I'm going for my jab today. Am I worried? NO.
The 10 year delay in bringing most drugs to the market is caused by bureaucracy. Quite reasonable bureaucracy in most cases, making sure the funding is being spent wisely, reading through all the trial results (whilst also reading the trial results for a thousand other drugs for things like cancer), obtaining the planning permission to build the factory, making sure the local electricity substation can provide power for the new factory machinery... the list goes on. Well when you are dealing with a pandemic, you don't waste time making sure the funding is correct, you accept that you will over spend. You don't waste time reading trial results for cancer drugs they can wait, we have a pandemic to fight! Planning permission? We have a pandemic to fight! Just build another electricity substation, we have a pandemic to fight!
So that's why we got the vaccines in less than a year.
Are they safe? Yes or at least as safe as any other medicine.
What about long term side effects? Well who knows. I was taking zantac for years then it got withdrawn because it can give you cancer. You only know the long term side effects after people have been taking it for years, but we need to stop covid killing people today.
Am I taking this vaccine for my own health? No. I think the chances of me getting Covid are very high, but the chances of me at 56 in otherwise good health suffering serious harm from it are minimal.
So why am I having it? Because Covid kills about 1 in a hundred people, and whilst it is doing that it is jamming up the NHS so more people are dieing of cancer and heart disease. Lockdowns are also destroying the economy and people's mental health. Maybe lockdowns are a bad idea, but hospitals with people dying on trolleys are not a vote winner, so lockdowns are here until the pandemic is over. So I am having a vaccine so we get closer to heard immunity, and even if they don't get us near herd immunity they will stop me potentially filling up a hospital bed which would be better given to someone with cancer. Then we can stop having lockdowns and get back to going to the pub and drinking beer.
I don't care whether other people have the vaccine that is their choice, but I'm prepared to have it myself so that we can all benefit.
Edited by member 17 Mar 2021 at 00:15
| Reason: Shame the moderator removed the profanity which I had already asterisked out. It added humour.
|
User
Yup..
I have had one Pfizer antiviral and discussed this with oncology consultant on Monday, she said “There is no evidence to show adverse affects on cancer patients not undergoing chemo”, it is recommended you have both shots of any antiviral. “Chemotherapy patients have to individually evaluated to see if it fits within their treatment”.
There is a lot of bulls#it about vaccines, the Russians are definitely exploiting any cases issues with non Russian Sputnik V antivirals; and pushing “hard sell” on their vaccine. The Sputnik V vaccine has no believable human staged trials data whatsoever on its development or side effects; and they are pushing hard to get foreign governments to adopt Sputnik V.
One RFEL article earlier suggested the entire Sputnik V development team all got Covid like lung infections FROM the early stage antiviral administered to the team..(Other reports suggest hospital staff are still getting covid after their SV shots)
The polio and smallpox vaccines Russia provided in the 80’s were ineffective and according to some reports so diluted they were just saline.
The EU wants to ban exports to the U.K. of a lifesaving antiviral that countries within the EU are not using, would have been the same if no Brexit.
Being lumbered with P.C is bad enough without all the extra covid stuff, let’s trust the advice we are given as it could very well keep us alive?
Buzzy
User
just seen this on the news which seems concerning. It doesn’t go into much detail eg were the people in the study on active treatment that suppresses the immune system etc or are they referring also to people who have cancer with no current treatment
Ive had the Pfizer vaccine so I do find this worrying
https://apple.news/At1ZtKq5wSKKy3zpoUNdSJQ
Edited by moderator 19 Oct 2023 at 15:38
| Reason: Not specified
User
Chris I’m not sure you’ve read it right. The 13% related to people on the trial with blood cancers and the 39% to people on the trial with solid cancer. You have Prostate cancer which will be a solid cancer. But as I’ve said earlier I think this study relates to people on certain treatments that suppress the immune system so hopefully you and I will be protected
Take care
Bri
Edited by member 11 Mar 2021 at 12:53
| Reason: Not specified
User
Completely agree Davews. In every respect these jabs cannot be called vaccines. It normally takes around ten years for a real vaccine to come to market. These Covid ones have taken less than a year. It seems to me there is no way they have been tested properly. People are being treated as guinea pigs by the powers that be.
There is no way me or my wife will take them.
User
Hi Chris J, I had exactly the same problem with access denied to documents, it happened nearly a year ago. I must admit I have not chased it up as nothing much is happening to me at the moment. Just letting you know you are not alone.
Edited by member 14 Mar 2021 at 22:20
| Reason: Not specified
|
Show Most Thanked Posts
User
I had Pfizer too. With mets like mine in bone and lymph it’s only 13 to 39% effective. Oh well I should be bumped up the list again.
User
I saw this too. Very concerning. I had the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine but I would think the same issues arise.
|
User
Chris there is little info but I am wondering if this applies to people on treatment such as chemo or steroids which suppresses the immune system ie those who will have been previously contacted to shield
User
No idea. As replied to Chris it may be referring to people on specific treatments. Plus it was a very small study. Now left wondering if I should contact the GP or not to arrange my 2nd Jab
User
It is worrying Bri but at the end of the day I’ve luckily not caught it in over a year , and even working in a school , just by following the guidelines properly!
User
Chris I’m not sure you’ve read it right. The 13% related to people on the trial with blood cancers and the 39% to people on the trial with solid cancer. You have Prostate cancer which will be a solid cancer. But as I’ve said earlier I think this study relates to people on certain treatments that suppress the immune system so hopefully you and I will be protected
Take care
Bri
Edited by member 11 Mar 2021 at 12:53
| Reason: Not specified
User
I'm sure that this must apply to people on treatments like chemo which suppress the immune system. The mere fact of having cancer doesn't damage the immune system, does it?
Chris
User
Not according to my doctors.
User
Peter what have your doctors said. My understanding is that PCa alone doesn’t compromise the immune system. If that was the case we would all have had shielding letters as a poor immune system makes you vulnerable
User
My GP, not oncologist, said a while ago (maybe 9months) that my cancer doesn't mean I'm more at risk etc (I was sort of forced to ask by wife&daughter etc), if I was still on steroids it would be different so I 'guess' it depends on whether currently on treatment. I finished treatment 30months ago.
Peter
User
I asked my GP if I was on the "vulnerable" list, and he said "yes", but that was because I only have one kidney, not because of cancer!
Chris
User
I’ve just read some scientific reviews about the ‘trial’ and it appears they are concerned about the time in delay between jabs that could leave cancer patients vulnerable. They haven’t tested efficacy after a 2nd dose at 12 weeks.
However, one of the scientists did comment on cancer patients saying “... We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls”.
If this is true why wasn’t I told to shield??
User
And in news today use of Astra vaccination is being curtailed or suspended in a few countries due to several recipients having blood clots after it. It didn't mention if patients having cancer treatment were at greater risk.
Barry |
User
30 patients out of 5 million who all had their injection from the same batch. None of the 30 were in the UK.
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberI’ve just read some scientific reviews about the ‘trial’ and it appears they are concerned about the time in delay between jabs that could leave cancer patients vulnerable. They haven’t tested efficacy after a 2nd dose at 12 weeks.
However, one of the scientists did comment on cancer patients saying “... We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls”.
If this is true why wasn’t I told to shield??
Are you on chemo? I get the impression that they're generalising a bit more than perhaps they should be with those kinds of comments.
_____ Two cannibals named Ectomy and Prost, all alone on a Desert island. Prost was the strongest, so Prost ate Ectomy. |
User
I suspect that reports of any inevitable adverse reactions to either vaccine are being suppressed here in Britain, so as not to upset the roll-out.
I have just watched the news on Russia Today, who are reporting all kinds of problems in Europe with both the Pfizer Biontech and Oxford / Astra Zeneca jabs. Clearly they have an agenda to promote the Russian Sputnik V vaccine (I’m old enough to remember Sputnik I in 1957...)
In an unscientific sample, I had the Oxford / Astra Zeneca jab with no reaction, Her Loveliness had the Pfizer shot with a sore arm the next morning.
We can’t wait to get our vaccine passports and get travelling again. We have had a Yellow Fever vaccination certificate for years. What’s the problem? The government are saying they are looking into it. You won’t be flying anywhere without one!
When I take Herman the German to the vet’s, they inoculate him and put a sticker with the batch number off the vaccine vial onto his pet passport, the vet signs it and it’s stamped as official.
We have been given a business card with a scribbled ‘Pfizer’, which if it was more substantial, with batch number stickers on, ‘doggy style’, that would have sufficed as a vaccine passport.
