UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds
Discussion
scottyp123 said:
Not even an attempt to answer a reasonable question. Take this one, kids got to grandmas for the day, go out in the field at the back and play with god knows what, come back inside and make granny a nice cup of tea. A week later and granny is dead. Probably happened a million times over the years, a nice neat solution of mandating gloves for kids whilst playing outside would have prevented it but its never been done, or even thought about, yet sticking something into then with no long term effects and they can't wait to do it quick enough.
Boris obviously hasn't got any mates in the glove making business.
A reasonable question? You just suggested killing anyone who isn’t fully healthy. You made a jump from someone not being able to take the vaccine to assuming that means they are vulnerable to everything. That isn’t a logical step, but it’s what you need to justify your “reasonable question”. You then add to the hyperbole by suggesting “a mild bit of Covid could kill them”. A mild bit? Another big assumption. Boris obviously hasn't got any mates in the glove making business.
You seem upset that “we are going all out to prevent them catching Covid”. More hyperbole. The vaccine has been approved for use in kids, it hasn’t been decided whether to roll it out or not. You’re just playing the big hard man card trying to show how tough you are. Here’s a thought, maybe one of the key parts of a governments role is to protect its citizens, no matter their age.
scottyp123 said:
These people that are very vulnerable to covid and can't have the vaccine for one reason or another, I take it its not just covid they are vulnerable to?
If someone is so close to death that even a mild bit of covid could kill them then would I be right to assume that there are lots of different things that might kill them as well that would just be a mild inconvenience to most of us. Things like the flu or even a common cold, maybe a bit of dodgy food or even some dog s
t that has found its way onto their door handle, I'll bet a good dose of diesel fumes might see them off as well, in fact it would probably be easier to list the things that wouldn't kill them
So why is it that we are going all out to prevent them from catching covid but are more than happy to kill them with 1001 different methods, I would say straight off anyone who advocates saving the vulnerable via covid needs to stop driving a motor vehicle with immediate effect at the very least.
If someone is so close to death that even a mild bit of covid could kill them then would I be right to assume that there are lots of different things that might kill them as well that would just be a mild inconvenience to most of us. Things like the flu or even a common cold, maybe a bit of dodgy food or even some dog s
t that has found its way onto their door handle, I'll bet a good dose of diesel fumes might see them off as well, in fact it would probably be easier to list the things that wouldn't kill themSo why is it that we are going all out to prevent them from catching covid but are more than happy to kill them with 1001 different methods, I would say straight off anyone who advocates saving the vulnerable via covid needs to stop driving a motor vehicle with immediate effect at the very least.
unident said:
TV8 said:
It’s about risk. If you are facing a high certainty of dying, then there is benefit from the risk. Healthy people under 70 ARE NOT at risk of dying but higher risk than under 50s. Children are at no risk. If you can not understand that please reconsider your posting of opinions.
Time to stop all the MMR vaccinations too then. Children can catch it, can spread it and a vaccine is not 100% effective so those it hasn’t worked on remain at risk, as do those who can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason. You seem to think this vaccine is either made of poison, or previously unheard of materials. It isn’t.
unident said:
TV8 said:
It’s about risk. If you are facing a high certainty of dying, then there is benefit from the risk. Healthy people under 70 ARE NOT at risk of dying but higher risk than under 50s. Children are at no risk. If you can not understand that please reconsider your posting of opinions.
Time to stop all the MMR vaccinations too then. Children can catch it, can spread it and a vaccine is not 100% effective so those it hasn’t worked on remain at risk, as do those who can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason. You seem to think this vaccine is either made of poison, or previously unheard of materials. It isn’t.
I don’t care what this injection is made of to support my point here. There is NO case to use it with children or young adults.
The contents of it are bad in my opinion, but that is not relevant as that ship has sailed. It’s failed the short term safety assessment but that is being ignored so the next year or two will be important to prove safety or not.
The next stage of drug trial processes are two years for good reason.
TV8 said:
So your stupid or a troll, maybe both.
I don’t care what this injection is made of to support my point here. There is NO case to use it with children or young adults.
The contents of it are bad in my opinion, but that is not relevant as that ship has sailed. It’s failed the short term safety assessment but that is being ignored so the next year or two will be important to prove safety or not.
The next stage of drug trial processes are two years for good reason.
What safety assessment failed, got a link?I don’t care what this injection is made of to support my point here. There is NO case to use it with children or young adults.
The contents of it are bad in my opinion, but that is not relevant as that ship has sailed. It’s failed the short term safety assessment but that is being ignored so the next year or two will be important to prove safety or not.
The next stage of drug trial processes are two years for good reason.
bmwmike said:
What safety assessment failed, got a link?
The U.K. adverse reactions and EU and American equivalents. Well north of 10,000 deaths and more than all other treatments combined for the last 10+ years. The last rushed drug was pulled after less than a hundred deaths. Pure evil at play here. A long video but worth watching if you are on the fence about that to do here. Also search Dr Peter McCullogh for some of his snippets. He is one of the the most peer reviewed author on Covid and now does not recommend this treatment for anyone. He could be one of the people that breaks this facist takeover of the west.
https://vimeo.com/553518199
TV8 said:
So your stupid or a troll, maybe both.
I don’t care what this injection is made of to support my point here. There is NO case to use it with children or young adults.
The contents of it are bad in my opinion, but that is not relevant as that ship has sailed. It’s failed the short term safety assessment but that is being ignored so the next year or two will be important to prove safety or not.
The next stage of drug trial processes are two years for good reason.
It’s probably better when you’re going to call someone stupid, that you know the difference between “your” and “you’re”. I don’t care what this injection is made of to support my point here. There is NO case to use it with children or young adults.
The contents of it are bad in my opinion, but that is not relevant as that ship has sailed. It’s failed the short term safety assessment but that is being ignored so the next year or two will be important to prove safety or not.
The next stage of drug trial processes are two years for good reason.
I see the quoted post from you and the subsequent one are classic conspiracy nutter rants.
unident said:
It’s probably better when you’re going to call someone stupid, that you know the difference between “your” and “you’re”.
I see the quoted post from you and the subsequent one are classic conspiracy nutter rants.
Stupid and a pedant. A fine combination. How life in the 77th? I see the quoted post from you and the subsequent one are classic conspiracy nutter rants.
TV8 said:
unident said:
It’s probably better when you’re going to call someone stupid, that you know the difference between “your” and “you’re”.
I see the quoted post from you and the subsequent one are classic conspiracy nutter rants.
Stupid and a pedant. A fine combination. How life in the 77th? I see the quoted post from you and the subsequent one are classic conspiracy nutter rants.
Gweeds said:
Because by removing the well of potential hosts, you reduce the chance of mutations/variants which may be vaccine resistant and which could then affect those who could die?
He knows that really, but he can’t be such a billy big balls then, can he. Don’t worry, he’ll be dead of an ingrowing toenal in a few weeks as he will refuse simple penicillin and go out like a champ, albeit wine with a toe that smells like Gemma Collins belly button.
TV8 said:
bmwmike said:
What safety assessment failed, got a link?
The U.K. adverse reactions and EU and American equivalents. Well north of 10,000 deaths and more than all other treatments combined for the last 10+ years. The last rushed drug was pulled after less than a hundred deaths. Pure evil at play here. A long video but worth watching if you are on the fence about that to do here. Also search Dr Peter McCullogh for some of his snippets. He is one of the the most peer reviewed author on Covid and now does not recommend this treatment for anyone. He could be one of the people that breaks this facist takeover of the west.
https://vimeo.com/553518199
Can someone show me testing on animals with mRNA, over say 10 generations, showing no issues?
These tests have surely been done, and would put my mind at rest somewhat. I mean surely, they would test it on humans alongside animals, surely?
My google fu isn't working, all I can find is a fact checker debunking the fact that all the animals died of vaccine related issues - by stating they were euthanized shortly after concluding the trial. (Surely you'd keep them around for a bit to check on small things like fertility, 2nd/3rd/4th generation immunity and any unexpected issues).
Its surely not good enough to say "look, no issues after 6 months, it's all good"? (Appreciate they've been testing mRNA for a good while longer)
Isn't there something about examining the effects on ovaries, which is due to conclude in 2023 or similar? Seems an odd decision to give the mRNA jab to all your fertile population, before this data is in? Worth the risk? To the over 50s, definately. To the 12-30 cohort? (Or even the 18-30 bunch) - I'd say no
But concern gets easily translated to "anti vax nutter" these days.
These tests have surely been done, and would put my mind at rest somewhat. I mean surely, they would test it on humans alongside animals, surely?
My google fu isn't working, all I can find is a fact checker debunking the fact that all the animals died of vaccine related issues - by stating they were euthanized shortly after concluding the trial. (Surely you'd keep them around for a bit to check on small things like fertility, 2nd/3rd/4th generation immunity and any unexpected issues).
