Will You Get Vaccinated for Coronavirus (COVID-19)? Can It Make Tinnitus or Hyperacusis Worse?

[Ed209]

Apologies for the late reply. I've been having a very similar conversation via email with an old friend of mine and it's been a little too intense to have it in parallel here. Broadly speaking, I think you and I are on the same page (can't say the same about my old mate and me). Not everything is a conspiracy theory and when the unfolding of key events don't match one's experience it may become necessary to ask questions, regardless of the resistance and ridicule.

I had a real problem with the COVID-19 narrative very early on, around 20th January this year when The Guardian newspaper (among others) began publishing images of masked dead people lying prostrate on the streets of Wuhan. Shortly thereafter, our own infamous Professor, Neal "Shagger" Ferguson released his apocalyptic figures for the number of deaths we could expect here in the UK. And the rest is history.

Appalled by the media reporting I started to look for independent, non-edited voices who I felt were qualified to counter the narrative that very quickly ramped up to what I can only describe as a 24/7 propaganda drive. The people I looked for were virologists, epidemiologists, consultant pathologists, academics (in various fields), award-winning journalists, lawyers and barristers; you know, the type of "shit for brains" that hang out on social media. One subject that came up time and again was PCR, and more particularly it's use, some were saying, "misuse" as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19.

As you know, PCR has been at the heart of identifying "cases" of the disease against which practically the entire world is now being asked to vaccinate (Bill Gates sure has had a busy year). Although PCR can be a highly valuable tool, we've seen eyebrows raised for months now about the cycle threshold (Ct) being employed when it is used to generate COVID-19 "cases", which are to my understanding different from a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. There have been enough experts; Yeadon, Heneghan, even Fauci (if he is an expert) to have stated that anything above circa Ct 25 is practically useless as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19. Nevertheless, our own government documents in the UK state that a "typical" test for SARS-CoV-2 will cycle a maximum of 40 times. The fact that labs are not required to routinely report back on these figures and that there is also a lack of standardisation raises serious questions, especially when one factors in the testing of asymptomatic people and all that can potentially do to "case" figures.

In my opinion this is a scandal. At one end of the narrative we see people dropping dead like flies on the streets of Wuhan, and at the other end nine months later we are told to inject a vaccine. The test driving the metrics upon which the entire thing hangs together is, predominantly PCR. I've been as concerned about the anomalies surrounding this as you have, and incidentally, the question for me has never been one of pro-vax vs. anti-vax. It's a question of this vaccine for COVID-19, a novel disease that brings with it a serious number of points that need addressing at the government and judicial level.

I've never been one for groupthink. If I'm a conspiracy theorist for having enough of a concern that I've ended up digging around online for further information then so be it. I'll happily join the growing line of conspiracy theorists like Dr. Reiner Fuellmich who has now served legal, cease and desist, papers on Germany's "Mr. PCR", Professor Christian Drosten over his misuse of the PCR test. I understand that a bunch of solicitors and barristers here in the UK are preparing similar.

The issue is not going to go away, but hopefully 2021 will shed a little more light on it.

Until then, as I stated before, I won't get this vaccine.

Your post is well thought out and written, and I agree we should question everything, even if it goes against the herd. There is nothing wrong with going against the common opinion, history has proven this many times over. I have also spoken out about the censorship I have witnessed as it's something I'm strongly opposed to. All opinions should be in the public domain, but unfortunately, some of the channels that people are using, such as Facebook and YouTube, are private entities and they can moderate them as they wish.

When it comes to the PCR test, however, it has always been known since day one that it's not 100% accurate. I think this infographic describes the process well.

A high Ct indicates a low concentration of viral genetic material, so if one has a low viral load, more cycles may be required to detect the RNA. The binary nature of the results is misleading to the general public because most will assume that positive means positive and negative means negative and that's that. The grey area in the results is well understood by the scientific community and would be accounted for when analysing masses of data.

Usually, if you're positive, the chance that the test is wrong is very small (around 2%). This assumes that the lab technician did not cross-contaminate the samples whilst obtaining the results. The rate of false negatives is much higher, which means there are more who actually have the virus who are slipping through the net. This is a bigger problem as they could potentially infect others, especially if they were presymptomatic when the test was done.

