Jump to content

Serious question...


Free_your_mind
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Ethel said:

 

I want you to be right. I want to be wrong in my beliefs about the direction we are headed in. It's one of the few times in my life I can think of when I genuinely wanted to be wrong. If I am, and things go back to how they were, I will revise a lot of my views regarding conspiracy. I will be a way more grateful person. Before 2020, I used to think our society was a piece of shit, but I should have been more grateful for the freedoms I did have. This is something I will take forward.

 

But honestly, I would be astonished if things went back to exactly how they were, because there are a few nagging little facts which get in the way of this expectation, namely:

 

1.) We've already been told that masks, social distancing and hand sanitizer are here to stay, by various politicians and their advisers 

2.) They've already altered roads in several parts of the country to accommodate antisocial distancing. In the town next to mine, large amounts of money were spent on widening pavements on a busy high street. Cost? Large. Why bother if this is temporary?

3.) We've already been told that their trash vaccine isn't effective and won't prevent people from passing the 'virus' on. It's difficult to pass on something which doesn't exist, but even if it did exist, they are making it out to be unbeatable. This means restrictions are here to stay.

4.) The sheeple have taken a lot of these restrictions to heart. There is a certain type of person who is loving having an opportunity to spy on others, tattletale, pass judgment and generally behave like a Nazi pig. This is what Jung called their 'shadow' coming to the surface, i.e. they have repressed feelings of vengeance, spite, powerlessness and fear. Those people will stamp those feelings back down again. Their future will be an endless succession of restrictions, smelly, bacteria infested face masks, retarded addiction to mainstream media, a constantly dropping IQ and immune system, all offset by the atrocious stink of hand sanitizer, which I predict people will start taking baths in by 2021. 

 

Unless more people awaken, and start to develop some serious spine, our species is fucked.

 

But like I said, I want to be wrong.

Thanks for your honesty, too many on here claim to hold absolute truth without the humility to admit there may be doubt or errors in some of their beliefs. We're constantly told we are at a crossroad for humanity, but it's been the same message for over 20 years. Surely this pandemic is the moment the powers that be will show their hand. They have us basically in house arrest in some areas - it's the ideal time to strike if you want to enslave a population. We will see what happens.

I certainly value things that I didn't before all of this started. Our family, friends and community are so important to our well being. I am looking forward to seeing people who love me again without the restrictions of the current situation. I think I'll appreciate this Christmas more than any other. Despite what you might hear on here, we are not Maoist China, we are not Saudi Arabia, we are not current China, we are not Soviet Russia and we are not current Russia.

 

To respond to some of your points;

1) I doubt masks will stay for good in western countries. I don't like wearing mine, and I remove it as soon as I leave a shop. Some people will continue to wear them in busy areas, (as people did on the tube before the pandemic), but I think they will be a small minority. There's no reason to social distance when the pandemic is over. I think there will be an opposite reaction - strangers will be hugging in the streets when our freedoms are given back. A few post-pandemic conceptions as well I would imagine. Human touch is a human need - I've seen no evidence that is going to disappear. Hand sanitizers might stay - but no issue there for me. 

2) You're right, a lot of road work has been going on. The council widened a pavement nearby recently but that was to give more room to runners as it was a popular route. I don't think it's necessary to herald in a new socially distant world. The lockdowns have been a good opportunity to work on the roads/pavements as they don't have to deal with the traffic etc. If you had plans to do major works on the road/pavement network, it's makes sense to get it done in a lockdown. 

3) I disagree here strongly. I have outlined my views on anti-vax theories in other replies. The pzfizer vaccine is 95% effective, how is that 'not effective'? It's also not true that it 'won't stop passing on the virus'. There is a strong likelihood that it will do this. Scientists are careful people with their words, so they cannot confirm this yet. They need more data. But, from their knowledge of other vaccines, they believe it will stop transmission to some extent. The virus does exist, I have shared pictures of it on here! Scientists are just doing their job, like anyone else who does their job. The pandemic is beatable, who is saying it is not? The virus will always be with us in form form, but it will be manageable with a vaccine. Unless it mutates drastically, but that's highly unlikely for a coronovirus. 

4) The current situation can bring out the worst in people, but the opposite is also be true. And by the way, I have a washable face mask :) Introspection is key, as it is only when we shine a light on our own deficiencies, do they diminish. Love conquers all. Let some light, or light relief, into you life if you are being overwhelmed by too much negativity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have translated it yourself before deleting. The jokes on you. It was the official arabic translation of the preamble to a document written in English by Supreme Command Allied Expeditionary Forces which was proclaimed to the whole world after the defeat of fascism in 1948.

 

The salient point being: "If man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

 

I can only get the salient point across, as for the rest of it, I'll leave google tag manager to break it's teeth on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Free_your_mind said:

 The pzfizer vaccine is 95% effective, how is that 'not effective'? It's also not true that it 'won't stop passing on the virus'. There is a strong likelihood that it will do this. Scientists are careful people with their words, so they cannot confirm this yet. They need more data.

 

If they don't have the data then they should show a little respect for human life and not use the british public as their guinea pigs

5 Burning Questions About the New Covid Vaccine

Kit Knightly

Dec 2, 2020

The Guardian, in their coverage of the vaccine, claim it has a 95% efficacy rating, but does not provide a source for this or any kind of data at all.

Fortunately, better journalists and researchers are writing for the British Medical Journal, including this piece from Peter Doshi just last week.

To explain where this “95% effective” claim actually comes from:

The Pfizer vaccine trial included nearly 44,000 people. Half getting their vaccine, half getting a placebo. In total, from the 44,000 people, 170 were later recorded as having become ‘infected with Covid19’. 162 of them were in the placebo group, 8 of them in the vaccine group.

The vaccine is therefore credited with preventing 154 cases of Covid19…or 95%.

You don’t need to be a medical researcher or virologist to see how potentially flawed this reasoning is. The entire trial of 44,000 people is deemed a success based on the potentially multi-variant outcome from less than 0.4% of those involved.

The details of the trial are hard to come by, so we have yet to find out how these 170 people were even diagnosed with “Covid19”. Was it a clinical diagnosis based on symptoms? Or PCR test? Either method would raise serious questions about accuracy.

In short, the answer to “Does it work?” is “we have no idea.”

2. Is it safe?

Potentially more important than the question of efficacy is the question of safety. No one, not even the vaccines most ardent defenders, is denying that this vaccine process has been rushed – vaccines typically take years and years to produce, whereas this one has been hurried on to the market in less than nine months. Some of them have skipped important stages in testing altogether.

Even supposing the short term trials have not shown any side effects, there has simply been no time to do long-term outcome studies. The potential for complications, months or years down the line, certainly exists.

Further, the vaccine is based on new technology – an mRNA vaccine, which injects viral genetic material to generate an immune response. The technology has been in development for years, but this would be the first mRNA vaccine actually put to use.

So, again, the short answer to “is it safe?” is “we don’t know”.

However, the vaccine pushers and manufacturers clearly have doubts about its safety, since they have gone out of their way guarantee they have total legal indemnity from prosecution or civil suits should something go wrong. Not a confidence booster that.

Ask yourself: if Ford or BMW were releasing a new type of car based on “cutting edge technology”, but before you buy one you have to sign a waiver saying you can’t sue the car manufacturers in the event you explode in a fiery ball of death…would you drive that car?

3. What’s in it?

This is a simple one. We don’t know, they won’t say. At least not in anything but the vaguest terms.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/02/5-burning-questions-about-the-new-covid-vaccine/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

If they don't have the data then they should show a little respect for human life and not use the british public as their guinea pigs

5 Burning Questions About the New Covid Vaccine

Kit Knightly

Dec 2, 2020

The Guardian, in their coverage of the vaccine, claim it has a 95% efficacy rating, but does not provide a source for this or any kind of data at all.

Fortunately, better journalists and researchers are writing for the British Medical Journal, including this piece from Peter Doshi just last week.

To explain where this “95% effective” claim actually comes from:

The Pfizer vaccine trial included nearly 44,000 people. Half getting their vaccine, half getting a placebo. In total, from the 44,000 people, 170 were later recorded as having become ‘infected with Covid19’. 162 of them were in the placebo group, 8 of them in the vaccine group.

The vaccine is therefore credited with preventing 154 cases of Covid19…or 95%.

You don’t need to be a medical researcher or virologist to see how potentially flawed this reasoning is. The entire trial of 44,000 people is deemed a success based on the potentially multi-variant outcome from less than 0.4% of those involved.

The details of the trial are hard to come by, so we have yet to find out how these 170 people were even diagnosed with “Covid19”. Was it a clinical diagnosis based on symptoms? Or PCR test? Either method would raise serious questions about accuracy.

In short, the answer to “Does it work?” is “we have no idea.”

2. Is it safe?

Potentially more important than the question of efficacy is the question of safety. No one, not even the vaccines most ardent defenders, is denying that this vaccine process has been rushed – vaccines typically take years and years to produce, whereas this one has been hurried on to the market in less than nine months. Some of them have skipped important stages in testing altogether.

Even supposing the short term trials have not shown any side effects, there has simply been no time to do long-term outcome studies. The potential for complications, months or years down the line, certainly exists.

Further, the vaccine is based on new technology – an mRNA vaccine, which injects viral genetic material to generate an immune response. The technology has been in development for years, but this would be the first mRNA vaccine actually put to use.

So, again, the short answer to “is it safe?” is “we don’t know”.

However, the vaccine pushers and manufacturers clearly have doubts about its safety, since they have gone out of their way guarantee they have total legal indemnity from prosecution or civil suits should something go wrong. Not a confidence booster that.

Ask yourself: if Ford or BMW were releasing a new type of car based on “cutting edge technology”, but before you buy one you have to sign a waiver saying you can’t sue the car manufacturers in the event you explode in a fiery ball of death…would you drive that car?

3. What’s in it?

This is a simple one. We don’t know, they won’t say. At least not in anything but the vaguest terms.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/02/5-burning-questions-about-the-new-covid-vaccine/

Stop copy and pasting other people's words! You do it in most of your contributions to the board  You must have files for everything. All you do is open a folder, copy and paste. No critical thought, no actual discussion. It's an issue I see constantly, bad information getting copy and pasted everywhere, with no one thinking for themselves anymore and coming up with their own thoughts.

 

Your written reponse doesn't make sense. I have said they don't have all the data on whether you can still pass on the virus if you have the vaccine. That's got nothing to do with the safety of the vaccine itself. A vaccine that doesn't prevent transmission is better than than no vaccine at all. I don't see how your guinea pig comment applies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Basket Case said:

And now you're joking ?
 

You need to start listening to George Carlin or even Jon Stewart. These guys are primarily comedians who use fucked up things about the world as a source of humour. Slapstick is when your laughing at the injured. Satire is when your laughing at the injurors. Using subtle cues, information is transferred from court jester to court while the jester hopes the king will see the court recognises the point without having the trapdoor to the crocodile pit opened underneath him by the fuming king. Interesting you pulled that lever your majesty.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:

Stop copy and pasting other people's words! You do it in most of your contributions to the board  You must have files for everything. All you do is open a folder, copy and paste. No critical thought, no actual discussion. It's an issue I see constantly, bad information getting copy and pasted everywhere, with no one thinking for themselves anymore and coming up with their own thoughts.

 

you are just upset because you don't like information being shown that proves my point. Well suck it up buttercup

 

Quote

Your written reponse doesn't make sense. I have said they don't have all the data on whether you can still pass on the virus if you have the vaccine. That's got nothing to do with the safety of the vaccine itself. A vaccine that doesn't prevent transmission is better than than no vaccine at all. I don't see how your guinea pig comment applies.  

