Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
monkfish1 said:
Tankrizzo said:
Good to see the usual conspiracy guff about Bill Gates being chucked about by the terminally thick as f
k.
Which part of "bill gates donated to the MHRA" is a conspiracy.? Or are you too thick to read?k.I dont care if its bill gates, joe bloggs or you that donated. Its supposed to be an independant approvals body. Its independance is compromised when it accepts cash from those with an agenda, whatever it may or may not be.
In what way is the MHRA compromised?
What agenda? Presumably you think it must be a 'bad' agenda?
You seem to be in a tizz but failing to articulate why. Accusing others of being naive doesn't explain your tizz.
You imply you're not naive. Ought to be easy to explain this greater knowledge you have that sets you above others surely?
V6 Pushfit said:
But you still quoted a figure of 0.05% which is wrong, it’s either misleading or ignorant.
No he was right. He stated 0.05% was the population fatality rate, ie % of global population recorded that have died with covid. ""0.05% of the World’s population in 18 months has died “with” Covid. ""
Exactly how is he wrong? You quoting case fatality rates has absolutely nothing to do with that number mentioned.
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Tankrizzo said:
Good to see the usual conspiracy guff about Bill Gates being chucked about by the terminally thick as fk.
Which part of "bill gates donated to the MHRA" is a conspiracy.? Or are you too thick to read?k.I dont care if its bill gates, joe bloggs or you that donated. Its supposed to be an independant approvals body. Its independance is compromised when it accepts cash from those with an agenda, whatever it may or may not be.
In what way is the MHRA compromised?
What agenda? Presumably you think it must be a 'bad' agenda?
You seem to be in a tizz but failing to articulate why. Accusing others of being naive doesn't explain your tizz.
You imply you're not naive. Ought to be easy to explain this greater knowledge you have that sets you above others surely?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
monkfish1 said:
Really? I need to explain this?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
What is it you think Bill Gates wants?None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
paulguitar said:
monkfish1 said:
Really? I need to explain this?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
What is it you think Bill Gates wants?None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
67Dino said:
Yes, that’s the figure with the biggest global lockdown in history, the biggest surge in hospital intensive care provision in history, and now the biggest, fastest vaccination programme in history.
You really can’t use it to indicate that Covid is not that dangerous.
Then you had better explain how in the absence of the vaccine that the remainder of the world aren’t at the same risk of death that we have seen up to now, ie 2-3% You really can’t use it to indicate that Covid is not that dangerous.
Is it by some miracle only known to you?
Do tell.
monkfish1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Tankrizzo said:
Good to see the usual conspiracy guff about Bill Gates being chucked about by the terminally thick as fk.
Which part of "bill gates donated to the MHRA" is a conspiracy.? Or are you too thick to read?k.I dont care if its bill gates, joe bloggs or you that donated. Its supposed to be an independant approvals body. Its independance is compromised when it accepts cash from those with an agenda, whatever it may or may not be.
In what way is the MHRA compromised?
What agenda? Presumably you think it must be a 'bad' agenda?
You seem to be in a tizz but failing to articulate why. Accusing others of being naive doesn't explain your tizz.
You imply you're not naive. Ought to be easy to explain this greater knowledge you have that sets you above others surely?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
Saying someone has "influence" doesn't mean they do.
What does "fully independent" mean?
What is the relevance of you guessing what I "want to believe"?
Your lack of answers leads me to think that the verdict of "thick as s
t" must be correct. 
Sorry that you live your life in perpetual fear of 'something'.
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Tankrizzo said:
Good to see the usual conspiracy guff about Bill Gates being chucked about by the terminally thick as fk.
Which part of "bill gates donated to the MHRA" is a conspiracy.? Or are you too thick to read?k.I dont care if its bill gates, joe bloggs or you that donated. Its supposed to be an independant approvals body. Its independance is compromised when it accepts cash from those with an agenda, whatever it may or may not be.
In what way is the MHRA compromised?
What agenda? Presumably you think it must be a 'bad' agenda?
You seem to be in a tizz but failing to articulate why. Accusing others of being naive doesn't explain your tizz.
You imply you're not naive. Ought to be easy to explain this greater knowledge you have that sets you above others surely?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
Saying someone has "influence" doesn't mean they do.
What does "fully independent" mean?
What is the relevance of you guessing what I "want to believe"?
Your lack of answers leads me to think that the verdict of "thick as s
t" must be correct. Sorry that you live your life in perpetual fear of 'something'.
Im not "in fear" of anything thanks. Im ready to crack on with life when Boris and co deem that acceptable, whilst doing as much as is possible in the interim. No hiding behind the sofa for me.
monkfish1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Tankrizzo said:
Good to see the usual conspiracy guff about Bill Gates being chucked about by the terminally thick as fk.
Which part of "bill gates donated to the MHRA" is a conspiracy.? Or are you too thick to read?k.I dont care if its bill gates, joe bloggs or you that donated. Its supposed to be an independant approvals body. Its independance is compromised when it accepts cash from those with an agenda, whatever it may or may not be.
In what way is the MHRA compromised?
What agenda? Presumably you think it must be a 'bad' agenda?
You seem to be in a tizz but failing to articulate why. Accusing others of being naive doesn't explain your tizz.
You imply you're not naive. Ought to be easy to explain this greater knowledge you have that sets you above others surely?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
Saying someone has "influence" doesn't mean they do.
What does "fully independent" mean?
What is the relevance of you guessing what I "want to believe"?
Your lack of answers leads me to think that the verdict of "thick as s
t" must be correct. Sorry that you live your life in perpetual fear of 'something'.
Im not "in fear" of anything thanks. Im ready to crack on with life when Boris and co deem that acceptable, whilst doing as much as is possible in the interim. No hiding behind the sofa for me.
You can't explain your fear so it doesn't appear rational. Calling others naive simply because of your unexplained fear of 'something' is just daft.
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
monkfish1 said:
Tankrizzo said:
Good to see the usual conspiracy guff about Bill Gates being chucked about by the terminally thick as fk.
Which part of "bill gates donated to the MHRA" is a conspiracy.? Or are you too thick to read?k.I dont care if its bill gates, joe bloggs or you that donated. Its supposed to be an independant approvals body. Its independance is compromised when it accepts cash from those with an agenda, whatever it may or may not be.
In what way is the MHRA compromised?
What agenda? Presumably you think it must be a 'bad' agenda?
You seem to be in a tizz but failing to articulate why. Accusing others of being naive doesn't explain your tizz.
You imply you're not naive. Ought to be easy to explain this greater knowledge you have that sets you above others surely?
None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.
If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.
At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.
If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.
Saying someone has "influence" doesn't mean they do.
What does "fully independent" mean?
What is the relevance of you guessing what I "want to believe"?
Your lack of answers leads me to think that the verdict of "thick as s
t" must be correct. Sorry that you live your life in perpetual fear of 'something'.
Im not "in fear" of anything thanks. Im ready to crack on with life when Boris and co deem that acceptable, whilst doing as much as is possible in the interim. No hiding behind the sofa for me.
You can't explain your fear so it doesn't appear rational. Calling others naive simply because of your unexplained fear of 'something' is just daft.
Bunch of tools IMO.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff