CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Roderick Spode said:
Elysium said:
In effect, the mass vaccination of most of the people on the planet is the biggest ‘test’ you are ever going to find.
I think it’s legitimate to argue that they should have been tested more thoroughly before that, but you can’t reasonably argue that they are still untested. Or that they are poison when most people who had them are obviously unaffected.
I would respectfully suggest that, while they have indeed been tested - ironically by giving them on a wholesale basis to the global population, a great way to limit the scale of harms there - the full and detailed findings of those tests have been restricted, withheld, or more seriously - suppressed. Is it really credible that world governments and the WHO would implement the widespread administration of a novel medical procedure with seriously limited testing under an Emergency Use agreement, then broadcast the full details of all the resulting harms, side effects and deaths when they come to light?I think it’s legitimate to argue that they should have been tested more thoroughly before that, but you can’t reasonably argue that they are still untested. Or that they are poison when most people who had them are obviously unaffected.
I've recounted details previously of people I know (lies, fertile imagination, blah blah) who suffered similar and in some cases very serious/life threatening side effects in close temporal proximity to their first/second/booster(s) jabs, reported these to GPs or other medical professionals, and were universally dismissed as coincidences. Only one - female, late 30s, suffered menstrual bleeding for 12 weeks continuously after both jabs - finally had her symptoms acknowledged by her GP as 'likely' caused by the jabs. There is no transparency, there will be no accountability, the true findings of this 'test' will never be known in their fullest details. So, my apologies, but I do not consider this 'test' to have reached a valid conclusion, nor hypotheses on either side proven nor disproven. Therefore the 'safe and effective' line is a logical fallacy.
Speaking to an elderly relative last night, who is a fully paid-up frequent flyer of the jab club - "I've never known so many people to be sick and unwell..."
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
Safe and effective does not mean 'harmless' and the indiividual risks and benefits should have been made clear to everyone who took these vaccines.
Hants PHer said:
To those posters insisting that Covid vaccines caused, or are causing, great harms I simply ask you for proof. Where is your evidence that the vaccines were responsible for harms, rather than the virus itself, the NHS's policy to suspend non-Covid health care for many months, or the stress caused by lockdowns, business closures and other restrictions.
If all you've got is "They don't want you to know, the truth is being suppressed" then I'm sorry but that's not good enough. That's just a conspiracy theory and should be treated as such, until such time as evidence appears. As for the claims that the ONS, NHS England and various medical bodies are all falsifying data........that's just risible.
If all you've got is anecdotal evidence, that's not good enough either. For example, Roderick Spode, I believe your observations and I would never question your honesty. However, I know - at a rough guess - dozens of people who've had the Covid vaccines and I haven't seen or heard of any problems whatsoever apart from the odd sore arm. We can trade anecdotes all day long but it proves nothing.
For clarity, I remain open to the possibility that you're right about Covid vaccines. But you need to prove it. Proper, data-backed proof, not loony articles from Zerohedge and the like. I haven't seen any such proof yet: the ball's in your court.
It is indisputable that vaccine trials normally take 5-10 years. This can be shortened in a pandemic if certain compromises are made.If all you've got is "They don't want you to know, the truth is being suppressed" then I'm sorry but that's not good enough. That's just a conspiracy theory and should be treated as such, until such time as evidence appears. As for the claims that the ONS, NHS England and various medical bodies are all falsifying data........that's just risible.
If all you've got is anecdotal evidence, that's not good enough either. For example, Roderick Spode, I believe your observations and I would never question your honesty. However, I know - at a rough guess - dozens of people who've had the Covid vaccines and I haven't seen or heard of any problems whatsoever apart from the odd sore arm. We can trade anecdotes all day long but it proves nothing.
For clarity, I remain open to the possibility that you're right about Covid vaccines. But you need to prove it. Proper, data-backed proof, not loony articles from Zerohedge and the like. I haven't seen any such proof yet: the ball's in your court.
I'm happy to wait for another 7 years before I start to draw firm conclusions about long terms and widespread damage.
