UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[Heart's Ease]

"The legal claim states: “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning Covid-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent.”

An absolute risk reduction measures how much the vaccine reduces an individual’s baseline risk of getting ill from Covid at a particular time. If Covid levels are low, the absolute risk reduction rate will be much lower too.

This is different from a relative risk reduction, which compares the numbers of vaccinated people getting ill with those getting ill who did not receive the jab. In the case of AstraZeneca, a peer-review study showed the relative risk was reduced by an average of about 70 per cent.

AstraZeneca has said it emphasised the higher figure – denoting the relative reduction in risk – because that did not alter regardless of the prevalence of Covid at the time.

Lawyers argued that information in the AstraZeneca press release on its efficacy was “misleading because members of the public… assume that the published efficacy rate was an absolute risk rate (in which case the published efficacy rate vastly overstated the efficacy of the vaccine)”."

And from the same article, @sancho panza this lay explanation of relative/absolute risk. 

We've seen many, many run around of this point being made. Good to see it in Telegraph, if readers have made it that far down.

[Pip321]

1 hour ago, Heart's Ease said:

"The legal claim states: “In fact, the absolute risk reduction concerning Covid-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent.”

An absolute risk reduction measures how much the vaccine reduces an individual’s baseline risk of getting ill from Covid at a particular time. If Covid levels are low, the absolute risk reduction rate will be much lower too.

This is different from a relative risk reduction, which compares the numbers of vaccinated people getting ill with those getting ill who did not receive the jab. In the case of AstraZeneca, a peer-review study showed the relative risk was reduced by an average of about 70 per cent.

AstraZeneca has said it emphasised the higher figure – denoting the relative reduction in risk – because that did not alter regardless of the prevalence of Covid at the time.

Lawyers argued that information in the AstraZeneca press release on its efficacy was “misleading because members of the public… assume that the published efficacy rate was an absolute risk rate (in which case the published efficacy rate vastly overstated the efficacy of the vaccine)”."

And from the same article, @sancho panza this lay explanation of relative/absolute risk. 

We've seen many, many run around of this point being made. Good to see it in Telegraph, if readers have made it that far down.

Lies, damn dies and statistics.

Retiring early means you die younger…..no, it means the average age of death of those who retire at 90 is higher than the average age of those who retire at 50….for obvious reasons. Not quite the same thing.

I hope one day to try statistics if caught by an ‘average speed camera’. For most of the journey I was under 50, therefore using the ‘mode statistical method’ the average is under 50……I imagine they will double the fine and throw me in jail.😂

__________
As an aside, and having done a tad more research re diet whilst I am improving diet re green veg,  I will be taking K2 as well as the D3 in the way described already on this thread. Easier and bit more precise 😉

 

[Heart's Ease]

51 minutes ago, Pip321 said:

Lies, damn dies and statistics.

Retiring early means you die younger…..no, it means the average age of death of those who retire at 90 is higher than the average age of those who retire at 50….for obvious reasons. Not quite the same thing.

I hope one day to try statistics if caught by an ‘average speed camera’. For most of the journey I was under 50, therefore using the ‘mode statistical method’ the average is under 50……I imagine they will double the fine and throw me in jail.😂

__________
As an aside, and having done a tad more research re diet whilst I am improving diet re green veg,  I will be taking K2 as well as the D3 in the way described already on this thread. Easier and bit more precise 😉

 

Just popped to garage and see The Telegraph paper edition leads with that AZ story on the front page. Wow. I thought it would be buried somewhere inside.

Yes, we take K2 with our Vitamin D. Dr John does a good run around of the topic in a number of his videos. 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Heart's Ease

[sancho panza]

DJ on the test case.

Likely class actions to follow he reasons.

Bascially as @Heart's Ease pointed out earlier,absolute risk reduction ref covid was 1.2%.......see screenshot

Edited November 9, 2023 by sancho panza

[Pip321]

23 hours ago, Heart's Ease said:

Just popped to garage and see The Telegraph paper edition leads with that AZ story on the front page. Wow. I thought it would be buried somewhere inside.

Yes, we take K2 with our Vitamin D. Dr John does a good run around of the topic in a number of his videos. 

 

It’s taken me a week or two since seeing these threads with initial thoughts of eating veg etc (which I will do) but in the end I have decided to follow the vitamin and mineral supplement recommendations from this thread and summary from @The Masked Tulip and the videos. Thanks for the advice  

Holland & Barrett have a sale in so just bought a load of bits to compliment a healthy diet and exercise.

Hopefully will help get rid of the consequences of the 3 vaccines I have had🤢

[sancho panza]

Backing up the earlier piece,it looks like sh"ts getting real for Big Pharma.They'll drag it out over a decade but the truth will come out.

In the Graf,again restating the absolute risk reduction for symptomatic covid was 1.2%

Nice to see this getting out at alst.There's much more to come ref the others too.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/09/the-real-covid-jab-scandal-is-finally-emerging/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

I am not an anti-vaxxer but… On 29 April 2021, Lisa Shaw, a clever, sensible, creative, mischievous, award-winning presenter at BBC Radio Newcastle, had her first Covid vaccination. Like millions of us, Lisa was delighted and relieved to get her jab. Not only did the 44-year-old mother of one feel she was doing her bit to keep her community safe (Lisa had been astonished a few weeks earlier when a girlfriend had said she wasn’t getting jabbed), she was excited “to give her mam a hug”.

A few days later, Lisa developed a headache and stabbing pains behind her eyes which wouldn’t go away. By May 16, she was taken by ambulance to University Hospital of North Durham. Tests revealed blood clots in Lisa’s brain and she was moved to a specialist neurology unit in Newcastle. By now, she had difficulty speaking. Scans showed she had suffered a haemorrhage in the brain and part of her skull was removed to try and relieve the pressure. Her husband Gareth Eve remained by his wife’s bedside, but Lisa told him to go home because she was worried about Zachary, their six-year-old. One final kiss. The last time Gareth heard her voice. Lisa Shaw died on May 21 from complications arising from the AstraZeneca Covid vaccination.

The coroner said: “Ms Shaw was previously fit and well” but it was “clearly established” that her death was due to a very rare “vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT)”, a new condition which leads to swelling and bleeding of the brain.

Strenuous efforts had been made to put the public’s mind at rest when the jab was approved. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was “a great British success story”, according to the then health secretary Matt Hancock; self-obsessed numpty that he is, Hancock was particularly chuffed the jab had been invented by someone who went to his Oxford college. “It is truly fantastic news – and a triumph for British science – that the @UniofOxford/@AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use,” tweeted a triumphant prime minister Boris Johnson.

At a dark time, the AZ jab brought a blazing ray of hope with the added patriotic, Brexit bonus that the UK was able to steal a march on our European neighbours. After Lisa Shaw died, we were told that the clots are “considered extremely rare,” there had only been 417 reported cases and 72 deaths after 24.8 million first doses and 23.9 million second doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK. It also saved a great many lives. But expressing reservations about possible side-effects was seen as party-pooping. It meant you ran the risk of being labelled as that most reviled and irresponsible being, an “anti-vaxxer”.

“I had lost my wife and my son had lost his mam, but for an awfully long time people like us weren’t able to tell our story because we were put in the box of crackpots and conspiracy theorists,” Gareth Eve told me yesterday. After Lisa died, Gareth says he had phone conversations with several leading broadcasters. “They would express sympathy, but then they were very nervous, they’d say they have to be very careful, you know, how they report the story without breaching broadcasting guidelines by implying there was any problem with the jab.”

One beautiful vibrant woman, “loved by everyone whose lives she touched”, was gone. (“I wish it had been me instead of her,” Gareth says, “I do my best as a single dad with Zach, but I’m never going to be Lisa, she was so tactile and loving.”) The fact Lisa Shaw had died after receiving the AZ jab was nothing to worry about, though, in the grand scheme of things, was it?

Well, yes, actually it was. The public – and in particular fit younger people like Lisa – have every right to feel aggrieved. 

As this newspaper reported yesterday, the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine has been branded “defective” in a multi-million pound landmark legal action which will suggest that claims over its efficacy were “vastly overstated”.  The pharmaceutical giant is being sued in a test case by Jamie Scott, a father-of-two who suffered a significant permanent brain injury, and by the widower and two young children of 35-year-old Alpa Tailor. Both damages claims relate to VITT, the condition that killed Lisa Shaw. AstraZeneca says that the vaccine “has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile” and that “regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side-effects.”

