[Football] Matt Le Tissier

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Who told us that? The main purpose of vaccines is to prevent the infection being so bad you need to be hospitalised. That’s why old people have flu jabs every winter.
The NHS hasn’t got the capacity to deal with seasonal flu, so vaccines keep the numbers down.
The vaccine gives you a tiny dose of the disease, helps to build immunity. That’s what vaccines do, all of them.

She's right, you know

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Since you mentioned that, it reminded me that the only anti-vax conspiracy nut I know personally used to work for GSK (I assume in a non-science capacity, since he now builds bathrooms for a living).
I think with any industry there's a level of contact where you become very aware of all the horror stories, without necessarily having any particular knowledge or understanding of it.

Precisely. With my knowledge and experience I could weave an extraordinary, true but partial, horror narrative that would rock the public's perception of drug research (including on vaccines). This illustrates the difference between information and evidence. Information is isolated facts that are selected to create a narrative. Evidence is all of the information (collected without bias) relevant to whether the narrative is correct and whether it is false.

Cherry picking to synthesize a chosen narrative is called the art of politics. Including actual lies to embellish a narrative is called being a ****. Or a 'Boris' as it should be known.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I also work closely with Big Pharma in my job, and I am regularly surprised at some of the stuff that goes on in clinical trials. It is an extremely murky world.

what has surprised you?

 

[Commander]

The vaccine gives you a tiny dose of the disease, helps to build immunity. That’s what vaccines do, all of them.

All of them?

To be clear, I’m triple (I think) vaccinated against Covid. My Mum is a nurse with 40 years experience and my kids have had all their necessary vaccinations, I’m about as far from an anti vaxxer as you could get. But there are a lot of things that went on during Covid that people should be questioning, rather than blindly following. And anyone that seriously thinks that the body that decides if drugs are safe being funded by the companies that create the drugs isn’t a conflict of interest at the absolute least, then they must be completely mental. Especially when Pharma companies have been repeatedly fine for falsifying and manipulating the data!

 

[Iggle Piggle]

because animals are where novel viruses emerge from. there were similarities to known bat infections. even if its come from a lab, likely some animal origin processed there.

As someone who spends far too much time of their spare time modelling sporting outcomes on spreadsheets to make a few quid (an increasingly harder gig as well), I'm pricing up "leak from Wuhan Biosafety Laboratory" as the long odds on favourite. Whether or not this was spread from Del boys stall at Wuhan precinct is almost moot - It's surely come from the lab in the first place?

I suspect the truth will never exit China in any case. I just find it curious that most people seem to have bought the later narrative and the conspiracy in this case is in my eyes considered to be the more likely method of transmission.

 

[FatSuperman]

What are you talking about Commander! You seem to have gone nuts.

Yes, we all agree that this dodgy as **** government and its stooges will have ceaselessly misrepresented matters to enrich themselves and their circles. Yes, we all agree that pharma, and many, many other industries are rife with conflicts of interests, lobbying and frankly illegal activity.

None of that makes vaccines as a concept inherently evil or dangerous. In fact modern medicine, for all its ills and profiteering has saved more lives than we can fathom.

So you don’t trust pharma companies at all. Yet you get your income from them and take every vaccine that the system recommends.

Your position seems tautological in its idiocy.

 

[Stat Brother]

To be fair, I didn’t see it coming. I didn’t look at Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman and Lee Anderson and even consider for a moment that they might be communists. And I bet you didn’t even.

A list of names designed for us to welcome our new communist overlords.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And anyone that seriously thinks that the body that decides if drugs are safe being funded by the companies that create the drugs isn’t a conflict of interest at the absolute least, then they must be completely mental. Especially when Pharma companies have been repeatedly fine for falsifying and manipulating the data!

The MHRA, FDA and EMA are mainly funded by fees for the services they provide, so yes they are funded by the drug companies. I don’t see how you can get around this, they have to pay for the service.

But everything possible is done to mitigate any conflict of interest with drug licensing . Before a study starts the protocol has to obtain approval from an independent ethics board, the protocol is then placed on a public register, there may be independent safety reviews of the study, and the review board at the regulatory agency is chosen after review of any interests. Once the study is reported out, the results go onto another public register. If a regulatory board gave a license to a product or device without true scientific merit it would be very visible and open to challenge.

I’m not aware of regular fines for falsifying data either.

I’ll let others decide if I’m mental

 

[Goldstone Guy]

All of them?

To be clear, I’m triple (I think) vaccinated against Covid. My Mum is a nurse with 40 years experience and my kids have had all their necessary vaccinations, I’m about as far from an anti vaxxer as you could get. But there are a lot of things that went on during Covid that people should be questioning, rather than blindly following. And anyone that seriously thinks that the body that decides if drugs are safe being funded by the companies that create the drugs isn’t a conflict of interest at the absolute least, then they must be completely mental. Especially when Pharma companies have been repeatedly fine for falsifying and manipulating the data!

