UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds

[gizlaroc]

bmwmike said:

Did i say that? No.

Thats how this works isnt it.

Explain then?

We are all ears.

[anonymous-user]

How many pages has it been since the thread topic was mentioned/discussed?

[gizlaroc]

Too right.

Jab them up and sod the consequences, it will make some 50 year olds feel safer.

[robuk]

gizlaroc said:

I will admit to 2 or 3 times I have posted stuff that I doubted and deleted, therefore I removed it.

then...

gizlaroc said:

Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct.

Even your own defensive postings are not consistent.

It is hilariously low quality.

[gizlaroc]

robuk said:

gizlaroc said:

I will admit to 2 or 3 times I have posted stuff that I doubted and deleted, therefore I removed it.

then...

gizlaroc said:

Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct.

Even your own defensive postings are not consistent.

It is hilariously low quality.

Really?

Is that it?


Okie dokie.



Have a great week Rob.








A clue.
2 or 3 times I have posted stuff from twitter, web pages, etc. and have then doubted it and pulled it.


When I have had people in my place telling me stuff I have gone away and researched what they have said before posting it on here, as I know, there are a couple on here that will tear me to shreds if not true.

[robuk]

gizlaroc said:

2 or 3 times I have posted stuff from twitter, web pages, etc. and have then doubted it and pulled it.

"Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct" so to be clear that is you telling a lie then?

Both can't be right.

[gizlaroc]

robuk said:

"Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct" so to be clear that is you telling a lie then?

Both can't be right.

2 different things.

Go back and look at the conversations.



Discussing things that I have taken on face value online, thinking they have done their due diligence vs things I am told by people direct where I have to do the research.

[robuk]

gizlaroc said:

2 different things.

Go back and look at the conversations.

You say everything you have posted has been correct, apart from the bits you have deleted. Wonderful!

[gizlaroc]

robuk said:

You say everything you have posted has been correct, apart from the bits you have deleted. Wonderful!

You really are clutching at straws now mate.

[Jasandjules]

Are we in any kind of "emergency" anymore?

[SS2.]

Jasandjules said:

Are we in any kind of "emergency" anymore?

Just the one we're told we're in.

[bmwmike]

gizlaroc said:

bmwmike said:

Did i say that? No.

Thats how this works isnt it.

Explain then?

We are all ears.

No you're not. Nobody is. Hardly anyone on here is interested in anything other than shouting at air.

[poo at Paul's]

gizlaroc said:

What is "bks"??

Well you regurgitate so much, I can see why you ask the question

[gizlaroc]

poo at Paul's said:

Well you regurgitate so much, I can see why you ask the question

Brilliant! Really, really funny that.


Have you been outside yet this year mate?

[Macroni18]

bmwmike said:

SS2. said:

gizlaroc said:

Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct.

So, post up what you are accusing me and give me a chance to defend you claims.

I think we will find out who is the disingenuous one.

It's clear from the batterings you receive that not only do some people find the truth wholly unpalatable, but equally the mere suggestion of something which may be the truth.

No discussion unless it's on their terms - bit like the government, really.

Tin foil isle 3 please !

Did you think that sounded clever?

[NRS]

robuk said:

gizlaroc said:

2 different things.

Go back and look at the conversations.

You say everything you have posted has been correct, apart from the bits you have deleted. Wonderful!

I'd say that's correct for many people, just lots will just ignore where they are shown to be wrong or don't want to answer difficult questions (for example no one who is for jabbing teens/kids has answered if they think it's better to jab the 12-15yo group to save a few lives, rather than use vaccines elsewhere in the world on much higher risk categories, as presumably they don't want to do a Trump style "Britain First" and say let the foreigners die).

It's often pretty hard to be sure what you research is proper facts, given both the uncertainty in the data we have now, plus the manipulation to cover a viewpoint. For example I was trying to see if the vaccine is based on gene therapy - of course there is lots of sites like Forbes saying it isn't, but the expert in the video posted before said it was. It's still not super clear, but from what I saw there is not a universal definition on gene therapy, which might be part of the issue. However, it is stated that it doesn't affect the DNA of the cells, which is I guess what most people would be worried about - if we can include something that is passed down the generations, in the risk that it is bad. Like genetic modification in food gene therapy isn't good or bad in itself, even if people freak out about it. If you passed a resistance to covid down the generations with no bad side effects it'd be great. The risk is if you include something without knowing the results long term and you might have something go wrong. That doesn't seem to be the case with the mRNA jabs, although there is no long term data for long term effects (again, it doesn't mean it will go wrong, just from a scientific point of view it's a hypothesis, not a proven fact).

[grumbledoak]

NRS said:

For example I was trying to see if the vaccine is based on gene therapy - of course there is lots of sites like Forbes saying it isn't, but the expert in the video posted before said it was. It's still not super clear, but from what I saw there is not a universal definition on gene therapy, which might be part of the issue.

It is based on gene therapy technology. Used to cure cancer it would be called gene therapy. Use as a vaccine is explicitly excluded from the definition by the EMA


from -
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-...

[bmwmike]

Macroni18 said:

bmwmike said:

SS2. said:

gizlaroc said:

Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct.

So, post up what you are accusing me and give me a chance to defend you claims.

I think we will find out who is the disingenuous one.

It's clear from the batterings you receive that not only do some people find the truth wholly unpalatable, but equally the mere suggestion of something which may be the truth.

No discussion unless it's on their terms - bit like the government, really.

Tin foil isle 3 please !

Did you think that sounded clever?

I'd say its definitely not the most stupid thing to be posted on this topic, far from it. In fact I'd say its broadly in keeping with the overall tone.

Have a back, lover.

[anonymous-user]

gizlaroc said:

Roman Rhodes said:

...some is stuff you make up yourself (like all the consultants and medical professionals that frequent your shop telling you how many problems the vaccines are causing).

Every thing I have posted from what I have been told I have researched afterwards and found it is correct.


So, post up what you are accusing me and give me a chance to defend you claims.

I think we will find out who is the disingenuous one.

You’ve had it explained that the vaccines aren’t “gene therapy”.

Do you want to have a go at evidencing your claim that the COVID vaccines are magnetic? Just as a reminder, TikTok videos and an abstract of a paper from 2014 aren’t evidence.

[rscott]

grumbledoak said:

It is based on gene therapy technology. Used to cure cancer it would be called gene therapy. Use as a vaccine is explicitly excluded from the definition by the EMA


from -
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-...

Even without the explicit exclusion, the current vaccines wouldn't meet that definition - they don't meet part a.