No vaccinations for the under 50s!!!!!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Didn't get the point about your article being before vaccinations even started?

I don't think you understand the points made.

To establish vaccine safety it takes years.
Ms Bingham made the comment a few weeks before the start of the vaccination program. As safety hadn't been established those under the age of 50 wouldn't be given the jab. That simple.

Posting work written by others
IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you know about the process of establishing vaccine safety you would know it takes years.
It's precisely because we knew nothing about them they couldn't be rolled out in the young and healthy populations. One can argue they shouldnt have been rolled out at all.

Thats just your assumption.
It was authorised for emergency use by MHRA and initially given to the most at risk. But by your argument, we gave the jab to the people who'd be killed the easiest by a faulty drug? I don't remeber hundreds of thousands of the elderly and sick dropping dead from the jab?
If the jab was thought to be dangerous and was a risk, then you'd give it to the people able to fight off any ill effects, the young and more healthy.

I would like for once more to add that emergency authorisation is something very different to vaccine safety. No my argument wasn't what you described as you have misunderstood what I said or you have misinterpreted me.

The safety of the jab is determined over a period of years and not over a few months. If the drug hasn't be proven to be safe (even if it is) then it is not considered to be safe. This is exactly what Kate Bingham implied when she said that they would only vaccinate those over the age of 50 but not the young and healthy and it's obvious why. You don't experiment with young and healthy populations with an unknown products which still hasn't been proven to be safe.

www.ft.com...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am under 50 years of age.

Are you saying that I should not have had the option of a covid 19 vaccine and if so on what grounds?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am under 50 years of age.

Are you saying that I should not have had the option of a covid 19 vaccine and if so on what grounds?

If you really want to get jabbed then I suppose it's up to you. But it has to be offered first. If it wasn't offered then you wouldn't have the option.

Why do you think the vaccine task force in the UK wasn't planning to offer it to those under the age of 50? There are safety reasons. Vaccine safety can is established over several years and over a few months.


www.ft.com...

What makes you the voice of the UK?

Who are you as some random nameless poster on a conspiracy forum to dictate what is and is not?

Your arrogance astounds me and I really don't know what to do or say other than to leave you to your inane ramblings.

I understand that you may sit at home having these thoughts and writing these things but stop acting like you are somehow the saviour of us all.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion and you will do yourself harm if you continue to somehow think that your opinion has some kind of value and impact.

It's unhealthy and wrong and pointless.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am under 50 years of age.

Are you saying that I should not have had the option of a covid 19 vaccine and if so on what grounds?

If you really want to get jabbed then I suppose it's up to you. But it has to be offered first. If it wasn't offered then you wouldn't have the option.

Why do you think the vaccine task force in the UK wasn't planning to offer it to those under the age of 50? There are safety reasons. Vaccine safety can is established over several years and over a few months.

www.ft.com...

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The UK government changed its policy because the public demanded it.

This was a response to public pressure.

The public, who has no medical background. Its a shame those in charge chose profit over science.

The public, under pressure from constant propaganda such as this one claiming your taking the vaxx will save other people's lives (of course the inverse is that you are killing other people by NOT taking it) demanded everyone take it.

No evidence existed or exists for such claims. The covid vaccines don't provide sterilising immunity and hence you can still get infected and transmit it to others. So the idea that you are killing others if you are not taking the vaccine is false just as most of the claims made in the name of this ideology.

www.verywellhealth.com...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The plan was not to vaccinate those under 50 so not to cause harm to the young and healthy. This seems to have change after some political interference.

Thats not correct.
The plan was to vaccinate the most vulnerable and care home workers first, then vacinate the rest by age group, from the .gov link at the time (which was in the FT article). it never changed.

No that wasn't the plan.
We have already established this. This was the revised plan after political interference.

According to the article I have linked and to the standard checkpoints when establishing vaccine safety you never give drugs including vaccines to the general population unless vaccine safety is established.

The emergency authorisation doesn't establish vaccine safety and that's why Ms Bingham the chair of the vaccine task force said clearly that they won't give the vaccine to anyone under the age of 50.

www.ft.com...

I think you are mistaken for once more as you haven't understood yet what vaccine safety means.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What do you wish to do about this?

What is the aim of this thread?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What do you wish to do about this?

What is the aim of this thread?

Just to inform others on the misconceptions and misunderstandings that exist regarding vaccine safety and how this safety is defined. This isn't an anti-vaccination campaign however when it comes to vaccine safety and drug safety people must be informed.

It goes like this in the real world. If a specific drug or vaccine hasn't been proven to be safe and effective then it is not until proven to be (even if it is). In a few words the burden of proof as we say isn't on the test subjects (humans)

Hence anyone can refuse a vaccine and drug that hasn't been proven to be safe and effective. This particular vaccine was given emergency authorisation. That doesn't imply at all that the safety of the vaccine has been established.

This is precisely why Ms Kate Bingham said they the UK is not planning to vaccinate those under 50 so to avoid any freak accidents (her words). From a medical and scientific viewpoint you never experiment in young and healthy people with unknown products.

www.ft.com...

It takes years for the safety to be established. The article above was written back in October 2020 and the vaccination program started at the 8th of December of the same year, around 8 weeks later.

The conclusion is that vaccine safety was sacrificed due to an emergency (pandemic) and when you go this route which is not the greatest then you try to avoid damaging the health of the young and healthy populations. You only include the elderly and the clinically vulnerable.

It seems that this changed due to political and financial interests. For this there should be a criminal investigation

www.england.nhs.uk...#:~:text=Landmark%20moment%20as%20first%20NHS%20 patient%20receives%20COVID%2D19%20vaccination,-8%20December%202020&text=The%20biggest%20vaccine%20campaign%20in,jab%20following%20its%20clinical%20app roval.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

link

The public enquiry is now starting in full.

You are able to comment and contribute if you wish.

I think it would be more beneficial than a post here.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

link

The public enquiry is now starting in full.

You are able to comment and contribute if you wish.

I think it would be more beneficial than a post here.

Yes I am aware of it.
But contributions here help a lot dealing with the vaccine ideology.

There are some very notable ones such as the gender ideology, the climate change ideology, and the latest one, the vaccine ideology. All these ideologies must be vehemently opposed and defeated as they are unscientific and dangerous.

The fact that the vaccine task force was planning not to vaccinate the under 50s i.e not to allow experimentation in young and healthy people which changed due to financial and political interests in my view, it's a testimony to this very unfortunate situation we have witnessed the last two years.

www.ft.com...

.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are you saying you are in denial that man made climate change is a real issue and that people should not have the right to identify outside of the classical definitions of gender?

a reply to: nonspecific

An individual with vaccine or drug related injuries is as much of a burden on the healthcare system as one admitted for disease or accidents.

Drug companies are forced to pull drugs that are found to put consumers at risk; it's happened plenty of times before.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: zosimov

The UK has a national health service.

Why would it willingly make 90 percent of the population ill?

what would be the reason?