I'm sure there are examples of pharmaceutical companies falsifying data but does it really happen "repeatedly"? Any scientific experiment or trial might have an unscrupulous lead who changes the data for their advantage, but the scientific community will repeat these experiments to build evidence, so the truth comes out sooner or later. HWT might have an opinion on this.

The thing which I agree is unsatisfactory (but to which I don't think there is a solution) is that pharmaceutical companies don't have to publish trials. So if a trial shows evidence which is unfavourable for one of their products, they can choose not to publish it (I think). I think if they know something is clearly harmful and cover up evidence to put peoples health at risk then they're at risk of punishment but otherwise they can withhold the data. It has to be this way, otherwise journals and the scientific community generally would be clogged up and overwhelmed with trials which don't show anything meaningful. The scientific community wants experiments and trials which show something meaningful to be published because they're busy and there are so many trials going on. That's a bit different to saying pharmaceutical companies repeatedly falsify data. That's my understanding anyway - HWT might have more insight into this.

PS Sorry about the problems you've had in hospital with your dad. Hope he's better soon.

 

[The Mole]

The MHRA, FDA and EMA are mainly funded by fees for the services they provide, so yes they are funded by the drug companies. I don’t see how you can get around this, they have to pay for the service.

But everything possible is done to mitigate any conflict of interest with drug licensing . Before a study starts the protocol has to obtain approval from an independent ethics board, the protocol is then placed on a public register, there may be independent safety reviews of the study, and the review board at the regulatory agency is chosen after review of any interests. Once the study is reported out, the results go onto another public register. If a regulatory board gave a license to a product or device without true scientific merit it would be very visible and open to challenge.

I’m not aware of regular fines for falsifying data either.

I’ll let others decide if I’m mental

Having worked on clinical trials and ensuring compliance with the MHRA and FDA I can assure you that they are independent and extremely thorough albeit a bit stuck in the past (we were the first clinical trial to use medical records directly). The pharma companies are very careful with them. Failure to comply could mean a drug being taken off the market and significant damage to profits, share prices etc.

 

[Baldseagull]

I'm sure there are examples of pharmaceutical companies falsifying data but does it really happen "repeatedly"? Any scientific experiment or trial might have an unscrupulous lead who changes the data for their advantage, but the scientific community will repeat these experiments to build evidence, so the truth comes out sooner or later. HWT might have an opinion on this.

The thing which I agree is unsatisfactory (but to which I don't think there is a solution) is that pharmaceutical companies don't have to publish trials. So if a trial shows evidence which is unfavourable for one of their products, they can choose not to publish it (I think). I think if they know something is clearly harmful and cover up evidence to put peoples health at risk then they're at risk of punishment but otherwise they can withhold the data. It has to be this way, otherwise journals and the scientific community generally would be clogged up and overwhelmed with trials which don't show anything meaningful. The scientific community wants experiments and trials which show something meaningful to be published because they're busy and there are so many trials going on. That's a bit different to saying pharmaceutical companies repeatedly falsify data. That's my understanding anyway - HWT might have more insight into this.

PS Sorry about the problems you've had in hospital with your dad. Hope he's better soon.

Pharmaceuticals is a dirty business, but with the amount of data sharing and eyes on them for the production of Covid Vaccines, it isn't one where any of them were going to bullshit their results, it would have ruined them.

 

[dsr-burnley]

But that isn't what we were told when they came out, is it? We were told they would stop infection, and then told that they would stop transmission. Then over time it transpired this wasn't the case, and they slowly changed the narrative.

If two years ago a politician told you something that isn't true, it doesn't mean you have to believe for the rest of your life.

Infection is caused by breathing in the virus. How in blue blazes can you expect a vaccine to stop you breathing in a virus? It's nonsense.

They no doubt hoped the vaccine would stop or reduce transmission, but this virus is most infectious in its early stages so it makes little difference to transmission whether you've been vaccinated or not.

This vaccine lets your body kill the vaccine before it gets dangerous.

Now you know.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

All of them?

To be clear, I’m triple (I think) vaccinated against Covid. My Mum is a nurse with 40 years experience and my kids have had all their necessary vaccinations, I’m about as far from an anti vaxxer as you could get. But there are a lot of things that went on during Covid that people should be questioning, rather than blindly following. And anyone that seriously thinks that the body that decides if drugs are safe being funded by the companies that create the drugs isn’t a conflict of interest at the absolute least, then they must be completely mental. Especially when Pharma companies have been repeatedly fine for falsifying and manipulating the data!

This isn't remotely correct.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Having worked on clinical trials and ensuring compliance with the MHRA and FDA I can assure you that they are independent and extremely thorough albeit a bit stuck in the past (we were the first clinical trial to use medical records directly). The pharma companies are very careful with them. Failure to comply could mean a drug being taken off the market and significant damage to profits, share prices etc.

This. On stilts.