 

they haven't completed the trials for the pfizer jabs but the government has waved them through as they claim its an emergency therefore the people being injected now are part of the trial hence they are guinea pigs

 

is that clear enough for you?

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

you are just upset because you don't like information being shown that proves my point. Well suck it up buttercup

 

 

they haven't completed the trials for the pfizer jabs but the government has waved them through as they claim its an emergency therefore the people being injected now are part of the trial hence they are guinea pigs

 

is that clear enough for you?

This just isn't true. Your link is as dodgy as they come. If you Google the publisher, Off Guardian, there are literal warnings about the legitimacy of the content they publish. In the first paragraph it states 'infected with covid-19'. You don't get infected with covid-19. You get infected with a virus that causes the disease, covid-19. Clearly, the authors don't know what they are talking about.

 

The trials for the pzifer vaccines are finished and the MHRA have authorised it as they are happy with the data. The vaccine has been developed so quickly compared to other vaccines is because there has been a global effort to put all resources into research and vaccine development. They also conducted the three phases of the clinical trials in a staggered way, i.e. the trails overlapped one another. Normally these are done one after the other which takes years. 

 

All this nonsense around covid is nothing but a distraction from real issues.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:

This just isn't true. Your link is as dodgy as they come.

 

 

The article references this piece from the BMJ blog:

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

 

Peter Doshi makes the point about the lack of nuance surrounding the reporting of the '95% efficacy' rate. He also makes a point about the relative vs absolute risk discussion.

 

He says:

 

"Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown."

 

I'm surprised a free-wheeling critical thinker like yourself would let Google do the thinking for you. Surely a true critical thinker would examine the publication himself and come to a fair-minded, reasoned conclusion. 

 

I'm starting to think you don't practice what you preach.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:

The trials for the pzifer vaccines are finished and the MHRA have authorised it as they are happy with the data. The vaccine has been developed so quickly compared to other vaccines is because there has been a global effort to put all resources into research and vaccine development. They also conducted the three phases of the clinical trials in a staggered way, i.e. the trails overlapped one another. Normally these are done one after the other which takes years.

 

no the government has authorised it under Regulation 174 and BEFORE the data is out on the trials:

Conditions of Authorisation for Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

Updated 10 December 2020

Vaccine BNT162b2 – Conditions of authorisation under Regulation 174, 2 December 2020

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine

Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4037 (Published 21 October 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4037

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5% ineffective and its been rolled out to protect 0.1%. Thanks mass media!

 

Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations. Many instances of such crimes of genocide have occurred when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part.

— UN Resolution 96(1), 11 December 1946
Note that genocide is not restricted to cases of shared ethnicity or religion or any particular shared quality of a group and the six classifications in the charter are examples from history and not an exhaustive list. Genocide is the mass murder committed by governments against their own people. Those promoting the vaccine - honi soit qui mal y pense - are actually proposing death to an alternative 4.9% of the population to save 0.1%. What about 0.1% being held under separate arrangements so the 0.1% and the 4.9% both enjoy their human rights. If a government has to kill its own people to fulfill its policy objectives, those to be killed having done nothing to deserve death, cannot be remotely assumed to consent to the status quo and have every right to defend themselfs from it. A separate government should be recognised for those to be killed since their master intends their murder.
 
Why dont we just kill the tv presenters? Theyve been game for the destruction of every human right promised. We could slice up celebrities into steaks, and marinade them with gravy made from their innards. Their organs become the property of the government if they die so we could make pate out the kidneys and livers of the tv celebrities people know and love and sell these as exclusive new products to the wonderful audiences who care nothing about silly little things like morality all along the line to this cesspit. I'd rather have a pot of news caster eyeballs as an afterdinner apertif than some peasants disease ridden body parts and besides, given everything else the tv culture has thoroughly applauded from the killing of the unborn to mandatory medical procedures (and lets not forget the 'treatment' of those deemed mentally ill, I'm sure they will be gushing at the prospect of being served by the public after years of serving the public to the beast which has destroyed our human rights!
 
I cant believe its not lard - guess which "journalist" ends up in that tub. Its time to jail these bastards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Human Medicines Regulations 2012
You are here: UK Statutory Instruments2012 No. 1916PART 10ExceptionsRegulation 174

 

Supply in response to spread of pathogenic agents etc

174.  The prohibitions in regulation 46 (requirement for authorisation) do not apply where the sale or supply of a medicinal product is authorised by the licensing authority on a temporary basis in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of—

(a)pathogenic agents;

(b)toxins;

(c)chemical agents; or

(d)nuclear radiation,

which may cause harm to human beings.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/regulation/174

 

Requirement for authorisation

46.—(1) A person may not sell or supply, or offer to sell or supply, an unauthorised medicinal product.

(2) A person may not sell or supply, or offer to sell or supply, a medicinal product otherwise than in accordance with the terms of—

(a)a marketing authorisation;

(b)a certificate of registration;

(c)a traditional herbal registration; or

(d)an Article 126a authorisation.

(3) A person may not possess an unauthorised medicinal product if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the product is intended to be sold or supplied to another person within the European Economic Area.

(4) A person may not in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (5)—

(a)manufacture or assemble a medicinal product; or

(b)procure the sale, supply, manufacture or assembly of a medicinal product.

(5) Those circumstances are that the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the medicinal product has been or is intended to be sold or supplied contrary to paragraph (1).

(6) For the purposes of this regulation a medicinal product is unauthorised if none of the following is in force for the product—

(a)a marketing authorisation;

(b)a certificate of registration;

(c)a traditional herbal registration; or

(d)an Article 126a authorisation.

(7) This regulation is subject to—

(a)Part 10 (exceptions to requirement for marketing authorisation etc); and

(b)Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (authorisation of placing on the market of medicinal product for compassionate reasons).

(8) A medicinal product is not unauthorised for the purposes of this regulation if—

(a)it is sold or supplied, or offered for sale or supply, for export to an EEA State; and

(b)the product may lawfully be sold or supplied in that state by virtue of legislation adopted by that state in compliance with the 2001 Directive.

(9) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to the sale, supply, or offer for sale or supply, of a medicinal product to a person outside the European Economic Area.

(10) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to the sale, supply, or offer for sale or supply, of an investigational medicinal product to a person specified in regulation 13(1) of the Clinical Trials Regulations for the purposes of administering that product in a clinical trial, provided that the conditions specified in regulation 13(2) of those Regulations are satisfied.

(11) Paragraph (3) does not apply to possession of an investigational medicinal product by a person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe—

(a)that the investigational medicinal product is intended to be sold or supplied within the European Economic Area; and

(b)that paragraph (10) will apply to the sale or supply.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/regulation/46

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Steph said:

5% ineffective and its been rolled out to protect 0.1%. Thanks mass media!

 

Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations. Many instances of such crimes of genocide have occurred when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part.

— UN Resolution 96(1), 11 December 1946
Note that genocide is not restricted to cases of shared ethnicity or religion or any particular shared quality of a group and the six classifications in the charter are examples from history and not an exhaustive list. Genocide is the mass murder committed by governments against their own people. Those promoting the vaccine - honi soit qui mal y pense - are actually proposing death to an alternative 4.9% of the population to save 0.1%. What about 0.1% being held under separate arrangements so the 0.1% and the 4.9% both enjoy their human rights. If a government has to kill its own people to fulfill its policy objectives, those to be killed having done nothing to deserve death, cannot be remotely assumed to consent to the status quo and have every right to defend themselfs from it. A separate government should be recognised for those to be killed since their master intends their murder.
 
Why dont we just kill the tv presenters? Theyve been game for the destruction of every human right promised. We could slice up celebrities into steaks, and marinade them with gravy made from their innards. Their organs become the property of the government if they die so we could make pate out the kidneys and livers of the tv celebrities people know and love and sell these as exclusive new products to the wonderful audiences who care nothing about silly little things like morality all along the line to this cesspit. I'd rather have a pot of news caster eyeballs as an afterdinner apertif than some peasants disease ridden body parts and besides, given everything else the tv culture has thoroughly applauded from the killing of the unborn to mandatory medical procedures (and lets not forget the 'treatment' of those deemed mentally ill, I'm sure they will be gushing at the prospect of being served by the public after years of serving the public to the beast which has destroyed our human rights!
 
I cant believe its not lard - guess which "journalist" ends up in that tub. Its time to jail these bastards.


Thank you for doing a whole post in English.
Very much appreciated.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THEY STOPPED TRIAL 3 ONCE 170 SUBJECTS DEVELOPED COVID SYMPTOMS (but how many more got ill? And what about other forms of health problems other than covid symptoms?)

 

The final analysis was triggered when 170 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 developed among the 43,661 enrolled participants, of which 41,135 had received a second dose of the vaccine as of November 13.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/pfizer-reports-final-vaccine-results-95-efficacy/

 

The reality of an immunization trial is that it's necessary to wait until a certain number of volunteers become naturally infected, in order to compare outcomes in the placebo group against the group given the vaccine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8746467/Secret-blueprints-Covid-19-vaccine-trials-revealed-Moderna-Pfizer.html

 

UK regulators have authorised a covid-19 vaccine created by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for emergency use, meaning that vaccine rollout is planned to begin soon.

The phase 3 trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine involved 42,000 people, about half of whom got the experimental vaccine and the rest a placebo. In total, 170 people fell ill with covid-19.
 
In the trials, final efficacy analyses are planned after just 150 to 160 “events,”—that is, a positive indication of symptomatic covid-19, regardless of severity of the illness.
Covid-19 vaccine trials are currently designed to tabulate final efficacy results once 150 to 160 trial participants develop symptomatic covid-19—and most trials have specified at least one interim analysis allowing for the trials to end with even fewer data accrued.
 
The government's planned vaccination programme might well hit the buffers if they intend to target frail elderly care home residents first, without first seeking informed consent. Most of whom will have relatives with Power of Attorney. Also consider this, many of these frail elderly people have underlying conditions and often respond badly to medication. Given that we have seen no details of the clinical trial and safety data, we have to rely on the judgement made by the MHRA. Have they considered how these frail and elderly people might respond to a novel vaccine with no prior approval history and knowledge of unintended adverse reactions? They were excluded from the phase III trial so the manufacturer and regulator, MHRA, has no knowledge of this. Given that the approval was made under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines regulation 2012, which the government recently amended, should not the vaccination programme be delayed until the data is published and the other regulators, EMA and FDA, approve its use?
 
Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is zero accountability with the vaccine and in a very very low risk virus (if it exists at all) I find this dangerous. People have been starving to death for thousands of years, left homeless, killed in wars and governments did nothing. So excuse me if I find their sudden concern with peoples survival with suspicion. This all smacks of a con, on the people of the world. I believe there is a hidden agenda and vaccinations are part of it. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Oakwise said:

 

You're welcome. Your other points are complex but largely I disagree with the oversimplifications of the subtopics. Too many broad strokes. I haven't got time to go into them now.  

 

re. your above statement. I think you possibly misunderstand. A lot of antigens (at certain levels) aren't strong enough to cause an effective immune response , that's why adjuvants are needed: to boost or stimulate an immune response that the body then associates with the antigen. That's the theory behind it.  Isn't that the case?

It looks like you have it correct. I did some research and "adjuvants may act non-specifically in promoting an immune response"(Adjuvants and delivery systems for viral vaccines--mechanisms and potential - pubmed)

 

So it does play a role in boosting the immune response as you said. I think I was getting mixed up with preservatives.

 

From my reading, it seems some vaccines aren't as effective as they could be, so adjuvants are added to increase their effectiveness. I don't have an issue with questioning what's in a vaccine or how safe it is. Not at all. I've looked at all the information and have come to the conclusion that they do significantly more good than harm. A lot of the counter arguements don't hold up to scrutiny. And the geniune cases of serious adverse effects are so rare, they are anomalies. Although it doesn't make them less tragic. All medicines carry a risk, just read the potential side effects of paracetamol.

 

The vaccine will end this pandemic. Yes, I know all about the problem, reaction, solution model. I don't think it applies here. Sometimes nature throws a curveball at us. Earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, floods, tsumanis and viruses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Free_your_mind said:

 

I doubt masks will stay for good in western countries. 

 

Some people will continue to wear them in busy areas, but I think they will be a small minority.

There's no reason to social distance when the pandemic is over.

 

I think there will be an opposite reaction - strangers will be hugging in the streets when our freedoms are given back.

 

 

I am reliably informed that people who value mainstream science see 'The Lancet' as a reputable "peer-reviewed medical journal", so it might interest you to learn that they recommend keeping all restrictions in place "indefinitely". 

 

Here are the quotes: 

 

"All the vaccine scenarios will require that the mitigation measures employed worldwide continue for a few years at least...

 

Often it is difficult to offer solutions, but it is straightforward in this case: interventions that have been in use since early in the pandemic, most crucially physical distancing and hand hygiene, must continue indefinitely.

 

It is time to forcefully impress on people that basic measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are here to stay. This is the new normal. "

 

And here is the source: 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext

 

There was also a nice little picture of a bus seat with tape across it, though I'll let you have the pleasure of discovering that for yourself on the website.

 

If the speed with which the vaccine was put together doesn't concern you, if the adverse reactions which have already been reported don't concern you and if the dubious, ambiguous contents don't concern you I don't think we have anything left to say to each other. I am not debating you, because in these kind of debates, the 'appeal to popularity' logical fallacy comes up eventually, usually around the time that you can sense you are losing the debate. It forms the foundation of folks like yours arguments, whether you know it or not. Acknowledged: at present there are more people in society who will agree with you than me. Congratulations. This doesn't make you right.

 

When things fail to go back to how they were, you will either reframe this by finding a way to justify it through the use of cognitive dissonance, OR you will begin to "get it", and a hefty depression may follow when you realize your mistake. Based on your post, I'd say it could go either way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An academic journal is something few outside of academia would have laid their eyes on. The Lancet is a magazine aimed at medical professionals. Did you know the government publishes newspapers (and I don't mean the Daily Mail)? The three government newspapers are The London Gazette, The Edinburgh Gazette and The Belfast Gazette. You can find them online and they've been around for centuries but they are like medical journals in that only legal professionals would be interested in them. The scary thing about the medical world is the firewall. Alot of whats going on in medicine is behind a wall of steel the CIA would be proud of. The history of medicine is not as "hygenic" as it may be presented. There's a meme about grave diggers from the middle ages where physicians would pay people to dig up dead bodies of the recently deceased to do experiments on. This whole thing about physician assisted death is so tied up with Josef Mengele and the Nazis that its actually shocking to see it being promoted by the ... erm ... "news" - ie The Fourth Reich propaganda ministry thats re-normalised a lot of ideologies our country has traditionally opposed. The people running the media for the past thirty years have values which are alien to British people. I'm not talking about race here but something that's alien Frank Bruno and Alf Garnet and pretty much anyone old enough to remember that we fought against police states, both in World War 2 and in the Cold War that arose in it's aftermath. That the media has been pushing these ideologies for three decades and there's people my age who claim they don't notice makes you wonder how it's possible for anyone to be that blind and they are often found in "positions of responsibility". I think they all need to be interviewed under caution regarding their mental capacities. If they are idiots, they should not be in positions of power, if they aren't idiots they should be locked up and made to listen to Gary Glitter singing "You wanna be in my gang" on repeat with occasional interludes from Rick Astley singing "You know the rules and so do I". Corrupt or stupid, an awful lot of people need to be removed from duty because the truth of what they've done cannot be hidden by them putting a bag over their head saying "I don't see a police state".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ethel said:

 

I am reliably informed that people who value mainstream science see 'The Lancet' as a reputable "peer-reviewed medical journal", so it might interest you to learn that they recommend keeping all restrictions in place "indefinitely". 

 

Here are the quotes: 

 

"All the vaccine scenarios will require that the mitigation measures employed worldwide continue for a few years at least...

 

Often it is difficult to offer solutions, but it is straightforward in this case: interventions that have been in use since early in the pandemic, most crucially physical distancing and hand hygiene, must continue indefinitely.

 

It is time to forcefully impress on people that basic measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are here to stay. This is the new normal. "

 

And here is the source: 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext

 

There was also a nice little picture of a bus seat with tape across it, though I'll let you have the pleasure of discovering that for yourself on the website.

 

If the speed with which the vaccine was put together doesn't concern you, if the adverse reactions which have already been reported don't concern you and if the dubious, ambiguous contents don't concern you I don't think we have anything left to say to each other. I am not debating you, because in these kind of debates, the 'appeal to popularity' logical fallacy comes up eventually, usually around the time that you can sense you are losing the debate. It forms the foundation of folks like yours arguments, whether you know it or not. Acknowledged: at present there are more people in society who will agree with you than me. Congratulations. This doesn't make you right.

 

When things fail to go back to how they were, you will either reframe this by finding a way to justify it through the use of cognitive dissonance, OR you will begin to "get it", and a hefty depression may follow when you realize your mistake. Based on your post, I'd say it could go either way.

 

 

And when things inevitably return to normal after the vaccine is rolled out, how will you respond? If you fail to adjust your position, what does that mean for you? It's worth considering.

 

You are not debating at typical 'sheeple' person. I've been in your position - I was obsessed with this board and the Illuminati agenda for years. I've taken in all the material, read all the book and watched all the videos. Now, I've pulled back as it seemed stupid to me to constantly fit world events that are obviously random into the 'super conspiracy' machine. It used to be that you look into a specific incident and make up your mind whether the official story was true or not, e.g. the JFK assassination. Now everything fits into (no matter how forced) the super conspiracy model. I started looking into the psychology of conspiracy theories more and thing made more sense. We have evolved to see patterns. The mind has the ability to take this trait and run with it - starts to find patterns everywhere and sometimes when no pattern exists. Step back and think about it. There are real agendas out there looking to harm humanity and they're getting away with it because many people are focusing on flat earth, 5g and whether a virus 'can be isolated'. (it can)

 

I'll check out your link.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free_your_mind said:

A lot of the counter arguements don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

So you've studied the counter-arguments have you? Can you summarise them here, please. I want to make sure you're not counter-arguing against straw men. And the fact that you didn't know what adjuvants are suggests you're not really clued up on all the various arguments. If you were clued up, you'd already know what an adjuvant is.

 

There's a lot of good science out there showing the potential for vaccine damage, above and beyond what you would expect from a 'safe' vaccine. This is the charge: The manufacturers claim they are safer and/or more effective than they actually are. 

 

On a broader level, it may actually turn out that this kind of induced immunisation is the completely wrong approach. After all, we're dealing complex biosystems with many variable and many unknowns. 

 

But that wasn't really the point I was making. You said 'anti-vax' is a turd in a punchbowl and suggested that we shouldn't focus on it. I disagreed. Nothing you've said so far has dissuaded me from that viewpoint. 

 

All the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Free_your_mind said:

You are not debating at typical 'sheeple' person.

I despise that phrase but it seems to me you are guarding yourself from the alternative viewpoint. You can bury your head in the sand and scream "it's not true" but it will not make this global agenda go away. Since when did governments care about the people? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...