John Campbell on Vitamin D

[Deleted member 21371]

The trial report was anything but clear... unless you read it very closely indeed.

Possibly it's just those that cry foul didn't understand how these things work?
Until it's a "great reveal" on the internet for them, then they believe their own lack of understanding is a massive conspiracy theory?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Reducing infection was never trialled

This isn’t true (if by ‘trialled’ we are to understand you to mean ‘researched’). There are research papers and studies that investigated whether (and by how much) transmission was reduced - and how this has changed as different variants emerged.

and the banning of the AZ due to myocarditis and deaths is fairly well publicised...

As was the resumption of use of AZ once potential safety concerns had been properly investigated.

I believe I sent links before when similar claims were made previously? Though I can’t recall whether that may have been in one of our PM exchanges, or on a thread with other members.

Additionally describing something as an ‘experimental mRNA
product’ seems a deliberate attempt to cause concerns over the safety of the vaccines. Vaccines which have undergone the same multiple phases of safety and effectiveness trials as any other medication (albeit at a telescoped timeline because the need was pressing and funding was made available).

It’s just not a helpful use of language in my opinion. More likely to cause worry, upset and doubt, than to help people or bring clarity.

Unless one believes there is some sort of conspiracy to distribute these vaccines for undeclared purposes - but then we are back to concerns members raise about their views (which they are of course perfectly entitled to hold) being labelled as antivax conspiracy theories.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

There are research papers and studies that investigated whether (and by how much) transmission was reduced - and how this has changed as different variants emerged.

Some links here (and further down the thread)

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/in-new-documentary-uk-cardiologist-calls-for-halt-to-vaccines.102449/page-2#post-1207955

Anyway… back to diabetes…

 

[Amity Island]

Someone who decided against the vaccine then?

I get the impression @Amity Island that for you the term ‘anti vax’ has taken on other layers of meaning and stigma? Which seems to cause you quite a lot of frustration.

But at its root, surely it just means someone who was hesitant or uncertain enough about taking the recommended vaccine to decide against getting their dose, and subsequent boosters? A number of vaccines were developed and offered in the UK, that had good evidence to show they reduced risks associated with catching sars-cov2, developing Covid-19, and then either having a severe case, or potentially giving it to others who might. But some people decided against that vaccine. They were not pro-vaccine, if you like. People read things that made them worry about the vaccine and they decided against (anti) getting the vaccine (vax).

In order for a vaccination programme to be effective, it’s important that there is a significant take-up - in recent years cases of measles in the US have sky rocketed because fewer children had been vaccinated after (now discredited) stories of risk. And more cases of measles among unprotected children mean that the disease spreads, because it’s so highly contagious. And eventually lands on some poor kid who has a really bad case, with potentially life-changing, or tragically life-ending consequences.

Mike,

Natural infection was all that was available for us all for over a year.

Natural infection "the level and length of protection against reinfection, symptoms and severe illness is at least on a par with that provided by two doses of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna."

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/study-past-covid-infection-as-good-as-vaccines-in-preventing-severe-illness.104835/

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Natural infection "the level and length of protection against reinfection, symptoms and severe illness is at least on a par with that provided by two doses of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna."

I don't think anyone doubted that infection might also produce good protection (in the surviving population). The questions involved how variable that protection might be. While there were some studies suggesting the protection was really good, there were others showing that it could vary a lot (and there were some suggestions that children might not produce detectable antibodies at all).

Once vaccines came out, of course some of those vaccinated were those who had recovered from infection, and they turned out to get really good protection from the combination. (There's since been researching showing that people who get vaccinated and (later) recover from an infection got similarly good protection.)

As a policy decision, I don't think it was crazy to more or less ignore prior infections (once the vaccines had become generally available), though I can see how policy makers might reasonably make different choices.

 

[Amity Island]

I don't think anyone doubted that infection might also produce good protection (in the surviving population). The questions involved how variable that protection might be. While there were some studies suggesting the protection was really good, there were others showing that it could vary a lot (and there were some suggestions that children might not produce detectable antibodies at all).

Once vaccines came out, of course some of those vaccinated were those who had recovered from infection, and they turned out to get really good protection from the combination. (There's since been researching showing that people who get vaccinated and (later) recover from an infection got similarly good protection.)

As a policy decision, I don't think it was crazy to more or less ignore prior infections (once the vaccines had become generally available), though I can see how policy makers might reasonably make different choices.

The question, is quite a simple one.

Should someone under go a medical procedure or treatment for something they have already fully recovered from?

And; should they then be ridiculed, slandered, abused, sent to Coventry, bullied, threatened, persuaded, coerced to undergo a medical procedure for something they have already fully recovered from?

And; should they be abused, ridiculed, bullied, attacked for not undergoing that procedure?

Does this make that person who has no need to undertake a medical procedure for something they have fully recovered from in any way an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist?

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I don't think anyone doubted that infection might also produce good protection (in the surviving population). The questions involved how variable that protection might be. While there were some studies suggesting the protection was really good, there were others showing that it could vary a lot (and there were some suggestions that children might not produce detectable antibodies at all).

Once vaccines came out, of course some of those vaccinated were those who had recovered from infection, and they turned out to get really good protection from the combination. (There's since been researching showing that people who get vaccinated and (later) recover from an infection got similarly good protection.)

As a policy decision, I don't think it was crazy to more or less ignore prior infections (once the vaccines had become generally available), though I can see how policy makers might reasonably make different choices.

I can't see any problem with the anti vaxxers, so long as they agreed to the Singapore system of treatment. Free choice, and responsibility that went hand in hand.

 

[Amity Island]

I can't see any problem with the anti vaxxers, so long as they agreed to the Singapore system of treatment. Free choice, and responsibility that went hand in hand.

Travellor,

Anti-vaxxers? Are you suggesting someone should undertake a medical procedure or treatment for something they have already fully recovered from?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Natural infection "the level and length of protection against reinfection, symptoms and severe illness is at least on a par with that provided by two doses of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna."

This was published in 2021 - you may well have come across it already?

COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know

Even if you’ve already had COVID-19, getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended. These are the things you need to know about COVID natural immunity.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

Important to note:

For example, people who have had the measles are not likely to get it again, but this is not the case for every disease. A mild case of an illness may not result in strong natural immunity. New studies show that natural immunity to the coronavirus weakens (wanes) over time, and does so faster than immunity provided by COVID-19 vaccination.

So even in 2021 (before booster programmes, or as they were just starting) they could see that covid immunity waned over time, and later were able to show that outcomes were improved if the immune response was re-stimulated.

So relying on only the natural protection from an initial mild case was a much higher risk strategy than the low risks of a booster dose or doses.

 

[42istheanswer]

I was told in summer 2020 about research that Dutch scientists had been doing for some time into other coronaviruses that caused less severe symptoms (common cold level of illness) that found that people caught the same one winter after winter - "immunity" from natural infection for that didn't even last a year.

As far as I'm aware no one ever denied that actually having COVID provided some level of protection from catching it again/being severely ill if you caught it again. The debate was about how much protection it provided because COVID isn't a "once had always protected (unless you're very unlucky)" virus. I know people who have had it 3 or 4 times (including one who caught it twice within 2 months - and they knew the likely source both times and had tested negative multiple times in between so it isn't likely to have been a case of not actually having cleared the infection the first time). To me, it makes sense to give your immune system a boost by reminding it what it's watching for with the vaccines, whether your immunity is solely vaccine derived or includes a wild infection. Particularly as variants emerge (and vaccines that target those more) which may not be so immediately recognisable to our immune systems.

I have friends who have chosen not to get vaccinated as a personal choice, they test when they have symptoms (and participated in routine testing when it was recommended) and it's an informed decision which is their right as a competent adult. But they also respect why I have chosen to be vaccinated. I think the "conspiracy theory" label tends to be thrown more at those who act like anyone who has been vaccinated has intentionally voluntarily taken poison. Unfortunately they are often the people shouting loudest from the "anti vax" camp.

 

[bulkbiker]

Additionally describing something as an ‘experimental mRNA
product’ seems a deliberate attempt to cause concerns over the safety of the vaccines

Not my description though.. just Prof Peter Doshi one of the BMJ editors...

