1. Get the Diabetes Forum App for your phone - available on iOS and Android.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2022 »
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Diabetes Forum should not be used in an emergency and does not replace your healthcare professional relationship. Posts can be seen by the public.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Join the community »

COVID restrictions gone........................

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Robo42, Feb 22, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Member496333

    Member496333 · Guest

    Agree, and they’ve all been censored from the mainstream and defamed in a similar fashion to the public health renegades who have saved lives in our circles.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  2. StewM

    StewM Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well, we can't help but go off topic if I continue down this blind alley you're leading me down. If Jim can specify the source he's referring to, we could discuss the matter very specifically with likelihood of staying on topic being much higher.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. BrianDoc

    BrianDoc Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    599
    Trophy Points:
    153
    @Jim Lahey you have gone from 18,000,000 false positives to 6,000,000 false positives out of a total of under 19 million positive tests, if you are goi g to try to quote these numbers as facts please give us all a link, likewise with your last claim of 2,000 deaths as a result of being vaccinated .....
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  4. Member496333

    Member496333 · Guest

    I’m not trying to be evasive but there’s little point. Any links I provide will be ‘debunked’ by the Pfact checkers in seconds. We all have access to the same information, so I repeat again that we should make our own decisions and choices. What I do find amusing is that any questioning of the data has to be proven in a court of law before it’s taken seriously, while “died within 28 days of a positive test” is enough justification to spend two years destroying lives.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  5. Mr_Pot

    Mr_Pot Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,575
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Shouldn't be difficult to provide some references then.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Member496333

    Member496333 · Guest

    We’re just flogging a dead horse now, so I will end our exchange before the thread is censored. I feel you’ve demonstrated that you’re only really concerned with pigeonholing people you disagree with. I won’t be led by the nose into posting links that will be ‘debunked’ by the BBC or some other paragon of public information. I’ve repeatedly stated that personal choice should trump everything else, so let’s leave that there.

    In the sprit of the subject of the thread, I will add that perhaps more people should pause for thought and consider how these restrictions have affected other people. Many have had their job, career, business and family ties completely eviscerated. Many now find themselves isolated and alone, ostracised from their social circles. Excommunicated. Many more have taken their own life because of some or all of the above. I’m guessing you don’t know any of those people, but I do, so please spare a thought for others. The folk in your camp like to talk about people being selfish, after all.

    Peace :cool:

    EDIT: On reading that back, the second paragraph seems a little odd. It was meant as a general comment rather than referencing you personally. Apologies.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
    #86 Member496333, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:48 PM
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2022
  7. NicoleC1971

    NicoleC1971 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,346
    Likes Received:
    2,000
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Up front, I've taken a double Pfizer twice and had asymptomatic positive test in December (sad that I have to say that) but like @Jim Lahey and @bulkbiker, I am pro choice, not coercion particularly on spurious moral grounds and rather sceptical of this vaccine's performance and of all the non pharmaceutical interventions taken which were known to be damaging but were implemented without any certainty that they would improve public health in general.
    As we come out of this there are a bunch of us who never bought the story, others who complied but didn't believe it, still more who were scared but had to get on with it anyway (the non Zoom class) and the CEV plus some who are pathologically anxious that after this Thursday we will suddenly be back to early 2020 with exponential spread when we should be able to trust each other to not go and visit a frail or anxious person when we are spiking a fever or just have a nasty cold.
    Pfizer has now created its own pricey version of ivermectin which is a good option for those with no natural or vaccine immunity. Its been patented so will be a profitable line for them just as their vaccine sales boom has peaked (share prices now dipping). this is available to the CEV population along with priority testing but merely being anxious because you've got asthma or diabetes doesn't qualify you to be in that group. Luckily as it is a very expensive drug.
    Re death spikes post vaccine. It isn't just that the vaccine went to the elderly who are at risk anyway but that for 2 weeks after the dose, your immune system is weakened. So you may be safer when you get to the other side of No Man's Land but you still have to get across the minefield.
    I can see little reason to vaccinate a healthy under 50 year old but that is a personal choice and I took it because I am not healthy as type 1. Those of you that have reversed their diabetes via diet and with a good vitamin D level , non obese etc. are surely in a low risk category where deciding not to take it is still reasonable.
    So I am glad that Boris's recent decisions have been vindicated compared to the more despotic regimes I don't ever want my government to keep me 'safe' from a virus with an ifr of 0.15% or less (Omricon) and won't wear a mask and won't be testing again even if work have told us to continue doing so and to take our 5 days' isolation.
    What would you all like to use the £2billon monthly test n trace cost to be used on instead btw?

    [Mod edit to remove unnecessary remarks.]
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    #87 NicoleC1971, Feb 23, 2022 at 5:07 PM
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2022
  8. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    19,047
    Likes Received:
    12,609
    Trophy Points:
    298
    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. Mr_Pot

    Mr_Pot Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,575
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    178
    I am not sure if that is what you were suggesting but despite social media claims the new Pfizer drug is not related to Invermectin.
    https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-067310377629
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. BrianDoc

    BrianDoc Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    599
    Trophy Points:
    153
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    19,047
    Likes Received:
    12,609
    Trophy Points:
    298
    Choose your "fact checkers" wisely...
     
  12. BrianDoc

    BrianDoc Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    599
    Trophy Points:
    153
    @bulkbiker and @Jim Lahey you were two of a handful of regular contributors to this forum who’s opinions I sought out when I first found this forum and was trying to knock my body into some sort of order. I fully respect your right whether or not you should take any particular medicine or vaccine.

    It is only because I respect your opinions on diabetes so much that it pains me when I read some of the stuff you put forwards on vaccines, as if it were fact, when it appears to be far from it.

    Anyway, this is my last contribution to this thread, be safe.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hug Hug x 1
  13. StewM

    StewM Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What fact checkers/peer review do you consider legitimate? There are plenty of different publications which have taken issue with their claims. Here's just a quick account of things I found entirely by myself.

    Seneff is an MIT in Comupter Science, I'm not sure how that gives her any right to claim expertise over Vaccines. She seems to make a habit of commenting on matters that doesn't crossover with her field of expertise, and this is perhaps unsurprisingly met with a somewhat negative response from her more educated/experienced peers.

    Seneff also seems to have a prexisting beef with Pfizer.

    "In 2014–2016 Seneff was proposed as an expert witness for litigators seeking damages from Pfizer associated with their cholesterol drug Lipitor, but the court dismissed the claim largely because Seneff lacked expert status and failed to provide credible evidence linking Lipitor to any specific harm."

    Whereas Dr Greg Nigh is a doctor of "Naturopathy", which I had to look up and seems to fairly uncontroversially described as pseudoscience, which does raise questions for me of how this qualifies him to discuss the effectiveness and dangers of Vaccines?
     
  14. Member496333

    Member496333 · Guest

    To be fair, they are hardly without their faults. Pfizer hold the world record for the biggest criminal and civil medical fraud settlement in history at $2.3bn. Not saying it has any bearing here necessarily but I certainly wouldn’t let them babysit my children.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. ert

    ert Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,513
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    198
    It's not as high as 1%. You need to include the pre-test probability, the test sensitivity and test specificity in the calculation. Say if you have a pre-test probability of 0.10, a test sensitivity of 67% and a test specificity of 99.95%, then the likelihood of a false positive is 0.05%

    https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    #95 ert, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:39 PM
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2022
  16. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    19,047
    Likes Received:
    12,609
    Trophy Points:
    298
    I was more siding with Peter Doshi.. associate editor of the BMJ who is mentioned in the article.. in fact I was searching for his video where he describes the "vaccines" as 'experimental mRNA product' when that article popped up.
    It was obviously deemed worthy of publication by the journal concerned.
    But I tend not to believe people who set themselves up as "fact checkers" because they seem to be journalists for the most part who have produced a lot of complete bunkum over the past 2 years.
     
  17. StewM

    StewM Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well the journal's editorial board is curious to say the least.

    Its Editor in Chief has a PHD in... Linguistics? Its Senior Editor works at the University of British Colombia in... Ophthalmology? I'm not sure what business either of them have running a journal about Vaccines.

    The Journal also only appeared during the Pandemic and seems to be solely created to spread distrust in Vaccines. This does, for me, raise questions over their objectivity in the matter.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    19,047
    Likes Received:
    12,609
    Trophy Points:
    298
    This smells a bit too

    https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-india-pfizer-idUSKBN2A50GE

    And from Reuters so presumably "fact checked"...
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Member496333

    Member496333 · Guest

    For my part in the false positive discussion it’s important to clarify that I was referring to the ‘gold standard’ RT-PCR where the picture is far less clear thanks to the cycle threshold being misused by many labs. This is documented and isn’t controversial. Although I’m sure the fact checkers will disagree.
     
    #99 Member496333, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:16 PM
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2022
  20. Jaylee

    Jaylee Type 1 · Moderator
    Staff Member

    Messages:
    16,638
    Likes Received:
    12,028
    Trophy Points:
    298
    Hi everyone.

    Enough is enough..
    The team wont play "mind police" on this topic.
    Government guidelines are changing regarding C19. & the forum team do empathise with genuine concerns.

    However, The DCUK forum ethos rules are still as relevant as the day we all signed up as a member.

    The participants on this topic thus far have had their say. It's time for fresh input.
    Our challenge is nurturing mutual respect...

    No more petty bickering as a start, moving forward.

    Thanx in advance.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • Meet the Community

    Find support, connect with others, ask questions and share your experiences with people with diabetes, their carers and family.

    Did you know: 7 out of 10 people improve their understanding of diabetes within 6 months of being a Diabetes Forum member. Get the Diabetes Forum App and stay connected on iOS and Android

    Grab the app!
  • Tweet with us

  • Like us on Facebook