 

[BadFish]

100%.
Masks don’t work (peer-reviews papers prove it).
“vaccines” - (aka gene therapy) don’t work. (Don’t stop transmission nor infection).
Cleveland study proves that the MORE vaccines you have, the HIGHER rate of infection you get from Covid (readily available online).
BTW, if you don’t know that the MRNA injections are gene therapy, then you are an idiot.
Covid IFR was 0.1% - average age of death was 82.5 years old.
No healthy child died from covid, yet lots of injuries from vaccines.
Excess deaths have been running about 10-20% in all heavily vaccinated countries since last year. (Oh, probably down to Brexit lol).

Yep, Le Tissier is so wrong. (Expecting usual abuse from the sheep).

These are pretty strong claims to make without providing any evidence to back them up.

As has been mentioned this is usually due to the 'evidence' being incomplete, misleading, misinterpreted or just down right untrue.

Yeah I know . . .do my own research

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm sure there are examples of pharmaceutical companies falsifying data but does it really happen "repeatedly"? Any scientific experiment or trial might have an unscrupulous lead who changes the data for their advantage, but the scientific community will repeat these experiments to build evidence, so the truth comes out sooner or later. HWT might have an opinion on this.

The thing which I agree is unsatisfactory (but to which I don't think there is a solution) is that pharmaceutical companies don't have to publish trials. So if a trial shows evidence which is unfavourable for one of their products, they can choose not to publish it (I think). I think if they know something is clearly harmful and cover up evidence to put peoples health at risk then they're at risk of punishment but otherwise they can withhold the data. It has to be this way, otherwise journals and the scientific community generally would be clogged up and overwhelmed with trials which don't show anything meaningful. The scientific community wants experiments and trials which show something meaningful to be published because they're busy and there are so many trials going on. That's a bit different to saying pharmaceutical companies repeatedly falsify data. That's my understanding anyway - HWT might have more insight into this.

PS Sorry about the problems you've had in hospital with your dad. Hope he's better soon.

I agree with all that.

Indeed, also, as you say, as soon as something bad emerges all goes quiet. What should happen (and normally does) is that the company kills the programme. What should also happen is the bad findings are published. There are may reasons why this doesn't happen. This includes the project is closed and the staff are moved on or sacked. Nobody is left owning a failed project. I am an advocate of publishing the fails. I started a journal to do exactly that. I go no traction. Check out the early issues of Pharmacology Research and Perspectives, and it's agenda.

Companies that publish false data have lit the blue touch paper that will bring them down. Vioxx. And so on.

There is no incentive to promote medical lies. Most falsehood in research is preclinical and this doesn't touch humans.

 

[BadFish]

I agree with all that.

Indeed, also, as you say, as soon as something bad emerges all goes quiet. What should happen (and normally does) is that the company kills the programme. What should also happen is the bad findings are published. There are may reasons why this doesn't happen. This includes the project is closed and the staff are moved on or sacked. Nobody is left owning a failed project. I am an advocate of publishing the fails. I started a journal to do exactly that. I go no traction. Check out the early issues of Pharmacology Research and Perspectives, and it's agenda.

Companies that publish false data have lit the blue touch paper that will bring them down. Vioxx. And so on.

There is no incentive to promote medical lies. Most falsehood in research is preclinical and this doesn't touch humans.

Your last sentence conjoured an image of non human reptilian scientists beavering away in a lab on projects while secretly plotting to overthrow their human overlords.

Maybe I should lay off the LSD.

 

[BadFish]

Of course we must understand that HWT and the other people working in this area have been compromised by our reptilian. Overlords (notice the last line of his post #176 (interestingly if you add the numbers 1,7and 6 you get 14 which of course links to page 14 of the communist manifesto. Page 14 talks about gene therapy and it's use to communism. -COINCIDENCE) the last line references not touching humans, this is a clue to the non human nature of the scientists). So HWT has just inadvertently (or is he throwing out clues?) Explained that COVID was a plot by the NWO and the or reptilian over lords to spread Microsoft and communism across the world. (Which is good really, Microsoft - the commie bastards - need a shot in the arm)

So yeah, don't take any notice of them, sheeples. do your own research.

Am I right or am I right @larus

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Your last sentence conjoured an image of non human reptilian scientists beavering away in a lab on projects while secretly plotting to overthrow their human overlords.

Maybe I should lay off the LSD.

It's a fair cop. I'll come quietly.
Hang on....you'll never take me alive!!!!!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Of course we must understand that HWT and the other people working in this area have been compromised by our reptilian. Overlords (notice the last line of his post #176 (interestingly if you add the numbers 1,7and 6 you get 14 which of course links to page 14 of the communist manifesto. Page 14 talks about gene therapy and it's use to communism. -COINCIDENCE) the last line references not touching humans, this is a clue to the non human nature of the scientists). So HWT has just inadvertently (or is he throwing out clues?) Explained that COVID was a plot by the NWO and the or reptilian over lords to spread Microsoft and communism across the world. (Which is good really, Microsoft - the commie bastards - need a shot in the arm)

So yeah, don't take any notice of them, sheeples. do your own research.

Am I right or am I right @larus

It may not surprise you to tell you I have had @larus on ignore for getting on for 10 years.