And I think there are plenty of concerns over the "safety" of the jab as well as it's efficacy.

 

[bulkbiker]

This was published in 2021

And the more recent paper

Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe...

www.thelancet.com

 

[bulkbiker]

Unfortunately they are often the people shouting loudest from the "anti vax" camp.

I haven't seen TV campaigns from the "anti-vax" camp though...have you?

I think the jab pushers were definitely shouting the loudest ...

 

[bulkbiker]

As was the resumption of use of AZ once potential safety concerns had been properly investigated.

Where... the most recent article I can find 2022 shows there are many places where it is no longer used.

Coronavirus: Why AstraZeneca is not the go-to COVID-19 vaccine for many international countries | The Times of India

Over a year has passed by since COVISHIELD vaccine, developed by the pharma giant AstraZeneca inc. and Oxford University, was launched in India. While the vaccine initially thrived in the international market, due to a controversial development, it was suspended for use by more that a dozen...

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Amity Island]

This was published in 2021 - you may well have come across it already?

COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know

Even if you’ve already had COVID-19, getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended. These are the things you need to know about COVID natural immunity.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

Important to note:

For example, people who have had the measles are not likely to get it again, but this is not the case for every disease. A mild case of an illness may not result in strong natural immunity. New studies show that natural immunity to the coronavirus weakens (wanes) over time, and does so faster than immunity provided by COVID-19 vaccination.

So even in 2021 (before booster programmes, or as they were just starting) they could see that covid immunity waned over time, and later were able to show that outcomes were improved if the immune response was re-stimulated.

So relying on only the natural protection from an initial mild case was a much higher risk strategy than the low risks of a booster dose or doses.

Hi Mike,

Talk about which is best is irrelevant, only one option was available (natural immunity) to us all for at least a year and "the level and length of protection against reinfection, symptoms and severe illness is at least on a par with that provided by two doses of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna".

This seems like a perfectly informed and reasonable view to take.

So I ask, on this basis, why would anyone choose to ridicule, slander, abuse, send to Coventry, bully, threaten, persuade or coerce someone to undergo a medical procedure for something they have already fully recovered from?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

So I ask, on this basis, why would anyone choose to ridicule, slander, abuse, send to Coventry, bully, threaten, persuade or coerce someone to undergo a medical procedure for something they have already fully recovered from?

I quite agree.

And why would anyone choose to ridicule, slander, abuse, send to Coventry, bully, threaten, persuade or coerce someone to not take the vaccine, or a subsequent follow-up booster?

Sadly though, this seems to be a topic with unpleasant behaviour on both sides of the social media debate

 

[Amity Island]

I quite agree.

And why would anyone choose to ridicule, slander, abuse, send to Coventry, bully, threaten, persuade or coerce someone to not take the vaccine, or a subsequent follow-up booster?

Sadly though, this seems to be a topic with unpleasant behaviour on both sides of the social media debate

That we agree on Mike 🙂

But I distinctly remember a national world wide level campaign and coercion to have everyone vaccinated regardless of their existing immunity.

"Which is at least on a par with that provided by two doses of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna".

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

regardless of their existing immunity.

Existing immunity which wanes. People get covid more than once. So just because a person has had it doesn’t mean they are fully and completely protected from getting it or a variant of it again.

And my recollection was that it was a recommendation for everyone to come forward for vaccination in stages, according to their understood level of risk (older people first… then down through the ages with a bit of leapfrogging for those at increased risk like those with diabetes).

Aiming for reduction in duration and severity of disease (and reduced rates of transmission of early variants) to help prevent the health service being overwhelmed as very nearly happened in Italy at the start if you recall. As time went on the majority of people in hospitals and intensive care because of Covid-19 were those who had not been fully protected by vaccination and boosters. But thankfully as variants begat variants the proportion of people having severe cases also seemed to reduce.

Why are we still talking about this? I don’t give my vaccination status any thought any longer. Nor do I worry whether anyone else decided for or against having the vaccine or any subsequent follow-up boosters.

I get the feeling that the people who most want to raise the subject again and keep talking about it are those who decided against having the jab(s). And I don’t know why that is.

Covid 19 has pottered away into the background now. Perhaps it’s time for this conversation to do the same?