- Date published:
5:30 pm, June 21st, 2021 - 33 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
It is beyond reason that any government, let alone one that purports to having the Wellbeing of it's citizens at heart, would sanction the mass use of an extremely experimental on children.
This is obscene. There are no long term safety studies on these mRNA vaccines and none of us have any idea of what downstream adverse effects there may be. Why on earth would we run the risk of harming our children when it is completely unnecessary?
Children are at no risk from Covid and are of little risk to adults in terms of transmission.
Have these psychopaths not heard f the Precautionary Principal?
I wouldn't bother to much.
Given that they can't even vaccinate the frontline workers, much less the Group2s, or the Group 3s, and even less the Group 4s I don't think that there is any chance at all that they are going to get around to anyone in this age group.
I really don't see what issue you have with the vaccine program. We live in the safest country in the world. We don't need an emergency fast-tracking of the vaccine. The government has always been cautious about timeframe knowing that supplies were not reliable. It was only when the rabid right started using the rollout for political purposes that the government felt obliged to reluctantly put some dates on it.
Our vaccine strategy is a function of our Covid resilience, ie, very very resilient.
Don't panic, alwyn.
"emergency fast tracking"?
We would appear to be last in the OECD and pretty well last in the developed world. So no we really aren't doing very much are we.
I hope opening things up so that Air Crew returning to New Zealand without having to isolate at all doesn't blow up in our faces. That is what kicked of the outbreak in Taiwan wasn't it? And it could very easily happen here. Still, the PM and a bunch of other Ministers have been vaccinated so they should be OK.
As for "knowing supplies were not reliable". Where did you get that from? After all we were told that we were at the front of the queue and they had ordered supplies to treat everyone. Surely you aren't going to admit they were lying to us?
Agreed Rosemary, the case for vaccinating healthy young children against COVID-19 is weak, at least until all adult NZers who choose to be vaccinated have had their jabs.
Otoh, a case for vaccinating children as soon as the more at-risk age cohorts have been vaccinated can still be made, and it is also a good one, imho.
First Grader in Minn. Dies of COVID Complications
While COVID-related deaths in children are rare, they can occur even in otherwise healthy children," the statement reads, adding that this death marks the third COVID-19 death of a child under the age of 18 in Minnesota.
First Pediatric COVID-19 Related Death in Mesa County
When a vaccine is at the “extremely experimental” stage, it is being experimented on and with in the lab. It then passes through to the next stage, which is animal testing, i.e. mice and macaques in the case of the now-approved Pfizer vaccine.
The next stage, actually more of a very steep hurdle, is safety trials in humans. Only when all these stages have been passed and activity/efficacy in large trials has been established will it be approved. After approval and release there is ongoing monitoring with stringent reporting requirements.
In and for Aotearoa-New Zealand the responsible agency is MEDSAFE, which approved the Pfizer vaccine with a large number of mainly reporting conditions.
Show me the long term safety studies into the Pfizer vaccine.
You can't, because there are none.
To my knowledge there were no animal trials.
This is the first time mRNA technology has been used on humans in a mass vaccination program and there are no data supporting a claim of 'no long term adverse effects'. Approximately 6 months into the mass roll out doth not a long term trial make.
Last time I checked, CARMs safety monitoring results were a month behind.
And this shit certainly doesn't bolster faith in the impartiality of the investigations into post Covid vaccine deaths.
Both deaths have been reported to the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring.
The process includes Medsafe "closely" monitoring all reports.
Details of when the duo where given the Covid-19 vaccine were not yet known. That includes the timing of their death after being vaccinated.
She was "not at all" worried by tonight's news, vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris said.
"People need to understand that we're going to see lots of events occur after people have the jab."
That's because around 80, mostly elderly, people died in New Zealand every day.
She didn't have all the details about the deaths of the two people in their 80s, but "I know enough to know they are not in any way related to the vaccine".
