Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

The definition of "struck off" is to be removed from a position of responsibility. You are nitpicking over language. They questioned the vaccine and they were removed. If a doctor is raising red flags over a medical procedure that is adversely affecting their patients the first action should be to investigate the patients. That wasn't the case here. In both cases they were "removed from their position of responsibility". (feel free to use your own terminology).

It would seem no one can question the "safe and effective" vaccine or they are dragged over hot coals. This, despite the fact that it is still failing after 4th and 5th doses. If you have to keep taking it, it is a treatment not a vaccine. As a vaccine it has failed utterly.

You deliberately misquoted me. It has nothing to do with confusion of or misunderstanding VAERS. It nothing more than you claiming I said something I didn't and rather than admit it when you're caught you try to misrepresent me again. You have contributed nothing here.

Your posts are nothing but nitpicking, whataboutery, misquoting, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, self owning, dragging off topic, empty vacuous garbage.

I have seen nothing here that contradicts my understanding of the VAERS data. It is used as a safety signal. I have read the disclaimers and explanations.

I read it before I posted here. You are blocked for simply being an annoying distraction.

If a patient presents with covid or flu or cold symptoms how does testing save their lives? They get tested and test positive so what? they are told to go home. Note, they are not rushed to hospital in an ambulance because they have a deadly disease. They are told to go home where they can spread it to their family members. The test and trace was another failure. It accomplished nothing but raise hysteria and cost millions. Testing didn't save a single life. Believe it or not people were not dropping down dead from covid. It is slow to progress. Lockdowns did nothing to flatten the curve or inhibit the disease in any way. the waves got bigger and bigger, the more we tried to stop it the worse it got. Right up until the mass vaccination which saw us with the highest incidence of covid in Europe. Viruses are going to virus. The entire human race completely outsmarted by a microscopic scrap of DNA. Be proud.

Even the link you referenced shows you are using the word incorrectly.

It is not nit picking. The word has a specific meaning for a Doctor.

Key words - "any more"

Not a temporary suspension. An indefinite removal.

These are the powers of fitness to practice panel. Note the distinction between a suspension and erasing the name. The latter is to be struck off.

If the Panel concludes that the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired, the following sanctions are available:

• to take no action
• to accept undertakings offered by the doctor provided the panel is satisfied that such undertakings protect patients and the wider public interest
• to place conditions on the doctor's registration
• to suspend the doctor's registration
• to erase the doctor's name from the Medical Register, so that they can no longer practise.

As for your claim about the vaccines failing utterly. You fail to provide any supporting evidence and has already been thoroughly refuted on this thread. Heres one more:

All vaccinated groups had lower risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with people who were unvaccinated.

The level of misinformation from miscreants in this area is incredible, there is literally no critical thought going on and given COVID is a high risk disease if unvaccinated during pregnancy (can lead to miscarriages and complications during pregnancy) and is preying on people at a vulnerable time, those pushing the misinformation are absolutely awful people who have made a series of bad decisions in life.

Second time put on ignore apparently, will there be a third?

Post your sources, stop JAQ'ing off around pregnancy and menstrual cycles, did the information posted around the impacts sink in at all or are you still planning on pushing this dangerous misinformation?

Pregnancy is one of the most high risk conditions for severe effects of COVID, if you're going to mouth off around it, post evidence, post the impact, don't be a bottom feeder, don't be a tool for those spreading misinformation.

Absolute lunacy from someone who clearly doesn't know what a female is.

Did you read the entire article?

Waning was slightly slower for mRNA-1273, with a vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards...

For the outcome of severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness waned from 89% (82 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days to 64% (44 to 77; p<0·001) from day 121 onwards...

The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.

No. The article directly contradicts your claims and nowhere does it state support for your claim.

After 180 days it is still 64 percent effective versus severe covid.

So how can you be better off unvaccinated if versus severe covid the vaccinated are significantly (90 to 60 percent) better protected for at least 6 months after vaccination?

Read the entire article.

That refers to infection of any severity for all vaccines.

There are separate results v infection of any kind for mRNA which I have quoted.

By contrast, vaccine effectiveness for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine was 68% (52 to 79; p<0·001) at 15–30 days, with no detectable effectiveness from day 121 onwards (−19% [–98 to 28]; p=0·49) versus

Waning was slightly slower for mRNA-1273, with a vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards.

There is a separate finding for protection against severe covid which I quoted which clearly show the durable benefits of vaccination.

"For the outcome of severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness waned from 89% (82 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days to 64% (44 to 77; p<0·001) from day 121 onwards."

So the vaccine effectiveness v infection are being pulled down by AZ.

The study does not show negative effectiveness for mRNA. In fact the contrary.

Key takeaway:

Protection against severe COVID-19 was better maintained for up to 9 months of follow-up, although some waning became evident after more than 4 months. 

Finally similar studies in this area have noted that healthcare workers were in the first wave of being vaccinated. And alnost all HCWs were vaccinated. So they could be distorting some of the figures for the longest durations as they are at high risk of exposure. The study does not seem to have accounted for that.