Its surely not good enough to say "look, no issues after 6 months, it's all good"? (Appreciate they've been testing mRNA for a good while longer)
Isn't there something about examining the effects on ovaries, which is due to conclude in 2023 or similar? Seems an odd decision to give the mRNA jab to all your fertile population, before this data is in? Worth the risk? To the over 50s, definately. To the 12-30 cohort? (Or even the 18-30 bunch) - I'd say no
But concern gets easily translated to "anti vax nutter" these days.
johnboy1975 said:
Can someone show me testing on animals with mRNA, over say 10 generations, showing no issues?
These tests have surely been done, and would put my mind at rest somewhat. I mean surely, they would test it on humans alongside animals, surely?
My google fu isn't working, all I can find is a fact checker debunking the fact that all the animals died of vaccine related issues - by stating they were euthanized shortly after concluding the trial. (Surely you'd keep them around for a bit to check on small things like fertility, 2nd/3rd/4th generation immunity and any unexpected issues).
Its surely not good enough to say "look, no issues after 6 months, it's all good"? (Appreciate they've been testing mRNA for a good while longer)
Isn't there something about examining the effects on ovaries, which is due to conclude in 2023 or similar? Seems an odd decision to give the mRNA jab to all your fertile population, before this data is in? Worth the risk? To the over 50s, definately. To the 12-30 cohort? (Or even the 18-30 bunch) - I'd say no
But concern gets easily translated to "anti vax nutter" these days.
Is that how they develop all medicines? If not, why have you decided that they should do it for this? Why have you decided that it’s somehow hiding something?These tests have surely been done, and would put my mind at rest somewhat. I mean surely, they would test it on humans alongside animals, surely?
My google fu isn't working, all I can find is a fact checker debunking the fact that all the animals died of vaccine related issues - by stating they were euthanized shortly after concluding the trial. (Surely you'd keep them around for a bit to check on small things like fertility, 2nd/3rd/4th generation immunity and any unexpected issues).
Its surely not good enough to say "look, no issues after 6 months, it's all good"? (Appreciate they've been testing mRNA for a good while longer)
Isn't there something about examining the effects on ovaries, which is due to conclude in 2023 or similar? Seems an odd decision to give the mRNA jab to all your fertile population, before this data is in? Worth the risk? To the over 50s, definately. To the 12-30 cohort? (Or even the 18-30 bunch) - I'd say no
But concern gets easily translated to "anti vax nutter" these days.
Why not share what you think MRNA is and what it does? You’ve already hinted heavily at the loony tunes population control route. That’s more likely to be why many would suggest you’re an “anti-vax nutter”
TV8 said:
bmwmike said:
What safety assessment failed, got a link?
The U.K. adverse reactions and EU and American equivalents. Well north of 10,000 deaths and more than all other treatments combined for the last 10+ years. The last rushed drug was pulled after less than a hundred deaths. Pure evil at play here. A long video but worth watching if you are on the fence about that to do here. Also search Dr Peter McCullogh for some of his snippets. He is one of the the most peer reviewed author on Covid and now does not recommend this treatment for anyone. He could be one of the people that breaks this facist takeover of the west.
https://vimeo.com/553518199
Of course, he's developed his own cocktail of drugs which is totally untested
Scathing takedown of the 'expert' here
another takedown of Dr turned grifter
unident said:
Is that how they develop all medicines? If not, why have you decided that they should do it for this? Why have you decided that it’s somehow hiding something?
Why not share what you think MRNA is and what it does? You’ve already hinted heavily at the loony tunes population control route. That’s more likely to be why many would suggest you’re an “anti-vax nutter”
Pardon my ignorance, I was under the impression drugs and medicines were extensively tested on animals before they got anywhere near humans?Why not share what you think MRNA is and what it does? You’ve already hinted heavily at the loony tunes population control route. That’s more likely to be why many would suggest you’re an “anti-vax nutter”
I dont know if it affects fertility, a few with (way) more knowledge than me seem to think it could be a problem.
Millions of (predominantly female) healthcare workers jabbed, must be close(ish) to some of them having got accidentally pregnant and going full term? I wonder if there were any issues, would MSM broadcast it? I suspect we both know the answer.....
(Is there any data anywhere, I'd be interested
)I'll just give you the standard 2 "antivaxxer salwarts" - namely Thalidomide (obviously not a vaccine) and Pandemrix. I'm sure there are others.
(Re "looney tunes population control" it strikes me that a smaller global population fully vaccinated against covid would be preferable to the powers that be, rather than a bigger global population where some people sadly pass away due to a respiratory virus. (And in the uk, this figure is put at 6-15k over 12 months due to the high effacy of the vaccine, coupled with the high take up among the vunerable))
This latter option it seems to me, must be avoided at all costs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff