Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: thethinkingman
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???

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?

Because someone has a different opinion from you it doesn't mean they don't understand. This should not need explained.

The fact is does says more about your understanding than mine.

a reply to: ScepticScot

But you dont understand, are you saying you do and you're saying you understand more than ME?

I challenge both of those notions.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

But you dont understand, are you saying you do and you're saying you understand more than ME?

I challenge both of those notions.

Good for you.

Hope that makes you feel all warm and tingly inside.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Very easy to make statements like "i know more than you!!!!!", "i am the truth!!!!", "You are wrong and im not going to explain why you just are!"

Much much more difficult to back that up, which you're completely unwilling to do because...you know and I KNOW, that you can't. Or you would cause thats how you've argued the toss with everyone else. Suddenly not so interested. You can't make excuses for that its all for everyone to see.

People argue when they think they're right...they wouldnt argue if they absolutely knew they were wrong unless they're just taking the piss.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

Very easy to make statements like "i know more than you!!!!!"

Much much difficult to back that up, which you're completely unwilling to do because...you know and I KNOW, that you can't. Or you would cause thats how you've argued the toss with everyone else.

People argue when they think they're right...they wouldnt argue if they absolutely knew they were wrong unless they're just taking the piss.

Yes it is easy to make statements about knowing more.

Read back your last few posts for examples.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Yew indeed. The article says about serious adverse reactions which can therefore cause serious harm.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: ScepticScot

Very easy to make statements like "i know more than you!!!!!", "i am the truth!!!!", "You are wrong and im not going to explain why you just are!"

Much much difficult to back that up, which you're completely unwilling to do because...you know and I KNOW, that you can't. Or you would cause thats how you've argued the toss with everyone else. Suddenly not so interested. You can't make excuses for that its all for everyone to see.

People argue when they think they're right...they wouldnt argue if they absolutely knew they were wrong unless they're just taking the piss.

It wasn't an argument though. It was mainly a barrage of derogatory comments against Dr Malhotra yesterday, on the borders of defamation and libel. I had to provide a defence for Dr Malhotra as he wasn't present.

In terms of the vaccine payout we can easily argue that the sum awarded in the UK is low. In the US is much higher. They have tried to twist this fact too by looking at the cost of living and whether else was coming to their minds. Unsuccessfully of course.

£120,000 in the UK
£405,000 in the US on average

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.

Nothing unique about Covid Vaccines.

I beg to differ.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Although honourable I think defending the Doctor was not really necessary.

Do you really think such an esteemed individual would care about the opinions of a few random blokes on a sub standard thread on a conspiracy forum?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Although honourable I think defending the Doctor was not really necessary.

Do you really think such an esteemed individual would care about the opinions of a few random blokes on a sub standard thread on a conspiracy forum?

Yes he would care about decency and honesty in pretty much every setting and especially when he is defamed in such manner.

By defending I mean defending his dignity as he doesn't need any defense when it comes to scientific or medical matters. The last paragraph of yours describes well what is going on here in this thread.

In terms of his career and research I don't think I need to say anything or add up more.

In terms of his paper well done to him for the U-Turn in the presence of new evidence. This will open up possibly more options who those who could claim vaccine injury compensations.

Editing: Not all people who participate here are laymen and conspiracy theorists. This is a minority which does exist. And the site doesn't seem to be dedicated to conspiracy theories apart from one if its section.

In case you don't like it you can always find somewhere else to post.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


He has had a lot of career accomplishments.

One of which is being on editorial board of the Journal of Insulin Resistance.

Not to mention that time he was on good morning Britain.

a reply to: ScepticScot

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Ok, From this sites about section.....

AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics on current events, politics, and government wrong-doing with poignant commentary from a diverse mix of users from all over the world.

It's not "just one of its sections" as you claim.

As to this unending debate about the esteemed Dr and his post...

Don't listen to what I say about him I'm a nobody, take a look at what another doctor who is also something of a big hitter has to say about the article in question and see what you think about his opinion on it.

Link to article

Oh and what Sceptic scot said about him being an editor of the fringe journal he's published in its true you can look for yourself if you want to.

Don't you find it odd that a doctor who has in the past had papers published in some of the most esteemed medical journals on the planet has now chosen to submit his latest work to some random south African diabetes paper that he just happens to be on the editing board of?



Take your time, no rush on the reply.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Ok, From this sites about section.....

AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics on current events, politics, and government wrong-doing with poignant commentary from a diverse mix of users from all over the world.

It's not "just one of its sections" as you claim.

As to this unending debate about the esteemed Dr and his post...

Don't listen to what I say about him I'm a nobody, take a look at what another doctor who is also something of a big hitter has to say about the article in question and see what you think about his opinion on it.

Link to article

Oh and what Sceptic scot said about him being an editor of the fringe journal he's published in its true you can look for yourself if you want to.

Don't you find it odd that a doctor who has in the past had papers published in some of the most esteemed medical journals on the planet has now chosen to submit his latest work to some random south African diabetes paper that he just happens to be on the editing board of?



Take your time, no rush on the reply.

The entire site isn't dedicated to conspiracy theories as you said. Politics, Political Scandals, Terrorism, Diseases and Pandemics, Social Issues and Social Unrest, and a number of other topics are hardly conspiracy theories.

I see you still try hard to degrade Dr Malhotra in the last paragraph and the journal he has published. Do you think it matters? Or what matters is the merit of his publication.

As for rebuttals are welcome. The person who has written the article can make a rebuttal and why not publish a peer reviewed paper that refutes the claims by Dr Malhotra.

Most importantly is how this will impact the vaccine compensation schemes that exist around the world of let's say Dr Malhotra is correct. Which is very much related to the topic of the thread.

Did you read the article I linked?

What are your thoughts on it?


a reply to: Asmodeus3

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The quality if the Journal is important as you have made a big deal of it being peer reviewed.

However the content of the article is the most important thing and that quality is very low

That what I and nonspecific have been trying to discuss and you have repeatedly tried to shutdown.

The article linked by nonspecific provide a far more detailed and comprehensive rebuttal.

You can choose to believe you Dr Malhotra claim are significant if you wish l. No one is stopping you.

But you don't get to shut down debate with appeals to authority when they article is clearly flawed at best and published an obscure off topic journal that he is on the editorial board of.

If you have read the full article I linked you can see that it's really rather sad how it looks to have transpired.

The doctor really did have a solid career and had published in some major journals and had received a good amount of acclaim and awards.


a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
Did you read the article I linked?

What are your thoughts on it?


a reply to: Asmodeus3

He can try to publish his rebuttal through a peer reviewed process. Then we can discuss about the contents of the publication. It's not uncommon to have rebuttals in science. But they need to be published.

originally posted by: nonspecific
If you have read the full article I linked you can see that it's really rather sad how it looks to have transpired.

The doctor really did have a solid career and had published in some major journals and had received a good amount of acclaim and awards.


a reply to: ScepticScot

Despite asmodes claims no one was attacking his credentials, it was the obvious bias and misinformation in the article.