CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
RSTurboPaul said:
Is the assertion that because anaphylaxis has been recorded at least once as an ADR within 14 days, all similar instances from that point forward have been captured and (therefore) there are no occurrences that have not been recorded?
Various ADRs have been recorded. The point is that not all ADRs are being recorded / ADRs are not being called ADRs, they are just 'coincidences'.
Are all ADRs reported to MHRA verified to determine they actually occurred? Various ADRs have been recorded. The point is that not all ADRs are being recorded / ADRs are not being called ADRs, they are just 'coincidences'.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 9th May 19:34
J210 said:
Scolmore said:
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.
Do you have a source please?
I do Yes. Do you have a source please?
Its on the 2022 abpi disclosure list
https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk
Row 3181 if you have the full excel. Or can use the quick search what shows
No context to what the money relates to.
Also that £22k is for 2022 which is a little bit later than any initial rollout of any COVID vaccines. There was nothing in 2020 or 2021
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 10th May 09:20
J210 said:
Scolmore said:
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.
Do you have a source please?
I do Yes. Do you have a source please?
Its on the 2022 abpi disclosure list
https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk
Row 3181 if you have the full excel. Or can use the quick search what shows
No context to what the money relates to.
119 said:
Highly unlikely.
Edited by J210 on Friday 10th May 08:58
Commission?
pavarotti1980 said:
He will have sat on advisory boards which the drug companies have with a multitude of different healthcare professionals. Their rates of pay (based on personal experience) are quite high so it wouldn't take a lot to get to that figure.
Also that £22k is for 2022 which is a little bit later than any initial rollout of any COVID vaccines. There was nothing in 2020 or 2021
It was paid via his talent agency for TV appearances.Also that £22k is for 2022 which is a little bit later than any initial rollout of any COVID vaccines. There was nothing in 2020 or 2021
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 10th May 09:20
The fact he has taken money from a AZ and has contained to this day to say their product is safe on live TV . Shows a conflict of interest
J210 said:
andyA700 said:
The BBC's darling Dr Ranj was on this morning, talking about the vaccines and how rare the injuries were, so myself and some others who have been injured, asked some polite questions on his FB page and guess what - the comments were deleted.
That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ? J210 said:
It was paid via his talent agency for TV appearances.
The fact he has taken money from a AZ and has contained to this day to say their product is safe on live TV . Shows a conflict of interest
Does it? Fees paid in 2022 for something he may have done/said 2 years previously?...The fact he has taken money from a AZ and has contained to this day to say their product is safe on live TV . Shows a conflict of interest
Scolmore said:
J210 said:
That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ?
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.Do you have a source please?
https://twitter.com/Artemisfornow/status/178855732...
pavarotti1980 said:
Saying what?
If he said go and jump in the Thames would you do it?
Has he been on national TV for the last 3 years telling everyone he is a DR and that the Thames in in fact safe and effective, why receiving money from the Thames. If he said go and jump in the Thames would you do it?
Even after news from multiple counties and court rulings saying the Themes is dangerous and has side effects. But he has not mentioned this ?
Do you see no issue with that ?
J210 said:
Has he been on national TV for the last 3 years telling everyone he is a DR and that the Thames in in fact safe and effective, why receiving money from the Thames.
Even after news from multiple counties and court rulings saying the Themes is dangerous and has side effects. But he has not mentioned this ?
Do you see no issue with that ?
I was being facetious. Even after news from multiple counties and court rulings saying the Themes is dangerous and has side effects. But he has not mentioned this ?
Do you see no issue with that ?
Only paid by AZ last year. Unless you are suggesting that there is some conspiracy to delay his payment to prevent a correlation? Also as AZ make more than COVID vaccine there is a high chance his ad board fees will be for other things.
pavarotti1980 said:
I was being facetious.
Only paid by AZ last year. Unless you are suggesting that there is some conspiracy to delay his payment to prevent a correlation? Also as AZ make more than COVID vaccine there is a high chance his ad board fees will be for other things.
2 years ago.Only paid by AZ last year. Unless you are suggesting that there is some conspiracy to delay his payment to prevent a correlation? Also as AZ make more than COVID vaccine there is a high chance his ad board fees will be for other things.
So you're OK with someone taking money in 2022 and continue to keep promoting their products with everything thats been going on....
r3g said:
Elysium said:
Don’t take my word from it. This was the view of one of our most prominent statisticians:
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...
The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.
If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.
If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.
*YAWN*https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...
The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.
If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.
If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.
4 year redundant article and underlying source : ONS.
ONS = Office for Ficticious Statistics
United Kingdom's principal government institution in charge of statistics and census data
This is the same ONS where they move the goal-posts every few months on how they measure and record data when the numbers start to get ugly.
BigMon said:
If you're up against a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, don't trust the 'gubbermint' or 'authora-tay' then it's pretty difficult to be on the same page when discussing statistics or pretty much anything really related to Covid or anything else.
Indeed.Reality: Data from the ONS clearly shows that vaccines greatly reduced mortality from Covid.
Fantasy: Data from the ONS contradicts my loopy theory that the vaccines had no effect on a non-existent virus, and actually harmed people. Therefore, the ONS must be falsifying data in order to fit The Official Narrative.
Yeah, sure, the ONS are in on it too, of course they are. Unhinged.
Yahonza said:
Elysium said:
r3g said:
Elysium said:
No that is the statistic. COVID doubled everyone’s risk of dying in a given year.
OK.
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...
The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.
If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.
If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.
I produced the graph below based on the ONS data (which is real by the way). The numbers of COVID deaths in a given age group almost exactly correlates with the number of non-COVID deaths in that group. Spiegelhalter's analysis suggested that a persons chances of dying from COVID when first exposed to it were very similar to their changes of dying from all other causes. Essentially at that point everyone's risk of death doubled. Fortunately for young healthy people that is still a small number. But for the sick and old, it is rather more of an issue.
I was able to also produce a graph of Case Fatality Rates by age using the same data:
g4ry13 said:
Yet official policy by loony organisations. But don't forget - we were the crazy ones for pointing out how insane this all was.For the staged image above, I'm quite sure ITV or the production company would have had entirely segregated behind-the-scenes infrastructure, two sets of dressing rooms, canteens, make-up suites, etc, and no point where everything met beyond the plastic curtain on the studio floor... unless this was something else and I'm due a whoosh parrot. I'd rather have serrated red-hot knitting needles driven into my old chap with a steam hammer than endure a single pfemtosecond of This Morning.
J210 said:
Scolmore said:
If true, wow. No wonder informed consent went down the plughole.
Do you have a source please?
I do Yes. Do you have a source please?
Its on the 2022 abpi disclosure list
https://search.disclosureuk.org.uk
Row 3181 if you have the full excel. Or can use the quick search what shows
No context to what the money relates to.
119 said:
Highly unlikely.
Made to look like a fool, yet again.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff