CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Elysium said:
I think this is an example of you being so determined to challenge the ‘wrong’ thinking of others that you have failed to appreciate the context.
If you had watched the video you would have seen individuals presenting to the enquiry about the loss of loved ones. You would have heard them express concern about these people having been given drugs that are associated with ‘end of life’ care. Where we all know the boundary blurs between easing discomfort and ‘helping’ those who are suffering them along their way.
We know that large numbers of elderly people were discharged from hospitals to care homes to free up capacity. We know that this very likely seeded the first wave of COVID in those care homes. We know that many more people than usual died in those care homes. We know that many more doses of Midazolam were procured than is usual.
The COVID enquiry evidence isn’t gobbledegook, regardless of your opinion of the YouTuber that is discussing it. This subject deserves public discussion and investigation, because it is entirely possible that unnecessary harm was caused.
I watched the video. The context is not lost. You seem to have lost the entire point of my post. The gobbledegook you refer to is not even closely related to the COVID enquiry and more the repeated tripe trotted out by the poster. Slightly ironic questioning someone else's ability to contextualise something whilst simultaneously missing it
.
Just for context at the beginning of COVID I was on a working group for Shelford Group NHS Trusts which looked at the procurement and sustainability of supply of critical drugs such as midazolam in the first stages of the pandemic. This meant that vast swathes of drugs were bought due to ensure continuity of care when there were likely to be worldwide supply chain issues due to an increase in demand. This was replicated across many other categories of drug and not just midazolam
If you had watched the video you would have seen individuals presenting to the enquiry about the loss of loved ones. You would have heard them express concern about these people having been given drugs that are associated with ‘end of life’ care. Where we all know the boundary blurs between easing discomfort and ‘helping’ those who are suffering them along their way.
We know that large numbers of elderly people were discharged from hospitals to care homes to free up capacity. We know that this very likely seeded the first wave of COVID in those care homes. We know that many more people than usual died in those care homes. We know that many more doses of Midazolam were procured than is usual.
The COVID enquiry evidence isn’t gobbledegook, regardless of your opinion of the YouTuber that is discussing it. This subject deserves public discussion and investigation, because it is entirely possible that unnecessary harm was caused.
I watched the video. The context is not lost. You seem to have lost the entire point of my post. The gobbledegook you refer to is not even closely related to the COVID enquiry and more the repeated tripe trotted out by the poster. Slightly ironic questioning someone else's ability to contextualise something whilst simultaneously missing it
. Just for context at the beginning of COVID I was on a working group for Shelford Group NHS Trusts which looked at the procurement and sustainability of supply of critical drugs such as midazolam in the first stages of the pandemic. This meant that vast swathes of drugs were bought due to ensure continuity of care when there were likely to be worldwide supply chain issues due to an increase in demand. This was replicated across many other categories of drug and not just midazolam
Unreal said:
Likewise, suggestions and belief aren't evidence. It would be surprising if there was no genetic link, given what we see with many inherited conditions but we have no proof and a genetic link is not a root cause.
I understand the desire to portray autism in a good light but claims that people ranging from Einstein to Michelangelo were autistic are just laughable. I can see it with Elon Musk and for balance I'd throw in that irritating nerk Chris Packham. People are rather less keen to talk about the many more people who are life limited in a wide variety of ways. They aren't blessed with an ability to play chess just by looking at a board or instantly tell you what the day of the week it was on 15 May 1183.
The landscape has changed in recent years. Whilst it seems likely that what we call autism has been around for many years, its current prevalence demands explanation not the attempted celebration we often see. Anyone over the age of 50 will be able to testify to the absence in their schools and communities of the widespread autistic traits so commonplace today. Children did not commonly have meltdowns, bash their heads against walls or be non-verbal and unable to make eye contact. We know that these behaviours cannot be suppressed so the idea that they were always present and we just didn't recognise them is a construction not a fact, a modern construction of people who weren't there.
I'd obviously be more relaxed about the condition if autism meant brilliance with difference but it most definitely does not in the majority of cases I see, For that reason alone I would like to see the causes identified, which has nothing to do with blaming vaccines and everything to do with ruling nothing out, including vaccines.
I fundamentally disagree.I understand the desire to portray autism in a good light but claims that people ranging from Einstein to Michelangelo were autistic are just laughable. I can see it with Elon Musk and for balance I'd throw in that irritating nerk Chris Packham. People are rather less keen to talk about the many more people who are life limited in a wide variety of ways. They aren't blessed with an ability to play chess just by looking at a board or instantly tell you what the day of the week it was on 15 May 1183.
The landscape has changed in recent years. Whilst it seems likely that what we call autism has been around for many years, its current prevalence demands explanation not the attempted celebration we often see. Anyone over the age of 50 will be able to testify to the absence in their schools and communities of the widespread autistic traits so commonplace today. Children did not commonly have meltdowns, bash their heads against walls or be non-verbal and unable to make eye contact. We know that these behaviours cannot be suppressed so the idea that they were always present and we just didn't recognise them is a construction not a fact, a modern construction of people who weren't there.
I'd obviously be more relaxed about the condition if autism meant brilliance with difference but it most definitely does not in the majority of cases I see, For that reason alone I would like to see the causes identified, which has nothing to do with blaming vaccines and everything to do with ruling nothing out, including vaccines.
People with Autism have different brains. They are wired up differently and they think differently.
I am absolutely certain that this has been with us for a very long time and we are only now beginning to understand it.
I think the numbers of people with autism are massively understated. Many people functioning at very high levels have cognitive function that differs from the norm. They are neurodivergent. I am one of them. My children have these traits and I can trace them back through at least 4 generations of my family.
All people with autism have a mix of traits. In some, where the medical definition of autism is focused, these traits significantly limit their ability to function. In others it is more mixed. They have some challenges, but quite often also have abilities that are incredibly useful.
The difference in brain function is undoubtedly genetic, but the manifestation is very likely to be influenced by other factors.
It is not laughable to suggest that many people in history were autistic. If you understand the traits they are very easy to see in others. Particularly if one of your ‘skills’ is enhanced pattern recognition.
You are flat out wrong to suggest these things were not visible in children in the past. This is a condition that is becoming better understood and more broadly diagnosed, but it most definitely is not new.
It is possible that vaccination could be an environmental trigger for more difficult presentations of autism, although there does not seem to be any actual evidence to support that.
However, vaccination cannot be the cause of autism.
Elysium said:
I fundamentally disagree.
People with Autism have different brains. They are wired up differently and they think differently.
I am absolutely certain that this has been with us for a very long time and we are only now beginning to understand it.
I think the numbers of people with autism are massively understated. Many people functioning at very high levels have cognitive function that differs from the norm. They are neurodivergent. I am one of them. My children have these traits and I can trace them back through at least 4 generations of my family.
All people with autism have a mix of traits. In some, where the medical definition of autism is focused, these traits significantly limit their ability to function. In others it is more mixed. They have some challenges, but quite often also have abilities that are incredibly useful.
The difference in brain function is undoubtedly genetic, but the manifestation is very likely to be influenced by other factors.
It is not laughable to suggest that many people in history were autistic. If you understand the traits they are very easy to see in others. Particularly if one of your ‘skills’ is enhanced pattern recognition.
You are flat out wrong to suggest these things were not visible in children in the past. This is a condition that is becoming better understood and more broadly diagnosed, but it most definitely is not new.
It is possible that vaccination could be an environmental trigger for more difficult presentations of autism, although there does not seem to be any actual evidence to support that.
However, vaccination cannot be the cause of autism.
Someone told me they think the great explorers like Darwin had ADHD or similar as it drove them to do feats like that.People with Autism have different brains. They are wired up differently and they think differently.
I am absolutely certain that this has been with us for a very long time and we are only now beginning to understand it.
I think the numbers of people with autism are massively understated. Many people functioning at very high levels have cognitive function that differs from the norm. They are neurodivergent. I am one of them. My children have these traits and I can trace them back through at least 4 generations of my family.
All people with autism have a mix of traits. In some, where the medical definition of autism is focused, these traits significantly limit their ability to function. In others it is more mixed. They have some challenges, but quite often also have abilities that are incredibly useful.
The difference in brain function is undoubtedly genetic, but the manifestation is very likely to be influenced by other factors.
It is not laughable to suggest that many people in history were autistic. If you understand the traits they are very easy to see in others. Particularly if one of your ‘skills’ is enhanced pattern recognition.
You are flat out wrong to suggest these things were not visible in children in the past. This is a condition that is becoming better understood and more broadly diagnosed, but it most definitely is not new.
It is possible that vaccination could be an environmental trigger for more difficult presentations of autism, although there does not seem to be any actual evidence to support that.
However, vaccination cannot be the cause of autism.
So you're right, these traits have always been with us and like many other conditions we are only just starting to understand and acknowledge them.
pavarotti1980 said:
I watched the video. The context is not lost. You seem to have lost the entire point of my post. The gobbledegook you refer to is not even closely related to the COVID enquiry and more the repeated tripe trotted out by the poster. Slightly ironic questioning someone else's ability to contextualise something whilst simultaneously missing it .
Just for context at the beginning of COVID I was on a working group for Shelford Group NHS Trusts which looked at the procurement and sustainability of supply of critical drugs such as midazolam in the first stages of the pandemic. This meant that vast swathes of drugs were bought due to ensure continuity of care when there were likely to be worldwide supply chain issues due to an increase in demand. This was replicated across many other categories of drug and not just midazolam
Your views about the poster you replied to caused you to adopt an adversarial tone. Unfortunately that limits the ability for meaningful discussion, which is far from ideal with a subject of this sensitivity and a big miss given your direct knowledge of the issue. . Just for context at the beginning of COVID I was on a working group for Shelford Group NHS Trusts which looked at the procurement and sustainability of supply of critical drugs such as midazolam in the first stages of the pandemic. This meant that vast swathes of drugs were bought due to ensure continuity of care when there were likely to be worldwide supply chain issues due to an increase in demand. This was replicated across many other categories of drug and not just midazolam
It makes total sense that we would stockpile supplies of this drug.
However, it must follow that we expected an increase in demand for it. That is surely the main reason why we expected a supply shortage and why we considered it was important to plan for that?
I don't see that as odd. Our 'reasonable worst case scenario' for the pandemic would have seen us dealing with lots of very ill people who could not be treated in hospital, because we had exceeded the capacity limits of our health service.
This is why the elderly were discharged to care homes, it is why we had a lockdown and it is why we built the Nightingales. We thought these things were likely to be necessary.
In that context, we also have stories of DNAR decisions being made without discussion with patients, potentially breaching their human rights:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56435428
We also know that Midazolam prescriptions increased by 23%
https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/themes-care/sa...
And finally since you were close to the action you will know that NICE issued new guidance on managing COVID symptoms in the community that extended the use of Midazolam and specifically stated the following:
NICE said:
Sedation and opioid use should not be withheld because of fear of causing respiratory depression
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1461.full.pdfWhen we have evidence being given to the enquiry about individuals who were treated according to this guidance, who had previously been reasonably well, I think that it is entirely reasonable to wonder if mistakes may have been made.
As someone involved in this specific issue how confident are you that no harm was caused by these policies?