By the time people get to the hospital, they will be clinically diagnosed based upon their symptoms, and other test results, such as chest X-rays and/or scans.

Associate Medical Director at MIT, Shawn Ferullo, had this to say:

For one thing, Ct values are not absolute. Different machines can produce different Ct values for the same sample, and the same machine can give different Ct values for different samples from the same person. "While it may be useful to know if an individual's Ct value is on the high or low end of the scale," Ferullo says, "based on our current knowledge, it would not change quarantine or self-isolation recommendations."

At this point, Ct value is not included in the test results MIT Medical receives, and we have no way of obtaining that information. "While we can't know the Ct value associated with your test or any other," Ferullo says, "we can be pretty sure that your test result is a true positive. But it may be a subclinical case, meaning that your viral load is so low that you are not infectious and cannot spread the virus to other people, including those in your immediate household — which is a good thing!"

At the same time, Ferullo understands the frustration at being asked to put your life, and the lives of your family members, on hold. "Unfortunately, retesting is not an option," he explains. "The Massachusetts Department of Public Health will not accept subsequent negatives to clear a previous positive test. The rules are very clear that people should not be retested once they have a positive result."

Given our community's experience with Covid Passtesting so far, Ferullo doesn't believe subclinical positives are prevalent. "In proof of this, as of the end of October, we have done more than 156,000 tests on asymptomatic individuals through COVID Pass and have had fewer than 90 positives," he notes. "If this was a pervasive problem, I'd expect to see many more than that."

There isn't a more accurate test right now, so it is what it is. I stop paying attention when people include falsehoods, such as the those who proclaim that the inventor said it wouldn't work for COVID-19, etc.

 

[Michael Leigh]

The issue is not going to go away, but hopefully 2021 will shed a little more light on it.

Until then, as I stated before, I won't get this vaccine.

I am apprehensive about the vaccine but will probably have it when offered. Apparently, it will take at least 2 years to vaccinate 80% of the UK population. It seems the wearing of face coverings, social distancing etc will be with us for some time.

 

[PeteJ]

Apologies for the late reply. I've been having a very similar conversation via email with an old friend of mine and it's been a little too intense to have it in parallel here. Broadly speaking, I think you and I are on the same page (can't say the same about my old mate and me). Not everything is a conspiracy theory and when the unfolding of key events don't match one's experience it may become necessary to ask questions, regardless of the resistance and ridicule.

I had a real problem with the COVID-19 narrative very early on, around 20th January this year when The Guardian newspaper (among others) began publishing images of masked dead people lying prostrate on the streets of Wuhan. Shortly thereafter, our own infamous Professor, Neal "Shagger" Ferguson released his apocalyptic figures for the number of deaths we could expect here in the UK. And the rest is history.

Appalled by the media reporting I started to look for independent, non-edited voices who I felt were qualified to counter the narrative that very quickly ramped up to what I can only describe as a 24/7 propaganda drive. The people I looked for were virologists, epidemiologists, consultant pathologists, academics (in various fields), award-winning journalists, lawyers and barristers; you know, the type of "shit for brains" that hang out on social media. One subject that came up time and again was PCR, and more particularly it's use, some were saying, "misuse" as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19.

As you know, PCR has been at the heart of identifying "cases" of the disease against which practically the entire world is now being asked to vaccinate (Bill Gates sure has had a busy year). Although PCR can be a highly valuable tool, we've seen eyebrows raised for months now about the cycle threshold (Ct) being employed when it is used to generate COVID-19 "cases", which are to my understanding different from a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. There have been enough experts; Yeadon, Heneghan, even Fauci (if he is an expert) to have stated that anything above circa Ct 25 is practically useless as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19. Nevertheless, our own government documents in the UK state that a "typical" test for SARS-CoV-2 will cycle a maximum of 40 times. The fact that labs are not required to routinely report back on these figures and that there is also a lack of standardisation raises serious questions, especially when one factors in the testing of asymptomatic people and all that can potentially do to "case" figures.

In my opinion this is a scandal. At one end of the narrative we see people dropping dead like flies on the streets of Wuhan, and at the other end nine months later we are told to inject a vaccine. The test driving the metrics upon which the entire thing hangs together is, predominantly PCR. I've been as concerned about the anomalies surrounding this as you have, and incidentally, the question for me has never been one of pro-vax vs. anti-vax. It's a question of this vaccine for COVID-19, a novel disease that brings with it a serious number of points that need addressing at the government and judicial level.

I've never been one for groupthink. If I'm a conspiracy theorist for having enough of a concern that I've ended up digging around online for further information then so be it. I'll happily join the growing line of conspiracy theorists like Dr. Reiner Fuellmich who has now served legal, cease and desist, papers on Germany's "Mr. PCR", Professor Christian Drosten over his misuse of the PCR test. I understand that a bunch of solicitors and barristers here in the UK are preparing similar.

The issue is not going to go away, but hopefully 2021 will shed a little more light on it.

Until then, as I stated before, I won't get this vaccine.

Hello. I don't think we are on the same page. If you were, you wouldn't consider getting the vaccine and you would think all this alarmist stuff is nonsense.

The PCR test is useless and not accurate for diagnosis. Even the inventor made it clear. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

Provinces in my country apparently had tons of tests and hundreds of cases on Xmas Eve. Totally ridiculous and not believable. Lots of people are mocking this nonsense. A Pepsi and kiwi fruit tested positive for COVID-19. Lol.

The rapid test isn't much better.

People are being conned.

 

[UKBloke]

Hello. I don't think we are on the same page. If you were, you wouldn't consider getting the vaccine and you would think all this alarmist stuff is nonsense.

The PCR test is useless and not accurate for diagnosis. Even the inventor made it clear. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

Provinces in my country apparently had tons of tests and hundreds of cases on Xmas Eve. Totally ridiculous and not believable. Lots of people are mocking this nonsense. A Pepsi and kiwi fruit tested positive for COVID-19. Lol.

The rapid test isn't much better.

People are being conned.

OK, well I can see how the last sentence of my post might be construed as implying that I'll wait until there's more info before taking the vaccine. So for clarity, let me just say that I won't be taking this vaccine. Regarding the alarmist stuff, like I mentioned, I've had major problems with the narrative since 20th January. As for the rest, we can be on separate pages, no harm done.

 

[Ed209]

The PCR test is useless and not accurate for diagnosis. Even the inventor made it clear. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

The inventor died in August 2019, and he never said that. You really need to fact-check the nonsense you're reading online as I've already gone over this claim before. Anyone who spreads and repeats this lie is a gullible fool.

PCR was indeed invented by a man called Kary B. Mullis, who died in August 2019 long before Covid-19 began to spread in December 2019.

He didn't say PCR testing couldn't be used for testing for any diseases, as some social media posts claim. The confusion seems to have arisen from quotes of his in a 1996 article about HIV and AIDS. In this, neither the author of the article, nor Dr Mullis said PCR testing does not work or only identifies the DNA or RNA of the person being tested.

The inventor of PCR never said it wasn't designed to detect infectious diseases

Lots of people are mocking this nonsense. A Pepsi and kiwi fruit tested positive for COVID-19. Lol.

I've also seen these claims all over Facebook. Where is the proof, and what were the conditions like when the testing took place, if true?

The PCR test does not indicate whether one has a live virus or not, only a viral culture can do that. In other words, it cannot establish if one is currently infectious or not. What it does is detect the presence of the viruses RNA which could be from an old infection. This would indicate that the person testing positive had the virus at some point. Whether they were still contagious or not would be unknown. If a kiwi fruit tested positive, then it would indicate that viral particles were detected on it, or it could mean that some cross-contamination took place in the lab. The claim itself is utterly meaningless without more information. It's just another social media click bate headline designed to work people up into a frenzy, and it clearly worked.

The viral particles could be picked up from anywhere. Imagine all the places an infectious person could cough or sneeze.

I recommend reading this:

Asymptomatic transmission of covid-19

 

[ajc]

It's scary that 25% in the poll say they are not going to get vaccinated.

Governments should force vaccinate everyone.

 

[Pulsing Ear]

It's scary that 25% in the poll say they are not going to get vaccinated.

Governments should force vaccinate everyone.

That happened with smallpox, but it was much more deadly. I don't think the US will ever go back to doing that.

"Historian Michael Willrich was planning to write a book about civil liberties in the aftermath of Sept. 11 when he stumbled across an article from The New York Times archives. It was about a 1901 smallpox vaccination raid in New York — when 250 men arrived at a Little Italy tenement house in the middle of the night and set about vaccinating everyone they could find.

"There were scenes of policemen holding down men in their night robes while vaccinators began their work on their arms," Willrich tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "Inspectors were going room to room looking for children with smallpox. And when they found them, they were literally tearing babes from their mothers' arms to take them to the city pesthouse [which housed smallpox victims.]"

The vaccination raid was not an isolated incident. As the smallpox epidemic swept across the country, New York and Boston policemen conducted several raids and health officials across the country ordered mandatory vaccinations in schools, factories and on railroads. In Pox: An American History, Willrich details how the smallpox epidemic of 1898-1904 had far-reaching implications for public health officials — as well as Americans concerned about their own civil liberties."

How The 'Pox' Epidemic Changed Vaccination Rules: NPR​

If it did happen, there would be a widespread revolt by the people. Heck, these days people riot all the time.

 

[Ed209]

Clearly, facts and the truth don't matter here.

 

[Lucifer]

It's scary that 25% in the poll say they are not going to get vaccinated.

Governments should force vaccinate everyone.

I don't think it should be mandatory but recommended. I have no problem if countries make the vaccine mandatory for international visitors as this will keep their citizens safe. If you don't want the vaccine then don't travel internationally.

 

[UKBloke]

Clearly, facts and the truth don't matter here.

For who?

 

[Ed209]

I don't think it should be mandatory but recommended. I have no problem if countries make the vaccine mandatory for international visitors as this will keep their citizens safe. If you don't want the vaccine then don't travel internationally.

It should never be mandatory, I agree. Enforcing people to put a substance into their bodies against their will is morally wrong.

 

[Ed209]

For who?

Isn't it obvious?

 

[UKBloke]

Isn't it obvious?

No it isn't. So I'll ask you again, for whom or at what is your open statement, "clearly, facts and the truth don't matter here," aimed at?

 

[UKBloke]

That happened with smallpox, but it was much more deadly.

That's the important point with smallpox and why it shouldn't be conflated with COVID-19 vaccine debate. Smallpox had been around for a very long time. The symptoms were very clear and well recognised, and it was fatal for around 30% of those infected.

 

[Pulsing Ear]

Now people are fighting about how to distribute the vaccine. Cuomo is going to vaccinate the drug addicts before he does people in rest homes. I thought he would have learned from his big mistake with rest homes last time, when he put people infected with COVID-19 into the rest homes. Thousands died because of that. Now he is going to wait, and not vaccinate them ASAP.

Drug addicts in almost all cases are younger people and not at such a risk of dying as older folks.

 

[Ed209]

No it isn't. So I'll ask you again, for whom or at what is your open statement, "clearly, facts and the truth don't matter here," aimed at?

Where do I begin?

The vaccine will change people's DNA and it's been shown to have many side effects.

It's sad that many people will be passive guinea pigs. I am criticizing people for blindly accepting what's going on but it's because I am mad about what our governments and complicit health professionals are doing to us. The magnitude of the collusion is unbelievable and so shocking. It's surreal.

Firstly, the vaccine doesn't change people's DNA, so this is misinformation. For the next point: where is the evidence that the entire world is colluding, and what would be the purpose? For all intents and purposes, it would be impossible to get the world's population to conspire together at this level. This is an outlandish conspiracy theory that we should be well beyond on this forum, in my opinion.

How come cases keep skyrocketing (supposedly) when we are doing lockdowns, wearing masks, practising social distancing? How come all of those aren't helping? Why are some sources reporting we will need to wear masks still after the vaccine? What for?

Why is everyone ignoring the false positive problems? How come no one seems to care that the inventor of the PCR test hated Fauci and criticized the test as a diagnostic tool? How come you and other "COVID-19 believers" refuse to address these questions? I am not answering yours until you answer these. You are just deflecting.

On the first point, it's already been made clear that they are unsure if the mRNA vaccines will stop the spread of the virus. The common consensus seems to be that it will protect the person who has had the vaccine, but it may not stop that person from spreading it. This is why they recommend the continued use of masks.

The false positive thing I've already gone over. What Pete is claiming is a clear misrepresentation of the facts in order to make it appear that fewer people have the virus. In reality, only around 2% will have a false positive, but up to 29% can have a false negative, which is a problem, as it means more people have the virus without knowing it meaning they could potentially go out and spread it around. The PCR test is far from perfect, but it's the best we have. The inventor never criticised the test, this is more false information that is commonly shared on social media sites.

COVID-19 has been proven to be a hoax and the collusion isn't just from the MSM, health officials and governments but also social media mods censoring anything questioning the official narrative.

Where has it been proven to be a hoax?

I asked you SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I PRESENTED SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS and you simply ignored Everything.

Everything was answered.

Hashtag Film Your Hospital debunked this overrun lie. Nothing has changed. Again, the PCR test often has false positives and most people 'dying from COVID-19" are the elderly over 70 y.o. and already have other serious medical issues.

A repeat of the PCR test claim stating that it often has false positives. This is misinformation that people have been brainwashed to believe.

if COVID-19 isn't very deadly why is it considered a pandemic? How is a 99% survival rate being called a pandemic?

A pandemic has nothing to do with mortality rates. It is the spread of a new infectious disease on a global scale, and that is all.

If you research and have an open mind, you should ultimately conclude that the vaccines are likely harmful and Michael Leigh's speculation regarding a conspiracy theory is pretty accurate.

Again, where is the evidence for this? No sources were cited and it appears to be completely speculative and driven by a predisposed bias. Where was the research done? If the information is valid, I'm sure everyone would like to see it. I am neutral, so my opinions will be shaped by trusted empirical evidence.

I'm sorry to go into this much detail, but you did ask. I just get the feeling that a lot of people may be misled by these repeated false claims, and that is why I respond to them. There's enough of this on Facebook and Twitter without bringing it on here as well.

Everyone has the freedom to make their own opinions, that's not a problem at all, but when misinformation is presented as fact then I think it needs to be rebutted.

 

[T-talker]

I'm surprised on this site people think it's a given that we can even take the vaccine.

Here in Canada they can't make any guarantees that our flu vaccine won't affect my tinnitus.

With the COVID-19 vaccine, I'm not taking a full dose until I know how it affects tinnitus. Once I know that, obviously I'll be happy to. That's why I doubt I''ll take it in 2021. Most likely the year after, when more data is out.

 

[UKBloke]

Where do I begin?

Firstly, the vaccine doesn't change people's DNA, so this is misinformation. For the next point: where is the evidence that the entire world is colluding, and what would be the purpose? For all intents and purposes, it would be impossible to get the world's population to conspire together at this level. This is an outlandish conspiracy theory that we should be well beyond on this forum, in my opinion.

On the first point, it's already been made clear that they are unsure if the mRNA vaccines will stop the spread of the virus. The common consensus seems to be that it will protect the person who has had the vaccine, but it may not stop that person from spreading it. This is why they recommend the continued use of masks.

The false positive thing I've already gone over. What Pete is claiming is a clear misrepresentation of the facts in order to make it appear that fewer people have the virus. In reality, only around 2% will have a false positive, but up to 29% can have a false negative, which is a problem, as it means more people have the virus without knowing it meaning they could potentially go out and spread it around. The PCR test is far from perfect, but it's the best we have. The inventor never criticised the test, this is more false information that is commonly shared on social media sites.

Where has it been proven to be a hoax?

Everything was answered.

A repeat of the PCR test claim stating that it often has false positives. This is misinformation that people have been brainwashed to believe.

A pandemic has nothing to do with mortality rates. It is the spread of a new infectious disease on a global scale, and that is all.

Again, where is the evidence for this? No sources were cited and it appears to be completely speculative and driven by a predisposed bias. Where was the research done? If the information is valid, I'm sure everyone would like to see it. I am neutral, so my opinions will be shaped by trusted empirical evidence.

I'm sorry to go into this much detail, but you did ask. I just get the feeling that a lot of people may be misled by these repeated false claims, and that is why I respond to them. There's enough of this on Facebook and Twitter without bringing it on here as well.

Everyone has the freedom to make their own opinions, that's not a problem at all, but when misinformation is presented as fact then I think it needs to be rebutted.

I'm glad you did go into detail so no need to apologise. I think it's right, especially in light of what 2020 brought the world, that people do try and unpick certain narratives especially where they involve injecting medicine. Obviously these days, the Internet is a primary research tool for many but it does come at a price, and truth is often the first victim. What I would say, however, is that where certain major world changing events are concerned, it can cut both ways. For example, the aggregation of facts into a truth such as that which could drive a war is something we've seen in our own lifetime. Remember how the press behaved over Iraq's WMDs (or lack thereof)?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - without denying there is such a thing as SARS-CoV-2 I'm deeply uncomfortable with the entire COVID-19 narrative. And frankly it's not really even about sleuthing around trying to find out who the major perps are. In fact this point was put to Reiner Fuellmich in a fascinating interview he gave just a couple of days ago, which of course we're unlikely to see on the front page of The Guardian. His response was very candid - we 're not even concerned with any perps behind the scenes when we already have major players in plain site who we know are lying.

I know you and I disagree on aspects of PCR but I think we both accept the key role it's played this year. I was going to end by saying that the deliberations of the Fuellmich PCR lawsuits will be interesting to watch in as much as it will be the first time that a court has considered these points. However that's not true. This year, a court in Portugal has already heard a COVID-19 related case against PCR and found in favour of the plaintiffs. It's a rhetorical question but, why wasn't this all over the "news"?

 

[Ed209]

I'm glad you did go into detail so no need to apologise. I think it's right, especially in light of what 2020 brought the world, that people do try and unpick certain narratives especially where they involve injecting medicine. Obviously these days, the Internet is a primary research tool for many but it does come at a price, and truth is often the first victim. What I would say, however, is that where certain major world changing events are concerned, it can cut both ways. For example, the aggregation of facts into a truth such as that which could drive a war is something we've seen in our own lifetime. Remember how the press behaved over Iraq's WMDs (or lack thereof)?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - without denying there is such a thing as SARS-CoV-2 I'm deeply uncomfortable with the entire COVID-19 narrative. And frankly it's not really even about sleuthing around trying to find out who the major perps are. In fact this point was put to Reiner Fuellmich in a fascinating interview he gave just a couple of days ago, which of course we're unlikely to see on the front page of The Guardian. His response was very candid - we 're not even concerned with any perps behind the scenes when we already have major players in plain site who we know are lying.

I know you and I disagree on aspects of PCR but I think we both accept the key role it's played this year. I was going to end by saying that the deliberations of the Fuellmich PCR lawsuits will be interesting to watch in as much as it will be the first time that a court has considered these points. However that's not true. This year, a court in Portugal has already heard a COVID-19 related case against PCR and found in favour of the plaintiffs. It's a rhetorical question but, why wasn't this all over the "news"?

You're absolutely right that we should air our opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just making a point that Pete, in particular, is presenting false information - that he's read on social media - as fact, and this isn't right. I have said all along that the press is irrelevant to me. I do not base my opinions on what the press has to say. For research, I go straight to scientific journals and I talk to my friends who are in the field.

You have every right to be uncomfortable with the narrative. That's fine.

Dr Fuellmich is just being contentious. Everybody knows that the PCR test does not look for a live infection, it detects the RNA. His main argument seems to be based around that. Well, what else are we supposed to do? He is also a trial lawyer and not a scientist in this field. There are no tests that can detect a live infection other than a very time consuming viral culture. The lateral flow tests are useless.

 

[Ed209]

I'd also add here that the vaccine is not mandatory for health workers in the UK. Everyone has a free choice.

 

[Nick M]

What if the vaccine has a positive effect on tinnitus? Has anyone received it and can report on it?

 

[UKBloke]

Dr Fuellmich is just being contentious.

And thank god for that.

Well, what else are we supposed to do?

Stop mass testing asymptomatic people.

 

[BobDigi]

I will get it immediately to protect my family members who could very well die if they were infected.

I wonder... If the vaccine provides 90% protection, if you are unlucky and still contract the disease, will you get a less serious version of it than you would without the vaccination?

if the vaccine doesn't work on somebody, then logic would suggest it has no effect, therefore wouldn't help at all if the person contracted the virus!

But I have no clue what I'm talking about!

 

[Ed209]

Stop mass testing asymptomatic people.

We don't do that in this country. You're only supposed to get tested if you have symptoms and we weren't very good at doing that in the early days. When my wife and I had it we couldn't get a test even though we wanted one. Without testing, there's no way of limiting it's spread. So, again, I don't understand the argument. What is better than the PCR test?

Do you believe we should let it spread without attempting to limit it?

And thank god for that

I don't agree with the constant lockdowns, as I've said before, but I can understand why. People are dying out there and the authorities are trying to limit this, but by locking down for long periods, they are causing untold damage to others. It's a lose-lose situation.

I personally think that Dr Fuellmich's point-of-view is fundamentally flawed. It is economically motivated, which is fair enough, but using the PCR test as the basis for his argument is misguided.

It comes back to what I said at the start: what is the alternative? Let people die without even attempting to save lives by tracking the infections, or continue testing using the not-perfect PCR test, and accept that around 2% will be a false positive?

I believe if they continued using the PCR test, but no longer locked the country down, you'd see his case magically disappear. It is motivated by money and not science, in my opinion.

 

[Jack V]

As I said in my previous post: I am not a conspiracy theorist, just voicing my opinion and you have done the same, of which you have no proof. Unless you're one of these people that believe everything the media spoon feeds us, or read on so called official websites - not dissimilar to the the rubbish purported by tinnitus researchers, who have no long term experience with the condition and believe it's all about science.

I wish you well.
Michael

I'm one of those people who believes in fact-based reality, as much as I - with all my limitations as a human being - can discern it.

Which is why I appreciate Ed209's thoughtful posts in this thread.

 

[UKBloke]

We don't do that in this country. You're only supposed to get tested if you have symptoms

According to our own government's statistics more than 13.6 million people have tested at least once since Track and Trace began. Figures a little reticent where a person testing twice is concerned. Don't forget Liverpool: army on the streets, mass testing of the citizenry. Was lateral flow employed there or PCR, or both? The, fog of war, kind of reporting in the mainstream has been difficult to follow.

We have a neighbour who is self-employed and lost all ongoing work in 2020 because of coronavirus restrictions. In order to make ends meet, that person has ended up working as a COVID-19 tester at various sites in and around Essex. We've had regular updates of what a typical day at the test center looks like: hundreds of asymptomatic people rocking up in their cars (many of them elderly and shit-scared) to, "get a free test".

I know "you're only supposed to get tested if you have symptoms". But what one is supposed to do and what the reality is, are often two completely different things.

I personally think that Dr Fuellmich's point-of-view is fundamentally flawed. It is economically motivated, which is fair enough, but using the PCR test as the basis for his argument is misguided.

Everything is about money. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an international network of lawyers working off of the advice of experts in their field who have stated that PCR has been misused to drive a pandemic with all of the ramifications that implies. Misguided or not, Fuellmich's trial is going to go ahead, as will legal cases in the UK.

Regarding the economics of PCR Kevin McKernan, is on the record talking about how PCR and generating positive results is a great money spinner for the labs. My opinion is diametrically opposed to yours: care for and test those with symptoms just like any civilised, calm and collected society should. Introduce an immediate moratorium on the testing of asymptomatic people.

 

[Jack V]

According to our own government's statistics more than 13.6 million people have tested at least once since Track and Trace began. Figures a little reticent where a person testing twice is concerned. Don't forget Liverpool: army on the streets, mass testing of the citizenry. Was lateral flow employed there or PCR, or both? The, fog of war, kind of reporting in the mainstream has been difficult to follow.

We have a neighbour who is self-employed and lost all ongoing work in 2020 because of coronavirus restrictions. In order to make ends meet, that person has ended up working as a COVID-19 tester at various sites in and around Essex. We've had regular updates of what a typical day at the test center looks like: hundreds of asymptomatic people rocking up in their cars (many of them elderly and shit-scared) to, "get a free test".

I know "you're only supposed to get tested if you have symptoms". But what one is supposed to do and what the reality is, are often two completely different things.

Everything is about money. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an international network of lawyers working off of the advice of experts in their field who have stated that PCR has been misused to drive a pandemic with all of the ramifications that implies. Misguided or not, Fuellmich's trial is going to go ahead, as will legal cases in the UK.

Regarding the economics of PCR Kevin McKernan, is on the record talking about how PCR and generating positive results is a great money spinner for the labs. My opinion is diametrically opposed to yours: care for and test those with symptoms just like any civilised, calm and collected society should. Introduce an immediate moratorium on the testing of asymptomatic people.

With asymptomatic COVID-19-positive people a significant vector for disease spread, I'm not sure I agree that a "civilized, calm, and collected society" ought to ignore them.

 

[twa]

Adverse events from vaccines appear 2 months after injection at the latest. By the time we'll be able to get vaccinated, we'll know if these side effects are rampant (spoiler: data made available so far is not showing this).

I don't think people who are concerned with side effects are concerned with short term side effects as much as potential long term unknown side effects, months to years down the road.

 

[Jack V]

I'm surprised on this site people think it's a given that we can even take the vaccine.

Here in Canada they can't make any guarantees that our flu vaccine won't affect my tinnitus.

With the COVID-19 vaccine, I'm not taking a full dose until I know how it affects tinnitus. Once I know that, obviously I'll be happy to. That's why I doubt I''ll take it in 2021. Most likely the year after, when more data is out.

I agree that's a concern.

However, my own feeling is that the risk of COVID-19 worsening my tinnitus is greater than the risk from the vaccine, so I'm eager to get the vaccine as soon as I can.

 

[Ed209]

According to our own government's statistics more than 13.6 million people have tested at least once since Track and Trace began. Figures a little reticent where a person testing twice is concerned. Don't forget Liverpool: army on the streets, mass testing of the citizenry. Was lateral flow employed there or PCR, or both? The, fog of war, kind of reporting in the mainstream has been difficult to follow.

The government messed up big time. They should have been mass testing from day one, or at least from when my wife and I had it in early March. At the time, it was treated as a big joke. When my wife went to her GP with breathing and sinus problems the Dr said, "you haven't been to China have you," whilst laughing. My wife said, "no, but the school had a skiing trip to Italy." To my wife's astonishment, the Dr said, "that doesn't matter, we're only testing people who have been to China." There was no concern about community spread, whatsoever. She was given antibiotics and that was it. Her symptoms became worse and she struggled to breathe every night. At one point, I was close to calling an ambulance. A week later, I came down with the same illness and was coughing constantly.

Not long after that, my mom came down with it and because she was hospitalised, she was tested (she was the only one out of all of us because, at that point-in-time, they couldn't care less). My mom was positive, which meant that the mystery illness my wife and I both had was almost certainly COVID-19. Many at the school she worked at were ill from the skiing trip, so it was quite clear how it had spread. Not long after this, cases exploded, and only then did the government start taking it seriously. The following month the ONS showed that all deaths in the country had doubled. Doubled! This was statistically huge. They went from an average of 20,000 to over 40,000. The lack of testing led to many unnecessary deaths.

Since then, we've been tested twice. They always use the PCR test. The lateral flow test has only been used for health workers in this country, but its inaccuracy makes it a waste of time, in my opinion. You cannot blame the PCR test if people are not following the rules, that's ridiculous logic. Again, what's the alternative? Stop testing altogether? How will that help matters?

Before you have the test you have to complete a questionnaire which clearly states that you should not have it unless you have symptoms. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about people abusing it. That's on the general public and nobody else.

We have a neighbour who is self-employed and lost all ongoing work in 2020 because of coronavirus restrictions.

Snap. I'm self-employed and this year I lost a significant amount of my income. Barely enough to live on.

Everything is about money. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an international network of lawyers working off of the advice of experts in their field who have stated that PCR has been misused to drive a pandemic with all of the ramifications that implies. Misguided or not, Fuellmich's trial is going to go ahead, as will legal cases in the UK.

That's true. Money is one of the key driving forces of the world. However, how has the PCR test been misused to drive the pandemic? In this country, it has been underused. They will lose.

My opinion is diametrically opposed to yours: care for and test those with symptoms just like any civilised, calm and collected society should. Introduce an immediate moratorium on the testing of asymptomatic people.

But that's what we're doing now: testing those with symptoms. I don't think you've thought this through properly. How do you stop asymptomatic people from getting tested when people can just lie? Your argument makes no sense. You can only test those who turn up at the testing stations and presume they're being honest.

If you decide to stop testing altogether then the situation would get worse and could easily snowball to catastrophic levels. Testing is the first line of defence, and the PCR test is the best we currently have. Those are the facts.