Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FallingAwake

  1. 12-Year-Old In Germany Dies 2 Days After Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine – 12-Year-Old in Thailand In ICU After Heart Problems Caused By The Pfizer Shot https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/12-year-old-in-germany-dies-2-days-after-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-12-year-old-in-thailand-in-icu-after-heart-problems-caused-by-the-pfizer-shot/ "GERMANY – A 12-year-old girl from the district of Cuxhaven has died two days after receiving her second Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Initial evidence suggests that there is a causal relationship with the vaccination. The district had decided to make the case public after rumors surfaced on social media. The news comes just as the US has started vaccinating 5-11 year olds with the Pfizer vaccine. The Cuxhaven health department had ordered an autopsy which has already taken place. According to the preliminary autopsy report, done by experts from the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, it was concluded that it is likely that her sudden death was due to the vaccine." Sacrificed to save old people, basically. 🙏
  2. Hmm, fascinating. Uh, That's Not A Conspiracy Theory Karl Denninger https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244109 "There is an article floating around from The Expose that makes an explosive claim: There is a wildly statistically-significant skew in the death rate from Covid-19 vaccines by lot number. What originally got my attention was the tinfoil hat crowd screaming about lots being intentionally distributed to certain people to kill them -- in other words certain Covid-19 vaccine lots were for all intents and purposes poisoned. That was wildly unlikely so I set out to disprove it and apply some broom handles to the tinfoil hatters heads. What I found, however, was both interesting and deeply disturbing."
  3. Why would the BBC ever lie or mislead, @Arpeggio? They're part of the "Trusted News Initiative", so must be trusted. The word is literally in the title. Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and announces major research project https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation
  4. "But let me be very clear right from the start: I am a strong believer in antiviral drugs in general as a means to control the pandemic, having spent much of my early career focused on developing antivirals for the world’s last major pandemic, HIV/AIDS. But I have also spent many years — at Harvard especially where I founded and chaired the Division of Biochemical Pharmacology — studying mutagenesis and the long term effects of damaged DNA." I thought I'd quote this, to see how long this man's (William A. Haseltine) reputation lasts, before the Smear Machine drags him into the mud.
  5. You're both correct. I've never seen any evidence of spiders under my bed. Then again, I never looked.
  6. Red or blue? Edit: Never mind. @anonguestgot there first.
  7. 2020 - Clap For Carers. Heroes. 2021 - Sack For Carers.
  8. Zeus sucked. At least YHWH nailed particle physics, quantum physics and DNA a few thousand years beforehand: https://lettertotheatheists.com I believe that was once John Smyth of Kettering, who was overdosing on Ivermectin since April 2020. Talking of Ivermectin, looks like its inflicted a terrible blow on Indonesia too. https://wentworthreport.com/2021/10/22/indonesia-proves-ivermectin-works/ If only they'd listened to Fauci, the FDA and Pfi$er.
  9. Strange how they always have the mental acuity to write ever more oppressive laws.
  10. To be fair, Zero Covid isn't about not having covid. It's about containing it quickly and early. (I say this as completely not a fan of ZeroCovid(tm).)
  11. Here's something else truly awful. We're 18 months into this pandemic or whatever it is, and we still only have a few therapeutics and preventatives other than the vaccines, which is now mostly a Pfizer monopoly in certain segments of the population. How is it that this piece of genetic material encased in a lipid bi-layer (which is destroyed by soap outside the body) can't be defeated once inside, except by PfizerScience (or more accurately, that of the mysterious BionTech), which will be reaping Pfizer nearly $40 billion next year? Again, this isn't meant to be a vaccine-bashing post. My point is simply that, if this were truly about "saving people from coronavirus", there would be a plethora of preventatives, therapies and vaccines available by now. We would be spoiled for choice. As it is... it's a Pfizer mRNA shot, a Moderna mRNA shot, and maybe a few non-mRNA ones if you're lucky. I conclude from this... it's not about "saving people from coronavirus". If it were, after the BILLIONS that has been thrown into all the research etc, by now I'd be able to pop a preventative pill at the first sign of covid. But that's not what they want me to be able to do, IF it's about something else.
  12. That would be a "slippery slope". (1) It would mean YOU would be required to take any vaccination the government deemed necessary, in order for you to access healthcare, based on whatever technology they choose. Expect some DNA altering vaccines soon. (2) It would be a gateway to privatising the NHS, because people would have to be assessed for all kinds of other health issues, i.e. denied certain treatments if you're a smoker, overweight, not following the govt diktats on "5 a day fruit n' veg" etc. Maybe if the vaccines were more effective than the initial marketing push suggested, the vaccine-hesitant such as myself would consider them. I'd like to see some real up-to-date stats on who is in ICU (i.e. from September and October). This is the best we've got but it doesn't really say about the seriousness of the hospitalisations. Worth noting there's a lot of vaxxed in the older age groups. These don't look like the kind of figures you'd expect to see in an "effective" vaccine, despite the UKHSA's extensive disclaimers.
  13. How Outraged Should We Be By Yesterday’s Renewal of the Coronavirus Act Without a Parliamentary Vote? https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/20/how-outraged-should-we-be-by-yesterdays-renewal-of-the-coronavirus-act-without-a-parliamentary-vote/ Watch the video in Hartley-Brewer's tweet. It shows Parliament, when the motion to renew the Coronavirus Act got nodded through.
  14. A “knowingly false communication” offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause “emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience”. I wonder how long it will take before this "law" is abused by the government. My guess is... six months.
  15. OK, whatever. You've already decided my motives, so clearly the actual argument has gone over your head like a big whooshing sound. Never mind. Just repeat the mantra: "Safe and effective. Safe and effective. Safe and effective."
  16. As with @pig's point to me (or rather, I'm taking Pig's point and using it here), couldn't that be selection bias? You're seeing all the people who got hit with the worst of covid, but not the many millions who caught it and didn't even notice (asymptomatic), or the other millions who didn't even bother going to hospital. Selection bias. By definition if you're working in ICU, you're going to see the worst... just as @MonsieurCopperCrutch always manages to find the most idiotic anti-vaxxer story, or @Arpeggiofinds the vaccinated-and-dropped-dead-within-2-days ones.
  17. Probably another reason why people don't give much of a t*ss here is, the NHS is "free at the point of use". The fact that this US mom is having to pay for her son's adverse events in real dollars is just another profit stream for the hospitals. Kerching. But anyway, it's just statistics eh.
  18. The fact that you have to pluck a figure out of thin air is precisely my point. Now, it may be that these vaccines are relatively safe. In the past, drugs were withdrawn if they reached a certain threshold of deaths or adverse events, right? All of this seems to have gone out of the window with the current crop of vaccines. There is nobody saying, "OK, well if we get x number of adverse events we should pull it." Instead, it's jab, jab, jab... and.... JAB some more. I understand statistics. I understand that, with 4 billion jabs, we're going to see a lot more adverse events. I get that. What bugs me is we're not given any comparisons. For example, flu vaccines are also given out in large quantities in the US each year. Do you know how many adverse events there are for these, or other drugs, relative to the number of doses given? I don't and you don't, because nobody is bothering to make these comparisons to see how safe or risky the coronavirus vaccines are, compared with, say, flu vaccines. In other words, we're being presented with a completely one-sided message. Example: If there were, per 100,000 people jabbed, about the same rate of adverse effects as with flu vaccines, I'd say ok then... that's fair enough. However, if it was x10 the rate per 100,000, that would suggest something. I'm not sure what exactly, but it would certainly imply these vaccines weren't as safe. Does this make sense? Also, we have reasonably accurate statistics to help us calculate the risk of catching or dying from covid, given different age groups. We have no such thing when it comes to the covid vaccines. All we have is glib soundbites from politicians and people who want to push jabs into everything that moves. I'm not opposed to this. I just want more accurate and honest assessments about the safety of these vaccines, relative to, say, the flu vaccines. I thought that would be something reasonable to ask, and something people would be interested in. Then again, a lot of people don't care what goes into their bodies. 20% of people smoke, despite half the packet taken up with bold warnings about smoking
  19. So given the vaccines have been rolling out for about a year now, how many people's deaths can be directly or indirectly attributed to the vaccine?
  20. I get it, I really do. My main gripe is that there doesn't seem to be any real effort to find out how many of these deaths are just people mysteriously falling down dead, and how many are related to the vaccine. When the vaccines started rolling out, I suggested that long-term negative effects would be swept under the carpet, but many on here were confident we'd know about them, because "Science". Well, today I am even more convinced they would be swept under the carpet. Anything that might even hint at a vaccine's negative impact is dismissed as an anomaly of statistics, just like you did there... and we're only 12 months into these vaccines.
  21. If "28 days" is long term, then yes. The NIH did a trial involving about 450 people and a mix n' match of vaccine and booster, monitoring for 28 days after the booster dose. They "did not identify any new safety concerns". If that doesn't reassure you, then what do you want... BLOOD? http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=16072&format=pdf (p35,36)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.