Danny Kruger MP asks a question in Parliament about the WHO Pandemic Preparedness treaty and the UK response to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fvZw-CJ0EI
Youtube transcript thingy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fvZw-CJ0EI
Youtube transcript thingy:
Youtube transcript said:
0:01
very much indeed Madame Deputy speaker
0:03
will the minister make a statement to
0:05
the house about the ongoing negotiations
0:08
on the World Health Organization
0:09
pandemic agreement and the amendments to
0:11
the international Health regulations
0:13
ahead of any votes at the World Health
0:15
assembly which starts next
0:18
week well thank you Madame Deputy
0:20
speaker and can I congratulate my
0:22
honorable friend the member for devises
0:24
for securing this urgent question and
0:25
I'm grateful for the opportunity to
0:28
update the house I want to start by
0:31
making three promises first the
0:33
government will only accept the Accord
0:35
and targeted amendments to the
0:36
international Health regulations if they
0:38
are firmly in the United Kingdom's
0:40
National interest and no text has yet
0:43
been agreed we will only accept the
0:45
Accord and amendments by the World
0:47
Health assembly and adopt them if they
0:50
are firmly in the UK's National interest
0:52
to do so secondly this government will
0:54
only sign up to measures that respect
0:57
our national sovereignty and third
1:00
under no circumstances will we allow the
1:03
who to have the power to mandate
1:05
lockdowns this would be Unthinkable and
1:08
has never been proposed protecting our
1:11
sovereignty is a British Red Line Madam
1:15
Deputy speaker let me now dismil three
1:17
myths about the negotiations first the
1:20
myth that the negotiations are being led
1:22
by the who they are not being led by the
1:25
who they are entirely led by member
1:28
states second the idea that we would
1:30
give away a fifth of our vaccines in the
1:33
next pandemic this is simply not true
1:36
and of course Madam Deputy speaker we
1:39
are a generous Country Companies may
1:41
make their own choices to donate
1:43
vaccines but this would be and should be
1:46
entirely their decision countries are
1:49
discussing a voluntary mechanism for UK
1:51
businesses to sign up to if they wish to
1:53
share vaccines in return for information
1:56
they may need to develop their products
1:58
and a third point is about transparency
2:01
this is a point I take extremely
2:03
seriously as one who campaigned so hard
2:06
for this parliament's sovereignty whilst
2:08
it is not common practice for the
2:10
government to give an update on live
2:13
negotiations I met with some interested
2:15
parliamentarians last week to discuss
2:17
their concerns with these negotiations I
2:19
also had the pleasure of leading
2:20
Westminster Hall debate on these
2:22
negotiations in December attended by my
2:25
honorable friend and many others and I
2:27
will continue to meet with him and other
2:29
concerned parliamentarians as we act in
2:31
the National interest Madame Deputy
2:33
speaker effective agreements can help us
2:36
to deliver smarter surveillance swifter
2:40
pathogen and data sharing faster
2:42
development of pandemic vaccines tests
2:45
and treatments which would save lives
2:47
and protect people both in the UK and
2:49
around the
2:50
world uh Danny Krueger speaker can I say
2:55
how much I appreciate the commitments
2:56
that the member the minister has just
2:59
made and and I want to acknowledge the
3:00
good work that he has been doing in
3:02
government and indeed his predecessors
3:04
ahead of the World Health assembly that
3:05
meets next week and I'm very pleased to
3:07
hear the commitments that he's just made
3:09
my concern Madam speaker is not with the
3:11
government's position but with the who
3:14
itself and I appreciate his point that
3:15
it's member states leading these
3:17
proposals that's worrying in itself but
3:19
we know from the drafts that have been
3:21
submitted in recent months what the real
3:23
agenda of the who is they want to have
3:26
binding Powers over National governments
3:28
to introduce all sorts of restrictive
3:30
measures on our citizens they want to be
3:32
able to direct the health budgets of
3:34
member states they want to introduce
3:36
Global digital Health passports and
3:38
other measures and this is the
3:40
organization that aspires in the words
3:41
that are still in the draft treaty that
3:43
we have to be and I quote the directing
3:45
and coordinating Authority on
3:47
International Health work including
3:49
pandemic prevention and response and I
3:53
appreciate no text has yet been agreed
3:54
which is why it's important that we have
3:55
this debate but the proposals in the
3:57
latest draft that was published last
3:59
month are concerning enough and they
4:01
require National governments to agree to
4:03
a whole series of commitments which will
4:04
be binding under international law if
4:06
the UK signs up to them surveillance of
4:08
the health of the population commitments
4:10
on funding both in the UK and abroad the
4:14
uh emergency authorization of new
4:15
vaccines speeded up authorization
4:17
processes to give uh some vaccines to
4:20
the who to distribute potentially the
4:23
authorization of national governments to
4:24
introduce compulsory vaccination of
4:26
Travelers and a very wide discretion
4:29
given to to the director general of the
4:31
wh to act on his own initiative Madam
4:34
deput speaker the government still has
4:36
the opportunity to oppose the treaty and
4:37
the regulations as they currently
4:39
drafted uh we appreciate we wait to see
4:42
the final text in the coming days but
4:44
can I ask the minister to clarify very
4:46
explicitly from the dispatch box what
4:48
the government's red lines are I heard
4:50
what he said could he go a little
4:51
further in the detail on what he means
4:54
secondly will the government oppose any
4:55
texts that AB binds this or future
4:58
government in how it responds to Health
4:59
threats and finally crucially will the
5:01
government comply with Craig uh at the
5:03
requirement to put the treaties to a
5:05
ratification vote in
5:08
Parliament well thank you madam Deputy
5:10
speaker and can I thank my honorable
5:11
friend for the constructive way that he
5:13
and other parliamentarians have engaged
5:15
with this subject matter and the
5:17
challenges it presents as I said in my
5:20
opening remarks no text has uh yet been
5:23
agreed uh I set out some of our
5:26
negotiating red lines I'm happy to
5:28
confirm from the dispatch box that the
5:29
current text is not acceptable uh to us
5:32
and therefore unless the current text uh
5:34
is is changed and refined we will not be
5:37
uh signing up uh my honorable friend
5:40
asks about how the treaty will be um
5:42
ratified uh if we reached a position
5:45
which the UK government could agree to
5:48
um the UK treaty making process means
5:50
the Accord is of course negotiated and
5:52
agreed by the government Parliament as
5:54
he will know plays an important part in
5:56
scrutinizing treaties under the crack
5:58
process and determining how
5:59
International obligations should be
6:00
reflected domestically but it's
6:02
important to remember that because the
6:04
exact form of the Accord has not yet
6:06
been agreed the Parliamentary and the
6:08
adoption process will depend on which
6:10
article of the who Constitution the
6:12
Accord is adopted under
very much indeed Madame Deputy speaker
0:03
will the minister make a statement to
0:05
the house about the ongoing negotiations
0:08
on the World Health Organization
0:09
pandemic agreement and the amendments to
0:11
the international Health regulations
0:13
ahead of any votes at the World Health
0:15
assembly which starts next
0:18
week well thank you Madame Deputy
0:20
speaker and can I congratulate my
0:22
honorable friend the member for devises
0:24
for securing this urgent question and
0:25
I'm grateful for the opportunity to
0:28
update the house I want to start by
0:31
making three promises first the
0:33
government will only accept the Accord
0:35
and targeted amendments to the
0:36
international Health regulations if they
0:38
are firmly in the United Kingdom's
0:40
National interest and no text has yet
0:43
been agreed we will only accept the
0:45
Accord and amendments by the World
0:47
Health assembly and adopt them if they
0:50
are firmly in the UK's National interest
0:52
to do so secondly this government will
0:54
only sign up to measures that respect
0:57
our national sovereignty and third
1:00
under no circumstances will we allow the
1:03
who to have the power to mandate
1:05
lockdowns this would be Unthinkable and
1:08
has never been proposed protecting our
1:11
sovereignty is a British Red Line Madam
1:15
Deputy speaker let me now dismil three
1:17
myths about the negotiations first the
1:20
myth that the negotiations are being led
1:22
by the who they are not being led by the
1:25
who they are entirely led by member
1:28
states second the idea that we would
1:30
give away a fifth of our vaccines in the
1:33
next pandemic this is simply not true
1:36
and of course Madam Deputy speaker we
1:39
are a generous Country Companies may
1:41
make their own choices to donate
1:43
vaccines but this would be and should be
1:46
entirely their decision countries are
1:49
discussing a voluntary mechanism for UK
1:51
businesses to sign up to if they wish to
1:53
share vaccines in return for information
1:56
they may need to develop their products
1:58
and a third point is about transparency
2:01
this is a point I take extremely
2:03
seriously as one who campaigned so hard
2:06
for this parliament's sovereignty whilst
2:08
it is not common practice for the
2:10
government to give an update on live
2:13
negotiations I met with some interested
2:15
parliamentarians last week to discuss
2:17
their concerns with these negotiations I
2:19
also had the pleasure of leading
2:20
Westminster Hall debate on these
2:22
negotiations in December attended by my
2:25
honorable friend and many others and I
2:27
will continue to meet with him and other
2:29
concerned parliamentarians as we act in