In the months after her death, Gareth, who was “dealing with grief while you’re trying to parent” didn’t have the emotional energy for a legal battle. “I was in the Coroner’s Court in Newcastle when the coroner said there is no doubt Lisa died because of the AstraZeneca jab and the pathologist said the same and the doctor told Lisa while she was still conscious that the Covid jab had done this to her. It’s like they don’t want there to be any written record that they admitted guilt.” 

I must admit there is a strong sense of, “There but for the grace of God go I” when I hear Gareth talking about his wife. I also had the AstraZeneca jab (twice) because, like Lisa, I wanted to reassure my elderly mother and hug her after over a year apart.

We were all given the impression that the jab could prevent both infection and transmission (why else would they make it mandatory for care home workers?) It sounded brilliant. But the legal claim states, “the absolute risk reduction concerning Covid-19 prevention was only 1.2 per cent”.

“Lisa thought getting the jab was the right thing to do as everybody did,” Gareth recalls, “The Government kept saying it was safe and effective. We didn’t know there were other countries that were withdrawing the AstraZeneca.”

Ah, yes, “safe and effective”. How many times did we hear Cabinet ministers intone that reassuring mantra? Yet, use of the word “safe” by any pharmaceutical company advertising a product had been banned for years for exactly that reason – it is misleadingly reassuring. (The Government seems to think the rules didn’t prevent it saying “safe and effective” because it wasn’t advertising a specific product: a Mandy Rice Davis if ever I heard one.)

Where, you might well ask, was the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)? Ben Kingsley, a lawyer and co-author of a brilliant and damning new book, The Accountability Deficit, says: “For good reason, the MHRA’s rules did not allow AstraZeneca to promote its vaccine as ‘safe’. Yet, astonishingly, while a raft of other countries were pulling the AZ jab for safety reasons the British regulator stood aside with tragic consequences for Lisa and her family while ministers and the NHS continued to insist that it remained unequivocally safe and effective.”

It is almost too painful to consider that, 15 days before Lisa Shaw went eagerly to get her Covid jab so she could “hug my mam”, Denmark stopped the use of AstraZeneca in its vaccination rollout after reports of rare but serious cases of blood clots. Finland also announced that it would continue to limit the AstraZeneca vaccine to people aged 65 and over following similar health concerns. Was the MHRA unaware of growing international doubts (AZ was never licensed in the US) or was it, perhaps, rather reluctant to tarnish a great British success story?

In ethical terms, for a vaccine to be rolled out to people who are not at significant risk from Covid, it would need to be shown to be very safe indeed for those groups. I also clearly remember the head of the Government’s Vaccine Taskforce, Kate Bingham, saying that vaccinating everyone in the country was “not going to happen”. “It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable,” she said. Vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk”. She noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis.

With a heavy heart I’m going to say what should have been said a long time ago. Unlike those who were actually vulnerable to Covid, Lisa Shaw did not need a Covid vaccine; any minuscule benefit to her was outweighed by the small risk. Neither did I (I’d had the virus in January 2020 as plentiful antibodies later attested and enjoyed good immunity). Millions of healthy people queued up for a jab they didn’t require which protected against serious disease in the elderly and vulnerable, but was not necessary for most of the rest of us.

How this country moved from a policy of only vaccinating those who would benefit to running the risk of inflicting “some freak harm” on people like Lisa Shaw may yet turn out to be one of the great scandals of the age.

“I put her on a pedestal,” Gareth Eve says of his late wife, “Lisa was only 5ft 2 and I’m 6 foot, but I put her on a pedestal. She was that wonderful. When she died, because of the way that she died after the jab, it was ‘a dirty secret’, you weren’t supposed to talk about. With AstraZeneca, these companies are run by human beings, you would have thought they were run by human beings, Allison, but they don’t want to talk to the people like me...Zachary doesn’t have his mam because the authorities didn’t give us the full picture about the risks.”  

I am not an anti-vaxxer but…. Let’s stop saying that, shall we? There’s no shame in being against giving a vaccine to groups who didn’t need it, and which caused people to be dead who should be alive and taking their eight-year-old son to school.

 

[Pinkpanther]

With all these "new revelations" from the legacy media, Im just going to post this "lecture" here as a historic reference point. (I posted it years ago on the covid forum)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hrXWqlevLUPW/

It's Dr Byram Bridle doing a 40 odd minute lecture in Feb 2021 about the vaccines. It was the first "decent" video I found as in there was no biase. Just a proper expert explaining things, mosly about the Pfizer Vaccine.

If you watch the Video, nothing in the media is new/a surprise, we knew that there were risks, there were some "anomalies" in the clinical trial data that had been presented to the regulators and it would take at least 2 years before we would be able to start confirming the safety profile. If some random associate professor from an unknown Canadian University was teaching this, I would like to assume that most academics in the UK would be teaching something similar.

(3 months later he was the guy who broke the news about the Japan/Pfizer cllinical trial https://archive.org/details/dr.-byram-bridle-viral-immunologist-u-of-guelph that confirmed that the vaccine goes everywhere, Dr Bridle was immediately canceled/Character assassinated. )

The real news story is still, why the government pushed vaccines that were still in phase 3 clinical trials on us, why the media failed to have objective debate and why experts like Dr Brydle were silenced.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Pinkpanther
spelling

[Pip321]

1 hour ago, Pinkpanther said:

With all these "new revelations" from the legacy media, Im just going to post this "lecture" here as a historic reference point. (I posted it years ago on the covid forum)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hrXWqlevLUPW/

It's Dr Byram Bridle doing a 40 odd minute lecture in Feb 2021 about the vaccines. It was the first "decent" video I found as in there was no biase. Just a proper expert explaining things, mosly about the Pfizer Vaccine.

If you watch the Video, nothing in the media is new/a surprise, we knew that there were risks, there were some "anomalies" in the clinical trial data that had been presented to the regulators and it would take at least 2 years before we would be able to start confirming the safety profile. If some random associate professor from an unknown Canadian University was teaching this, I would like to assume that most academics in the UK would be teaching something similar.

(3 months later he was the guy who broke the news about the Japan/Pfizer cllinical trial https://archive.org/details/dr.-byram-bridle-viral-immunologist-u-of-guelph that confirmed that the vaccine goes everywhere, Dr Bridle was immediately canceled/Character assassinated. )

The real news story is still, why the government pushed vaccines that were still in phase 3 clinical trials on us, why the media failed to have objective debate and why experts like Dr Brydle were silenced.

Does anyone have a simple view on the...why? I know some companies will make some money....but this feels much much more a concerted effort to stifle debate. 

I completely understand why they don't want TV presenters giving a medical view and may even have wanted to test their ability to control......but why is the medical profession and 'science' not been given the opportunity for healthy critical debate. 

[sleepwello'nights]

36 minutes ago, Pip321 said:

 

I completely understand why they don't want TV presenters giving a medical view and may even have wanted to test their ability to control......but why is the medical profession and 'science' not been given the opportunity for healthy critical debate. 

The suppressIon was far worse. In fact the broadcast media did allow TV presenters to  encourage taking the vaccine. 

[Pinkpanther]

1 hour ago, Pip321 said:

Does anyone have a simple view on the...why? I know some companies will make some money....but this feels much much more a concerted effort to stifle debate. 

I completely understand why they don't want TV presenters giving a medical view and may even have wanted to test their ability to control......but why is the medical profession and 'science' not been given the opportunity for healthy critical debate. 

There is no "official reason" to why the mainstream media failed to do its job. - of course they would not admit that they failed to bring both sides of the argument. (despite people emailing them to ask why they were not allowing people like Yeadon etc to voice their expert opinions - So they cant say they were not aware)

One view (and I've posted the links to the documents couple of times in the covid threads) is that OfCom published "advice" in May 2020 on how to deal with the pandemic which essentially said free speech is important, however if it contradicts official guidance you better be sure about what you publish and you can see what happened to Mark Steyn on GB news.

(Politico GB on youtube does a good job of highlighting the inconsistencies/doublestandards that Ofcom apply to vaccine "misinformation" since Dec 2020 - 10 min vid.)

I seem to remember that a lot of the media got much needed advertising revenue from the Government during the pandemic, at that time im sure the media were aware of the consequences of questioning the hand that fed them.

Another thing is anything that can harm "public confidence in vaccines" is simply not allowed. But these Vaccines were all still in clincal phase 3 trials, and with regards to a mass rollout were new "technology" (MRNA and Viral Vector) compared to live-attenuated or inactivated vaccines .

But all of the above is irrelevent. - as the telegr*ph article above states "I also clearly remember the head of the Government’s Vaccine Taskforce, Kate Bingham, saying that vaccinating everyone in the country was “not going to happen”. “It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable,” she said. Vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk”. She noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis. "

So experts like Bridle, could have come on the TV or had articles in the news educating people, IMO plenty of people would have still taken the vaccine, and most people under 50 probably would not have. It certainly would not have caused the splitting of society that the government narrative created.

To answer your question - simply, I dont now why.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Pinkpanther

[Pip321]

1 hour ago, Pinkpanther said:

There is no "official reason" to why the mainstream media failed to do its job. - of course they would not admit that they failed to bring both sides of the argument. (despite people emailing them to ask why they were not allowing people like Yeadon etc to voice their expert opinions - So they cant say they were not aware)

One view (and I've posted the links to the documents couple of times in the covid threads) is that OfCom published "advice" in May 2020 on how to deal with the pandemic which essentially said free speech is important, however if it contradicts official guidance you better be sure about what you publish and you can see what happened to Mark Steyn on GB news.

(Politico GB on youtube does a good job of highlighting the inconsistencies/doublestandards that Ofcom apply to vaccine "misinformation" since Dec 2020 - 10 min vid.)

I seem to remember that a lot of the media got much needed advertising revenue from the Government during the pandemic, at that time im sure the media were aware of the consequences of questioning the hand that fed them.

Another thing is anything that can harm "public confidence in vaccines" is simply not allowed. But these Vaccines were all still in clincal phase 3 trials, and with regards to a mass rollout were new "technology" (MRNA and Viral Vector) compared to live-attenuated or inactivated vaccines .

But all of the above is irrelevent. - as the telegr*ph article above states "I also clearly remember the head of the Government’s Vaccine Taskforce, Kate Bingham, saying that vaccinating everyone in the country was “not going to happen”. “It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable,” she said. Vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk”. She noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis. "

So experts like Bridle, could have come on the TV or had articles in the news educating people, IMO plenty of people would have still taken the vaccine, and most people under 50 probably would not have. It certainly would not have caused the splitting of society that the government narrative created.

To answer your question - simply, I dont now why.

I appreciate the detail and your final answer…..it does help me understand the position and whether I was missing something.

With other issues ie Ukraine, Israel, inflation, not using fossils fuels etc I can see absolutely who benefits. No need to delve into those on this thread and indeed my view might be right/wrong on those points but I ‘get’ how countries and people benefit from their own agendas……whereas this one was less straightforward. 

So it could be its as simple as a huge conspiracy to test control or pure incompetence because we are run by people who treat life and death decisions as a 9 to 5 job…..they dug a hole and no one wanted to dig themselves out of it for fear of massive lawsuits etc but really as of now we are still scratching our heads a bit.🤷🏻‍♂️👍   

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Pip321

[Pinkpanther]

33 minutes ago, Pip321 said:

I appreciate the detail and your final answer…..it does help me understand the position and whether I was missing something.

With other issues ie Ukraine, Israel, inflation, not using fossils fuels etc I can see absolutely who benefits. Non need to delve into those on this thread and indeed my view might be right/wrong on those points but I ‘get’ how countries and people benefit from their own agendas……whereas this one was less straightforward. 

So it could be its as simple as a huge conspiracy to test control or pure incompetence because we are run by people who treat life and death decisions as a 9 to 5 job…..they dug a hole and no one wanted to dig themselves out of it for fear of massive lawsuits etc but really as of now we are still scratching our heads a bit.🤷🏻‍♂️👍   

 

I don't buy the incompetence/digging themselves a hole argument. 

There was no need in terms of covid risk nor any evidence to support jabbing anyone healthy under 50. 

The government initially said they would offer it to old people and those working with vulnerable people and those vulnerable people. That made sense with the data available. 

They also said they would offer it to everyone else once the above had been offered it. It made sense for them to "offer" it as there were young and healthy people terrified and would want it for "peace of mind"

There was plenty of people who thought either " I've had covid so should have decent immunity." Or "hmm,  from publicly available data, I'm not to concerned about covid, and I don't see the need for for a vaccine that has been rushed".  Both views were valid and it turns out correct.

Once the main group was vaccinated which was about Easter 2021, the government could had just said something like, "the  vaccine centre's are now open to the general public for the next 4 months of you want a vaccine, go get one."

Summer would have arrived life would have resumed, the conspiracy theorists would have been wrong, people would have said the government handled the vaccine roll out well. 

But that as we know is not what happened. 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Pinkpanther

[The Grey Man]

13 minutes ago, Pinkpanther said:

I don't buy the incompetence/digging themselves a whole argument. 

There was no need in terms of covid risk nor any evidence to support jabbing anyone healthy under 50. 

The government initially said they would offer it to old people and those working with vulnerable people and those vulnerable people. That made sense with the data available. 

They also said they would offer it to everyone else once the above had been offered it. It made sense for them to "offer" it as there were young and healthy people terrified and would want it for "peace of mind"

There was plenty of people who thought either " I've had covid so should have decent immunity." Or "hmm,  from publicly available data, I'm not to concerned about covid, and I don't see the need for for a vaccine that has been rushed".  Both views were valid and it turns out correct.

Once the main group was vaccinated which was about Easter 2021, the government could had just said something like, "the  vaccine centre's are now open to the general public for the next 4 months of you want a vaccine, go get one."

Summer would have arrived life would have resumed, the conspiracy theorists would have been wrong, people would have said the government handled the vaccine roll out well. 

But that as we know is not what happened. 

Indeed. I think we had the children vax thread, your children will be next (?).

I know for sure I was telling a few I knew, that they would move down the age scales. That thread documented many on heres' view this would happen. It did. Mission creep appeared self evident to many and has been proven to be correct. There was no change in data suggesting the average under 50 risk profile had changed.

We did talk about the contracts. With a suspicion they had a percentage of the population required to take the medicine. Possibly argued that such a percent was required for herd immunity. 

We have only seen snippets of the alleged contracts. For all I know what has been seen is false. Tin foil hat? Maybe. I haven't seen the original. Show me the money.

My guess the Covid enquiry won't even broach this aspect.

Whilst here. The AZ court issue at present, is a stall for the inevitable Phizer, Moderna issue. Again noted on these threads at the time. A useful stooge to throw under the bus.

There was a lot and is a lot of tax money spent here.

Add it to the MIC noted by a former President Ike.

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by The Grey Man

[BurntBread]

3 hours ago, Pip321 said:

Does anyone have a simple view on the...why? I know some companies will make some money....but this feels much much more a concerted effort to stifle debate. 

I completely understand why they don't want TV presenters giving a medical view and may even have wanted to test their ability to control......but why is the medical profession and 'science' not been given the opportunity for healthy critical debate. 

I think the disease (let us say the exaggeration of a not very serious disease) is much easier to understand than the "vaccines". The disease/response was absolutely a product if the American empire. It enabled:

> Money printing and then inflation, which was needed to avert another systemic financial failure.

> The 2020 coup in the US to displace Trump who was trying to wind down the empire.

> The fall in oil prices which would strain the Russian economy before it was pushed into war and (the Reagan esque hope) of regime collapse.

> Lots of small scale fraud like PPE to keep the political wheels greased.

I find the vaccines much harder to understand. The most sensible suggestion I have is massive corruption, with senior politicians and media people given pre-warning to buy shares. I think some senior medical people must have been bought or compromised to make it happen, and the local doctors got the chance to sell their integrity and their souls for £12.50, which turned out to be more than enough. I think everyone else was in love with authority - other people's or their own - and also terrified into stupidity.

I have to agree with you though that money/corruption just doesn't sound enough of a motive for the scale and depth of the vaccine crimes ... but the only other thing that has been seriously discussed is a depopulation plan that (fingers crossed since only some of the future has happened yet) failed or was foiled. I am at the stage where I believe that is possible, but it's not compelling to me: there's a potential motive, but no actual evidence.

[Loki]

49 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

I find the vaccines much harder to understand.

Unfunded pension liabilities 

[Bobthebuilder]

16 minutes ago, Loki said:

Unfunded pension liabilities 

Gotta be something like that.

My mothers side of the family are undertakers, they saw no difference in numbers during the whole thing.