Hants PHer said:
If all you've got is anecdotal evidence, that's not good enough either. For example, Roderick Spode, I believe your observations and I would never question your honesty. However, I know - at a rough guess - dozens of people who've had the Covid vaccines and I haven't seen or heard of any problems whatsoever apart from the odd sore arm. We can trade anecdotes all day long but it proves nothing.
For clarity, I remain open to the possibility that you're right about Covid vaccines. But you need to prove it. Proper, data-backed proof, not loony articles from Zerohedge and the like. I haven't seen any such proof yet: the ball's in your court.
What you are asking for, in effect, is officialised reports of anecdotal accounts, because that's all the evidence that exists. There have been no official studies done into the magnitude or prevalence of vaccine harms, only limited pre-release testing that did show a propensity to unexpected harms, but the vaccines were rolled out anyway. "Proper, data-backed proof" - find me a study that sets out to credibly identify vaccine harms with an open mind and a neutral starting position, peer reviewed with a proper control group. There isn't one, beyond those Big Pharma implemented where people who became ill were 'removed' from the study before their conclusions were published.For clarity, I remain open to the possibility that you're right about Covid vaccines. But you need to prove it. Proper, data-backed proof, not loony articles from Zerohedge and the like. I haven't seen any such proof yet: the ball's in your court.
I'm afraid the vast majority of what exists is apocryphal - if that's not satisfactory then please do continue taking all the jabs your heart desires. I'm not here to change minds, I'm very comfortable with my decision, and greatly saddened that family, friends and colleagues have taken and continue to take a medical procedure that has caused immeasurable harms and damage to otherwise healthy people, all in the name of 'science'. I'm perfectly willing to make assertions based on the observances of my eyes and ears from those I know who have suffered, in the forlorn hope that it might prevent future suffering of others, or seek justice for those already injured.
Boringvolvodriver said:
BigMon said:
Roderick Spode said:
That all depends on whether decision makers and those ultimately in charge were aware of the magnitude and prevalence of vaccine harms, once the initial roll-out had happened. Far from a 'one-in-ten-million' occurrence of reportable harms, the prevalence was much more common. There followed the 'jab everything and everybody' mantra, mooting or implementation of vaccine passports, and the threat of job losses and social exclusion should anyone be cautious of submitting themselves to the largest medical experiment the world has ever seen.
If the magnitude of harms was known in their entirety before these policies were legislated and implemented, then that was at best negligent, at worst downright evil.
I agree, they are fair points. Not sure how we'll ever find that out though but you certainly can't dismiss it as a possibility.If the magnitude of harms was known in their entirety before these policies were legislated and implemented, then that was at best negligent, at worst downright evil.
I still think that it was politicians doing what they do best which is try to cover their own backsides and then each country folllowed each other to avoid being the country that was wrong.
Take the mask mandate - mask wearing was initially ruled out at the beginning but then came to pass - some say the reason was to make people feel better going out to shops etc and also to get one up on Scotland.
I still feel the vaccine rollout was all to do with it was an easy way for the governments of the world to get out of the mess that they had created by over reacting in the early stages (once the true IFR rates were known of course - ie after perhaps 4/6 weeks).
Roderick Spode said:
<edited for brevity>
I'm afraid the vast majority of what exists is apocryphal - if that's not satisfactory then please do continue taking all the jabs your heart desires. I'm not here to change minds, I'm very comfortable with my decision, and greatly saddened that family, friends and colleagues have taken and continue to take a medical procedure that has caused immeasurable harms and damage to otherwise healthy people, all in the name of 'science'. I'm perfectly willing to make assertions based on the observances of my eyes and ears from those I know who have suffered, in the forlorn hope that it might prevent future suffering of others, or seek justice for those already injured.
If I say "Hey Roderick, my eyes and ears have observed the polar opposite of yours" then where does that leave us? One might argue that our 'observances' cancel each other out, so we're no further forward. If all you desire to feel comfortable with an assertion is a limited number of 'observances' then we have a fundamentally different view of how we should form our opinions.I'm afraid the vast majority of what exists is apocryphal - if that's not satisfactory then please do continue taking all the jabs your heart desires. I'm not here to change minds, I'm very comfortable with my decision, and greatly saddened that family, friends and colleagues have taken and continue to take a medical procedure that has caused immeasurable harms and damage to otherwise healthy people, all in the name of 'science'. I'm perfectly willing to make assertions based on the observances of my eyes and ears from those I know who have suffered, in the forlorn hope that it might prevent future suffering of others, or seek justice for those already injured.
Hants PHer said:
Roderick Spode said:
<edited for brevity>
I'm afraid the vast majority of what exists is apocryphal - if that's not satisfactory then please do continue taking all the jabs your heart desires. I'm not here to change minds, I'm very comfortable with my decision, and greatly saddened that family, friends and colleagues have taken and continue to take a medical procedure that has caused immeasurable harms and damage to otherwise healthy people, all in the name of 'science'. I'm perfectly willing to make assertions based on the observances of my eyes and ears from those I know who have suffered, in the forlorn hope that it might prevent future suffering of others, or seek justice for those already injured.
If I say "Hey Roderick, my eyes and ears have observed the polar opposite of yours" then where does that leave us? One might argue that our 'observances' cancel each other out, so we're no further forward. If all you desire to feel comfortable with an assertion is a limited number of 'observances' then we have a fundamentally different view of how we should form our opinions.I'm afraid the vast majority of what exists is apocryphal - if that's not satisfactory then please do continue taking all the jabs your heart desires. I'm not here to change minds, I'm very comfortable with my decision, and greatly saddened that family, friends and colleagues have taken and continue to take a medical procedure that has caused immeasurable harms and damage to otherwise healthy people, all in the name of 'science'. I'm perfectly willing to make assertions based on the observances of my eyes and ears from those I know who have suffered, in the forlorn hope that it might prevent future suffering of others, or seek justice for those already injured.
Allow me to stretch a point - say for argument sake there were 100 houses on your street, and everyone had new boilers installed at the behest of the local council. Of those 100, 20 didn't work properly and 10 caught fire. However, the council's 'official' record of installations showed that they were all installed correctly, and refused to acknowledge any faults or failures. Would you then say - "ah, no official account exists, and I didn't see it myself, therefore it didn't happen", or would you perhaps consider that an incidence of more than one corroborating account might justify some scrutiny into the veracity of a common mode of failure?
I've been ridiculed by others for my accounts of those I know injured by these jabs, so it's water off a duck's back. Maybe one day the truth will out, and those injured or killed will receive the justice they deserve.
Elysium said:
Your statement that nobody needed the vaccines and that they didn’t work is contrary to the evidence. So how have you formed this conclusion?
Given that that the manufacturer stated they neither prevented infection nor transmission.......... What do you think the "evidence" shows? And how was it created?Jasandjules said:
Elysium said:
Your statement that nobody needed the vaccines and that they didn’t work is contrary to the evidence. So how have you formed this conclusion?
Given that that the manufacturer stated they neither prevented infection nor transmission.......... What do you think the "evidence" shows? And how was it created?Roderick Spode said:
All hypotheses once formed are proved or disproved by observances - whether that's under strict lab conditions, or walking to the shops, the mode of validation is the same, all that changes are the test conditions. My point is - my observances are real world reflections of what's actually going on around me with people I know, that isn't getting recorded in some 'official account' for further dissemination to the wider public, and therefore does not meet your standard and is inadmissible to you as evidence, as you have not observed it with your standard issue eyeball mk1.
Allow me to stretch a point - say for argument sake there were 100 houses on your street, and everyone had new boilers installed at the behest of the local council. Of those 100, 20 didn't work properly and 10 caught fire. However, the council's 'official' record of installations showed that they were all installed correctly, and refused to acknowledge any faults or failures. Would you then say - "ah, no official account exists, and I didn't see it myself, therefore it didn't happen", or would you perhaps consider that an incidence of more than one corroborating account might justify some scrutiny into the veracity of a common mode of failure?
I've been ridiculed by others for my accounts of those I know injured by these jabs, so it's water off a duck's back. Maybe one day the truth will out, and those injured or killed will receive the justice they deserve.
Completely agree with the above and your previous posts, but you've fallen straight into their finely laid sealioning trap. Rodders Allow me to stretch a point - say for argument sake there were 100 houses on your street, and everyone had new boilers installed at the behest of the local council. Of those 100, 20 didn't work properly and 10 caught fire. However, the council's 'official' record of installations showed that they were all installed correctly, and refused to acknowledge any faults or failures. Would you then say - "ah, no official account exists, and I didn't see it myself, therefore it didn't happen", or would you perhaps consider that an incidence of more than one corroborating account might justify some scrutiny into the veracity of a common mode of failure?
I've been ridiculed by others for my accounts of those I know injured by these jabs, so it's water off a duck's back. Maybe one day the truth will out, and those injured or killed will receive the justice they deserve.
.Jasandjules said:
Given that that the manufacturer stated they neither prevented infection nor transmission..........
Apologies if I'm missing something but that ^^^^ sounds like there was absolutely zero benefit of being vaccinated. is that correct?or did you mean they're not 100% guaranteed to prevent infection or transmission?
Jasandjules said:
Elysium said:
Your statement that nobody needed the vaccines and that they didn’t work is contrary to the evidence. So how have you formed this conclusion?
Given that that the manufacturer stated they neither prevented infection nor transmission.......... What do you think the "evidence" shows? And how was it created?There is data that shows vaccines reduced the risk of serious illness when they were administered prior to first exposure to COVID. Unless people are seriously arguing that all of these reports are fake?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-1...
r3g said:
Roderick Spode said:
All hypotheses once formed are proved or disproved by observances - whether that's under strict lab conditions, or walking to the shops, the mode of validation is the same, all that changes are the test conditions. My point is - my observances are real world reflections of what's actually going on around me with people I know, that isn't getting recorded in some 'official account' for further dissemination to the wider public, and therefore does not meet your standard and is inadmissible to you as evidence, as you have not observed it with your standard issue eyeball mk1.
Allow me to stretch a point - say for argument sake there were 100 houses on your street, and everyone had new boilers installed at the behest of the local council. Of those 100, 20 didn't work properly and 10 caught fire. However, the council's 'official' record of installations showed that they were all installed correctly, and refused to acknowledge any faults or failures. Would you then say - "ah, no official account exists, and I didn't see it myself, therefore it didn't happen", or would you perhaps consider that an incidence of more than one corroborating account might justify some scrutiny into the veracity of a common mode of failure?
I've been ridiculed by others for my accounts of those I know injured by these jabs, so it's water off a duck's back. Maybe one day the truth will out, and those injured or killed will receive the justice they deserve.
Completely agree with the above and your previous posts, but you've fallen straight into their finely laid sealioning trap. Rodders Allow me to stretch a point - say for argument sake there were 100 houses on your street, and everyone had new boilers installed at the behest of the local council. Of those 100, 20 didn't work properly and 10 caught fire. However, the council's 'official' record of installations showed that they were all installed correctly, and refused to acknowledge any faults or failures. Would you then say - "ah, no official account exists, and I didn't see it myself, therefore it didn't happen", or would you perhaps consider that an incidence of more than one corroborating account might justify some scrutiny into the veracity of a common mode of failure?
I've been ridiculed by others for my accounts of those I know injured by these jabs, so it's water off a duck's back. Maybe one day the truth will out, and those injured or killed will receive the justice they deserve.
.Everyone is entirely free to make up their own minds, I don't personally care if you take zero or a million jabs - do as you please. On that note, I recall there was a cohort who considered that those who were unjabbed should be considered liable for any superfluous medical costs resulting from the decision not to have the safe and effective and contracting bat flu. Hypothesising here, but should there be an equivalent financial consideration imposed for those who willingly rolled their sleeves up and are now suffering the after effects of the safe and effective?
Elysium said:
Jasandjules said:
Elysium said:
Your statement that nobody needed the vaccines and that they didn’t work is contrary to the evidence. So how have you formed this conclusion?
Given that that the manufacturer stated they neither prevented infection nor transmission.......... What do you think the "evidence" shows? And how was it created?There is data that shows vaccines reduced the risk of serious illness when they were administered prior to first exposure to COVID. Unless people are seriously arguing that all of these reports are fake?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-1...
I don’t doubt that the vaccines reduced the effects of Severe covid in the most vulnerable although we will never know if the claims that it saved xM lives was actually correct - well not without a time machine anyway rather than estimates and models.
I think after Omicron, the benefits of the vaccine reduced quite dramatically when that thing called natural immunity started to work.
I am still not entirely convinced that the speed of the vaccine development and the short trials were suitable for what became an extremely large roll out vaccine
Still I stand by my initial decision which was to wait until longer term data was available and the EUA ended before considering the vaccine.
A truly excellent and timely thread on the AZ jab here:
https://x.com/mimifontaine/status/1412823606049005...
https://x.com/mimifontaine/status/1412823606049005...
grumbledoak said:
I think you remain somewhat naive. Surprisingly so for one who made an effort to really analyze what we saw.
If you read about the many pandemic "simulations" that preceded COVID-19, they all went straight for vaccines, only vaccines, and all mandatory. Maybe not our government, but somebody was planning to do this for a long time.
I still recommend "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein and "The Real Anthony Fauci ..." by Robert F Kennedy for those who think all of this was some kind of mistake.
I give you SPARS. A play by play account of what happened in 2020, written in 2017.If you read about the many pandemic "simulations" that preceded COVID-19, they all went straight for vaccines, only vaccines, and all mandatory. Maybe not our government, but somebody was planning to do this for a long time.
I still recommend "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein and "The Real Anthony Fauci ..." by Robert F Kennedy for those who think all of this was some kind of mistake.
https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/...
Roderick Spode said:
To be entirely fair to Hants, I do not believe he is one of the Arctocephalinae contributors. I'm very happy to discuss and to be constructively critiqued by anyone - after all, I am entirely reliant on my own accounts to justify my position because, as you well know, there are no verifiable studies to sanctify what I am saying with peer-reviewed credibility.
Exaaaaactly. And that's the trap. Whilst not being the brightest crayons, they know this too and Brave Fart is no exception (as evidenced by his posts to James and myself). I'm afraid that despite your good intent in engaging with them to explain why it's pretty much impossible, I will guarantee that at some point in the near future your words will be turned around and used against you (and 'us') as that was only reason for them asking in the first place.Roderick Spode said:
Everyone is entirely free to make up their own minds, I don't personally care if you take zero or a million jabs - do as you please. On that note, I recall there was a cohort who considered that those who were unjabbed should be considered liable for any superfluous medical costs resulting from the decision not to have the safe and effective and contracting bat flu. Hypothesising here, but should there be an equivalent financial consideration imposed for those who willingly rolled their sleeves up and are now suffering the after effects of the safe and effective?
I made the same comment on here some time ago - unsurprisingly it didn't go down well with the pin cushions 
when I suggested that either they should pay for their endless GP appointments, hospital visits and scans to find out the mysterious cause of all their newfound ailments, or those in good health should receive a full refund of their NI payments for each year they don't need to use the NHS services. Seems fair to me 
.Still waiting for this Pandemic of the Unvaccinated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY99T_E3HvE
Anyone have an ETA so I can prepare?
A fairly long, but interesting, article from the Telegraph on the group litigation action against AstraZeneca currently making its way through the courts https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/astraz...
alangla said:
A fairly long, but interesting, article from the Telegraph on the group litigation action against AstraZeneca currently making its way through the courts https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/30/astraz...
Non-paywalled version as ft12.io doesn't seem to be working for the page. https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/mCwdzdInteresting video (via JC) of a patient allegedly having had 3 shots of the magic juice, got blood clots in his neck arteries and video of the surgical procedure having the clots removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cog-WTk9uOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cog-WTk9uOc
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff