One announcement today is that a 90 year old woman is the first recorded person to be given the Oxford vaccine - I thought they said that it had been tested, so I'm not sure how she can be the first. Leaving that aside, She is probably receiving medication, and I hope she has managed to retain sufficient immunity to recover from being injected with an infectious disease. I think it is sad that her trust in the medical profession is probably based on her experiences when doctors were respected vocational professionals. Today they seem to be pharmaceutical sales people, and trained in medicine, which seems to depend on suppressing symptoms, and not curing disease. firstly the news was 'first woman outside of the clinical trials' secondly the announcement was yesterday thirdly the vaccine does not replicate thus is not infectious. fourthly UK hospitals dont 'sell pharmaceuticals'. there is no income/insurance membership validation process at admissions and there is no bills after discharge. and lastly the vaccine is not a anti inflammatory medication. thus not 'suppressing symptoms' seriously will you please up your game and try researching by the way. YOU, badecker and a couple other 'anti pharma' type of people are the only ones i see in this forum trying to advertise products that people should buy to increase their health. Even on the other thread which he detested the placement of hand sanitizers on certain markets. Yes in a sense hand sanitizers are a way affecting both good and bad bacteria but the main reason they were there was for us to avoid the infamous COVID 19. Weighing risk vs. benefit here I can say proudly that having a sanitizer in public or crowded places is really a must. Same with this new vaccine. Not all vaccines were to grant long life immunity but it doesn't mean they were just for sales because of its limited time of immunity. Even the professionals were mocked here which is kind of depressing.
One announcement today is that a 90 year old woman is the first recorded person to be given the Oxford vaccine - I thought they said that it had been tested, so I'm not sure how she can be the first. Leaving that aside, She is probably receiving medication, and I hope she has managed to retain sufficient immunity to recover from being injected with an infectious disease. I think it is sad that her trust in the medical profession is probably based on her experiences when doctors were respected vocational professionals. Today they seem to be pharmaceutical sales people, and trained in medicine, which seems to depend on suppressing symptoms, and not curing disease. firstly the news was 'first woman outside of the clinical trials' secondly the announcement was yesterday thirdly the vaccine does not replicate thus is not infectious. fourthly UK hospitals dont 'sell pharmaceuticals'. there is no income/insurance membership validation process at admissions and there is no bills after discharge. and lastly the vaccine is not a anti inflammatory medication. thus not 'suppressing symptoms' seriously will you please up your game and try researching by the way. YOU, badecker and a couple other 'anti pharma' type of people are the only ones i see in this forum trying to advertise products that people should buy to increase their health. Even on the other thread which he detested the placement of hand sanitizers on certain markets. Yes in a sense hand sanitizers are a way affecting both good and bad bacteria but the main reason they were there was for us to avoid the infamous COVID 19. Weighing risk vs. benefit here I can say proudly that having a sanitizer in public or crowded places is really a must. Same with this new vaccine. Not all vaccines were to grant long life immunity but it doesn't mean they were just for sales because of its limited time of immunity. Even the professionals were mocked here which is kind of depressing.

One announcement today is that a 90 year old woman is the first recorded person to be given the Oxford vaccine - I thought they said that it had been tested, so I'm not sure how she can be the first. Leaving that aside, She is probably receiving medication, and I hope she has managed to retain sufficient immunity to recover from being injected with an infectious disease. I think it is sad that her trust in the medical profession is probably based on her experiences when doctors were respected vocational professionals. Today they seem to be pharmaceutical sales people, and trained in medicine, which seems to depend on suppressing symptoms, and not curing disease. firstly the news was 'first woman outside of the clinical trials' secondly the announcement was yesterday thirdly the vaccine does not replicate thus is not infectious. fourthly UK hospitals dont 'sell pharmaceuticals'. there is no income/insurance membership validation process at admissions and there is no bills after discharge. and lastly the vaccine is not a anti inflammatory medication. thus not 'suppressing symptoms' seriously will you please up your game and try researching by the way. YOU, badecker and a couple other 'anti pharma' type of people are the only ones i see in this forum trying to advertise products that people should buy to increase their health. Even on the other thread which he detested the placement of hand sanitizers on certain markets. Yes in a sense hand sanitizers are a way affecting both good and bad bacteria but the main reason they were there was for us to avoid the infamous COVID 19. Weighing risk vs. benefit here I can say proudly that having a sanitizer in public or crowded places is really a must. Same with this new vaccine. Not all vaccines were to grant long life immunity but it doesn't mean they were just for sales because of its limited time of immunity. Even the professionals were mocked here which is kind of depressing.

One announcement today is that a 90 year old woman is the first recorded person to be given the Oxford vaccine - I thought they said that it had been tested, so I'm not sure how she can be the first. Leaving that aside, She is probably receiving medication, and I hope she has managed to retain sufficient immunity to recover from being injected with an infectious disease. I think it is sad that her trust in the medical profession is probably based on her experiences when doctors were respected vocational professionals. Today they seem to be pharmaceutical sales people, and trained in medicine, which seems to depend on suppressing symptoms, and not curing disease. firstly the news was 'first woman outside of the clinical trials' secondly the announcement was yesterday thirdly the vaccine does not replicate thus is not infectious. fourthly UK hospitals dont 'sell pharmaceuticals'. there is no income/insurance membership validation process at admissions and there is no bills after discharge. and lastly the vaccine is not a anti inflammatory medication. thus not 'suppressing symptoms' seriously will you please up your game and try researching by the way. YOU, badecker and a couple other 'anti pharma' type of people are the only ones i see in this forum trying to advertise products that people should buy to increase their health. Even on the other thread which he detested the placement of hand sanitizers on certain markets. Yes in a sense hand sanitizers are a way affecting both good and bad bacteria but the main reason they were there was for us to avoid the infamous COVID 19. Weighing risk vs. benefit here I can say proudly that having a sanitizer in public or crowded places is really a must. Same with this new vaccine. Not all vaccines were to grant long life immunity but it doesn't mean they were just for sales because of its limited time of immunity. Even the professionals were mocked here which is kind of depressing.