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

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
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?

Your continued support of the authoritarian and unscientific push to vaccinate healthy children is 100% supporting children being killed for no clinical benefit. It shouldn't even be approved as there is no data showing it is effective at providing clinical benefit, it simply doesn't exist for this demographic.

We are not arguing the rights of people to vaccinate. We're arguing the approval and promotion of an inaccurately labeled immune system therapeutic being given to healthy children without informed consent.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Excuse me?

When have I ever advocated any of that?

You accuse me of wanting to kill children?

What the hell is wrong with you?


Please stop lying.

And who is "we"?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Great, except they have done no such thing. What actually happened was that they have simply ended a short term vax campaign for school age children, which was only really put in place because of demands from parents and teachers.

Link

As you said yourself covid doesn't really affect young kids, so this program wasn't seen as being particularly useful.

The fact that some children are being given this poison breaks my soul.

They aren't old enough to say no and it's wrong.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Boadicea

Wasn't that a spoof?

I wish... but nope.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Do you have a source to back up these claims that is not from a well know anti-vax far-right fake news website?

Because this sounds like the gooberment not wasting resources to me given that the majority of young children are not susceptible to COVID 19 in any sort of numbers.

Where would anyone nowadays get a source that talks against the narrative yet is also accepted by the vaxophiles?
I'll tell you: nowhere.
As soon as an accredited magazine prints a paper that shows the injections are dodgy, it's banned.

So we are left with a handful of sources that are so crackpot, that any vax addict can shout 'tinfoil hats.
How convenient.

Good job I personally always research more. You lot wouldn't dare, because there are a lot of studies and papers and professional virologists that confirm that those injections are anything but harmless.

The truth will come out sooner or later, it always does. Even if you don't like the messengers.

a reply to: Hecate666

The truth will come out sooner or later, on that we at least agree.

# posted from the likes of "thegatewaypundit" not so much.

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.

This is why long term clinical trials are so important as opposed to experimenting on the general population.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well lets face it AaarghZombies mRNA delivery technology was envisaged to deliver the likes of HIV/AIDS vaccines a couple of decades ago. Hopefully there is indeed vaccines to the likes of AIDS just around the corner, a few even in university trials i think.

As to VAIDS well if that was real or as rampant as v1rtu0s0 seems to have claimed, half of us here in the UK or thereabouts should be dead or on our last legs by now.

a reply to: Dalamax

I had COVID was a # show, beat it in 3 days through.

I know 3 people who died from it all the same so very real, or it was for them.

Same for the people who were on there arse for 10 days straight not being able to breath with temperatures going above 100+.

It’s not my place to persuade or dissuade your conclusions.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Is it targeting seniors because young children don’t own real estate?

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I don't know what planet you live on but here on earth scientific research varies a lot, some research shows opposite what others says. I have read lots of research and it conflicts a lot and sorry to burst your bubble but often the research that is discredited is way better than the accepted ones that conflict. Peer reviewing often tosses out a lot of information that does not meet acceptedconsensus in research articles which actually twists the research to say things it really doesn't say.

I understand it, if research shows that scientists and high health officials have been spewing BS for years, the research is buffered severely or discredited in peer reviewing....they do not want people losing faith in science and medicine.

I read a real lot of research, sometimes before peer review, but mostly after and have seen correct research changed into a pile of crap a few times after coming out of peer review. Almost all of it is somewhat buffered or twisted somehow and that does take away from people properly evaluating the writings.

And lots of times the people asking for the research structure the parameters to make the outcome be what they want it to show. That is also just the way it is...After seeing this happening in tens of thousands of research articles I kind of lost my faith in the people who write summaries of the research. I like to look at the actual research itself and see if the conclusion matches what they are saying it does.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Excuse me?

When have I ever advocated any of that?

You accuse me of wanting to kill children?

What the hell is wrong with you?


Please stop lying.

And who is "we"?

You support the vaccines. You support government policy related to the vaccine. The vaccine has been allowed, by the government, to kill children for no plausible benefit to them.

Advocate- to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.) : to plead in favor of

Merriam-Webster

You're appalled that I made this statement about you advocating killing kids, but you have no issue with the government approving vaccinating healthy kids and the media promoting it as necessary? Note that the only one of those three not tied to killing kids is me, the others had vested financial and political interests in it. One of them doesn't get paid anything for spending their time on the subject.

Hmmm.

