Doctor shows figures about the consequences of the corona vaccine.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: jerich0

You might want to check the meaning of that word. It's not just an insult that people throw around online, the Nazi are an actual historical group.

National Socialist. You claimed you are a socialist nation.. Don't need to check words. IF that is what you claim to be, then own it. nazi.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
Where does your government get money from?
Do they grow it on trees where you are?

Who really pays if the government screws up?

If you consented to receive a treatment that has not received 'full approval'....then no compensation maybe? I don't know what it's like where you are.

Do you really need an answer to that?

It's mostly a combination of taxation on business earnings, personal income, trade (Imports and exports) and sale tax.

Our system is different to yours. Because we're a socialist country it's not in the government's interest to cover up harm caused by the vax because that would make the government responsible for caring for anyone who was hurt. And the more people who are hurt the more money that it is going to cost the government. So the longer a coverup goes on the worse things are for the government, and if another political party (We're a multi-party state) were to get into power on the next election (We elect our leaders), then they could reveal the coverup and use it for their political advantage.

This means that it's in the government's interest to expose any harm caused by the vax, which would put the blame on the companies that produced it and would allow the government to recover its costs.

Why would my government cover up a failure of a private company, and shoulder the costs of that failure, when it could simply expose them?

a reply to: jerich0

You come from a democracy, therefore you must be a Democrat, yes?

a reply to: AaarghZombies
When the government need money they increase taxes.

Who suffers?

It's no different anywhere....... government needs money to cover whatever......everyday people have less to spend because they pay more in taxes.

I did not state that any government is covering up harm.
I am simply replying because it seems that you believe that the government pays with their own money.....and that the government will suffer.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Jesus christ, you're abiding by the flaws in the whole agenda. You must be complicit. Why would they lie? Do you know someone in politics giving you compensation for this crap?

Dear god, I hope you are just trolling. Because I would not even get on a bus with someone who truly believes what you are saying.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: jerich0

You come from a democracy, therefore you must be a Democrat, yes?

I always vote the horse, not the rider.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Sander1976

The COVID-19 vaccines aren't approved for, or rolled out to, those under 18 in the UK.

That's not completely true. It has been approved for children but the UK doesn't consider vaxxing children a priority so it's not been pushed very hard.

This is for two reasons. Firstly it frees up more resources to vax adults and vulnerable people (UK children who have comorbidity or live with vulnerable people can essentially get vaxxed on demand. Though with a few restrictions).

Secondly, the UK has quite a high base health level among children, so there isn't seen as being much urgency. Child mortality rates in the UK are much lower than the US and somewhat lower than Canada, so there isn't seen as being much to gain from vaxxing children.

Yes, I see that now. They approved the vaccines for 10-15 year olds on 20 September 2021.

But the video states that the high mortality was in double vaccinated children.

Since there is a delay between first and second vaccinations, the time frame between 20 September and and the 2nd of February when the video claims the data was published, and for the reasons you mentioned, I strongly doubt there would have been a large pool of doubly vaccinated children for the alleged mortality figures to arise in.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Just google all of the countries that it's fully authorized and stick an pin in one.

If I did that I would miss all the countries that said 'provisionally approved'........because you seem to be not seeing the word 'provisionally'.....and somehow reading 'fully' when 'fully' is not there.

It's very misleading....... maybe you did not notice that you were doing it.

covid19.trackvaccines.org...

a reply to: chr0naut

the video states that the high mortality was in double vaccinated children.

These would most likely be the most at risk children who were vaxxed first.

I'm actually a little surprised that the mortality rate isn't higher given the number of children with comorbidity.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
When the government need money they increase taxes.

Who suffers?

It's no different anywhere....... government needs money to cover whatever......everyday people have less to spend because they pay more in taxes.

I did not state that any government is covering up harm.
I am simply replying because it seems that you believe that the government pays with their own money.....and that the government will suffer.

Let me put this a slightly different way.

If someone is harmed by the vax and the government cover it up then it's the government who must pay for their care because we're a socialist country and the government pays for general care.

The longer the government covers things up, the more people are harmed, and the more money the government must pay out.

On the other hand, if the government were to find out that the vax was dangerous then this would allow them to shift the burden onto the companies that made the vax. It would also give them a significant incentive to switch to a different vax or to get big pharma to make a new vax that wasn't harmful.

There is absolutely no logical reason why the government would continue giving people a harmful product, it's a lose-lose situation for them.

But exposing big pharma is a vote winner.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: chr0naut

the video states that the high mortality was in double vaccinated children.

I'm actually a little surprised that the mortality rate isn't higher given the number of children with comorbidity.

This is comedy, dude, seriously. I can't believe you just said that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: jerich0
The vaccines work very well against severe disease

Yes, yes, we all know the narrative, but only a few, like yourself, actually believe it.

however it does also losses effectiveness over time.

A few months?

Please name one - just one - traditional vaccine that loses efficacy after just a few months requiring endless boosters that lose their effectiveness even faster than the initial jab.

Then when you consider that this particular jab also causes multiple orders of magnitude more adverse reactions and deaths - according to the official database designed to capture such information - than all other jabs in the history of jabs combined over the last 30 years, you have to wonder... how can anyone even remotely believe this crap?

If booster shots provide longer lasting effectiveness, particularly for higher risk groups, what exactly is the issue?

The problem? Oh, I don't know, maybe that the 'longer lasting effectiveness' is a propaganda narrative put forth by those with everything to gain by promoting it - and everything to lose if/when it falls apart.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: jerich0
The vaccines work very well against severe disease

Yes, yes, we all know the narrative, but only a few, like yourself, actually believe it.

however it does also losses effectiveness over time.

A few months?

Please name one - just one - traditional vaccine that loses efficacy after just a few months requiring endless boosters that lose their effectiveness even faster than the initial jab.

Then when you consider that this particular jab also causes multiple orders of magnitude more adverse reactions and deaths - according to the official database designed to capture such information - than all other jabs in the history of jabs combined over the last 30 years, you have to wonder... how can anyone even remotely believe this crap?

If booster shots provide longer lasting effectiveness, particularly for higher risk groups, what exactly is the issue?

The problem? Oh, I don't know, maybe that the 'longer lasting effectiveness' is a propaganda narrative put forth by those with everything to gain by promoting it - and everything to lose if/when it falls apart.

The effectiveness against severe disease is shown in study after study. The false narrative is those claiming otherwise, generally anonymous posters on a conspiracy site.

The effectiveness against infection seems to decline quickly, against severe outcomes it last longer. What's the big deal of having to have boosters, if it worked it worked .

The vaccine didn't cause orders of magnitutde more deaths. Severe reactions were very rare.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Regarding the virus, there are no children who are at risk.

With young and healthy immune systems children are the least risky group.

The shots are bioweapons meant to kill and main those to whom it is given.

Public Health has not been the goal since this started. Profits and a reduction in the number of humans are the goals.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
The effectiveness against severe disease is shown in study after study.

Who funded these so-called 'studies'? Where is the underlying data?

Sorry you've been fooled...

The effectiveness against infection seems to decline quickly, against severe outcomes it last longer.

Again, according to whom?

Propaganda, thats all ya got.

What's the big deal of having to have boosters, if it worked it worked .

The vaccine didn't cause orders of magnitutde more deaths. Severe reactions were very rare.

Well, VAERS, and all of the other official data collection systems for these kinds of things proves you totally wrong.

But... carry on, must be nice and comfy with your head in the sand all the time.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
The effectiveness against severe disease is shown in study after study.

Who funded these so-called 'studies'? Where is the underlying data?

Sorry you've been fooled...

The effectiveness against infection seems to decline quickly, against severe outcomes it last longer.

Again, according to whom?

Propaganda, thats all ya got.

What's the big deal of having to have boosters, if it worked it worked .

The vaccine didn't cause orders of magnitutde more deaths. Severe reactions were very rare.

Well, VAERS, and all of the other official data collection systems for these kinds of things proves you totally wrong.

But... carry on, must be nice and comfy with your head in the sand all the time.

Hundreds of different organisations across dozens of countries. Do you think they are lying,? Does that really seem more likely than you are wrong?

VAERs doesn't show you how many people have died from Vacvines. That is a pretty basic level of knowledge people should know by now

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
The effectiveness against severe disease is shown in study after study.

Who funded these so-called 'studies'? Where is the underlying data?

Sorry you've been fooled...

The effectiveness against infection seems to decline quickly, against severe outcomes it last longer.

Again, according to whom?

Propaganda, thats all ya got.

What's the big deal of having to have boosters, if it worked it worked .

The vaccine didn't cause orders of magnitutde more deaths. Severe reactions were very rare.

Well, VAERS, and all of the other official data collection systems for these kinds of things proves you totally wrong.

But... carry on, must be nice and comfy with your head in the sand all the time.

Hundreds of different organisations across dozens of countries. Do you think they are lying,? Does that really seem more likely than you are wrong?

VAERs doesn't show you how many people have died from Vacvines. That is a pretty basic level of knowledge people should know by now

No, a lot of them are drinking the koolaid. Some are lying, some are threatened and some are paid off. But I think you know this already.

VAERs is a government created system that Pfizer themselves said should be the tool used to track vaccine adverse issues. There was never an issue with it before until it started showing a massive amount of injuries and deaths, and then all of a sudden it wasn't "accurate". The havard-pilgrim study funded by the CDC showed VAERs is underreported by 99%. So it doesn't track enough vaccine injuries. It's the exact opposite of what you're implying. But I think you know this already.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
The effectiveness against severe disease is shown in study after study.

Who funded these so-called 'studies'? Where is the underlying data?

Sorry you've been fooled...

The effectiveness against infection seems to decline quickly, against severe outcomes it last longer.

Again, according to whom?

Propaganda, thats all ya got.

What's the big deal of having to have boosters, if it worked it worked .

The vaccine didn't cause orders of magnitutde more deaths. Severe reactions were very rare.

Well, VAERS, and all of the other official data collection systems for these kinds of things proves you totally wrong.

But... carry on, must be nice and comfy with your head in the sand all the time.

Hundreds of different organisations across dozens of countries. Do you think they are lying,? Does that really seem more likely than you are wrong?

VAERs doesn't show you how many people have died from Vacvines. That is a pretty basic level of knowledge people should know by now

No, a lot of them are drinking the koolaid. Some are lying, some are threatened and some are paid off. But I think you know this already.

VAERs is a government created system that Pfizer themselves said should be the tool used to track vaccine adverse issues. There was never an issue with it before until it started showing a massive amount of injuries and deaths, and then all of a sudden it wasn't "accurate". The havard-pilgrim study funded by the CDC showed VAERs is underreported by 99%. So it doesn't track enough vaccine injuries. It's the exact opposite of what you're implying. But I think you know this already.

From CDC

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events that occur following vaccination. Anyone, including Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS even if they are not sure if the vaccine was the cause. In some situations, reporting to VAERS is required of healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers.

VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: ScepticScot

Well that's just your opinion innit !

Did you ever correct the office of national statistics in Scotland to tell them their figures were wrong ! .

When were their figures wrong?

You stated in a thread a year and a half ago that 23.137 did not die in a four month period Just in Scotland from the flu .

I put up links to the office of national statistics etc and the BBC news and you stated they were all wrong and I was a idiot for believing them .

I am supposed to be the one with dementia!

Flu deaths Scotland Dec 2017 to March 2018 ? 23.137 in England there was 50.000 more deaths than normal according to the sources

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Hundreds of different organisations across dozens of countries.

So, provide a list. Burden of proof and all...

Do you think they are lying?

Do I think big pharma would lie about studies they've done to promote their poisons?

Why, yes... yes, I believe they would.

Are you seriously suggesting they wouldn't?

VAERs doesn't show you how many people have died from Vacvines.

Yes, I know, reliable parties have estimated that the numbers in VAERS, even after removing the ones that are not actually attributable to the jabs, are likely anywhere from 10 times to 100 times more than what is reported.

So, yes, their numbers are not right.

That is a pretty basic level of knowledge people should know by now

Yes, you'd think so, right?