UK Bans COVID Vax for Kids – Vaccine Harms Sexual Development in Little Boys

The same reason covid didn’t get ya all

a reply to: andy06shake

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Things change over time.

And kids are still being given a vaccine that is killing them for no clinical benefit.

How many children have actually been killed by the vax?

Don't forget to include your sources.

originally posted by: Dalamax
The same reason covid didn’t get ya all

a reply to: andy06shake

Because it's not part of a depopulation agenda?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Well you did claim that 40% of the UK would be dead or dying by AIDS a few months back.

The irony is that people with AIDs, who were prioritized for the vax, aren't dying in greater number either.

If VAIDS were real, they would be the canary in the coalmine.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

Wait, are you saying health authorities make decisions based on parents and teachers feelings and not science?

Apologetics-101™ : ALWAYS blame the victim !


Don't worry : they will all be awarded with Darwin-Awards !!

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Or my favorite:

"Sure we'll happily publish the data on vaccine efficacy"

(observers note the data set only contains data for older patients)

"Ohh. Sorry. Yeah about that...our data for those age groups is 'not ready for primetime'. But just trust us, you should continue vaccinating your children...against an upper respiratory virus that 99% of young people tolerate with no issue. Once we're done doctoring our data for that age group we run those numbers again, we'll show them to you"

What the C.D.C. did here, from a scientific perspective, is unconscienable. We call that "cherry picking data" in our field.

I'm not even a believer of 1/2 of the C.T.s about the vaccine, but these organizations and their corporate overlords have FKCD this up so badly, between mandating something that did nothing NOTHING more than lessen symptoms for most young healthy people, and blatantly manipulating their data, they have annihilated public trust.

I find it intriguing that there are "critics" here that tirelessly hound posters that submit unsubstantiated/sensational material here, never get around to "critiquing" folks like the C.D.C. who ARE PAID to look out for the public's health care interests, but instead doctor report data to benefit their financial backers.

That sounds a bit like "Selectively Denying Ignorance" to me.

A better more efficient use of energy would be to "critique" the C.D.C. who is being paid vast sums of money to basically, bend the truth or lie through omission about vaccines. The health care sector needs better public confidence, and where that pursuit intersects with Pfizer's stock price, shouldn't be a hard question to answer, but is oddly is.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

This made me shudder.

Last night we saw a commercial with (Sesame Street) Elmo and his father about getting the Covid vax. It was actors in full costume, not animated. It was weird and kind of disturbing. The fictional characters would suggest that it was directed to children, but it addressed parents.

After reading this, it strikes me as even more disturbing... and worse.

Every vaccine has adverse effects for some people; some more serious than others, some short-term and some long-term and some permanent, including death. No one had any reason to think this vaccine would be any different. No one had any reason to believe this one was completely safe. But demanded and coerced people have it injected directly into their bloodstream and consequences be damned. This is a crime against humanity.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

We're talking about the booster that is primarily targeted at seniors, right?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Things change over time.

And kids are still being given a vaccine that is killing them for no clinical benefit.

How many children have actually been killed by the vax?

Don't forget to include your sources.

It is irrefutable that healthy children are at virtually no risk of serious illness or death from COVID.

It is irrefutable that kids are dying from the vaccine because all have a risk or adverse events including death

It is irrefutable that healthy children get no benefit from the vaccine because it doesn't prevent transmission or illness.

How many dead kids does it take? Tell me what number I have to provide evidence for.

Is one healthy kid dead for no reason enough? Is 50? Is 1,000?

Just let me know how many kids you believe should be killed via promotion and administration of a vaccine with no clinical benefit and I'll get right on that.

a reply to: Boadicea

Wasn't that a spoof?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Things change over time.

And kids are still being given a vaccine that is killing them for no clinical benefit.

How many children have actually been killed by the vax?

Don't forget to include your sources.

Not that the account I'm replying to has any credibility left at this point, but I'll rise to the bait.

When you're talking about sources for younger demographics...are you referring to the sources that were deliberately excluded from the C.D.C. data dump?

By now Pfizer/C.D.C. might have realized how awful the optics were by doing that, but here in the U.S. we have a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice, shame on me"

I'll not accept anything put out until either the C.D.C. completely cleans out, top to bottom, or their "data" is independently reproduced and verified by other researchers or both.

Unlike "where you lived", we don't blindly accept proclamations from government/"trusted authorities" without questioning it.

“In God we trust, all others must bring data.” - W. E. Deming.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Oh. Things like science and knowledge don't change over time?

Like, we no longer believe that the sun orbits the Earth?

It's called progress.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

We're talking about the booster that is primarily targeted at seniors, right?

Do they consider the age group 18-49 as seniors "where you live"?

Two weeks ago, the CDC published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65.

But the agency, led by Dr Rochelle Walensky, did not share the information on those aged 18-49, who are considered to be the least likely to benefit from a booster.

It has also failed to provide information they held on child hospitalizations, scientists complained.

If the booster is "primarily targeted at seniors"...why the prevalence of booster drives for school children?

In no way whatsoever has the narrative ever been "the boosters are *mostly* for older people" when

a) people ages 18-49 were given ultimatums to vax or be fired
b) school districts (like where my children go) gave preferential isolation policies for vaccinated kids

Also..why are we distinguishing between the "booster" and original formulation?

Wasn't there arguing up and down and sideways here on ATS that "cominraty" had no, NO material chemical difference with the original formulation? So then why parse language so finely now?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Boadicea

Wasn't that a spoof?

Nope. I wish it were... but nope.

DC Public Education has entered the chat….



A reply to: Virtu0s0

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Oh. Things like science and knowledge don't change over time?

Like, we no longer believe that the sun orbits the Earth?

It's called progress.

Nah.

The science is settled.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Oh. Things like science and knowledge don't change over time?

Like, we no longer believe that the sun orbits the Earth?

It's called progress.

Perhaps you missed my early comment. I'll repeat it.

Things change based on data and none of the backtracking or reversing course has been based on data, but opinions and sentiment. Masking, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccination of children, basing recommendations on demographic data, have not changed during the course of COVID based on data. It changed based on narratives and significant effort was made to manipulate the data to fit those narratives.

I also will reiterate a comment you chose to ignore because you have ZERO scientific explanation for dead kids being acceptable.

Until you can explain why dead kids are okay you have no credibility and, while you continue to advocate for killing children, nobody should take anything you say any more seriously than the unscientific anti-vaxxers.

a reply to: Ksihkehe



"Until you can explain why dead kids are okay you have no credibility and, while you continue to advocate for killing children, nobody should take anything you say any more seriously than the unscientific anti-vaxxers."

What?

"I advocate for killing children"

Have you taken leave of your senses?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: KKLOCO

We'd like to pay no income tax?

Great.

We'd have no NHS, no benefits, no schools, fire service, Police, etc?

What the hell do they do in Texas and Florida and Wyoming and Alaska and Nevada and Washington and south Dakota

No schools In Bermuda no roads in United Arab Emirates?

HMMMMM

a reply to: cashisking

No idea what you are talking about.

I'm in the UK?