The Vaccine

enno99 · 16-12-2020 01:25AM

American Medical Association Rescinds Previous Statement Against Prescription of Hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 Patients
CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

Previously, the AMA had issued a statement in March that was highly critical of HCQ in regards to its use as a proposed treatment by some physicians in the early stages of COVID-19. In addition to discouraging doctors from ordering the medication in bulk for “off-label” use – HCQ is typically used to treat diseases such as malaria – they also claimed that there was no proof that it was effective in treating COVID, and that its use could be harmful in some instances.

However, on page 18 of a recent AMA memo, issued on October 30, (resolution 509, page 3) the organization officially reversed their stance on HCQ, stating that its potential for good currently may supersede the threat of any potential harmful side effects.

So, there we have it. HCQ could not be approved before the election, because President Trump had recommended it. Meanwhile, with an 8o +% reduced risk of having to be admitted to the hospital if administered with Azithromycin and Zinc as soon as testing positive or symptoms occurred, many (70000+) lives could have been saved.

https://lenbilen.com/2020/12/14/american-medical-association-rescinds-previous-statement-against-prescription-of-hydroxychloroquine-to-covid-19-patients/

Kinda f**ked up stalling with vaccines and this

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 01:30AM

enno99 wrote: »

American Medical Association Rescinds Previous Statement Against Prescription of Hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 Patients
CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

Previously, the AMA had issued a statement in March that was highly critical of HCQ in regards to its use as a proposed treatment by some physicians in the early stages of COVID-19. In addition to discouraging doctors from ordering the medication in bulk for “off-label” use – HCQ is typically used to treat diseases such as malaria – they also claimed that there was no proof that it was effective in treating COVID, and that its use could be harmful in some instances.

However, on page 18 of a recent AMA memo, issued on October 30, (resolution 509, page 3) the organization officially reversed their stance on HCQ, stating that its potential for good currently may supersede the threat of any potential harmful side effects.

So, there we have it. HCQ could not be approved before the election, because President Trump had recommended it. Meanwhile, with an 8o +% reduced risk of having to be admitted to the hospital if administered with Azithromycin and Zinc as soon as testing positive or symptoms occurred, many (70000+) lives could have been saved.

https://lenbilen.com/2020/12/14/american-medical-association-rescinds-previous-statement-against-prescription-of-hydroxychloroquine-to-covid-19-patients/

Kinda f**ked up stalling with vaccines and this

https://lenbilen.com/ is an insane religious blog.

What is the conspiracy here?

16-12-2020 01:37AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yeah the Avian Flu and Swine flu vaccines and heard nasty stories about Gardasil. They were hushed up quietly.

Cool. Source?
Also could you provide the figures of side effects as a percentage of vaccines administered? Thanks.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

My mother was infected with Hep C when I was born, they tested her blood afterwards for years and never told her.
I went to the same school as Vicky Phelan. Did you read how they intimidated her? Did you wonder how many women before her they made sign non disclosure contracts?

Sorry man, I simply don't believe you.
I also don't see what this has to do with the conspiracy you believe.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The HSE and their employees are scum, all on the teat from the pharmaceutical industry. I had my GP strongly suggesting that I get a flu vaccine for sarcoidosis last summer. He got told where to shove it.

Ok. So all GPs in Ireland are in on this conspiracy.
Could you explain what it is a bit more?
Are all GPs part of the plot to depopulate the world?

enno99 · 16-12-2020 01:41AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://lenbilen.com/ is an insane religious blog.

What is the conspiracy here?

FFS here read it yourself

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 01:44AM

enno99 wrote: »

FFS here read it yourself

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf

Question dodged again.

enno99 · 16-12-2020 01:59AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Question dodged again.

No your failure to read the bolded Part of my post

They conspired to not give Trump any ammo by holding it back until after the election

Hence Consriracy Theory

I wont be answering your posts if you persist with this BS

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 02:24AM

enno99 wrote: »

They conspired to not give Trump any ammo by holding it back until after the election

Hence Consriracy Theory

I wont be answering your posts if you persist with this BS

Calm down.

The story is misleading and the only sources I can find clarify this e.g.
https://www.publishedreporter.com/2020/12/11/american-medical-association-rescinds-previous-statement-against-prescription-of-hydroxychloroquine-to-covid-19-patients/

UPDATE/CORRECTION DECEMBER 14 2020: This article was corrected. A previous version of this story did not include the meeting results for either ADOPTION or NON-ADOPTION of the resolution. This RESOLUTION was included with many others presented at a Special Meeting of the AMA in November 2020. RESOLUTIONS are generated by AMA delegates/delegations, the AMA Board of Trustees, AMA Councils and AMA Sections. The RESOLUTION must be accepted and this resolution was not accepted. The RESOLUTION was reaffirmed. See the disclosure on this page referencing items to be considered by the House.

CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA) was considering rescinding a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients

Looks like they didn't rescind it. And even if they do, that in itself isn't definitive evidence of some conspiracy against Trump.

enno99 · 16-12-2020 02:39AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Calm down.

The story is misleading and the only sources I can find clarify this e.g.
https://www.publishedreporter.com/2020/12/11/american-medical-association-rescinds-previous-statement-against-prescription-of-hydroxychloroquine-to-covid-19-patients/

Looks like they didn't rescind it. And even if they do, that in itself isn't definitive evidence of some conspiracy against Trump.

I gave you the link

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 02:43AM

enno99 wrote: »

I gave you the link

Yes, and read carefully. It wasn't rescinded.

ShatterAlan · 16-12-2020 02:57AM

My question is this:

Are you legally bound to take a vaccine?

Are you legally bound to wear a mask?

Are you legally bound to prove that you a COVID negative before you can travel?

The answer to all of the above is NO. But there are so many who scream that you should adhere nonetheless.

If this virus is such a threat then pass a law. Make it illegal to NOT wear a mask. Make it illegal to travel.

Why is there an option?

There is no option regarding driving at 150kmph. It's codified in law to protect others.

If it is OPTIONAL to drive at such a speed then it would be so.

If it is OPTIONAL to not take tests or wear masks then why do we have the option?

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 03:05AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If it is OPTIONAL to not take tests or wear masks then why do we have the option?

It is law to wear masks in certain places in certain countries.

In other places it's more of a guideline. Not seeing the conspiracy angle here.

enno99 · 16-12-2020 03:06AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes, and read carefully. It wasn't rescinded.

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians
5 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes
6 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in
7 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy
8 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off
9 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to
10 Take Action); and be it further

Im baffled to be honest
But it shows they dont have concerns about the drug if they are thinking about rescinding it
Why now after so many died

ShatterAlan · 16-12-2020 03:09AM

Dohnjoe;115622870

It is law to wear masks in certain places in certain countries.

In other places it's more of a guideline. Not seeing the conspiracy angle here.

Show me that law please. And I, or anyone else is not trying to table a conspiracy angle.

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 03:15AM

enno99 wrote: »

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians
5 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes
6 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in
7 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy
8 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off
9 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to
10 Take Action); and be it further

Im baffled to be honest
But it shows they dont have concerns about the drug if they are thinking about rescinding it
Why now after so many died

Resolved doesn't mean accepted. The AMA hasn't changed their stance on HCQ.

And even if down the line they do, it doesn't automatically mean there's some conspiracy afoot. Medical advice on risky treatments has changed before, usually with more data.

Dohnjoe · 16-12-2020 03:21AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Show me that law please.

e.g.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

"There are some places where you must wear a face covering by law, unless you are exempt or have a reasonable excuse (see When you do not need to wear a face covering below)."

"Enforcement measures for failing to comply with this law
Premises where face coverings are required should take reasonable steps to promote compliance with the law.

The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.

If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.

Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence."

And I, or anyone else is not trying to table a conspiracy angle.

Yeah but it just turns these threads into make-shift Corona info sessions with no relevance to conspiracy theories, which is apparently what this forum is about

ShatterAlan · 16-12-2020 04:02AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It is law to wear masks in certain places in certain countries.

In other places it's more of a guideline. Not seeing the conspiracy angle here.

The "law" please in these "certain places" and in "certain countries", if you please.

Following that it's [by your own admission] an option, correct?

ShatterAlan · 16-12-2020 04:08AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

e.g.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

"There are some places where you must wear a face covering by law, unless you are exempt or have a reasonable excuse (see When you do not need to wear a face covering below)."

"Enforcement measures for failing to comply with this law
Premises where face coverings are required should take reasonable steps to promote compliance with the law.

The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.

If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.

Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence."

Yeah but it just turns these threads into make-shift Corona info sessions with no relevance to conspiracy theories, which is apparently what this forum is about

Nice quick googling there. Now, why don't you tell us where it is the LAW. The statute, perhaps. That would help. Is there a law that predicates the wearing of a mask?

There is a law that predicates the wearing of a seatbelt or the operation of a motor vehicle at certain speeds and at a certain age.

What LAW denotes that someone must wear a mask, when and where and what is the crime, and under what statute?

16-12-2020 04:33AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The "law" please in these "certain places" and in "certain countries", if you please.

Following that it's [by your own admission] an option, correct?

Since you're back and getting pretty demands with the questions there, any chance you'll be going back to any of the points and questions you've been dodging?

ShatterAlan · 16-12-2020 04:35AM

You see, I like to go by the letter of THE LAW.

I suppose that makes me a "leftie" or an "upstart".

If the LAW mandates that I have to do or NOT do something then fine, I will obey the LAW.

If, however, that stipulation is open to my choice, ergo, it is OPTIONAL, then the OPTION is mine and mine to exercise.

There are airlines currently insisting that you provide evidence of COVID negativity before travelling. If you read the small print you will find that this is illegal and in contravention of the EU Charter. It is also in contravention of the Geneva Protocols.

Now, DJ, and your fellow traveller, KM, you will more than likely come back saying that "one must adhere to the norms or we'll all die" as is your wont.

If these norms/advisories/recommendations are so important to saving lives then why are they optional?

joeyboy11 · 16-12-2020 04:49AM

naughtynaughty wrote: »

The talk on this thread (which is on a conspiracy board of all places) really worries me. Most people here and almost everyone I know tells me that they will take the vaccine. Arguments like "oh come on it's just a vaccine" or "it won't be mandatory" are not valid. Here's what's going to happen:

1. RTE & co will shout out "GREAT NEWS, the vaccine is here for Christmas. Please, I know you all really really want it, but let the sick and elderly get it first"
2. Droves of people will come and take it
3. RTE will say "Well, we have about 60% of people who took it. Great, but not enough"
4a. The govt (which are the same entity as both NPHET and RTE) will announce restrictions on people who don't have the vaccine.
4b. "Independent" companies such as ticketmaster and your employer will require the vaccine.
5. The "passport" will come into effect.
6. RTE will make the (possibly even more sedated) droves HATE the people who haven't taken the vaccine. Think hate week in 1984. This has already happened at the start with neighbours ratting on each other. They will use these tactics again and it will become increasingly stigmatised to refuse the shot.
7. It will finally be made mandatory under stricter and stricter punishments.

I will not take an experimental (RNA) vaccine that hasn't been tested for more than a year. I will not give up my bodily integrity to save myself from a disease which only kills 0.05% of people. Your grandma died of Covid? Sorry, I truly am, but if I was 80 and diabetic, I wouldn't want the whole economy stopping for me either. I wouldn't want to take the most beautiful years out of everyone else's lives just so I can go and die without any dignity. I would rather die proud. I will not let them inject me with anything for as long as I will live unless *I* deem it necessary. I would rather be thrown in a cage than to live in such a clown world.

Having said that, I will find a dodgy doctor to fake my vaccination cert so I'll be good.

I am deeply saddened and ashamed by the response of the Irish people to this. The facts are literally in your face on the news and they tell you that something that's really not that bad is the absolute worst thing ever and you just believe them, hook, line and sinker. All countries are bad but I think Ireland is probably the worst one and with the least amount of protests/most amount of compliance/most amount of fear. Just 104 years ago, we had great men who revolted against the most powerful empire on earth. And now what do we do? Just comply.

Great post

antfin · 16-12-2020 05:03AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You see, I like to go by the letter of THE LAW.

I suppose that makes me a "leftie" or an "upstart".

If the LAW mandates that I have to do or NOT do something then fine, I will obey the LAW.

If, however, that stipulation is open to my choice, ergo, it is OPTIONAL, then the OPTION is mine and mine to exercise.

There are airlines currently insisting that you provide evidence of COVID negativity before travelling. If you read the small print you will find that this is illegal and in contravention of the EU Charter. It is also in contravention of the Geneva Protocols.

Now, DJ, and your fellow traveller, KM, you will more than likely come back saying that "one must adhere to the norms or we'll all die" as is your wont.

If these norms/advisories/recommendations are so important to saving lives then why are they optional?

You should probably have a read of S.I. No. 296/2020 - Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Face Coverings in Certain Premises and Businesses) Regulations 2020.

Of particular interest to you might be the inclusion of the failure to comply with the requirement to wear a face mask in certain circumstances unless you have reasonable excuse (which are stated in the SI) as a penal provision, contravention of which is expressly stated to be an offence under Section 31A of the Health Act 1947 as amended.

ShatterAlan · 16-12-2020 06:01AM

antfin wrote: »

You should probably have a read of S.I. No. 296/2020 - Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Face Coverings in Certain Premises and Businesses) Regulations 2020.

Of particular interest to you might be the inclusion of the failure to comply with the requirement to wear a face mask in certain circumstances unless you have reasonable excuse (which are stated in the SI) as a penal provision, contravention of which is expressly stated to be an offence under Section 31A of the Health Act 1947 as amended.

Oh, I see. So Legislation is effected under "certain" circumstances, pertinent to "certain" circumstances regarding the wearing or not, thereof, when entering a building, the owner of whom may or may not direct that such measures be adhered to."

GTFO.

Show me a law that states that I must wear a mask. Better still, upon presence of aforementioned LAW, tell me my options.

antfin · 16-12-2020 06:10AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Oh, I see. So Legislation is effected under "certain" circumstances, pertinent to "certain" circumstances regarding the wearing or not, thereof, when entering a building, the owner of whom may or may not direct that such measures be adhered to."

GTFO.

Show me a law that states that I must wear a mask. Better still, upon presence of aforementioned LAW, tell me my options.

Thats not what the legislation says. It specifically provides;

4. (1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain in a relevant premises in a relevant geographical location without wearing a face covering.

The obligation of a person responsible for a premises to inform you of this requirement is entirely seperate but I'm not going to quote the entire piece of legislation for you. It specifically provides that it is an offence to not wear a face covering on the premises listed in the schedule. You asked for an example of a law that requires a face covering to be worn in certain premises. That's an example in Ireland. Ignore it or try to argue it away if you want but it's clearly legislated for and it's an offence to not comply with it.

16-12-2020 08:25AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Now, DJ, and your fellow traveller, KM, you will more than likely come back saying that "one must adhere to the norms or we'll all die" as is your wont.

Again you misrepresent and strawman.
It's very dishonest of you.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If these norms/advisories/recommendations are so important to saving lives then why are they optional?

Why these things are useful in slowing the virus has been explained to you. You don't believe these answers
That's fine. Some people don't believe the world is round.

We aren't going to convince you.

So what's your explanation.
We've yet to hear one.

skooterblue2 · 16-12-2020 08:43AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Or he makes a magic ray gun that irradiates them.

These vaccines are peer reviewed. There are way easier ways to slow population growth. Why look for such a convoluted hypothesis?

You seem to think people with science qualifications are beyond reproach, cannot be intimidated or bribed.

You dont think scientists, Doctors or Engineers could take a few euro and look the other way, could be intimidated or may have economic vested interests? No different to journalists, politicians, bankers or lawyers?

skooterblue2 · 16-12-2020 09:00AM

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Source?

Sorry man, I simply don't believe you.
I also don't see what this has to do with the conspiracy you believe.

Ok. So all GPs in Ireland are in on this conspiracy.
Could you explain what it is a bit more?
Are all GPs part of the plot to depopulate the world?

So there was no Hepatitis C scandal that the HSE covered up and fought Bridget McColl tooth and nail on her death bed? Thousand of women contracted Hepatitis C. IF you find yourself on the ****ty end of the stick from the HSE and find out about their practices then you will.

Any GP who speaks out about it gets sacked. Dr Marcus De Brun recently got sacked. I know another former high ranking doctor who refused to certify three vaccines on safety grounds and was sacked.

runawaybishop · 16-12-2020 09:01AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You seem to think people with science qualifications are beyond reproach, cannot be intimidated or bribed.

You dont think scientists, Doctors or Engineers could take a few euro and look the other way, could be intimidated or may have economic vested interests? No different to journalists, politicians, bankers or lawyers?

Totes possible. Where is there any proof or evidence of this happening and why didn't the 1000s other scientists twig it?

skooterblue2 · 16-12-2020 09:06AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Totes possible. Where is there any proof or evidence of this happening and why didn't the 1000s other scientists twig it?

Well after 8 years of hard studying, up all night, prepping for exams... Suddenly you have the big house, big car, three holidays a year, wife, kids, respectability in the community, bonus and stock options. Why would you do something to endanger that? All those things can be taken away so fast. See the Gardasil Developer.

Lex Luthor · 16-12-2020 09:08AM

antfin wrote: »

You should probably have a read of S.I. No. 296/2020 - Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Face Coverings in Certain Premises and Businesses) Regulations 2020.

Of particular interest to you might be the inclusion of the failure to comply with the requirement to wear a face mask in certain circumstances unless you have reasonable excuse (which are stated in the SI) as a penal provision, contravention of which is expressly stated to be an offence under Section 31A of the Health Act 1947 as amended.

when you take peoples livelihoods away from them and they are barely surviving, they would rather wear a "face covering" than pay a fine

its easy manipulation

The majority of people I have spoken to are wearing them because they are told to or are afraid to be fined as they cant afford it

Its like asking the majority of Celtic fans in Ireland why they support Celtic, the majority of the replies will be "ah sure they're Irish"

Lex Luthor · 16-12-2020 09:08AM

naughtynaughty wrote: »

The talk on this thread (which is on a conspiracy board of all places) really worries me. Most people here and almost everyone I know tells me that they will take the vaccine. Arguments like "oh come on it's just a vaccine" or "it won't be mandatory" are not valid. Here's what's going to happen:

1. RTE & co will shout out "GREAT NEWS, the vaccine is here for Christmas. Please, I know you all really really want it, but let the sick and elderly get it first"
2. Droves of people will come and take it
3. RTE will say "Well, we have about 60% of people who took it. Great, but not enough"
4a. The govt (which are the same entity as both NPHET and RTE) will announce restrictions on people who don't have the vaccine.
4b. "Independent" companies such as ticketmaster and your employer will require the vaccine.
5. The "passport" will come into effect.
6. RTE will make the (possibly even more sedated) droves HATE the people who haven't taken the vaccine. Think hate week in 1984. This has already happened at the start with neighbours ratting on each other. They will use these tactics again and it will become increasingly stigmatised to refuse the shot.
7. It will finally be made mandatory under stricter and stricter punishments.

I will not take an experimental (RNA) vaccine that hasn't been tested for more than a year. I will not give up my bodily integrity to save myself from a disease which only kills 0.05% of people. Your grandma died of Covid? Sorry, I truly am, but if I was 80 and diabetic, I wouldn't want the whole economy stopping for me either. I wouldn't want to take the most beautiful years out of everyone else's lives just so I can go and die without any dignity. I would rather die proud. I will not let them inject me with anything for as long as I will live unless *I* deem it necessary. I would rather be thrown in a cage than to live in such a clown world.

Having said that, I will find a dodgy doctor to fake my vaccination cert so I'll be good.

I am deeply saddened and ashamed by the response of the Irish people to this. The facts are literally in your face on the news and they tell you that something that's really not that bad is the absolute worst thing ever and you just believe them, hook, line and sinker. All countries are bad but I think Ireland is probably the worst one and with the least amount of protests/most amount of compliance/most amount of fear. Just 104 years ago, we had great men who revolted against the most powerful empire on earth. And now what do we do? Just comply.

pretty much sums it up

and if you think politicians will get the same vaccine as the general public, that never happens

But you will have all the cameras there and big claps from everyone just to convince the masses

The Vaccine

Comments