The government have commissioned three research groups @ £75 grand a pop to look into the kind of solution I have just described.
Cheers, John.
Edited by member 12 Mar 2021 at 02:36
| Reason: Not specified
User
Either a slightly faulty batch - or they were going to have blood clots, anyway.....
User
EU medical regulator says that the incidence of blood clots among vaccinated people is the same as that of the general population. No evidence to suggest that being vaccinated can cause blood clots.
Chris
Edited by member 12 Mar 2021 at 12:18
| Reason: Not specified
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberI suspect that reports of any inevitable adverse reactions to either vaccine are being suppressed here in Britain, so as not to upset the roll-out.
I have just watched the news on Russia Today, who are reporting all kinds of problems in Europe with both the Pfizer Biontech and Oxford / Astra Zeneca jabs. Clearly they have an agenda to promote the Russian Sputnik V vaccine (I’m old enough to remember Sputnik I in 1957...)
In an unscientific sample, I had the Oxford / Astra Zeneca jab with no reaction, Her Loveliness had the Pfizer shot with a sore arm the next morning.
We can’t wait to get our vaccine passports and get travelling again. We have had a Yellow Fever vaccination certificate for years. What’s the problem? The government are saying they are looking into it. You won’t be flying anywhere without one!
When I take Herman the German to the vet’s, they inoculate him and put a sticker with the batch number off the vaccine vial onto his pet passport, the vet signs it and it’s stamped as official.
We have been given a business card with a scribbled ‘Pfizer’, which if it was more substantial, with batch number stickers on, ‘doggy style’, that would have sufficed as a vaccine passport.
The government have commissioned three research groups @ £75 grand a pop to look into the kind of solution I have just described.
Cheers, John.
Send me your address and £1000 and I will send you a stamped vaccine certificate of your choice.
Seriously vaccine certs need to be verifiable and tied to an individual to have any meaning.
For yellow fever if you are dumb enough to falsify a cert you will only kill yourself.
For Covid if you do it AND carry the infection you put the lives of 0.1% of the unvaccinated population at risk.
User
My immunisation card for travelling to Gambia includes spaces for each vaccine / booster and the little sticker is taken off the vial or packet and stuck onto the card. The nurse then prints her name, write the name of the vaccine / med, the date & her signature.
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
The 'MyGP' app is going to have a feature called 'myGP TICKet'. An official note from your GP of your vaccine status.
I've just registered an interest. Presumably that's a vaccine passport in the UK at least. See below;
...............................................................................................................................................................
myGP TICKet
Coming soon, myGP will be launching a new feature within our app – the myGP TICKet – which will enable the public to provide simple, clear, assured proof of their vaccination protection status, wherever and whenever they may need to.
Download today to be the first to get access.
COMING SOON
Your TICKet back to ‘normal’
How will it work?
myGP already provides its users with secure access to their own medical records. What myGP TICKet does is isolate the code within an individual’s medical record that denotes a current, complete vaccination for COVID-19. We then add 12 days to the date of your second dose (this is the universal wait time that has been recommended by our medical advisors) and display a shiny green TICK mark next to your profile photo once you have met both criteria
The tick appears only upon request, and will disappear when you close the app.
You can read our media release about this initiative.
Got questions?
Well we’ve got answers. Check out our extensive FAQs.
Here's a link to more
https://www.mygp.com/mygp-to-launch-englands-first-digital-covid-19-vaccination-verification-feature-for-smartphones/
Are you a business who wants to get involved?
We’d love to hear from you
Contact us on mygpticket@mygp.com and we will be sure to get back to you about how we can support you in getting back to normal.
For all press enquiries contact:
mygpticket@mygp.com
Edited by moderator 06 Jul 2023 at 10:31
| Reason: Not specified
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberPeter what have your doctors said. My understanding is that PCa alone doesn’t compromise the immune system. If that was the case we would all have had shielding letters as a poor immune system makes you vulnerable
My response was to the mere act of having cancer. I've had cancer twice. Both times it's been cut out and so far (touch head) there has been no recurrence. On that basis I've been told I'm not at any more risk than the general populace. I asked this specific question to the specialists on both cancers and they gave the same answer.
User
My GP's surgery uses an app called "Airmid". Hopefully all these apps will eventually have a way of showing a verified vaccination status.
Chris
User
App based 'passports' are only of use to those who have smartphones. What is wrong with that little card they give you when you get the vaccination?
Whatever, personally I think the idea of a vaccine passport is the craziest idea yet in this year of increasingly more control measures. Since the vaccine only protects you and does not stop you catching or spreading it its only purpose is making more ropes to go through to lead our normal lives.
I have had my first AZ jab, fortunately with no side effects, but am increasingly hesitant to go for my second one in May due to the increasing reports of nasties from it. Others among you may be happy to take the risk, your choice.
User
Completely agree Davews. In every respect these jabs cannot be called vaccines. It normally takes around ten years for a real vaccine to come to market. These Covid ones have taken less than a year. It seems to me there is no way they have been tested properly. People are being treated as guinea pigs by the powers that be.
There is no way me or my wife will take them.
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberCompletely agree Davews. In every respect these jabs cannot be called vaccines. It normally takes around ten years for a real vaccine to come to market. These Covid ones have taken less than a year. It seems to me there is no way they have been tested properly. People are being treated as guinea pigs by the powers that be.
There is no way me or my wife will take them.
The UK’s independent medical regulator, the MHRA, says that both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines went through the full clinical trial process. It was accelerated by running the trial phases in parallel and there were no shortcuts. I have every reason to trust the professionals in the field, so I am happy to be vaccinated. Of course vaccination is a free choice, but one does have to accept that a decision not to be vaccinated is likely to have consequences in terms of the ability to both travel internationally and attend large-scale events in the UK.
Chris
Edited by member 13 Mar 2021 at 12:21
| Reason: Not specified
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberCompletely agree Davews. In every respect these jabs cannot be called vaccines. It normally takes around ten years for a real vaccine to come to market. These Covid ones have taken less than a year. It seems to me there is no way they have been tested properly. People are being treated as guinea pigs by the powers that be.
There is no way me or my wife will take them.
[/quote
They have been working for years on similar vaccines which has helped to speed up its development plus the govt financially invested into its development. Of course they have been tested and gone through the proper regulatory processes. Your choice not to have it but base your choice on reliable information not the garbage and false information that is being shared on social media platforms
Edited by member 13 Mar 2021 at 15:23
| Reason: Not specified
User
Actually I don't do social media I much prefer to do my own research. You can believe the Government line if you want to, I prefer not to.
Chris: I don't think wishing to travel again is a good reason to risk your health on these ' vaccines '.
Bill
User
The MHRA are not "the government"; they are an independent regulatory body.
I am not an epidemiologist nor am I qualified in public health, so I leave such decisions to those who are.
Cheers,
Chris
User
|
User
I'm going for my jab today. Am I worried? NO.
The 10 year delay in bringing most drugs to the market is caused by bureaucracy. Quite reasonable bureaucracy in most cases, making sure the funding is being spent wisely, reading through all the trial results (whilst also reading the trial results for a thousand other drugs for things like cancer), obtaining the planning permission to build the factory, making sure the local electricity substation can provide power for the new factory machinery... the list goes on. Well when you are dealing with a pandemic, you don't waste time making sure the funding is correct, you accept that you will over spend. You don't waste time reading trial results for cancer drugs they can wait, we have a pandemic to fight! Planning permission? We have a pandemic to fight! Just build another electricity substation, we have a pandemic to fight!
So that's why we got the vaccines in less than a year.
Are they safe? Yes or at least as safe as any other medicine.
What about long term side effects? Well who knows. I was taking zantac for years then it got withdrawn because it can give you cancer. You only know the long term side effects after people have been taking it for years, but we need to stop covid killing people today.
Am I taking this vaccine for my own health? No. I think the chances of me getting Covid are very high, but the chances of me at 56 in otherwise good health suffering serious harm from it are minimal.
So why am I having it? Because Covid kills about 1 in a hundred people, and whilst it is doing that it is jamming up the NHS so more people are dieing of cancer and heart disease. Lockdowns are also destroying the economy and people's mental health. Maybe lockdowns are a bad idea, but hospitals with people dying on trolleys are not a vote winner, so lockdowns are here until the pandemic is over. So I am having a vaccine so we get closer to heard immunity, and even if they don't get us near herd immunity they will stop me potentially filling up a hospital bed which would be better given to someone with cancer. Then we can stop having lockdowns and get back to going to the pub and drinking beer.
I don't care whether other people have the vaccine that is their choice, but I'm prepared to have it myself so that we can all benefit.
Edited by member 17 Mar 2021 at 00:15
| Reason: Shame the moderator removed the profanity which I had already asterisked out. It added humour.
|
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberThe MHRA are not "the government"; they are an independent regulatory body.
I am not an epidemiologist nor am I qualified in public health, so I leave such decisions to those who are.
Cheers,
Chris
The MHRA are a government body. In their own words. 'We are an executive agency, part of the Dept of Health and Social Care'
Edited by member 14 Mar 2021 at 04:30
| Reason: Not specified
User
As it's own site says, MHRA is an executive agency.
An executive agency is a part of a government department that is treated as managerially and budgetarily separate, to carry out some part of the executive functions of the United Kingdom government...
So yes it is part of government. Its purpose is to regulate medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion in the UK.
While my opinion of politicians is quite low, my opinion of scientists and medics is rather higher. I feel pretty certain that they would not foist anything on the public with known defects. Of course, there could be possible long term effects, but balancing those against the effects of covid (which, even assuming you survive the virus, has known long term effects) there is only one sensible conclusion. I say this not as a medical expert, but as someone trained in risk assessment.
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberAs it's own site says, MHRA is an executive agency.
An executive agency is a part of a government department that is treated as managerially and budgetarily separate, to carry out some part of the executive functions of the United Kingdom government...
So yes it is part of government. Its purpose is to regulate medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion in the UK.
While my opinion of politicians is quite low, my opinion of scientists and medics is rather higher. I feel pretty certain that they would not foist anything on the public with known defects. Of course, there could be possible long term effects, but balancing those against the effects of covid (which, even assuming you survive the virus, has known long term effects) there is only one sensible conclusion. I say this not as a medical expert, but as someone trained in risk assessment.
A year ago I would have totally agreed with you Peter. However my faith in the leadership of the medical profession has been severely shaken over this Covid period.
I am currently undergoing treatment for my prostate cancer and have nothing but kind words for the doctors and nurses treating me. Until a lot more is known about the affects of the jabs I won't be taking them.
Bill
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberFor yellow fever if you are dumb enough to falsify a cert you will only kill yourself.
For Covid if you do it AND carry the infection you put the lives of 0.1% of the unvaccinated population at risk.
Whilst stats can often be used to prove any scenario that may be a desired outcome, last time I looked at the figures, around the mid 80s% was the forecast effectiveness out in the wider world, as opposed to small scale trials. By my reckoning that would leave around 15 out of every 100 people that the vaccine would not have the desired effect on. It is clearly not a golden bullet, particularly given the lack of data on trials for those with compromised immune systems (the cynic in me might say that subgroup were not considered suitable as it would result in a lower overall efficacy rate and perhaps less income for pharma).
That said, anyone that fancies being one of the 15% that will be more susceptible to C19, rather the the 85% that should be less susceptible, clearly likes a gamble at long odds.
Had our jabs a few weeks ago, no side effects to report. Just everyone bear in mind, the need to still practice the "mantra" of hands, face and space will be going on for some time yet. The amount of the general public that don't seem to give a monkeys about safe distancing, or wearing a mask in enclosed areas, even after all the publicity, is quite frankly astounding!!
Never underestimate the stupidity of the Great British Public!!
Good luck to everyone coping with the insidious big C |
User
Quote:A year ago I would have totally agreed with you Peter. However my faith in the leadership of the medical profession has been severely shaken over this Covid period.
I am currently undergoing treatment for my prostate cancer and have nothing but kind words for the doctors and nurses treating me. Until a lot more is known about the affects of the jabs I won't be taking them.
Bill
Bill when you refer to the leadership. If you meet Matt H I totally agree with you. But you need some faith in the brilliant scientists who’ve developed the vaccine and also people such as Chris W. If you value the NHS staff as you say you do listen to what they are saying
User
To my mind when it comes to balancing the known and significant dangers of COVID (which leaves 10% of people who catch it with long-term problems) against the unknown but certainly tiny risks of being vaccinated there’s absolutely no contest. Almost 24m people now vaccinated in the UK and a vanishingly small number of significant side-effects. There’s also, in my view, a question of social responsibility here: by being vaccinated you’re not only protecting yourself but you’re also protecting others, some of whom can’t be vaccinated.
Chris
User
It's surprising to read that there is more than one GP app. When I posted above I thought every GP was using MyGP. If there are too many apps it will make checking validity and creating common interfaces much more difficult.
It seems there are enough having the vaccine to create a form of herd immunity except, it seems, in some areas of some cities where special efforts are being made. That after one dose it's now very unlikely I'll end up in hospital or on a ventilator is good enough for me, touch wood. Like all else in life, nothing is certain, you can only reduce the odds.
Peter
User
"Airmid" is the app associated with the online system my GP uses, which is provided by a company called "TPP". According to their blurb it's used by 7000 NHS organisations including 2600 GP's surgeries.
Cheers,
Chris
User
Our GP practice uses a different TPP system but tells us that they are going to make Airmid available soon if we want to transfer.
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
I generally do use the website rather than the app. I find it easier to use, particularly for looking at my medical records.
Chris
User
Perhaps, Chris, your experience relates to the app's ratings.
Airmid has 100k+ downloads and quite poor ratings. MyGP has 1m+ and good ratings.
User
In Southampton we have the Patient Access system. Great for booking blood tests and GP appointments. Good for seeing Dr visits and consultations etc. Also good for seeing blood results within 3 days. However all my medical records and Oncology letters have been recently been denied access. The GP says it’s the app , and the app says it’s the GP. Haven’t been able to get anywhere with this in months
User
Hi Chris J, I had exactly the same problem with access denied to documents, it happened nearly a year ago. I must admit I have not chased it up as nothing much is happening to me at the moment. Just letting you know you are not alone.
Edited by member 14 Mar 2021 at 22:20
| Reason: Not specified
|
User
NHS IT is diabolical. I can go online and book a blood test at various places within a reasonable distance. However if I choose one of the sites North of me, doctors from the hospitals to the South will not be able to access the results. And vice versa. Heads somewhere ought to roll.
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberNHS IT is diabolical. I can go online and book a blood test at various places within a reasonable distance. However if I choose one of the sites North of me, doctors from the hospitals to the South will not be able to access the results. And vice versa. Heads somewhere ought to roll.
It probably varies across the country, Peter, but here in the NW of England the IT seems to work quite well these days. I have annual CT scans for my (former) kidney cancer. I have the scan at my local hospital, and the images can be viewed by my consultant at his hospital. He's also able to look at the results of the kidney function blood tests I have done at my GPs, so the systems do seem pretty well integrated.
Chris
User
Probably depends on whether they're in the same Trust. I'm at the boundary and to the South it's a new Trust formed of merging 2-3 smaller Trusts, so even internally things don't always work.
I had an unexpected call from one hospital a few days ago. They seemed confused that I was still getting follow up from the hospital where the Op was done. However, I was confused as they hadn't even contacted me about the phone call, although they obviously thought they had.
I won't be going to their brewery when lockdown is over!
User
Thread seems to have gone a bit off topic
Bri
User
Yup..
I have had one Pfizer antiviral and discussed this with oncology consultant on Monday, she said “There is no evidence to show adverse affects on cancer patients not undergoing chemo”, it is recommended you have both shots of any antiviral. “Chemotherapy patients have to individually evaluated to see if it fits within their treatment”.
There is a lot of bulls#it about vaccines, the Russians are definitely exploiting any cases issues with non Russian Sputnik V antivirals; and pushing “hard sell” on their vaccine. The Sputnik V vaccine has no believable human staged trials data whatsoever on its development or side effects; and they are pushing hard to get foreign governments to adopt Sputnik V.
One RFEL article earlier suggested the entire Sputnik V development team all got Covid like lung infections FROM the early stage antiviral administered to the team..(Other reports suggest hospital staff are still getting covid after their SV shots)
The polio and smallpox vaccines Russia provided in the 80’s were ineffective and according to some reports so diluted they were just saline.
The EU wants to ban exports to the U.K. of a lifesaving antiviral that countries within the EU are not using, would have been the same if no Brexit.
Being lumbered with P.C is bad enough without all the extra covid stuff, let’s trust the advice we are given as it could very well keep us alive?
Buzzy