Ali C
-
Posts
11993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
182
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by Ali C
-
-
5 minutes ago, JT! said:
Well it's generally accepted that all the vaccines are safe within a degree of reason. You're the one who believes that that safety has yet to be proven, though, if your only criticism is that they're new, and they haven't stood the test of time, then that's impossible to prove, you could literally say that about any drug created after 1930 (Ivermectin included).
But what I'm asking is, there's many types of covid vaccines, some that are mrna, and some that use a more traditional method of vaccination, the same method that we see in vaccines you probably received when you were a baby, they just change the type of virus that your body will make antibodies for. But it seems you're not interested in any of the different types of covid vaccine for no other reason than they're all covid vaccines.
Once more data comes in over a longer period and proves they’re safe then that’s fine, I’ll happily join the queue to get it but until then I’m just not happy to get it, especially when I don’t think it’s the only option. I’m not the only one who thinks this but I admit I’m in a smaller minority.
As for vaccines being impossible to prove, I’m not sure what you mean? Vaccines given to me (and others) have had decades (and life cycles) of data to prove they’re safe, unless you mean that my vaccines as a baby/teenager might rear side effects a couple of generations down the line through my kids?
It all comes down to the lack of data for long term side effects, like I said a few times before, I don’t think anyone’s out to purposely give us sketchy drugs and the majority of people who’ve had the vaccines are totally fine but I still think the whole situation of rushing out an emergency set of vaccines without the usual safety net of a longer trial period is sketchy, unnecessary and morally wrong when there’s potentially safer and cheaper alternatives, I’m not against Covid vaccines at all, if they had one with the long term data then I’d most likely have had the jab so I could travel to do shows in Europe.
-
41 minutes ago, manuel said:
There is a huuuuuuuge amount of data now available for these vaccines. If someone can show me any cold hard statistics that show me that I am safer not taking the vaccine, then I won’t take the second dose.
Ali, your position seems to be based significantly more on feeling than fact (not a dis), which is all fine - it’s a choice and you are in a group that is very unlikely to be affected by the actual disease.
where you lose me totally is on ivermectin. It’s benefits are not proven in trials (although proper trials are taking place) and self medicating with a drug usually prescribed that can have serious side effects on its own seems insane to me.
I disagree, I’m mostly going on what I’m told from a scientists point of view rather than feelings. The evidence to me is sketchy and backed up with reports and papers, if I was going by my feelings alone I’d be getting my facts from The Sun or something and ignoring the evidence I’ve been told.
i still think that video describes most of my thoughts about the whole thing. I won’t deny that there'll be plenty of data coming in but it’s still vaccines that have been given emergency status and will be missing the vital long-term data you’ll usually get. I’m not saying the vaccine will kill you but I am saying there are inherent risks and I’d rather take my chances. If you feel safer taking a vaccine then go ahead, I’ve no issues with people making up their own mind.
As for Ivermectin, that’s had decades of data now and out of billions of uses it’s had next to zero percent incidents. Funding for research was cut drastically since Covid vaccines became number one priority (and some reports are suspected to have been funded by peoples with ulterior motives (happens more often than you’d think in all kinds of industries)) but before ivermectin was censored some of the more genuine research papers showed it to be effective. Not much money to be made from that though.
-
6 minutes ago, JT! said:
You've lost me there, why would a vaccines safety have any bearing on how effective it is by that attribute alone?
What I mean is if there are vaccines that are “safer” then why aren’t we using those instead of ones with apparent evidence of risk? I assume because they are deemed less effective?
-
4 hours ago, monkeyseemonkeydo said:
So is that information available to you in any way? I take it their terms and conditions for monetisation changes when changes like that happen?
Nope, mostly hearsay and guesswork and no changes to the terms and conditions either.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Davetrials said:
whats changed at youtubes end to have such an adverse effect?
They do update the algorithm every few years to adjust how people see what videos they see, at first they just rewarded clicks which resulted in click-bait content, then they changed to how many minutes are watched which made people make longer videos and now they’ve done something else which is resulting in people’s videos not being recommended to people, I’m not the only one who’s channel is suffering so I’m hoping something will change soon!
-
2 hours ago, JT! said:
When you say "this vaccine" which one are you talking about? Surely you're not amalgamating all 4 different types and claiming that they're all just as bad as equally each other?
I’ve no clue about the different types of vaccines, I’m sure some are safer than others but I’m no scientist so I’m basing my thoughts on what others (who I deem knowledgeable in this subject) are saying…I’ve not heard these people mention that we should be taking one vaccine over the other, only that we should question the ethics of pushing them on the public without more data, this suggests to me that if there are safe vaccines then they’re not actually doing much so not worth taking and the ones that people say are effective have these suspected health ramifications.
-
Do they tell you about the yellow card system when you get jabbed? I hadn’t heard of it until that video.
I agree that needing to know more about the figures would be important (like I mentioned previously), the vaccine does seem to effect the cardiovascular system though which I feel has to increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks…it’s very hard to prove it was the drug or just a coincidence I agree, but there seem to be a lot of coincidences which worry me (Next door neighbor died from a blood clot in his pelvis the day after taking the vaccine, a cycling friend has “heart pain” months after taking his too (younger than me and in good health)). As mentioned in the video this vaccine was given emergency status which means it isn’t given the same strict safety standards as usual, rolling it out to the entire world without more data is very risky in my opinion.
-
1
-
-
Jane just found this video, an interview with a member of the FLCCC (independent doctors searching for what they think is the best solution to the pandemic)…she covers a lot of the points which we’ve (well, Jane) found from researching papers and reports.
It’s a 15 min watch but covers a lot of the reasons why I’m skeptical about the vaccines.
-
I mean either choice is a bit of a gamble but with insider knowledge from someone who has a human biology degree and has worked in labs dealing with contagious diseases (and has previously been seriously ill with a mystery virus years ago) who also likes to read research papers and medical reports I’m backing the other horse in this race
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, JT! said:
Ali, why not just get a non-mRNA vaccine? Like AstraZeneca or Novavax etc.
My issue still is that there’s no historical data on any of these vaccines. Even if they are modified versions of past drugs they should still have years of data to prove their safety before they’re even considered to be released to market. The current vaccines are still less than a year old and I’m not comfortable putting something that young in my body, maybe I would if it was a truly awful illness that was guaranteed to cause life threatening issues but Covid seems to be a bit more random with how it effects you and despite causing some pretty horrible effects in quite a few people, many more seem to be just getting slightly ill and getting recovered (we have a supply of ivermectin we would hope aid our recovery if we did catch it) so to me being fit and healthy I feel weird about 100% putting a young drug with no historical data in my body compared with a random chance of getting a virus that then has a random chance of being serious or not
-
The thing with flu is that vaccines are just predictions on how the strain is going to mutate, that’s why it can’t be eradicated because it’s changing so much. We’ve got pretty good at working out what will work year on year with the flu and we hand out vaccines to the vulnerable because it can be deadly if your immune system is compromised.
That’s why I think working on trying to eradicate Covid is the wrong move…I agree that it’s a decent idea to try and lower the waves but I think working on a way to make people healthy again once they’ve caught it would be a good option, no rushed vaccines and people’s immunity would naturally increase from exposure and recovery.
I’ve just confirmed I can’t join Drop And Roll with some European shows in September due to Germany requiring a vaccine passport, quite annoying but I guess I made my bed and now I’vegotta sleep in it
-
Just be a bit weary of holding too much opinion from looking at stats. I avoid stats because I’m not a statistician, it’s very easy to assume an answer from looking at them but often you need to know how to interpret them (which isn’t always easy) to get a more accurate outcome.
In this thread alone people have quoted numbers as meaning one result only to have someone else argue that they confirm something else.
Not saying don’t look at stats but just don’t rely on them too much unless you know the bigger picture
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, JT! said:
Fair point, I guess they don't want the hassle of testing every single person twice on a round trip. But ultimately governments simply don't want unvaccinated people in their country.
If someone can't take it for medial reasons then fair enough, although I'm not entirely sure there are many medical reasons not to get the vaccine. End of the day an unvaccinated person is someone who is much more likely to get infected and spread it to others, I don't think it's unreasonable for a government to limit entry into their country because they aren't vaccinated against a virus that's currently causing a world wide pandemic. No one should be made the get the vaccine, and no one should have unreasonable limits placed on them because they're unvaccinated, but international travel is probably one of the few things I can see as reasonable, especially when it wouldn't necessarily be our government to put those limits in place, but the government of the country you'd intend to visit.
Also the issue with any meds that you'd take them when you get covid, they wouldn't prevent it. That's probably why there's little research into those types of drugs, it's far more effective to put the money and time into a vaccine than just having everyone get sick and doing their best with whatever drugs may or may not work as they come in. Reducing the spread is far more important, especially with a virus where the fatality rate is relatively low.
I guess my “beef” is the thought of being forced to take a drug that hasn’t passed the test of time, I have no issues with taking other vaccines when traveling (had to take ones against rabies when going to the Philippines, that’s a death sentence if you catch that).
I think the thought of fully eradicating Covid is unrealistic, just like we can’t eradicate the flu…I feel instead of vaccines (which will only delay things rather than stop it) we’re better off coming up with a decent treatment to help those that do catch it and help bring up our immunity. As I said before I’m very suspicious of the ways things have been done. I don’t think our governments came up with any plans themselves but they’ve certainly used it to their advantage, I could believe there’s more going on that is kept from idiots like Boris and co though. Perhaps that is getting a bit far into the tin hat territory though
edit: some people could be allergic to ingredients in the vaccine or have issues with their blood clotting (which the vaccine could exasperate) so they’re recommended not to take it
-
32 minutes ago, JT! said:
I don't think the vaccine was ever considered a vaccine that would only be for the vulnerable, at least nothing I've ever seen.
Limiting travel to only those who have been vaccinated is obviously a thing that should happen, however you travel, you're doing it squished in with a bunch of other people. Travel is probably the top means of transmitting the virus, when I'm bussing it to work it's the only time I have to wear a mask right now, even with the rates being incredibly low in our area. I really wouldn't consider that being forced to take a vaccine in any way shape or form.
mRNA tech was tested on mice 30 years ago. It's not really new, this is just it's debut. We're very lucky we have this technology at this time. If we didn't we'd likely have supply issues. We'll look back at this time like we look back on how people thought microwaves would make your food nuclear or cellphones would give your brain tumors. Just because something is new doesn't mean we don't understand it.
The issue with drugs on children and pregnant women is the chemical change that they're designed to make, that change over a prolonged time can mess with development. My wife is on Depakote for migraines and every time we see any of her doctors we get obsessively reminded that it has serious side effects on a fetus and they've even suggested she take a pill along with it to stop that from happening "just in case". With vaccines though, they aren't like meds, and I don't believe that any medication taken long before a pregnancy has ever effected a fetuses development, only when taken during.
Booster jabs were always expected. We'll probably have to take on every year like we do with the flu shot.
What’s wrong with just getting a negative test before traveling?
I think it’s discriminatory, mainly for those who can’t take it for medical reasons but also to those who don’t want to take it, I worry it’s the start of bigger issues of control.
Ivermectin is a drug that’s been around for decades, has proven to be safe and showed real promise of being effective to treat Covid in humans. Sadly for some reason that escapes me any talk of Ivermectin was censored and funding cut (which limits legit papers and opens the doors for bias) I’m sure mrna is safe in humans but I’m not volunteering for human testing without being paid.
look, I’m totally willing to come back in here and eat a whole load of humble pie if I’m wrong but I just don’t feel like I want to be part of this vaccine with the evidence (medically and politically) that I’ve seen
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Adam@TartyBikes said:
Long post shortened
Its nice to see someone who’s also skeptical, seems to be a subject that’s hard to go against the grain without being branded an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist.I’m still un-vaxxed and I hate it when people ask how my jabs went and I have to explain my situation.
Personally I’m seriously suspicious about the whole thing, I’m not definitely thinking it was planned but I think there’s been some sketchy people doing sketchy things and then profiting from the outcome.
There’s been leaked emails from people connected with big pharma companies which contain some potentially incriminating info (but it seems the FBI have censored much of it/them). It’s mostly illegal for anyone to experiment with viruses and purposely increase it’s contagious except for two places, a lab in California and a lab in China…any guess where?
Funding for these experiments seems to be linked to the pharma industry, the same ones who are now helping produce vaccines and reaping the profits.
I’m vague on the details as it’s second had from Jane who is extremely interested in the subject and has filled me in on what’s she’s researched.
If the above isn’t true then I’m willing to accept I’m wrong if evidence supports it, even so I’m still sketched out that an emergency vaccine for the most vulnerable is now being “forced” onto everybody…I say forced as I agree with Adam that our freedom will be limited if we don’t take it…I’m potentially missing out on doing shows at Eurobike this year due to vaccine passports being necessary.
I strongly feel the government has never acted in a way that directly benefits the public, every action has firstly been to benefit them or their associates and I feel no different with this vaccine, I think it’s to benefit pharma corps that they may have connections with and they’re playing it off as “taking action” and to get a pat on the back. I’ve said this earlier but there’s no long-term tests for this vaccine, especially for children and preggers chicks and any suggestion of using other drugs that showed potential has been censored. One pharma company involved with the vaccine has previous history of rolling out drugs deemed safe only to find out years later that it was far from it and had instances of babies being born with horrendous disfigurements…at least the victims could sue and get some compensation, this current vaccine has small print that there’s no reimbursement possible if something goes wrong.
There’s so much sketchy shit that’s been happening that I’ve forgotten but it’s enough for me to be extremely suspicious until definitive proof comes out that things are legit and safe (takes ten years to have a drug cleared as safe if I remember correctly). Add to the fact that you need to continue getting booster jabs because you might not be fully covered in a few months and that’s a definite “nope” from me
-
2
-
-
YouTube need to fix the algorithm, since January my channels dive bombed and I’m getting less than half the views I’d normally expect. My current weekly earnings are down at $70…this isn’t sustainable
-
7 minutes ago, monkeyseemonkeydo said:
That's insane!! What's happening with your sneaky familial purchase?
Waiting on the lawyers still, they don’t rush do they!
-
2
-
-
We put an offer in on a two bed semi 3k over the asking price…it ended up going for 60k over the asking price!!
-
-
Nothings set in stone yet but I’m making use of my potential future garage space already
-
8 minutes ago, Davetrials said:
Had a dream so vivid, that i could hop whip i almost woke up and bought a BMX.
Had that before, it’s the most disappointing thing when you wake up and realize the truth
-
1
-
-
from looking at the qualifying times Matt Walker could be up for a win if he doesn't fall off... fastest on every sector but then obviously had a spill which put him back. I'm interested to see how Reece Wilson does after winning here last year, quite interesting how he's gone to flat pedals after riding clips for so long but after hearing that Gwin couldn't clip one of his feet back into his pedal last year because of too much mud build up perhaps flat pedals makes sense even if you're not used to it.
-
May as well update my situation.
I'm still living with my fiancée, her mum and her mums boyfriend in a two bedroom flat. It’s fiiiine, we all get on and there’s zero tension (as far as I can tell) but I’m desperate for my own space.
The housing market is still awful and there’s nothing coming up in our budget in any place we’d want to live. However due to a turn in events we might not need to look for a house after all.
Sadly Jane’s elderly Aunt died last month (at 93). She was diagnosed with cancer just in February and refused treatment...because she was of sound mind and knew what was coming she made sure her will was updated and put Jane as her power of attorney.
She didn’t have any children of her own and was fond of Jane and her brother so has left the estate to them. Jane is keen to buy out her brothers share in her Aunts house and for her and I to move into it...fortunately none of Jane’s family have any objection to this.
We are waiting back on a survey to tell us exactly how much the estate is worth and that will determine how much we owe her brother so nothings set in stone yet.
The house itself is a 1960s detached two bedroom bungalow and is lovely! The rooms are big and it’s in amazing condition (her Aunt was the type that puts notes on the batteries in the clocks saying when they were installed...meticulously neat and tidy). It has a single garage which is perfect for my bikes and has garden space all around. The bonus is that it’s got a great potential to convert the loft into another two rooms (either making it a 4 bedroom or 3 with an office) which would be amazing.
The area it’s in is considered one of the poshest parts of Glasgow, it’s rare to get a house here and all the neighbors are retired rich types...we’d be the youngest in the area by a long way. They’re all very friendly though, a minister is across from us as well as a Jewish and Indian couple who are all very nice people.
The downsides are that it’s a lot further out of town than I’d considered (though does have easy motorway access) and there is zero riding (trials or MTB) out of the door, I’ll definitely be needing to drive to do any riding.
Its also next to a road so there is some traffic noise, especially at school times as there’s a school just a few hundred meters down the hill. It’s only a 30mph zone and not a main route so not too bad the rest of the time.
It’s sad that Jane’s lost a family member but with all the hardships she’s had I think its a lovely gift from her Aunt. here’s hoping we can afford to buy out her brothers share.
-
4
-
-
sounds so tedious!!
Covid19
in Chit Chat
Posted
In 40 years I’ll be happy to have made it to my 80s (well, late 70s)!