CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[RSTurboPaul]

Elysium said:

r3g said:

Anyone seen this and the video on Campbell's channel about it ?

Telegraph rag link via archive.ph to avoid paywall.
https://archive.ph/A3i7E

Disgusting State overreach!

GP grasses up mother to social services to get her disabled son injected with the magic juice "for the greater good", social services dismiss her concerns send the case to the Court of Protection to get a court order to have him injected.

JC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OT9SKXZIFc

Interesting article.

He has had COVID twice and recovered.

The argument seems to be that regardless of this he should have the vaccine because he is in a vulnerable group and because if he was capable of deciding for himself he might want to have it to help other people.

The risks to him as an individual seem to be considered irrelevant.

It's religious dogma.

article said:

He continued: “In other words: might Tom have behaved like a responsible citizen and considered the effect of his decision on other people had he made the decision for himself.”

So if you don't submit to state-dictated novel medical treatment with no long term data, you are not a responsible citizen?

Of course.

[Timothy Bucktu]

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

It's a shame we've scared off the folks who would be willing to defend it...I do like reading their thoughts (even though I think they a bit...out to lunch).

[Elysium]

RSTurboPaul said:

Elysium said:

r3g said:

Anyone seen this and the video on Campbell's channel about it ?

Telegraph rag link via archive.ph to avoid paywall.
https://archive.ph/A3i7E

Disgusting State overreach!

GP grasses up mother to social services to get her disabled son injected with the magic juice "for the greater good", social services dismiss her concerns send the case to the Court of Protection to get a court order to have him injected.

JC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OT9SKXZIFc

Interesting article.

He has had COVID twice and recovered.

The argument seems to be that regardless of this he should have the vaccine because he is in a vulnerable group and because if he was capable of deciding for himself he might want to have it to help other people.

The risks to him as an individual seem to be considered irrelevant.

It's religious dogma.

article said:

He continued: “In other words: might Tom have behaved like a responsible citizen and considered the effect of his decision on other people had he made the decision for himself.”

So if you don't submit to state-dictated novel medical treatment with no long term data, you are not a responsible citizen?

Of course.

I think the judges bias was showing a little bit

[Elysium]

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

The Govt decided.

The astonishing thing is that the same people who have decided that the Govt are always right about this stuff are the first to condemn them as a bunch of liars and crooks.

They have a blind spot a million miles wide.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Elysium said:

The Govt decided.

The astonishing thing is that the same people who have decided that the Govt are always right about this stuff are the first to condemn them as a bunch of liars and crooks.

They have a blind spot a million miles wide.

That was the thing that surprised me - people who didn’t trust the politicians and government all hung on their every word and did as they were told. Even clapping every Thursday.

Just goes to show what putting the fear of God into people can do……..

[cliffe_mafia]

Elysium said:

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

The Govt decided.

The astonishing thing is that the same people who have decided that the Govt are always right about this stuff are the first to condemn them as a bunch of liars and crooks.

They have a blind spot a million miles wide.

The Tories are lying, self serving crooks who I could never vote for in a million years but I will unquestioningly follow their every command

[Hants PHer]

cliffe_mafia said:

The Tories are lying, self serving crooks who I could never vote for in a million years but I will unquestioningly follow their every command

Fair enough, but let's remember that in Wales and Scotland, where there isn't an evil Tory government, there was similar compliance. And of course, every time the Tories announced a relaxation of 'rules', Labour complained and demanded the 'rules' be extended, or enhanced.

In other words, our UK politicians of every flavour were complicit in a disastrous mismanagement of Covid, and many, many people of every political flavour went along with it, and would probably do so again, whoever was in charge.

It really isn't a party political issue.

[RemarkLima]

RSTurboPaul said:

Elysium said:

r3g said:

Anyone seen this and the video on Campbell's channel about it ?

Telegraph rag link via archive.ph to avoid paywall.
https://archive.ph/A3i7E

Disgusting State overreach!

GP grasses up mother to social services to get her disabled son injected with the magic juice "for the greater good", social services dismiss her concerns send the case to the Court of Protection to get a court order to have him injected.

JC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OT9SKXZIFc

Interesting article.

He has had COVID twice and recovered.

The argument seems to be that regardless of this he should have the vaccine because he is in a vulnerable group and because if he was capable of deciding for himself he might want to have it to help other people.

The risks to him as an individual seem to be considered irrelevant.

It's religious dogma.

article said:

He continued: “In other words: might Tom have behaved like a responsible citizen and considered the effect of his decision on other people had he made the decision for himself.”

So if you don't submit to state-dictated novel medical treatment with no long term data, you are not a responsible citizen?

Of course.

Interesting article indeed... So, the "court was “ill-equipped" to make a decision if it's safe for him or not, but thought fk it, what would Tom do? Finger in the air, yeah, he'd probably take it cos everyone would...

[jameswills]

Elysium said:

The Govt decided.

The astonishing thing is that the same people who have decided that the Govt are always right about this stuff are the first to condemn them as a bunch of liars and crooks.

They have a blind spot a million miles wide.

Absolutely

[jameswills]

RemarkLima said:

Interesting article indeed... So, the "court was “ill-equipped" to make a decision if it's safe for him or not, but thought fk it, what would Tom do? Finger in the air, yeah, he'd probably take it cos everyone would...

See the Mr Bates Post Office thread, our court system is just as corrupt as the government, there is no justice or safety there for us normal folk, sentences and judgements are handed out by those who tell them to.

[Roderick Spode]

Timothy Bucktu said:

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

It's a shame we've scared off the folks who would be willing to defend it...I do like reading their thoughts (even though I think they a bit...out to lunch).

I'm sure they weren't scared off, probably just away back to the circle jerk thread to tell all their pals how clever they were against the thickos

[James6112]

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

The GP did
You know, a trained medical professional
(not your conspiracy nutter mates on facebook )

[James6112]

Roderick Spode said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

It's a shame we've scared off the folks who would be willing to defend it...I do like reading their thoughts (even though I think they a bit...out to lunch).

I'm sure they weren't scared off, probably just away back to the circle jerk thread to tell all their pals how clever they were against the thickos

Pot:Kettle

[Elysium]

James6112 said:

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

The GP did
You know, a trained medical professional
(not your conspiracy nutter mates on facebook )

If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen this:

The Telegraph said:

Judge Burrows, sitting in Preston, summed up the nature of the legal “impasse”; doctors who wanted Tom vaccinated had based their argument “on the advice given to clinicians by effectively the UK Government”, however the mother felt “the risks posed by the vaccine were unclear and maybe significant.”

[Boringvolvodriver]

James6112 said:

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

The GP did
You know, a trained medical professional
(not your conspiracy nutter mates on facebook )

At the risk of wasting time in trying to get a reply from James6112 but here goes

So if we accept that the government and the NHS decided who was classed as vulnerable (fair enough even though some of the classifications were possibly a bit dubious) then who has the right to make a decision as to whether to have the vaccine or indeed any medical treatment?

The person in question was not under the care of the state but their mother who had cared for him all his life - therefore to my mind, whether he has the vaccine is down to the mother. For the state to get involved via the courts is, for me, a step too far.

So James6112, where do you stand on that aspect?

[Timothy Bucktu]

Boringvolvodriver said:

James6112 said:

jameswills said:

Who decides who is “vulnerable”? Maybe those that vote a certain way? Don’t pay their taxes? Don’t agree with the new hate speech legislation?

I can’t see how any sane person defends any action like this.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

The GP did
You know, a trained medical professional
(not your conspiracy nutter mates on facebook )

At the risk of wasting time in trying to get a reply from James6112 but here goes

So if we accept that the government and the NHS decided who was classed as vulnerable (fair enough even though some of the classifications were possibly a bit dubious) then who has the right to make a decision as to whether to have the vaccine or indeed any medical treatment?

The person in question was not under the care of the state but their mother who had cared for him all his life - therefore to my mind, whether he has the vaccine is down to the mother. For the state to get involved via the courts is, for me, a step too far.

So James6112, where do you stand on that aspect?

That's a tough one for an obedient state manipulated Lefty type to answer though...Let's just say you're a raciest and be done with it.

[Ari]

Talking to a chap recently who's (then) 15 year old son developed POTS (Postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS) is when your heart rate increases very quickly after getting up from sitting or lying down. It's also known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) within two weeks of getting jabbed. But he's been assured by the doctor dealing with the case (two years on, son is still on medication) that it's just a coincidence...

There seem to be an awful lot of this kind of coincidence. But perhaps that's just a coincidence...

[Roderick Spode]

Ari said:

Talking to a chap recently who's (then) 15 year old son developed POTS (Postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS) is when your heart rate increases very quickly after getting up from sitting or lying down. It's also known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) within two weeks of getting jabbed. But he's been assured by the doctor dealing with the case (two years on, son is still on medication) that it's just a coincidence...

There seem to be an awful lot of this kind of coincidence. But perhaps that's just a coincidence...

Pure blind co-incidence. Nothing to be seen here. Perfectly healthy teenagers develop PoTS all the time.

Bigger question is - why was an otherwise (presumably) perfectly healthy 15 year old getting jabbed in the first place?

[B'stard Child]

Roderick Spode said:

Bigger question is - why was an otherwise (presumably) perfectly healthy 15 year old getting jabbed in the first place?

Government over reach, drunk on the power control and pedaling buckets of fear........

15m Jabs to Freedom...................... How many in the end???

90% of the population over 18??

[Roderick Spode]

B'stard Child said:

Roderick Spode said:

Bigger question is - why was an otherwise (presumably) perfectly healthy 15 year old getting jabbed in the first place?

Government over reach, drunk on the power control and pedaling buckets of fear........

15m Jabs to Freedom...................... How many in the end???

90% of the population over 18??

I remember the lunatics on social media who took great delight & pride in showing off their pre-teen kids, whom the parents had offered up for medical experimentation to receive these jabs without official approval. It went something like "So proud of (name) and (name), they have been asking for weeks when they could have the vaccines (sic) so they can go visit their sick grandmother. Well, today was the day! We're so happy..." (insert sycophantic picture).

Ah well. What's a bit of teenage myocarditis between friends?