CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[Roderick Spode]

BigMon said:

Unreal said:

At least we now have an acceptance that the vaccines have killed and injured people. That's at least a step in the right direction from safe and effective, stop you dying from covid, prevent transmission and an epidemic of the unvaccinated.

I accept all drugs come with risks, but that's not how the covid vaccines were presented and the greatest tragedy is that they killed and injured people who had a far greater risk of dying from a cold than covid. The evidence that mortality was age related is overwhelming.

I don't think any of us 'moderates' will argue with any of that. Where perhaps views differ is whether it's perceived as a malevolent action or not.

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.

[Unreal]

BigMon said:

Unreal said:

At least we now have an acceptance that the vaccines have killed and injured people. That's at least a step in the right direction from safe and effective, stop you dying from covid, prevent transmission and an epidemic of the unvaccinated.

I accept all drugs come with risks, but that's not how the covid vaccines were presented and the greatest tragedy is that they killed and injured people who had a far greater risk of dying from a cold than covid. The evidence that mortality was age related is overwhelming.

I don't think any of us 'moderates' will argue with any of that. Where perhaps views differ is whether it's perceived as a malevolent action or not.

Well, we could get hung up on words forever but based on what we know now, I would not go with malevolent. I'd say disingenuous. I do think that the line will be 'but it was for the greater good' and would say that is very much open to debate and goes to the heart of the thread title. I will reach my own conclusions in due course and that may take many years. In the meantime, I am comfortable with stating that I believe the government, and in fact virtually all politicians, made a complete pig's ear of the situation, compounded it by lying, denial and hypocrisy and are still in self-protection mode. To get into the word salad again, my personal jury is still out on the extent to which their actions were nefarious. I think some elements were, but as to the whole thing being an engineered crisis within a wider objective, I'm not so sure.

[BigMon]

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.

[alangla]

isaldiri said:

alangla said:

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

Only up till around July/August when that was changed to the 28 day thing I believe. It definitely wasn't something applied all through 2020. and if it was indeed people being wrongly classified as covid deaths wholesale (no doubt it did happen in some cases) up till then, it doesn't then explain why after the big spring wave subsided there would have been so few covid deaths in late May/June when deaths were below average for a short period.

Is the May/June 2020 thing not largely a result of “harvesting” ie the virus had done a lot of what it was going to do in care homes and to some of the elderly, while for the population at large the lighter traffic, less people at work etc, was cutting the number of deaths from accidents and the like? It’s unpleasant, but probably a lot of the people who would ordinarily have died from old age/dementia etc in the middle part of 2020 had already been finished off by the virus in the spring. I guess also the percentage of the population who’d ever been infected at that point, certainly outside London, was still pretty low, so there probably weren’t many unfortunates being hit by a bus who’d previously tested positive.

As an aside, I’m not sure if I’ve said this before but this thread & particularly Elysium and yourself’s analysis of the published data kept me sane during the never-ending lockdowns Sturgeon inflicted on people up here. At times it felt like I was the only one screaming “this is wrong” and later “this is pointless” about the constant restrictions. Being able to read and share thoughts about the government’s own data seem very vindicating at the time and I think some of the stuff unearthed by the UK inquiry has shown that much of what happened on both sides of the border but particularly up here had more to do with politics than public health. So to everyone who’s posted calm, rational, analysis of the goings on of the last 4 years, thank you.

Edited by alangla on Monday 29th April 20:54

[Boringvolvodriver]

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.

Exactly this - I suspect we will never find out exactly what the decision making process was and what was considered.

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).

[J210]

Did I read correctly that the Gov are underwriting AZ legal fees…..

[isaldiri]

alangla said:

Is the May/June 2020 thing not largely a result of “harvesting” ie the virus had done a lot of what it was going to do in care homes and to some of the elderly, while for the population at large the lighter traffic, less people at work etc, was cutting the number of deaths from accidents and the like? It’s unpleasant, but probably a lot of the people who would ordinarily have died from old age/dementia etc in the middle part of 2020 had already been finished off by the virus in the spring. I guess also the percentage of the population who’d ever been infected at that point, certainly outside London, was still pretty low, so there probably weren’t many unfortunates being hit by a bus who’d previously tested positive.

It's probably fair to say that a lot of the damage of care homes was done by early-mid May from covid. Especially given in winter 2020/2021, in care homes at least iirc the excess deaths were not especially marked. However, the 'dry tinder' theory that was regularly raised that most of those that died were close to keeling over was imo definitely proven incorrect given the level of excess deaths seen from oct2020-mar2021.

it's a reasonable point that you raise that the % of population infected by say June2020 was still very low (<10% as compared to some of the more fevered speculation that most had been infected) nevermind tested positive. However, if that was indeed the case, the contribution of 'covid' deaths for incorrect reasons would equally be very low. It can't be that there are very few infected/tested positive so deaths look low on one hand but on the other hand, deaths are said to be wildly exaggerated by covid deaths from testing positive despite being killed in car accidents/etcetc....

P.S and you are far too kind. People try to do what they can to make sense of a bit of a stshow (to put it mildly) and I'm glad that some of the maunderings of the insane on my part was helpful. Working with data analysis as part of what I do tends to make one a bit ocd and i get a bit twitchy when prats like Hancock et al start sprouting off on something that is quite as obviously garbage I suppose..... That said....bad as it was for us here south of the border, it certainly seemed worse for you/ theJimi and others unfortunately.....

[r3g]

Those unhinged CTs were right yet again.

AstraZeneca vaccines give you blood clots.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336264...

Maybe the usual suspects should ring them to tell them they are wrong and it's just NHS appointment waiting times.

[Pupp]

81 potential cases out of how many million jabs administered? You might need to calm down just a little with the emphatic proclamations of cause and effect.

An interesting twist nonetheless

[Boringvolvodriver]

Pupp said:

81 potential cases out of how many million jabs administered? You might need to calm down just a little with the emphatic proclamations of cause and effect.

An interesting twist nonetheless

Mind you, they were concerned enough in Europe and eventually the UK to pull that particular vaccine for the younger age ranges.

[andyA700]

Roderick Spode said:

BigMon said:

Unreal said:

At least we now have an acceptance that the vaccines have killed and injured people. That's at least a step in the right direction from safe and effective, stop you dying from covid, prevent transmission and an epidemic of the unvaccinated.

I accept all drugs come with risks, but that's not how the covid vaccines were presented and the greatest tragedy is that they killed and injured people who had a far greater risk of dying from a cold than covid. The evidence that mortality was age related is overwhelming.

I don't think any of us 'moderates' will argue with any of that. Where perhaps views differ is whether it's perceived as a malevolent action or not.

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.

As someone who has been vaccine injured (nearly crippled) I totally agree with your post. I took the vaccine (and three more) because I was definitely in the "At risk group". However, at the time, I could see that you had half a dozen big pharma firms around the World, all competing to be the first and best - what could possibly go wrong?
I know that people who have been harmed (very severly) by the vaccine, cannot get any compensation, in my case at 65, I will never work again and I will not get any benefits, despite having paid into the system for 47 years.
The government(s) will never admit the scale of this, because it is huge. I contacted the prospective Labour candidate a month ago and she promised to email me back - guess what, she didn't.

[r3g]

Pupp said:

81 potential cases out of how many million jabs administered? You might need to calm down just a little with the emphatic proclamations of cause and effect.

An interesting twist nonetheless

Naïve. It will follow the same format as myocarditis. Drop a news bomb that the vaxx causes myocarditis in "very rare cases" then as the months go on it changes from "very rare cases" to actually being very common. Nobody questions myocarditis now and if you draw attention to the original messaging it gets responses like "WTF you talking bro? Everybody knows the vaxx causes myocarditis, this was never in question and nobody ever said any different."

The same will happen with blood clots. And then the biggie, cancer, will follow in due course. Can't be admitting to all the "very rare side effects" all at the same time as it's too much shock for the plebs to take in. Got to drip-feed it, bit by bit and the longer the time-line, the better the chances are of plausible deniability sticking.

[119]

r3g said:

Those unhinged CTs were right yet again.

AstraZeneca vaccines give you blood clots.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336264...

Maybe the usual suspects should ring them to tell them they are wrong and it's just NHS appointment waiting times.

Only about three years behind then Rachel.

[PurplePenguin]

119 said:

r3g said:

Those unhinged CTs were right yet again.

AstraZeneca vaccines give you blood clots.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336264...

Maybe the usual suspects should ring them to tell them they are wrong and it's just NHS appointment waiting times.

Only about three years behind then Rachel.

I’m not sure the victims will be laughing

[Elysium]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Pupp said:

81 potential cases out of how many million jabs administered? You might need to calm down just a little with the emphatic proclamations of cause and effect.

An interesting twist nonetheless

Mind you, they were concerned enough in Europe and eventually the UK to pull that particular vaccine for the younger age ranges.

It’s not a twist. When I had the AZ vaccine I received a patient information leaflet that clearly stated the risk of blood clots as a side effect.

I actually posted it in this thread.

In the same way, we very clearly did know about the myocarditis risk of the MRNA vaccines before they were approved for younger people.

The issue is that this patient safety info was played down by commentators who told us they were safe and effective. But safe does not mean harmless in the context of healthcare, it simply means that the benefits outweigh the harms.

Whilst that is probably true at population scale, it’s going to be cold comfort if you are one of the poor sods harmed by the vaccines given the vile coercion that was used to encourage take up.

I remain of the view that this coercion was mostly about the Govt realising that it would be popular and that if they vaccinated a lot of people it would make them look good.

So a Govt PR exercise destroyed informed consent, caused demonstrable harm and spawned a new anti-vax movement.

[grumbledoak]

Elysium said:

...

I remain of the view that this coercion was mostly about the Govt realising that it would be popular and that if they vaccinated a lot of people it would make them look good.

So a Govt PR exercise destroyed informed consent, caused demonstrable harm and spawned a new anti-vax movement.

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.

[Roderick Spode]

PurplePenguin said:

119 said:

r3g said:

Those unhinged CTs were right yet again.

AstraZeneca vaccines give you blood clots.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336264...

Maybe the usual suspects should ring them to tell them they are wrong and it's just NHS appointment waiting times.

Only about three years behind then Rachel.

I’m not sure the victims will be laughing

It's Gramps' MO. He thinks people being injured by experimental jabs is hilarious.

[Elysium]

grumbledoak said:

Elysium said:

...

I remain of the view that this coercion was mostly about the Govt realising that it would be popular and that if they vaccinated a lot of people it would make them look good.

So a Govt PR exercise destroyed informed consent, caused demonstrable harm and spawned a new anti-vax movement.

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 don’t think anything was planned. There are far simpler explanations.

Lockdowns crippled the world and vaccines provided an escape. Vaccine manufacturers were happy to oblige as they made a lot of money. Govts backed them because it was popular.

[119]

Roderick Spode said:

PurplePenguin said:

119 said:

r3g said:

Those unhinged CTs were right yet again.

AstraZeneca vaccines give you blood clots.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336264...

Maybe the usual suspects should ring them to tell them they are wrong and it's just NHS appointment waiting times.

Only about three years behind then Rachel.

I’m not sure the victims will be laughing

It's Gramps' MO. He thinks people being injured by experimental jabs is hilarious.

Where have I specifically said its hilarious ?

Edited by 119 on Tuesday 30th April 09:45

[PurplePenguin]

Elysium said:

grumbledoak said:

Elysium said:

...

I remain of the view that this coercion was mostly about the Govt realising that it would be popular and that if they vaccinated a lot of people it would make them look good.

So a Govt PR exercise destroyed informed consent, caused demonstrable harm and spawned a new anti-vax movement.

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 don’t think anything was planned. There are far simpler explanations.

Lockdowns crippled the world and vaccines provided an escape. Vaccine manufacturers were happy to oblige as they made a lot of money. Govts backed them because it was popular.

There must have been planning - QED