What turned my head in May 2020 was the lack of body bags, I knew it was bullshit.

[Loki]

12 minutes ago, Bobthebuilder said:

Gotta be something like that.

My mothers side of the family are undertakers, they saw no difference in numbers during the whole thing.

What turned my head in May 2020 was the lack of body bags, I knew it was bullshit.

What have they said about things since then, do they know about that Milton Keynes undertaker John O'Looney?

@Bobthebuilder It was a genuine question - I don't know any undertakers other than him!

Edited November 10, 2023 by Loki

[The Grey Man]

21 minutes ago, Loki said:

Unfunded pension liabilities 

I think  that will take many lives.

[Loki]

Just now, The Grey Man said:

I think  that will take many lives.

The number of ways they can covertly cause damage over such a prolonged time and different modalities is almost impressive from an impassioned technical standpoint 

[The Grey Man]

16 minutes ago, Loki said:

The number of ways they can covertly cause damage over such a prolonged time and different modalities is almost impressive from an impassioned technical standpoint 

I admire the nudge.

I don't agree with it though. I am of the view nudge has always been here, rather acknowledged and formally named.

The other thing is they know time is limited. They haven't lost though.

One creates a phoenix. A different name, the usual plan. I suspect we are approaching this point.

Disengaging appears the only individual way one might avoid the worst. You are still surrounded by those tapped on the new bait and switch.

Either that and get rich, although that parameter is getting higher.

I think the bar in the UK, for avoiding this is getting higher, totally.

Edited November 10, 2023 by The Grey Man

[Stuey]

On 06/11/2023 at 10:33, The Masked Tulip said:

 

We make no D from sunlight in the UK from mid Sept till the end of April. 

You have a point but your dates are way off. They ought to be symmetrical around June 21st.

Let's say 21st March to 21st September.

Despite it being 9C, it was cloudless and I once got mild sunburn in northern England at the end of March from being out in it all day. 

It can also help being next to reflective surfaces to up the dose from the sun - water, reflective glass etc. 

Over the autumn and winter it makes sense to get to your local tanning vitaminD parlour twice a week. 

[The Masked Tulip]

6 minutes ago, Stuey said:

You have a point but your dates are way off. They ought to be symmetrical around June 21st.

Let's say 21st March to 21st September.

Despite it being 9C, it was cloudless and I once got mild sunburn in northern England at the end of March from being out in it all day. 

It can also help being next to reflective surfaces to up the dose from the sun - water, reflective glass etc. 

Over the autumn and winter it makes sense to get to your local tanning vitaminD parlour twice a week. 

 

We have had this conversation several times before. I always respond that Michael Hollick, who was for a long time the sole advocate of D, determined that from late Sept to late April no one above Gibraltar makes D. The further north you are of this latitude the earlier in Autumn you lose D creation and the later it returns the following Spring. 

You always respond with your suntan / sunburn argument. I then counter that getting reddened skin is not the same as D creation. You can have the former without the latter. We go round and round then we both lose interest. 

[Stuey]

6 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

We have had this conversation several times before. I always respond that Michael Hollick, who was for a long time the sole advocate of D, determined that from late Sept to late April no one above Gibraltar makes D. The further north you are of this latitude the earlier in Autumn you lose D creation and the later it returns the following Spring. 

It doesn't make logical sense whoever says it. 

Strongest sunshine is June 21st (or a day either side) and is symmetrical around that point. 

[sleepwello'nights]

4 hours ago, Stuey said:

It doesn't make logical sense whoever says it. 

Strongest sunshine is June 21st (or a day either side) and is symmetrical around that point. 

Logic suggests to me there are other variables, like clouds. Surely Vitamin D creation depends on strength of sunlight reaching the skin. It isn't simply a straightforward case of day length.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108371/

[Stuey]

5 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Logic suggests to me there are other variables, like clouds. Surely Vitamin D creation depends on strength of sunlight reaching the skin. It isn't simply a straightforward case of day length.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108371/

Intuition and experience tells me the three months prior to the summer solstice are sunnier than the three months after. Lower humidity in spring. 

In which case it supports my argument that vitD acquisition does not start late April as @The Masked Tulip oddly believes but instead late March. 

Whichever...it is certainly symmetrical around June 21st.