I have absolutely no issue with adults getting the vaccine if that is their wish. Providing they are given all the information so they can make an informed choice and the vaccines are administered by professionals who can fully address any concerns, the keen continue clambering over one another for the privilege of rolling up their sleeves and bearing their biceps. (I'd strongly recommend the vaccinator aspirate to ensure they haven't hit a blood vessel though. Used to be SOP in the old days for IM jabs…not so much now.)
Children however…criminally reckless to experiment on them where there is no real benefit. Why would we run the risk? Five years minimum from initial roll out. Precautionary Principal. Bugger tourism and keep going with MIQ if that what it takes.
There's "this shit", and then there's this shit. I have faith in, and will continue to trust the judgement of those whose decisions and actions have resulted in NZers being largely free of COVID shit.
Everyone in NZ is free to choose who to trust, just as they are free to choose whether or not to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
"You pays your money, and you takes your chance." So far NZ and the team of nearly five million have done far far better than I could have dreamed. No ‘Plan B‘ for me.
Hang on a minute DMK…do you honestly think it is ok for a professional to pre-empt a proper investigation by declaring that…
She didn't have all the details about the deaths of the two people in their 80s, but "I know enough to know they are not in any way related to the vaccine". ?
This is not science. This is opinion being touted as science by someone who should know better. Petousis-Harris has enjoyed basking in the media spotlight as the NZ expert on vaccinations and perhaps her ego got in the way of her scientific ethics, but her dogmatic statements over these deaths has done damage to her reputation and wider confidence in the safety monitoring process.
Rosemary, given that you've chosen to characterise Petousis-Harris as an egotist who enjoys 'basking' in the media spotlight, there's a potentially unbridgeable chasm between our opinions of how various NZ health professionals have acted during the on-going pandemic.
I'm OK with trusting the judgement and (consensus) advice of those experts who have served the team of nearly five million well (frankly very well).
I'm less trusting of the (minority) opinions of the Plan B crowd and various armchair critics, because they seem unwilling to acknowledge the enviable health outcomes achieved to date before getting stuck in to the Government or whichever health professional they feel has 'transgressed'.
Imho a few NZers seem really determined not to know how lucky we all are.
DMK. I'll ask again. Do you think it is OK for a professional to pre-empt a proper investigation into deaths following vaccination by stating publicly..
"I know enough to know they are not in any way related to the vaccine". ?
That includes Petousis-Harris' judgement and advice. As an academic, Petousis-Harris should enjoy the same freedoms and protections afforded Thornley, Wiles, Baker and other “Critic and Conscience” academics commenting on various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rosemary, I get that you object to the particular 'Petousis-Harris comment' that you selected, but she is not alone. When choosing between consensus expert opinion and minority opinions to the contrary, I will give each opinion the consideration I believe it deserves. How could you, or I, do otherwise?
Well whataya know, even that well know 'media spotlight-basking egotist' Petousis-Harris says "the investigation was the right thing to do". I'd hazard a guess that her comments were motivated in part by concerns about the health ramifications of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in NZ.
She should have kept her opinion to herself until after a thorough investigation had been conducted.
It is statements like "I know enough to know they are not in any way related to the vaccine" , without a proper investigation being conducted that merely adds to vaccine hesitancy in NZ.
People want reassurance that adverse events following vaccinations are being properly investigated in an unbiased and open -minded fashion. It is clearly inappropriate for a leading spokesperson to make such a statement.
In your opinion. Whereas I believe that during a global pandemic it is entirely appropriate for respected health experts to provide opinions to the MSM. In the absence of such expert opinions, Gawd knows what sort of rubbish might fill the void.
And, in fairness to Petousis-Harris, the opinion you find so objectionable was followed immediately by:
I respect your opinion Rosemary, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
We do not know the medical details that she is privy to. It is normal for suitably-skilled health professionals to make conclusions like that without a full investigation.
It is normal for suitably-skilled health professionals to make conclusions like that without a full investigation.
No. It isn't.
Then lodge a complaint and let us know the outcome. Otherwise as Drowsy says we just decide who to trust on the evidence we have.
The govt are already doing it with puberty blockers for very young adolescents
the link is to NICE conclusions about the use of such drugs. NICE is the National institute in the UK that reviews the all research for treatments for a full range of medical conditions and/or issues that drugs are prescribed for. They are independent and scrupulously wade through all published studies on treatment. Their findings trump all research that others quote.
Added to this in the listener this week an article on transgender and transitioning. A case example of a young women given puberty hormones, then cross hormones, then a full mastectomy at 16years and at 18 a hysterectomy. Now in her early 20’s this young women looks like a man, Adam’s apple etc and voice sounds male. She absolutely regrets this and wants to de transition
surely no one can think this young persons story is ok
huh, interesting, they're willing to wade in and they're putting it on the cover. Will buy a copy this week.
How can it be that I can't get the right to a death in my old age when I have had enough of life, yet this poor young thing is able to be influenced by some people in society that want to play God with her. It's almost Mengelean in behaviour.
I'm interested in the whole consent issue
Whereas in some states of the US the age of consent is as high as 18, anything below that is considered statutory rape, prepubescent children are deemed old enough to consent to drastic surgical and drug interventions, the consequences of which require a lifetime of drugs to maintain the transition
Out of courtesy and empathy, I will always address people with their chosen pronouns, but my scientific sense bridles at the outrageous suggestion that a cocktail of drugs and invasive surgery can create a woman from a biological man.It can create a facsimile of a woman, nothing more than that
I like Georgina Beyer's approach.
I started out reading about this issue because I opposed gender self I’d. Now I realise there is so much more to it than that.
I realise there are some people who feel their natal sex doesn’t equal how they feel inside.always has been, always will be. But such drastic physical changes at such an early age….wrong wrong wrong. Even Georgina Beyer has concerns about it
Does puberty itself not mean drastic physical changes? Puberty blockers delay these changes and have safely been used for decades for children with early onset puberty. Once a person goes off them their puberty progresses normally, trans people have to endure a second puberty in HRT, puberty blockers give children time to grow both physically and mentally, before they decide if they actually transition.
Arkie puberty does mean drastic physical changes, but that’s like saying isn’t kids growing taller a drastic physical change. Yes both are, but that is so kids can mature into adulthood.
if you read the link to the NICE guideline s, it has I believe the definitive word on the lack of evidence for puberty blockers and the lack of understanding of the long term consequences. It absolutely cautions against them ad says they should only be used as a part of a research project where levels of informed consent are very high. In other words, they are unproven so therefore experimental
Going through a natal puberty seems to help the gender dysphoria resolve. Most kids who had a "watchful waiting" approach will become accepting of their sex as they go through puberty. Most of these kids turn out to be gay or lesbian adults. If the goal is resolution of gender dysphoria, i.e. to reduce suffering, then going through a natal puberty seems to be much more effective that puberty blockers.
There is something about undergoing puberty that helps with social, emotional and cognitive development, that is really important for the maturation of kids, and allows them to process their place in the world around them.
The use of puberty blockers seems to "lock in" the gender dysphoria instead of allowing the development and growth that would allow it to resolve.
Then there are the potential adverse effects of puberty blockers: adverse impacts on skeletal growth, and also neurocognitive development may be impaired.
It's also important to know that none of these drugs are licenced for this use in any jurisdiction in the world. The drug companies have chosen not to apply for a licence for gender dysphoria, so doctors are using these drugs entirely "off-label"….
Simon Bridges (!) reviews Michael Cullen's biography. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/michael-cullens-last-testament
Thank you for pointing it out. I would probably have missed it otherwise as I don't often look at that site.
A very good review. Almost textbook in its approach.
Yes, I was impressed with its literacy. Far more informative and engaging than his speaking engagements of which I have heard three.
Interesting to hear Cullen' interview after 10 am on RNZ today with his excoriating view of the National middle and back benches especially.
40 min audio: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018800782/sir-michael-cullen-on-a-distinguished-career-and-labour-s-highs-and-lows
What did you think, Sacha?
Not had a spare 40 minutes, sorry. 🙂