Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Description here.

brodies.com...

My reading is that you can only sue if something was done wrong (for example contamination in the batch). Rather than just because you had an unlucky reaction.

Once again, How do you prove that the batch/dose you received was contaminated? It's already in your arm and you're in the freezer with your family about to torch or bury you.

If your death was unexpected and possibly vaccine related an investigation would show what batch you got.

If its bad enough to kill you then you are unlikely to be the only person affected. If you are the only one affected then it is unlikely to be the vaccine.

Take my hand, We'll jump into the real world together.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Description here.

brodies.com...

My reading is that you can only sue if something was done wrong (for example contamination in the batch). Rather than just because you had an unlucky reaction.

Once again, How do you prove that the batch/dose you received was contaminated? It's already in your arm and you're in the freezer with your family about to torch or bury you.

If your death was unexpected and possibly vaccine related an investigation would show what batch you got.

If its bad enough to kill you then you are unlikely to be the only person affected. If you are the only one affected then it is unlikely to be the vaccine.

Take my hand, We'll jump into the real world together.

If you need help getting there I have your back.

a reply to: ScepticScot

could you describe what occurs to make the vaccine kill or injure someone?

Whats your hypothesis if you have no concrete idea?

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

could you describe what occurs to make the vaccine kill or injure someone?

Whats your hypothesis if you have no concrete idea?

It could be an unlucky reaction.

It could be a defect in the vaccine.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

could you describe what occurs to make the vaccine kill or injure someone?

Whats your hypothesis if you have no concrete idea?

There is a term which describes some religious people called religious apologists. I think now we have gone to the next level and we can say there are some vaccine apologists!

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Description here.

brodies.com...

My reading is that you can only sue if something was done wrong (for example contamination in the batch). Rather than just because you had an unlucky reaction.

Once again, How do you prove that the batch/dose you received was contaminated? It's already in your arm and you're in the freezer with your family about to torch or bury you.

If your death was unexpected and possibly vaccine related an investigation would show what batch you got.

If its bad enough to kill you then you are unlikely to be the only person affected. If you are the only one affected then it is unlikely to be the vaccine.

Take my hand, We'll jump into the real world together.

If you need help getting there I have your back.

Your Heart attack will be recorded as a heart attack. Your stroke will be recorded as a stroke. The vaccine won't even be considered. It would take your family, (as in the Op) to kick up a holy stink and lawyers to get involved for anyone in the NHS to put you on ice and hold off for a full investigation. And an investigation by who? Someone else from the NHS?.

When someone dies the first thing on your mind is not ££££ from a possible claim for negligence. You are too traumatized to be dealing with a legal matter minefield. You are too skint to even consider it. Funerals are expensive enough. people just want to move on.

I know this from first-hand experience where someone died through neglect within the NHS. The family just wanted to get everything over with and it wasn't my place to get involved.

PS, I've seen plenty of incidents of neglect within the NHS. Cover-ups are what they excel at.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You see, i find an interesting pattern in peoples thinking because thoughts are created by memory connections and the contents of those memories.

If someone has no idea or memories about something, its likely they wont include that into their thinking, right?

So if you havent thought about whats going on mechanistically, physically, biologically, etc, your brain wont exactly come up with notions for example, a vaccine killing someone. Right?

This is just an ordinary pattern of brain function and it can be applied to anything and is. Whenever something inconvenient occurs that is in contrast to your memory, its very hard for you to think thats true because based on your memories model of reality, that isnt how it works. You can quite easily manipulate peoples memories. You can quite easily prevent them from seeing certain things or, if they do, you can thoroughly discredit them first before they possibly see it. Right?

We're at the mercy of our memories. Your own memory would "believe" all kinds of things if it was predominantly filled with a certain amount of experiences and repetitions of whatever it is. You could go from saying this is all bull# to being like oh no, oh #. This is one of the reasons why people really try their hardest to stop their memory changing. You put alot of effort into certain ways of thinking and if its all wrong....thats alot of effort.

The point is though, there is no point in defending wrong ideas just because you feel like you like them right now.

Just take a look at transformers - not so long ago it was ridiculous to claim you're a woman when you're a man but if you keep repeating the idea over and over and over on a big scale....look what happens.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Description here.

brodies.com...

My reading is that you can only sue if something was done wrong (for example contamination in the batch). Rather than just because you had an unlucky reaction.

Once again, How do you prove that the batch/dose you received was contaminated? It's already in your arm and you're in the freezer with your family about to torch or bury you.

If your death was unexpected and possibly vaccine related an investigation would show what batch you got.

If its bad enough to kill you then you are unlikely to be the only person affected. If you are the only one affected then it is unlikely to be the vaccine.

Take my hand, We'll jump into the real world together.

If you need help getting there I have your back.

Your Heart attack will be recorded as a heart attack. Your stroke will be recorded as a stroke. The vaccine won't even be considered. It would take your family, (as in the Op) to kick up a stick and lawyers to get involved for anyone in the NHS to put you on ice and hold off for a full investigation. And an investigation by who? Someone else from the NHS?.

When someone dies the first thing on your mind is not ££££ from a possible claim for negligence. You are too traumatized to be dealing with a legal matter minefield. You are too skint to even consider it. Funerals are expensive enough. people just want to move on.

I know this from first-hand experience where someone died through neglect within the NHS. The family just wanted to get everything over with and it wasn't my place to get involved.

PS, I've seen plenty of incidents of neglect within the NHS. Cover-ups are what they excel at.

This entire thread is about someone whose death was confirmed to be caused by the vaccine.

Proving negligence is difficult in many medical scenarios. Nothing unique about Covid Vaccines.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

You see, i find an interesting pattern in peoples thinking because thoughts are created by memory connections and the contents of those memories.

If someone has no idea or memories about something, its likely they wont include that into their thinking, right?

So if you havent thought about whats going on mechanistically, physically, biologically, etc, your brain wont exactly come up with notions for example, a vaccine killing someone. Right?

This is just an ordinary pattern of brain function and it can be applied to anything and is. Whenever something inconvenient occurs that is in contrast to your memory, its very hard for you to think thats true because based on your memories model of reality, that isnt how it works. You can quite easily manipulate peoples memories. You can quite easily prevent them from seeing certain things or, if they do, you can thoroughly discredit them first before they possibly see it. Right?

We're at the mercy of our memories. Your own memory would "believe" all kinds of things if it was predominantly filled with a certain amount of experiences and repetitions of whatever it is. You could go from saying this is all bull# to being like oh no, oh #. This is one of the reasons why people really try their hardest to stop their memory changing. You put alot of effort into certain ways of thinking and if its all wrong....thats alot of effort.

The point is though, there is no point in defending wrong ideas just because you feel like you like them right now.

Just take a look at transformers - not so long ago it was ridiculous to claim you're a woman when you're a man but if you keep repeating the idea over and over and over on a big scale....look what happens.

I have no genuinely idea what you mean by any of that but I do now have the "robots in disguse" jingle in my head.

a reply to: ScepticScot

MORE THAN MEATS/MEETS THE EYE. But funnily enough, my entire point was about how people dont know/get stuff so dont include it into their thinking.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

MORE THAN MEATS/MEETS THE EYE. But funnily enough, my entire point was about how people dont know/get stuff so dont include it into their thinking.

What don't you think people get in the context of vaccine deaths.

a reply to: ScepticScot

errr ....everything???? I asked your opinion on how the vaccines kill people and said 2 sentences.

I know for a fact you have no clue about how the vaccines work. Would you like more examples?

Cause if you think otherwise, explain. You can do the explaining and i'll ask the questions yeah?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

could you describe what occurs to make the vaccine kill or injure someone?

Whats your hypothesis if you have no concrete idea?

It could be an unlucky reaction.

It could be a defect in the vaccine.

Or it could be the vaccine itself.
I see you conveniently excluded this possibility. There is no need for unlucky reactions.

For example the risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccines may outweigh the risk from being hospitalised with Covid.


insulinresistance.org...


Results:

In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion:

It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.

a reply to: thethinkingman

You want an indeph description of every possible vaccine reaction then do your own research.

You got a short answer to a short question.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Description here.

brodies.com...

My reading is that you can only sue if something was done wrong (for example contamination in the batch). Rather than just because you had an unlucky reaction.

Once again, How do you prove that the batch/dose you received was contaminated? It's already in your arm and you're in the freezer with your family about to torch or bury you.

If your death was unexpected and possibly vaccine related an investigation would show what batch you got.

If its bad enough to kill you then you are unlikely to be the only person affected. If you are the only one affected then it is unlikely to be the vaccine.

Take my hand, We'll jump into the real world together.

If you need help getting there I have your back.

Your Heart attack will be recorded as a heart attack. Your stroke will be recorded as a stroke. The vaccine won't even be considered. It would take your family, (as in the Op) to kick up a stick and lawyers to get involved for anyone in the NHS to put you on ice and hold off for a full investigation. And an investigation by who? Someone else from the NHS?.

When someone dies the first thing on your mind is not ££££ from a possible claim for negligence. You are too traumatized to be dealing with a legal matter minefield. You are too skint to even consider it. Funerals are expensive enough. people just want to move on.

I know this from first-hand experience where someone died through neglect within the NHS. The family just wanted to get everything over with and it wasn't my place to get involved.

PS, I've seen plenty of incidents of neglect within the NHS. Cover-ups are what they excel at.

This entire thread is about someone whose death was confirmed to be caused by the vaccine.

Proving negligence is difficult in many medical scenarios. Nothing unique about Covid Vaccines.

Yes everything is difficult when it comes to harm from the vaccines eve if you have died from it and this has been confirmed to be true.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


Your quoted text is talking about reactions.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Just take a look at transformers - not so long ago it was ridiculous to claim you're a woman when you're a man but if you keep repeating the idea over and over and over on a big scale....look what happens.

I think he saying he's a big transformer fan..

"Autobots, Transform And Roll Out!"

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


Your quoted text is talking about reactions.

They are still covered in compensation schemes and payout schemes as well as death.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No the point is you wont include things into your thoughts that you have no clue about. You clearly know that.

You clearly know you dont know. You have made no attempt to know. I even bet you dont know the basic mechanisms of immune system, biological systems, how vaccines even work or specifically these vaccines.

This majorly alters the final product of your thoughts. If you cannot describe or know these things, you WILL NOT think they exist most likely. Its very very simple.

You can even be shown the evidence but if YOUR BRAIN can't make head nor tail of it cause you dont know how things work.....you wont be able to see that it is evidence. This is why people who have no clue....fall back onto OTHER peoples opinions and assessments, right? They understand they have a qualification or not but not what they're actually going on about. Thats why there is a very basic pattern in the arguments, right??? It matches how basic the people are who are "arguing". More like bickering.

Thats why you make excuses about "indepth" ....but are saying people who do go WAY BEYOND your depth are wrong. You dont see a problem??? Or are you unable to see the problem? Or do you not want to see the problem?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3


Your quoted text is talking about reactions.

They are still covered in compensation schemes and payout schemes as well as death.

Serious injury and death are covered under the UK scheme regardless of fault.