been able to support your 'false, false, false' claims, instead you've provided a weak, questionable and outdated CDC study against immunity highlighting your confirmation bias. Anyone can cherrypick data to support their opinion. You are quick to pass judgement, but when pressed to support your position, you can't. Which would explain why your appear so aloof in your responses. Here's a detailed analysis of both your chosen CDC study and the Israeli study that shows natural immunity to be 27 times more effective than vaccine induced immunity. Here Martin Kulldorff concludes the Israeli study to be far more accurate and trustworthy. https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

Incoherent and again nonsensical responses, and you've managed to contradicted yourself arguing against your own previous point. You previously stated: " the studies are done after the trials and after they've been authorized fror use. You can only get long term data by putting it out in the field. Phase 3 trials test for acute reactions and efficacy." You were arguing that 11 months to create a vaccine is sufficient for safety - I disagreed stating that Phase 3 longitudinal studies haven't been performed, which take at least 1 year and can span several years. I also confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine trial doesn't end till March 2023. You attempted to conflate Phase 3 trials with data collection performed after the approval and administration of the vaccine in an attempt to falsely support the notion that 11 months provides enough saftey data. I corrected you again highlighting that Phase 3 studies, according to the NHS, last at least 1 year and can be several years. I also highlighted that Phase 4 is the point at which data is collated after a vaccine is 'licensed' and administered, which you seem to have confused with Phase 3. Then contradicting your own opinion, and vindicating my point the link you provided actually states: "Studies for Phase III clinical trials usually take from 1 to 4 years." "in general, completing the first 3 phases of clinical trials can take 10-15 years or longer before starting the approval stage." One would think, that for a novel RNA vaccine never administered before in humans on such a large scale, we should be using the maximum time possible to ensure it is safe long term before unleashing it on the entire global population and speaking of mandating it. A final point - in that same link, it states something critical to this discussion: "If you are thinking of taking part in a clinical trial or an observational study, you should be clearly aware of how long it will last and the time commitment it will require from you. This information should be very clear before signing the informed consent." Informed consent is legally required before submitting oneself to a clinical trial. The current Pfizer vaccine is still in its clinical trial phase (phase III closes in March 2023) - How can this vaccine be legally mandated when it is still in its trial phase and informed consent is removed?

I've read the thread and can see no evidence or points being made that support your flippant and lazy response of 'false, false and false' to the points I raised in relation to them. I also see that most of your comments are deflections away from dealing with the points raised - hence your unsubstantiated 'false, false, false' claims are followed by your misdirection away from my request for you to justify your position. My assertion is that you can't justify your position with evidence, and you'll likely respond in another dismissive manner, use further misdirection and possibly resort to childish memes again to deflect attention away from my simple request to support the claims you make. "aggressively trolling"... lol... it's called having a discussion. Making incorrect assertions like this only exposes your inability to support your view by reverting to making more incorrect assertions about my intentions and actions. Please justify your 'false, false, false' claims, otherwise your contribution here is pointless - unless its simply to push your bias.

No, only in this case because the trials have been rushed through before any such phase 3 longitudinal studies have been performed. Please provide me with another example of a new vaccine created in 11 months and where the population became the guinea pigs, only for the long term trial data to be done after administration because it was brought out too fast to perform it in the trial. This is from the NHS website: Phase 3 trials: Carried out on medicines that have passed phases 1 and 2. The medicine is tested in larger groups of people who are ill, and compared against an existing treatment or a placebo to see if it's better in practice and if it has important side effects. Trials often last a year or more and involve several thousand patients. Phase 4 trials: The safety, side effects and effectiveness of the medicine continue to be studied while it's being used in practice. Not required for every medicine. Only carried out on medicines that have passed all the previous stages and have been given marketing licences – a licence means the medicine is available on prescription. ---------- It seems like you have your phase 3 and phase 4 trials mixed up. The covid vaccine was produced in 11 months (phase 1, 2 and 3) And yet the minimum requirement for Phase 3 is 12 months. Clearly it has not yet been proven safe long term - it is therefore not ethical or scientifically justifiable to mandate such a vaccine. Let's see the evidence to support your opinion please - such an assertion is not proof you are correct, misguided and misinformed maybe, but certainly not correct.

Absolutely not. Why would you mandate something where the evidence does not support the requirement for the mandate? The vaccine does not stop or reduce transmission - the viral load is the same within a vaccinated, uninfected individual as it is within an unvaccinated uninfected individual. Scientifically this does not warrant mandatory vaccination. Furthermore, up to 70% of NHS staff have recovered from infection and developed robust natural immunity - these people provide better protection than those who are vaccinated given that the mucosal immunity of the vaccinated is not developed, hence the high viral load in the vaccinated. Removing these protective NHS staff members based on the false premise that vaccination protects others more so, is clearly incorrect and detrimental to both staff and patients - again, on this basis there is no justification for mandatory vaccination because the science supports natural immunity, a concept that many seem to have forgotten.