You have refused to provide me the scientific basis for continuing to vaccinate healthy kids when presented with the evidence that it is killing them. You are advocating for killing kids or have cared so little you didn't bother to look when you were provided the link? Neither really is flattering. It's really not a tough thing to see if you aren't completely wrapped up in the politics involved.

If you can give me a reasonable scientific justification for it, a public health benefit derived from no prevention of transmission or illness, I'll gladly stop pointing out these inconvenient facts. I can't come up with one. Fauci hasn't provided one. No health authority has come up with one. Can you?

If you feel that I am lying or exaggerating feel free to report me. Since about midway through COVID I decided anything I post on the topic should be something I feel comfortable defending in court. It will remain up to the mods to determine if I'm somehow violating T&C. They didn't seem to have an issue with the people that called me and others murderers, so I doubt my very well reasoned statement that you advocate for killings kids will be a violation. Same thing goes for gun debates. People are often told they're responsible for school shootings for advocating for gun rights. The risk of COVID vaccine injury and death are much higher than the risks of being in school shootings.

If you don't see why I believe this is a true statement I don't know how to explain it. Advocating for killing children by proxy? I don't know how else to describe defending a useless therapeutic that kills children. If there was any public health benefit I wouldn't feel that way as there is room for opinions to differ, but with no clinical benefit it's not an opinion. It's simply murder to deploy a useless experimental therapy that has known mortality and unknown long term risks without significant well established benefits.

Maybe it's simply ignorance of the standards? I can tell you for a fact that having no clinical benefit doesn't meet any standard for any risk of approving a therapeutic. If you've been told some nebulous nonsense about the benefits to the population from using COVID vaccines on children then I'll ask for data. It doesn't exist, but I encourage you to look for it. If it prevented transmission it would arguably be worth some risk. If it prevented illness it would arguably be worth some risk. Since it doesn't do either there is no benefit for people otherwise at virtually no risk of serious illness from COVID. It doesn't take a MD to understand this, simple logic.

You have been lied to for two years by people with vested interests and motives, from both sides of this lengthy debate. I've never lied to you once. Who do you think is more likely to be lying to you right now? I don't care about the politics. I care about children being killed by shots that their parents are not being given informed consent for. I don't really understand why the politics of "COVID vaccine good" should be more important than children's lives.

How else should I interpret things? Give me an alternative. Tell me the science that justifies it. I'd love to be able to believe that people would stand up and say "no more" when presented with the evidence this is killing kids or no reason, but it doesn't seem to be happening for a few of you. I'll settle for one valid reason to continue it. At least that way it can appear that people haven't completely lost their minds. It's not much to ask for. Just a single valid scientific reason to give kids that don't get clinical benefit a vaccine that can cause death, disability, and has long term risks that are entirely unknown.

Demand from parents and teachers, are u serious??

Making stuff up again me thinks.....

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Great, except they have done no such thing. What actually happened was that they have simply ended a short term vax campaign for school age children, which was only really put in place because of demands from parents and teachers.

Link

As you said yourself covid doesn't really affect young kids, so this program wasn't seen as being particularly useful.

The fact that some children are being given this poison breaks my soul.

They aren't old enough to say no and it's wrong.

I take it that you're against circumcision, too?

originally posted by: illustratio
Demand from parents and teachers, are u serious??

Making stuff up again me thinks.....

I take didn't turn on the TV news for most of 2020?

There was even an entire south park episode about it.

a reply to: rickymouse

If you read the research, why don't you ever cite it?

originally posted by: Dalamax
It’s not my place to persuade or dissuade your conclusions.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well, it's definitely my place to debunk doom porn.

originally posted by: illustratio
Demand from parents and teachers, are u serious??

Making stuff up again me thinks.....

In the UK the government wanted light touch restrictions. They didn't want to lock down and they didn't want to close the schools, but they eventually gave in due to media attention and demands from the public.

In the case of children being vaccinated the UK government was very reticent to do it. 1) Because they didn't think that it would have substantial benefits as children weren't getting sick from covid at a high rate and 2) Because they were worried about it taking resources away from other parts of the vax program.

The reason that the schools were closed and that children were vaxxed at all was due to public demand and the teaching unions refusing to resume in person schooling until the government did more.

Link

Borris Johnson was heavily critisized for leaving it so late to lock down.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Demand from parents and teachers, and a desire to stop children from transmitting it to older family members.

Yes yes yes, that is the claim... but it is a LIE.

The problem is there are far too many people still willing to just believe every little lie these psychos push.