Covid

Chippy_Tea said:

Do you honestly believe the vaccines caused deaths or is it just a case of somr people will die whether they have it or don't?

Click to expand...

I believe that there's far too much evidence for it to be a coincidence, enough at least to make me decline any vaccine offered.

Kerby said:

You stick to conjecture and subjective experience, I’ll stick to evidence based, peer reviewed research.

Click to expand...

Disregard personal experience over what you've been 'told' to believe? Good luck with that

Druss said:

Disregard personal experience over what you've been 'told' to believe? Good luck with that

Click to expand...

Does that apply to the moon landings ?

Davegase said:

Does that apply to the moon landings ?

Click to expand...

To a certain extent, I think critical thinking should be applied to pretty much everything.

I honestly couldn't say for certain if the moon landings happened, it doesn't effect me in any tangible way so I wouldn't really take either side.

If I did, for some reason, have a dog in that fight I'd certainly do enough research to form an opinion. I'd always favour info I'd gathered through first hand experience rather than what's spoon fed by the media...could be tricky in the case of the moon landing, but that's that I suppose.

Druss said:

To a certain extent, I think critical thinking should be applied to pretty much everything.

I honestly couldn't say for certain if the moon landings happened, it doesn't effect me in any tangible way so I wouldn't really take either side.

If I did, for some reason, have a dog in that fight I'd certainly do enough research to form an opinion. I'd always favour info I'd gathered through first hand experience rather than what's spoon fed by the media...could be tricky in the case of the moon landing, but that's that I suppose.

Click to expand...

Flat earth ??

Davegase said:

Flat earth ??

Click to expand...

There's plenty of places on the planet where a curvature is visible.

I don't think vaccine scepticism is really quite on a par with a full blown existential crisis, but, in essence it's sensible to question everything.

Is global warming a hoax too?

Brew_DD2 said:

Some rather selective quotes you've taken from that article.

3 billion doses. How many adverse events or deaths?

Click to expand...

"AstraZeneca said it was "incredibly proud" of the vaccine, but it had made a commercial decision.

It said the rise of new coronavirus variants meant demand had shifted to the newer updated vaccines."

<because the bugger has mutated>

" Its vaccine was estimated to have saved millions of lives during the pandemic, but also caused rare, and sometimes fatal, blood clots."

And some fallout HAS to be accepted. After the overly dramatic REPORTING what is the ratio.

Or put it another way.. what would have been the real cost of not vaccinating?

Bitter_Dave said:

Is global warming a hoax too?

Click to expand...

Does the planet go through temperature changes? Absolutely, fossil records alone would suggest that many creatures have evolved to adapt to changing climates. Earth has been around for billions of years, it's been a lot hotter and a lot colder by turns than it is now.

Are humans now magically responsible for the temperature of the planet? Very unlikely, if anything this is simply an example of the astonishing arrogance of humanity.

Generally speaking, if there's money to be made, a state of fear is a powerful weapon to wield.

Bitter_Dave said:

Is global warming a hoax too?

Click to expand...

Yes. Global warming is...it's now officially called climate change. The fundamental 'science' that started the whole global warming thing off (well actually it was stared off by politicians who then turned to scientists to gather evidence to support their claims)...the 'hockey stick curve', was debunked science so they had to change the name.

Climate change is real...it's happening and is partly influenced by industrial emissions of CO2. To what extent we dont know - and that is official...the IPCC report offers up several scenarios ranging from its 100% controlled by industrial CO2 emissions (unlikely) to it's not that influenced at all (also unlikely), and the range of the impact on 'global temperature' (if that is even possible to measure or determine) varies massively from not much if anything, to 5+ degrees. Of course the politicians are taking the worse case scenario and presenting it as 'THE SCIENCE'.

Bitter_Dave said:

Is global warming a hoax too?

Click to expand...

The world is warming as part of a planetary cycle, that human activity has accelerated.

Its also worth reading the various temps for what they absolutely represent and not accepting interpretations that suit various agenda's.

<Set rant_mode = off>

Chippy_Tea said:

I am not saying I don't believe they told you what I am saying is it never happened in the first place for the reasons i posted earlier -

Exactly Dave no GP would tell a patient their lungs were damaged by a vaccine even if they suspected they were they would need concrete evidence and the last person they would tell us the patient

Click to expand...

My dad now has a host of health issues post covid turning him form a very healthy chap of his age, skiing, big home DIY projects motor homing around Europe, and now he's basically lost the use of his legs and becoming paralysed from the waist down and medical science is completely flummoxed. He's had all the tests and scans and seen many consultants and global experts in their respective fields and none have a Scooby do. So now they are openly suspecting vaccine damage, so concerns in the medical profession around vaccine damage is real...wether or not statistically its in line with the normal risk levels with other medical treatments is another thing. Maybe my dad and growing numbers of others like him were just unlucky....or something else.

You're right there is no hard evidence...either way....yet, but what we do have is a growing number of people with 'strange' health and medical issues out of the blue and a massive rise in heart related issues in young people that was unheard of before covid and significantly elevated excess death rates post covid for a variety of unusual health issues and across younger age groups. Now correlation is not proof of causation, which is why the studies need to be done...the problem is, in the UK and US who normally would be leading the world in this kind of research, are strangely absent in the research actually being carried out...mmmm I wonder who funds most of our medical research....?

The COVID thing was unique compared to any other global pandemic before in that our response was 100% driven by politicians and politics...it was not science led...well it was until Neil Fergusons tragic model that was based on a whole host of dodgy assumptions, since shown to have been completely wrong, and predicted global extinction unless we took more extreme actions...who tested the model and its assumptions? since when did modelling become science? it was at that point that science left the building. We were not following the science. There were no adjustments to government advice following all the various interventions made through the whole debacle which is odd. There was no shortage of proper scientists, experts in this field, some Nobel prize winning, who had severe concerns about the covid response and the way the vaccine was rushed through, but they were silenced, threatened...by politicians and the media, they never got the platform to have the debate and challenge things, which is the very essence of science...so we have been duped by the 'powers at be'. If that doesn't make you smell a rat then I'm not sure what would. Often the very people the government are trying to shut up are, perhaps, the most important people to listen to.

Anyway whatever your opinions on the vaccine and the potential harm it may be causing, one thing is 100% certain: The covid vaccine didn't work....it was a dud....it failed to prevent the spread of the virus, a pretty key thing for a vaccine. The evidence is weak that it offered any stronger or longer lasting immunity compared with natural immunity in most people, so again a pretty fundamental failing for a vaccine. However there is some evidence that it reduced the severity of illness in some people who are very old and already have other health issues, so potentially beneficial for them...but there are other readily available and well established drugs that are potentially even more effective, but they were demonised because they didn't make a few companies shed loads of money. So as with any medical intervention you have to consider it for every individual case and weigh up the benefits vs. the potential side affects for the individual. And there is no reason why the COVID vaccine shouldn't come under the same consideration rather than a blanket roll out, which has never ever happened before. There is nothing special about COVID.

So no, I will not be having any more covid vaccines...and regret having the first lot. I remain healthily skeptical about MRna technology, I'm definitely one of those where the vaccine was of no use and there was no reason for me to have had it at all. My dad was probably in the same category and boy does he wish he never had it.

Druss said:

Does the planet go through temperature changes? Absolutely, fossil records alone would suggest that many creatures have evolved to adapt to changing climates. Earth has been around for billions of years, it's been a lot hotter and a lot colder by turns than it is now.

Are humans now magically responsible for the temperature of the planet? Very unlikely, if anything this is simply an example of the astonishing arrogance of humanity.

Generally speaking, if there's money to be made, a state of fear is a powerful weapon to wield.

Click to expand...

So you know better than all those climate scientists out there?

And they are all conspiring in this evil sharade, when reviewing each other's papers and grant proposals? (Scientists are only too happy to pick holes in each other's work by the way).

Of course people should not blindly accept whatever they are told by the media without reflection. But critical thinking also means assessing WHO says something and on what basis they have the knowledge to make claims, especially when it comes to something like science.

Druss said:

I believe that there's far too much evidence for it to be a coincidence, enough at least to make me decline any vaccine offered.

Disregard personal experience over what you've been 'told' to believe? Good luck with that

Click to expand...

You are wilfully misunderstanding my point. The experience of an individual does not take precedent over the observation of the wider population. i.e. a RCT of 1000 individuals and the data that produces trumps the experience or you, your family or your mate Dave.

Kerby said:

You are wilfully misunderstanding my point. The experience of an individual does not take precedent over the observation of the wider population. i.e. a RCT of 1000 individuals and the data that produces trumps the experience or you, your family or your mate Dave.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, but what I'm getting at is not the actual data, but the way in which that data is delivered.

As the saying goes: there's many a slip betwixt cup and lip.

Study data is almost certainly manipulated to suit an agenda, follow the money, big pharma is behind a lot of the cherry picking when it comes to Covid figures.

At the end of the day it would be rather naive to simply tow the party line and accept anything. If it seems a bit suspect then it's best to avoid as long as possible until first hand evidence is presented, only then should decisions be made by the individual.

Bitter_Dave said:

So you know better than all those climate scientists out there?

Click to expand...

Definitely not, but I'm sceptical of something so absolute.

Bitter_Dave said:

So you know better than all those climate scientists out there?

And they are all conspiring in this evil sharade, when reviewing each other's papers and grant proposals? (Scientists are only too happy to pick holes in each other's work by the way).

Of course people should not blindly accept whatever they are told by the media without reflection. But critical thinking also means assessing WHO says something and on what basis they have the knowledge to make claims, especially when it comes to something like science.

Click to expand...

It's not the climate scientists that making any claims. It's the politicians...dont mix them up.

There is the science part of the IPCC report authored by scientists and presents the current state of the science in an unbiased way as science should. This report gives a range of temperature affects based on how CO2 might influence the climate...because they don't know so they present several scenarios. That is the science right there and to say anything more than that is to introduce non-scientific opinion and biases into the discussion.

Then there is the 'Summary for policy makers', a completely separate unscientific IPCC report, which is a summary of the science with a bunch of recommendations specifically for bureaucrats and politicians who can't be bothered to read the science report, couldn't understand it if they did, and wouldn't know how to process the information because most of our politicians are a bit thick these days. So they read the summary report and take it on face value without question. It is in that report where the 'conclusions' are drawn up as interpreted by the authors of the summary report. The rub is who are the faceless, unaccountable authors of the summary for policy makers report? and what are their motivations and agendas? This is where the 'interpretations' and biases comes in that is carried through to political rhetoric and policy. The politicians are just the useful idiots who blindly implement the recommendations and rattle off a standard pseudo-scientific script to back it up.

The science is not settled. It never is. Science is a journey not a destination. 97% of scientists don't agree. And peer review of a scientific paper is not just another scientist 'picking holes' in your work...they have to back it up with science. Only science can defeat science, there is no room for opinion when it comes to peer review.

If you want to know what the actual scientists are saying and what they think then go and see for yourself. You don't need to take anybody else's word for it, certainly not politicians. They're all over the Internet with lectures, pod casts, interviews. they're totally open about the science they're working, what their findings are and their own personal opinions (not to be mixed up with science) and more importantly what science doesn't know yet. If you do that you will see that there is a huge variation of scientific and personal opinions out there amongst the scientists about what drives climate change and what to do about it.

Up to 2 weeks ago it was called illegal migration, it's now called irregular migration, global warming climate change just a play on words, check out how many people world wide would lose their jobs if it was debunked, it is now a global industry

Druss said:

I believe that there's far too much evidence for it to be a coincidence

Click to expand...

Could you point us to some fact checked evidence, what % of everyone who had a vaccine died because of it?

To answer an earlier lengthy post, I am not saying the vaccine hasn't cause some people serious health issues with many many millions of people taking it it was bound to effect some in a negative way but I still say no doctor would have told his or her patients they have lung damage caused by taking a vaccine it would cause a mass panic if that got into the news and they found they had concreted evidence to prove it.

Chippy_Tea said:

Could you point us to some fact checked evidence, what % of everyone who had a vaccine died because of it?

Click to expand...

In short, no I can't.

As you say, if it was confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vaccines were in fact lethal x% of the time, there would be mass panic.

But it seems like another 'co-morbidity' thing, people were getting hit by a bus and their death certificate had Covid listed as a contributing factor. That was certainly to inflate the numbers and whip up a fear factor to push the vaccines (and no, I don't have evidence to back that up either but it seems to have been reported by every media outlet since the pandemic hit).

Now every study that shows they're potentially dangerous is immediately torn apart and branded a conspiracy theory, most likely to cover up the cash grab that was the 'vaccine' rollout.