By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I was only half listening but heard someone say on the radio yesterday that no vaccine has ever been developed for the different forms of Coronavirus' that exist so we cannot be too expecting of one being found for Covid 19. This got me trawling the Internet and just getting more confused. Was therefore wondering if the more knowledgeable bods on here could comment on what I have found and my understanding (Which could be wrong)
1.There seems to be many types of Coronavirus including the common cold in some cases. The two serious ones prior to Covid 19 are SARS and MERS. The true name of Covid 19 is SARS-CoV-2. No vaccine is available for any of them. Bearing in mind that we can get colds over and over again is that why there are reports of people getting Covid 19 again having already had it?
2. The main hope seems to be finding a viral antibiotic to treat the illness. The Health Officer here in Oz talked about that today. There is the hope that tweaking an existing treatment may be the quicker way out of this. I couldn't find any confidence in a vaccine being developed.
3. What the hell has Bill Gates got to do with this? Is he a Doctor? He said yesterday (Trying to find the clip) that a vaccine may have to be rolled out before being completely ready ... What?
4. It seems to me that this is going to be something we are all going to have to live with until it just calms down to something manageable. SARS just went away. MERS still exists but is not common. Let's prey that a treatment for Covid 19 is found and we can get on with life again ... Hopefully, in a much more mindful way. I just can't see a vaccine being found. If there is not one for all the other Coronavirus' .....
Sorry, if this seems all over the place. Just getting some thoughts down ... Over to you experts!
0
Vaccine Questions on 21:30 - Apr 13 with 1065 views
Where did I mention him? How about all the other great guests Brian Rose has had? Why seize on what you deem as the negative and not on the positive? Don't you believe in freedom of speech then? How about the classic quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Where did I mention him? How about all the other great guests Brian Rose has had? Why seize on what you deem as the negative and not on the positive? Don't you believe in freedom of speech then? How about the classic quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That quote doesn't apply to idiots spouting fake news during a pandemic which could adversely affect people.
Freedom of speech is a cop out in this scenario.
Your linked tweet was about Icke.
SB
0
Vaccine Questions on 21:42 - Apr 13 with 1055 views
That quote doesn't apply to idiots spouting fake news during a pandemic which could adversely affect people.
Freedom of speech is a cop out in this scenario.
Your linked tweet was about Icke.
SB
There are plenty of idiots spouting fake information every day of the week on any of the major TV channels. You don't have to watch them, just turn off if you don't like it. I don't particularly like Matt Hancock, so when I see him on the TV I just turn off. Brian Rose is a decent guy, I wouldn't be so quick to judge and condemn. David Icke was on This Week with Andrew Neil not so long ago, are you never going to watch Andrew Neil again as a result? You could tell Rose didn't agree with all of Icke's opinions in any case.
There are plenty of idiots spouting fake information every day of the week on any of the major TV channels. You don't have to watch them, just turn off if you don't like it. I don't particularly like Matt Hancock, so when I see him on the TV I just turn off. Brian Rose is a decent guy, I wouldn't be so quick to judge and condemn. David Icke was on This Week with Andrew Neil not so long ago, are you never going to watch Andrew Neil again as a result? You could tell Rose didn't agree with all of Icke's opinions in any case.
You and others are trying to turn some tide that isn't there.
You posted a Tweet that involved Icke. Stokie referred to Icke regarding that Tweet.
That bit is perfectly straight forward and now you're trying to make it into something else.
If we all stick to what we say and mean then conversations will be much easier for everyone.
You and others are trying to turn some tide that isn't there.
You posted a Tweet that involved Icke. Stokie referred to Icke regarding that Tweet.
That bit is perfectly straight forward and now you're trying to make it into something else.
If we all stick to what we say and mean then conversations will be much easier for everyone.
What others? I'm Billy no mates round here lol! I'm perfectly happy to fight my own battles thank you as I'm sure SB is. Look I've got no problem with SB. I was just having a little jostle with him. I recognise SB is an excellent and valued contributor to this forum, no arguments there whatsoever. As for Brian Rose, he has done a lot of good work down the years and I'm not ashamed to defend him at all. He's had some brilliant guests on in the past and I wouldn't condemn him forever more over his choice to give Icke a platform. If that's an interview I don't like then guess what, I don't watch it, it's as simple as that.
What others? I'm Billy no mates round here lol! I'm perfectly happy to fight my own battles thank you as I'm sure SB is. Look I've got no problem with SB. I was just having a little jostle with him. I recognise SB is an excellent and valued contributor to this forum, no arguments there whatsoever. As for Brian Rose, he has done a lot of good work down the years and I'm not ashamed to defend him at all. He's had some brilliant guests on in the past and I wouldn't condemn him forever more over his choice to give Icke a platform. If that's an interview I don't like then guess what, I don't watch it, it's as simple as that.
[Post edited 13 Apr 2020 23:41]
Just to give more context to the debate, here is the sort of interview (among countless others) that I think has given Rose more than enough credit in the bank to be cut some slack.
In baseball you get 3 strikes, he's been given just 1 without even the courtesy of an email or letter of explanation, that's poor form in my opinion.
You and others are trying to turn some tide that isn't there.
You posted a Tweet that involved Icke. Stokie referred to Icke regarding that Tweet.
That bit is perfectly straight forward and now you're trying to make it into something else.
If we all stick to what we say and mean then conversations will be much easier for everyone.
Sorry I take it back, I see what you mean now.
This is a screenshot my end of my post:
If you look there David Icke is in tiny writing and I totally missed it. I thought I had only posted the YouTube link to Brian Rose saying about being removed by LinkedIn but I'd also copied in another tweet which I didn't mean. That's why I said "Where did I say Icke?" as I thought I'd just posted the Brian Rose YouTube video. So I can see what you are saying now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
That said, I am very uncomfortable with deplatforming. However, I guess you'd already gathered that by now! :-)
You and others are trying to turn some tide that isn't there.
You posted a Tweet that involved Icke. Stokie referred to Icke regarding that Tweet.
That bit is perfectly straight forward and now you're trying to make it into something else.
If we all stick to what we say and mean then conversations will be much easier for everyone.
Oh and is that Avatar picture of yours inspired by the TV programme they had on BBC Horizons the other day when they poured some grains of rice on to a chess board to illustrate just how quickly Covid-19 can spread (compared to seasonal flu) if left unchecked? Or am I miles off the mark?
If you look there David Icke is in tiny writing and I totally missed it. I thought I had only posted the YouTube link to Brian Rose saying about being removed by LinkedIn but I'd also copied in another tweet which I didn't mean. That's why I said "Where did I say Icke?" as I thought I'd just posted the Brian Rose YouTube video. So I can see what you are saying now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
That said, I am very uncomfortable with deplatforming. However, I guess you'd already gathered that by now! :-)
[Post edited 13 Apr 2020 22:40]
That's the bit Stokie and I were commenting on and struggling with.
Thanks for clearing that up.
One step at a time.
If we all keep falling over trying to outdo each other none of us get anything said.
That's the bit Stokie and I were commenting on and struggling with.
Thanks for clearing that up.
One step at a time.
If we all keep falling over trying to outdo each other none of us get anything said.
Agreed. I said yesterday on another post (it was about Starmer) how usually it seems a game of one-upmanship on here and nobody ever seems in a hurry to change their view or opinion, or at least acknowledge a mistake. So thought the least thing I could do in the circumstances is take my own advice.
Oh and is that Avatar picture of yours inspired by the TV programme they had on BBC Horizons the other day when they poured some grains of rice on to a chess board to illustrate just how quickly Covid-19 can spread (compared to seasonal flu) if left unchecked? Or am I miles off the mark?
Oi. That's not rice! That's jeera.
I've used this avatar for years so if you have evidence they've borrowed it without permission then there may be a claim there.
How dare they compare my cooking with a virus though.
Vaccine Questions on 18:11 - Apr 13 by Harry_Palmer
I agree with Mariner you are right to question Gates, he seems to be everywhere at the moment and to the best of my knowledge he is not a qualified Doctor or scientist. What he does have is huge amount of money and a considerable influence ( he is one of the top funders to the WHO ).
The jury is out on exactly how pure his motives are. On a recent BBC interview he stated that the vaccine would need to be fast tracked and some compromises made on safety, he also stated that those involved in producing the vaccine would need indemnity, so in essence if it injures or kills people then there will be no liability.
If this is not bad enough, he then goes on to say that society will only be able to get back to some sort of ‘normal’ once a vaccine is produced and rolled out to ‘almost everybody on the planet’, when he says almost I assume he means everybody apart from him and his rich friends. I’m not sure who gives Gates the authority to make this type of statement on behalf of the entire planet, last time I checked he hadn’t been elected by any population of people anywhere to make decisions on their behalf. He needs to be watched carefully in all of this, I will certainly be paying more attention to him.
[Post edited 13 Apr 2020 20:13]
Yes, that's the interview ... was very concerning IMV. Here it is ...
Vaccine Questions on 16:03 - Apr 13 by MarinerisGod
Your point about Mr Gates is very valid. His track record on medical grounds is dubious at best. A life long advocate on eugenics. Most of his philanthropic medical intervention overseas has resulted in sterilised children and or children being left sicker than they started. Being rich and having an interest in vaccines doesn't qualify him in any shape size or form to solve the problem.
I really suggest reading who these claims are coming from. I'm not going to get into it as I've done this to death on this site over the years, but I find it amusing people are saying you cannot listen to Bill Gates on health matters because he is neither a scientist or doctor (a perfectly valid view) whilst lapping up this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
I really suggest reading who these claims are coming from. I'm not going to get into it as I've done this to death on this site over the years, but I find it amusing people are saying you cannot listen to Bill Gates on health matters because he is neither a scientist or doctor (a perfectly valid view) whilst lapping up this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
Indeed.
Confirmation bias is a huge problem nowadays. If the source agrees with you or is saying something you want to hear then it's clearly the golden source on the matter.
Anything else is just part of the conspiracy.
SB
0
Vaccine Questions on 08:48 - Apr 14 with 787 views
It's obviously common knowledge vaccines aren't entirely risk free. Hence the various government compensation schemes and payouts, although the typical payouts in the UK are a lot smaller than those in the US. See here: https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment Thankfully the vast majority of people that have them don't have any adverse reaction. In all truth though, I still wouldn't really want to be one of the guinea pigs for a new rushed through vaccine like this guy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p089d0b3
[Post edited 13 Apr 2020 21:10]
Quite, good luck to him. It is true that serious reactions are rare but it is also true less serious reactions are vastly under reported, some studies have it as low as 1% . That said, in the US they have still paid out over 4 billion pounds in compensation payments, a not insignificant amount.
Of course the fact Governments make these payments at all is because the vaccine companies were granted permanent indemnity in the 1980's because they were coming up against to many lawsuits for their liking. This means they can not be held accountable at all for any adverse reaction, no matter how serious, this is hardly re-assuring in terms of them maintaining high safety standards.
0
Vaccine Questions on 09:00 - Apr 14 with 781 views
Out of interest, did you watch the David Icke Interview? I'm guessing probably not.
I watched it. Did I agree with or believe everything he said? No. But I absolutely agree with having the right to watch it and draw my own conclusions as apposed to it being censored into oblivion and London Real's existence being threatened because of it?
If it is all such nonsense, as claimed, then the majority of people will surely work that out so what exactly are they afraid of? We need to be very careful if we are going down the road of allowing information to be censored to fit a Governments narrative as history shows that doesn't generally tend to work in the overall favour of the general population.
1
Vaccine Questions on 09:06 - Apr 14 with 776 views
There are plenty of idiots spouting fake information every day of the week on any of the major TV channels. You don't have to watch them, just turn off if you don't like it. I don't particularly like Matt Hancock, so when I see him on the TV I just turn off. Brian Rose is a decent guy, I wouldn't be so quick to judge and condemn. David Icke was on This Week with Andrew Neil not so long ago, are you never going to watch Andrew Neil again as a result? You could tell Rose didn't agree with all of Icke's opinions in any case.
What you have here is the protestations of someone suffering cognitive dissonance. You get used to the little tantrums made up of very flimsy arguments, usually altering the path if the debate. Luckily truth and facts remain.
Vaccine Questions on 09:00 - Apr 14 by Harry_Palmer
Out of interest, did you watch the David Icke Interview? I'm guessing probably not.
I watched it. Did I agree with or believe everything he said? No. But I absolutely agree with having the right to watch it and draw my own conclusions as apposed to it being censored into oblivion and London Real's existence being threatened because of it?
If it is all such nonsense, as claimed, then the majority of people will surely work that out so what exactly are they afraid of? We need to be very careful if we are going down the road of allowing information to be censored to fit a Governments narrative as history shows that doesn't generally tend to work in the overall favour of the general population.
This statement is a huge problem:
"then the majority of people will surely work that out so what exactly are they afraid of?"
What about the vulnerable minority who will believe it all. It could adversely affect their lives hugely and they might even take actions based on it. Some people aren't able to assess information in a logical manner due to a number of reasons.
It's not censoring by a government narrative. It's making sure that stuff which is clearly nonsense doesn't affect those vulnerable people.
Just look at the damage things like the Sandy Hook conspiracies cause - if you can't see this as a problem I would say that's more about your views and bias against what you believe the government does with information than any issues with censorship.
SB
[Post edited 14 Apr 2020 9:07]
0
Vaccine Questions on 09:07 - Apr 14 with 772 views
I really suggest reading who these claims are coming from. I'm not going to get into it as I've done this to death on this site over the years, but I find it amusing people are saying you cannot listen to Bill Gates on health matters because he is neither a scientist or doctor (a perfectly valid view) whilst lapping up this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
Wiki is not a valid research resource. Try using that reference at any uni. Lazy research.
Vaccine Questions on 09:06 - Apr 14 by MarinerisGod
What you have here is the protestations of someone suffering cognitive dissonance. You get used to the little tantrums made up of very flimsy arguments, usually altering the path if the debate. Luckily truth and facts remain.
Unbelievably to cite cognitive dissonance given the argument you are pushing.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. You are right and everyone else is too stupid to connect all the dots when in reality the connections likely aren't there.
SB
0
Vaccine Questions on 09:11 - Apr 14 with 767 views
Confirmation bias is a huge problem nowadays. If the source agrees with you or is saying something you want to hear then it's clearly the golden source on the matter.
Anything else is just part of the conspiracy.
SB
I do agree with this but aren't we all a little guilty of confirmation bias to a certain degree? I don't think we would be human if we were able to eliminate this completely.
For example, I note you show very little interest in Bill Gates or the possibility that any of his activities may be negative or questionable. Is this because you are a strong proponent of Vaccines, as is Mr Gates?
I'm not trying to be provocative here, I am generally interested in whether you believe we are all susceptible to a certain degree of confirmation bias?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