2:31
the National interest Madame Deputy
2:33
speaker effective agreements can help us
2:36
to deliver smarter surveillance swifter
2:40
pathogen and data sharing faster
2:42
development of pandemic vaccines tests
2:45
and treatments which would save lives
2:47
and protect people both in the UK and
2:49
around the
2:50
world uh Danny Krueger speaker can I say
2:55
how much I appreciate the commitments
2:56
that the member the minister has just
2:59
made and and I want to acknowledge the
3:00
good work that he has been doing in
3:02
government and indeed his predecessors
3:04
ahead of the World Health assembly that
3:05
meets next week and I'm very pleased to
3:07
hear the commitments that he's just made
3:09
my concern Madam speaker is not with the
3:11
government's position but with the who
3:14
itself and I appreciate his point that
3:15
it's member states leading these
3:17
proposals that's worrying in itself but
3:19
we know from the drafts that have been
3:21
submitted in recent months what the real
3:23
agenda of the who is they want to have
3:26
binding Powers over National governments
3:28
to introduce all sorts of restrictive
3:30
measures on our citizens they want to be
3:32
able to direct the health budgets of
3:34
member states they want to introduce
3:36
Global digital Health passports and
3:38
other measures and this is the
3:40
organization that aspires in the words
3:41
that are still in the draft treaty that
3:43
we have to be and I quote the directing
3:45
and coordinating Authority on
3:47
International Health work including
3:49
pandemic prevention and response and I
3:53
appreciate no text has yet been agreed
3:54
which is why it's important that we have
3:55
this debate but the proposals in the
3:57
latest draft that was published last
3:59
month are concerning enough and they
4:01
require National governments to agree to
4:03
a whole series of commitments which will
4:04
be binding under international law if
4:06
the UK signs up to them surveillance of
4:08
the health of the population commitments
4:10
on funding both in the UK and abroad the
4:14
uh emergency authorization of new
4:15
vaccines speeded up authorization
4:17
processes to give uh some vaccines to
4:20
the who to distribute potentially the
4:23
authorization of national governments to
4:24
introduce compulsory vaccination of
4:26
Travelers and a very wide discretion
4:29
given to to the director general of the
4:31
wh to act on his own initiative Madam
4:34
deput speaker the government still has
4:36
the opportunity to oppose the treaty and
4:37
the regulations as they currently
4:39
drafted uh we appreciate we wait to see
4:42
the final text in the coming days but
4:44
can I ask the minister to clarify very
4:46
explicitly from the dispatch box what
4:48
the government's red lines are I heard
4:50
what he said could he go a little
4:51
further in the detail on what he means
4:54
secondly will the government oppose any
4:55
texts that AB binds this or future
4:58
government in how it responds to Health
4:59
threats and finally crucially will the
5:01
government comply with Craig uh at the
5:03
requirement to put the treaties to a
5:05
ratification vote in
5:08
Parliament well thank you madam Deputy
5:10
speaker and can I thank my honorable
5:11
friend for the constructive way that he
5:13
and other parliamentarians have engaged
5:15
with this subject matter and the
5:17
challenges it presents as I said in my
5:20
opening remarks no text has uh yet been
5:23
agreed uh I set out some of our
5:26
negotiating red lines I'm happy to
5:28
confirm from the dispatch box that the
5:29
current text is not acceptable uh to us
5:32
and therefore unless the current text uh
5:34
is is changed and refined we will not be
5:37
uh signing up uh my honorable friend
5:40
asks about how the treaty will be um
5:42
ratified uh if we reached a position
5:45
which the UK government could agree to
5:48
um the UK treaty making process means
5:50
the Accord is of course negotiated and
5:52
agreed by the government Parliament as
5:54
he will know plays an important part in
5:56
scrutinizing treaties under the crack
5:58
process and determining how
5:59
International obligations should be
6:00
reflected domestically but it's
6:02
important to remember that because the
6:04
exact form of the Accord has not yet
6:06
been agreed the Parliamentary and the
6:08
adoption process will depend on which
6:10
article of the who Constitution the
6:12
Accord is adopted under
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 15th May 10:30
Elysium said:
Michelangelo, Darwin, Newton and Mozart are all thought to have been likely to be autistic. Their ‘different’ brain function existed long before vaccines.
Retroactive diagnosis like these hundreds of years after their deaths, and with no real evidence, are ridiculous.Edited by mko9 on Wednesday 15th May 19:52
Meanwhile, the fully tested safe and effective covaids vaccines in Australia are doing well. Thus far, AU$ 20.5 million has been paid out in covaids vaccine injury claims, and that's less than 7% of the total claims..
Nothing to see here folks, just a handful of rare cases then.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/over-20-millio...
Nothing to see here folks, just a handful of rare cases then.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/over-20-millio...
mko9 said:
Elysium said:
Michelangelo, Darwin, Newton and Mozart are all thought to have been likely to be autistic. Their ‘different’ brain function existed long before vaccines.
Retroactive diagnosis like these hundreds of years after their deaths, and with no real evidence, is ridiculous.
holes like Hitler or Genghis Khan - were any of them autistic? Thought not. It looks like there might be some consequences at least for Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance -
BREAKING: HHS Suspends Funding and Proposes Formal Debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Cites Evidence from COVID Select Report
https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-s...
For those not aware, EcoHealth Alliance was the organisation behind a 2018 "DEFUSE" research grant proposal to conduct research on Bat coronaviruses of the same type as SARS at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Literally proposing to create a virus that would have been almost exactly SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/great-covid-cover-...
Thrown under a bus to protect Fauci? I wonder if it will end there...
BREAKING: HHS Suspends Funding and Proposes Formal Debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Cites Evidence from COVID Select Report
https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-s...
For those not aware, EcoHealth Alliance was the organisation behind a 2018 "DEFUSE" research grant proposal to conduct research on Bat coronaviruses of the same type as SARS at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Literally proposing to create a virus that would have been almost exactly SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/great-covid-cover-...
Thrown under a bus to protect Fauci? I wonder if it will end there...
mko9 said:
Elysium said:
Michelangelo, Darwin, Newton and Mozart are all thought to have been likely to be autistic. Their ‘different’ brain function existed long before vaccines.
Retroactive diagnosis like these hundreds of years after their deaths, and with no real evidence, are ridiculous.Rollin said:
Remember when people said they'd never seen any antivax sentiment on this thread? 
There is a huge difference between being "Anti vax", and having four vaccinations and being seriously injured by the first one. I never once had any symptoms or tested positive for Covid, but I do have most of the symptoms associated with people who have been vaccine injured. The fact is, that most of the GP's are still in denial about this.r3g said:
Meanwhile, the fully tested safe and effective covaids vaccines in Australia are doing well. Thus far, AU$ 20.5 million has been paid out in covaids vaccine injury claims, and that's less than 7% of the total claims..
Nothing to see here folks, just a handful of rare cases then.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/over-20-millio...
From what I have learned from my group of vaccine injured in the UK, only 2% of claims here have been paid out. It is an absolute disgrace. I am in my mid sixties, have been crippled by the first AZ jab and cannot work or get any benefits. There are thousands in the UK in my position.Nothing to see here folks, just a handful of rare cases then.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/over-20-millio...
grumbledoak said:
It looks like there might be some consequences at least for Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance -
BREAKING: HHS Suspends Funding and Proposes Formal Debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Cites Evidence from COVID Select Report
https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-s...
For those not aware, EcoHealth Alliance was the organisation behind a 2018 "DEFUSE" research grant proposal to conduct research on Bat coronaviruses of the same type as SARS at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Literally proposing to create a virus that would have been almost exactly SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/great-covid-cover-...
Thrown under a bus to protect Fauci? I wonder if it will end there...
BREAKING: HHS Suspends Funding and Proposes Formal Debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Cites Evidence from COVID Select Report
https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-s...
For those not aware, EcoHealth Alliance was the organisation behind a 2018 "DEFUSE" research grant proposal to conduct research on Bat coronaviruses of the same type as SARS at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Literally proposing to create a virus that would have been almost exactly SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/great-covid-cover-...
Thrown under a bus to protect Fauci? I wonder if it will end there...
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
Elysium said:
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.
We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.
jshell said:
Elysium said:
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.
We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.
Elysium said:
Agreed. None of it worked. It is purely through luck that we ended up with a more transmissible, but less severe version of the virus.
with respect thats not true. Its not luck. Its how viruses have to evolve in order to survive. Its been well known thats the MO of viruses. Its why we had a pandemic plan which unfortunately and tragically for various popularity voting reasons/shrills we then didnt feking follow. The govt response made the issue we all now face worse. Edited by superlightr on Thursday 16th May 15:59
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff