CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
The Selfish Gene said:
Elysium said:
COVID vaccines have been tested more thoroughly than any medicine in history. The number of people that have taken them is vast and most of them are absolutely fine.
They are obviously not “poison”.
well considering the speed they came out, and what normally takes much longer to release, and the fact it's well documented how many side affects are now being announced by the mainstream press.............I think at the time, they weren't tested 'more thoroughly than any medicine in history' and therefore you are wrong.They are obviously not “poison”.
Unless of course they had them prior to the C19 event? Obviously then that would fall into more CT theory.
Poison is a subjective term, but considering nobody needed it, it didn't work, and it's formally admitted they cause harm (not only in the inserts, but now in the news)........I'd say that fits reasonably well under the term 'poison'.
poison /poi?z?n/
noun
A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
Something destructive or fatal.
A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction.
"a catalyst poison."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
SO, can we agree that one or more of these 'vaccines' has caused one or more of those sentences to be true? IF so, yes, Poison.
As you were x
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.
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?
r3g said:
Elysium said:
I don’t think you know what confirmation bias is. Which is rather ironic.
Oh I do. The confirmation bias you have had since you took your first jab that they are effective (in a positive way) - and continue to do so -despite an ever-increasing amount of evidence showing that they are dangerous and causing untold harm to the recipients. How many million "rare side effect" cases is VAERS database up to now?You have rejected the available evidence that disagrees with your preconceptions and reached a conclusion based entirely on an unevidenced belief.
Only one of these things is confirmation bias.
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.
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?
did 'most of the people on the planet' know they were part of a medical experiment? Did they have informed consent? Was it possible to have informed consent when it was part of a unknown medical experiment and those same customers were told repeatedly in unison from governments around the world it was safe and effective?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.
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?
You can't give a mass vaccination to most of the people on the planet as your test subjects - it is disgusting and actually illegal.
You could also argue the test failed with one death, when in fact we have tens of thousands of adverse reactions and deaths.
So, no, I won't accept that most of the planet being duped into taking an experimental treatment that has harmed tens of thousands (that we know of) as a valid test I'm afraid.
If I had taken it I would be f
king livid - luckily I did not, and non of my close people did either.In fact I'd wager most of the people on the planet is flawed too - as the numbers were clearly not true - I'd be amazed if 50% of the planet fell for it.
Edited to add - my statement that nobody needed it , is based on the evidence that it was indeed the FLU - I did half concede that old people may have been vulnerable, but I personally don't really believe that.
When you say my view it didn't work is contrary to the evidence...........it was labelled a VACCINE - therefore it is supposed to VACCINATE - it did not , it didn't stop anyone from catching C19, and it didn't stop anyone from passing it on. Therefore, it didn't work as a vaccine. That is very well documented in the science. The subjective element I think you allude to, is, did it stop people from having a worse experience if they were duped into taking it?
Maybe, for old vulnerable people, but not for anyone else.
Edited by The Selfish Gene on Tuesday 30th April 11:45
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..."
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.
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.
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.
That pretty much everything echoes both my viewpoint and experiences too.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 am absolutely open to evidence of there being mass vaccine harm but that will not come from loon sites or someone releasing 'evidence' via social media and, astonishingly, being paid per view or similar.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff