News Round-Up

As you, on some level, are doubtless aware that such a fatuously impossible assertion for a new and untried technology with absolutely unknown long term consequences, amounts to an outright lie. I guess the assertion is that the vaccines are safe and effective? These are arguments we have been over many times and are debated endlessly on the internet. I don’t propose to repeat them. The fact remains that if the debate were to be settled on the basis of weight of expertise then the “pro-vaccine” camp would win by a country mile (not that I approve of that method of settling disputes) But you don’t care because you want it to be used whatever the risks, I want the best possible solution to the problems created by this virus. I happen to think vaccines are part of that solution. I will change my mind if the evidence points the other way e.g. if the Ivermectin trial is successful that would be very good news. I am also very interested in this one: https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/azd7442-prophylaxis-trial-met-primary-endpoint.html and if there are the kinds of disastrous consequences that can’t possibly be ruled out, you’ll just shrug and claim “how could we possibly have known?”… Read more »

1 in approx 31,000 vaccinated people in the UK have died soon afterwards I don’t know how you define “soon afterwards” but let’s say it is a week. About 1 in a 100 people die every year. So about 1 in 5000 every week. So it looks like getting vaccinated dramatically reduces your chances of dying! 1 in 20,000 young people vaccinated with Pfizer of Moderna vaccines develop myocardotis or pericarditis. Where did you get the 1 in 20,000 figure? This suggests it is about 1 in 100,000 (note that all the people who had this side effect recovered). To put this in perspective – this about 30 times less than your chances of being killed by lightning in a year. The AZ vaccine has been withdrawn for the under 40s for safety reasons The AZ vaccine has been withdrawn in some countries for younger people because of the very small risk of blood clots in the young – the mRNA vaccines have less risk. Both risks are very small but why not use the less risky one? Meanwhile heavily vaxed countries like Israel and Iceland have seen huge new waves of infections recently Yes – it is clear that… Read more »

I can’t find the MHRA definition of “soon afterwards”. Presumably you had some idea what you meant when you used the term. So what did you mean? Thanks for the link. Rather strangely the paper refers not to a newspaper article about an Israeli ministry of health report! I can’t find the actual report. The newspaper article includes the following quotes from the report: “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data” “We cannot yet tell if there are more cases than normal or if there are similar numbers annually and the proximity is just a coincidence. Efforts to collect more data are continuing,” However, let’s suppose that the vaccine increases the risk of myocarditis for men in the 16-30 year old group from zero to 1/20,0000 .This is still a very small risk, lower than the risk of being struck by lightning in a year. I most certainly did not admit that the AZ vaccine is unsafe for young people and I can’t see how you got that impression. To repeat what I wrote: “Both risks are very small… Read more »

These are novel, untried and extremely powerful genetic manipulation techniques. Such techniques would never be authorised for mass use without years of trials, and years, probably decades, of experience of their use in targeted cases.
The have only been authorised on the dishonest basis of a spurious “emergency”.

Nobody can possibly honestly assert that they are “safe” for the mass 

This is something that can be debated – to what extent are they novel, untried and powerful (mRNA therapies have been around at least 5 years and not all vaccines use this technology)? Is the emergency really spurious? However, you wrote:

“It’s not open to honest debate. These are new technologies. Anyone who claims (as far too many do) that they are “safe” is lying because they have ulterior reasons for wanting to justify their use. Full stop, end of discussion”

So presumably you are taking this position as axiomatic and not interested in arguments to the contrary.

Straight out of the “97% playbook”. I am not claiming that I am right because the majority of experts agree. I am simply saying that if you were to argue from expertise then the pro-vaccine position would prevail. Please, I implore you, to assert -or reassert – what you “think” about the recorded incidence of death and adverse side effects both in the US and UK, VAERS and MHRA Yellow card, as a consequence of either a first or second jab. Please confirm if you consider “self reporting” is a negative component of these data. I have said this many times – so it is a case of reassert. The high recorded incidence of some side effects, including death, on systems such as VAERS and MHRA yellow card are almost certainly down to vastly increased reporting of incidents that would have happened anyway. There is immense publicity round these vaccines and their safety which means people (including medical professionals) are far more likely to report an incident, particularly if it happens shortly after the vaccination. (I have never had a vaccine before where the accompanying leaflet drew my attention to the yellow card system.) Increased reporting could easily explain the… Read more »

There is so much confusion here it is hard to know where to begin. I will concentrate just on the first part of your comment: Ummm, “safe and effective”; so the Spanish scientists reporting in the LA Quinta Columna, backed up by a separate investigation by Dr Robert Young – LINK – available here are wrong presumably because the elements they have found ( are so small they have no toxic effect by their action within the body? ( I think you have put that view in a previous post ) Why would all these scientists …..lie? There was just one Spanish scientist. “He obtained what he himself described as non-conclusive results after studying one vial. He said the vial was purported to contain a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine but said it had come to him by a messenger service and acknowledged that the vial’s origin was unknown” This is what his own university had to say about his “research”: The University of Almería described the publication as an “unofficial report by a university professor about an analysis of a sample of unknown origin with a total lack of traceability”. It added that it was a “report that this university neither… Read more »

I don’t know how you can sleep at night peddling the distortions and lies of the official narrative.

You really can’t understand that I can sincerely believe I am right?

Have you been double-jabbed, I wonder?

Just once – I was a late starter for medical reasons.