Husband of BBC presenter killed by the Covid vaccine is suing Astrazeneca

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: SkyAngel
AstraZeneca was banned here in Denmark pretty fast.

However, it doesn't mean that my country is perfect or anything because they still allowed other useless vaccines!

I think it is time for humanity to spend less time online, and instead, fight for the truth in real life!

Just saying...

Yes! Actually the first country to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine given the serious adverse reactions it could cause and deaths. Then everyone else followed and started withdrawing the vaccine.

It seems there are still those who argue the vaccine wasn't withdrawn but it was replaced for more effective and safe vaccines such as the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products.

So your logic is they withdrew the Astrazeneca vaccine on safety grounds.

But kept using MRNA vaccines that are less safe.

That makes sense to you?

Who said they have been reasonable?! This is the most absurd scientific and medical campaign ever. At least they have withdrawn the AZ vaccine and in your country the UK they stopped offering all Covid vaccines to those under the age of 50. Probably by now they are not offering any type of vaccines to those under the age of 75 unless they are in a high risk group.

So yes. The AZ has been withdrawn in the UK. Then they have 'stopped offering' the mRNA products to most people who are healthy from all age groups.

Vaccine recomendations change as situation change. That isn't a bad thing.

Sorry but I don't see how you position make sense. Your claim is that they withdrew one vaccine on safety grounds but also that they kept using others that are worse

If they are behaving unreasonably as you claim then withdrawl of one isnt evidence of poor safety. You can't really have it booth ways.

Vaccine recommendations change but vaccine apologetics don't.

Precisely they withdrew a vaccine which has failed at all levels and kept an even worse one that has caused many more damages then all vaccines put together in the last 30 years.

Given that this is a paranoic campaign there is nothing unreasonable about it.

Sorry but that makes zero sense.

You are trying to say they withdrew one based on safety concerns but kept worse ones.

Yes, as they are paranoic. At least in your country they are no longer offering any vaccine to those who are under 75. Recognising indirectly how harmful these products could be.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Let's see this again.

Vaccine recommendations change but vaccine apologetics don't.

Precisely, they withdrew a vaccine which has failed at all levels and kept an even worse one that has caused many more damages then all vaccines put together in the last 30 years.

Given that this is a paranoic campaign there is nothing unreasonable about it.

If you have any questions you can ask them.

Of course it doesn't make any sense as the campaign is paranoic.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: SkyAngel
AstraZeneca was banned here in Denmark pretty fast.

However, it doesn't mean that my country is perfect or anything because they still allowed other useless vaccines!

I think it is time for humanity to spend less time online, and instead, fight for the truth in real life!

Just saying...

Yes! Actually the first country to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine given the serious adverse reactions it could cause and deaths. Then everyone else followed and started withdrawing the vaccine.

It seems there are still those who argue the vaccine wasn't withdrawn but it was replaced for more effective and safe vaccines such as the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products.

So your logic is they withdrew the Astrazeneca vaccine on safety grounds.

But kept using MRNA vaccines that are less safe.

That makes sense to you?

Who said they have been reasonable?! This is the most absurd scientific and medical campaign ever. At least they have withdrawn the AZ vaccine and in your country the UK they stopped offering all Covid vaccines to those under the age of 50. Probably by now they are not offering any type of vaccines to those under the age of 75 unless they are in a high risk group.

So yes. The AZ has been withdrawn in the UK. Then they have 'stopped offering' the mRNA products to most people who are healthy from all age groups.

Vaccine recomendations change as situation change. That isn't a bad thing.

Sorry but I don't see how you position make sense. Your claim is that they withdrew one vaccine on safety grounds but also that they kept using others that are worse

If they are behaving unreasonably as you claim then withdrawl of one isnt evidence of poor safety. You can't really have it both ways.

They should have never released them in the general public in the first place as they have had no evidence that these products were safe and effective. The rest is vaccine apologetics.

Your evidence free statements on a conspiracy site are definitely more convincing than the vast amount of scientific evidence in favour of the vaccines.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you still have that information sheet?

No but they are probably available online somewhere.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Did you get an info sheet every time you received a shot?
If so, my mate should have 5........I will ask them next time I speak to them.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I just found the letter that I received....

Will the vaccine have side effects?

Like all medicines, vaccines can have side effects. Most of these are mild and short term, and not everyone gets them. Even if you do have symptoms from the first dose, you still need to have the second dose. Although you should get good protection from the first dose, having the second dose should give you longer lasting protection against the virus.

Very common side effects include:
..having a painful, heavy feeling and tenderness in arm......tends to be worse 1-2 days after vaccination.
..feeling tired.
........ headache

..general aches, or mild flu like symptoms.

That's the only side effects mentioned on the info sheet that was posted to my home.
I wonder if you had another info sheet to read (and possibly sign) when you turned up at the vaccine center?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: SkyAngel
AstraZeneca was banned here in Denmark pretty fast.

However, it doesn't mean that my country is perfect or anything because they still allowed other useless vaccines!

I think it is time for humanity to spend less time online, and instead, fight for the truth in real life!

Just saying...

Yes! Actually the first country to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine given the serious adverse reactions it could cause and deaths. Then everyone else followed and started withdrawing the vaccine.

It seems there are still those who argue the vaccine wasn't withdrawn but it was replaced for more effective and safe vaccines such as the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products.

So your logic is they withdrew the Astrazeneca vaccine on safety grounds.

But kept using MRNA vaccines that are less safe.

That makes sense to you?

Who said they have been reasonable?! This is the most absurd scientific and medical campaign ever. At least they have withdrawn the AZ vaccine and in your country the UK they stopped offering all Covid vaccines to those under the age of 50. Probably by now they are not offering any type of vaccines to those under the age of 75 unless they are in a high risk group.

So yes. The AZ has been withdrawn in the UK. Then they have 'stopped offering' the mRNA products to most people who are healthy from all age groups.

Vaccine recomendations change as situation change. That isn't a bad thing.

Sorry but I don't see how you position make sense. Your claim is that they withdrew one vaccine on safety grounds but also that they kept using others that are worse

If they are behaving unreasonably as you claim then withdrawl of one isnt evidence of poor safety. You can't really have it both ways.

They should have never released them in the general public in the first place as they have had no evidence that these products were safe and effective. The rest is vaccine apologetics.

Your evidence free statements on a conspiracy site are definitely more convincing than the vast amount of scientific evidence in favour of the vaccines.

Aaaah I see! You try to change the conversation.. this topic has been covered already in other threads.

But you are correct even though your aim was to offer some vaccine apologetics and to defend the official narratives.

None of this makes sense just as you said. As the entire vaccine campaign and the response to the pandemic was paranoic.

At least they have withdrawn the Astrazeneca vaccine in most countries that have used it, including the UK, and in your country they are no longer offering any vaccine for those under the age of 75.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: SkyAngel
AstraZeneca was banned here in Denmark pretty fast.

However, it doesn't mean that my country is perfect or anything because they still allowed other useless vaccines!

I think it is time for humanity to spend less time online, and instead, fight for the truth in real life!

Just saying...

Yes! Actually the first country to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine given the serious adverse reactions it could cause and deaths. Then everyone else followed and started withdrawing the vaccine.

It seems there are still those who argue the vaccine wasn't withdrawn but it was replaced for more effective and safe vaccines such as the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products.

So your logic is they withdrew the Astrazeneca vaccine on safety grounds.

But kept using MRNA vaccines that are less safe.

That makes sense to you?

Who said they have been reasonable?! This is the most absurd scientific and medical campaign ever. At least they have withdrawn the AZ vaccine and in your country the UK they stopped offering all Covid vaccines to those under the age of 50. Probably by now they are not offering any type of vaccines to those under the age of 75 unless they are in a high risk group.

So yes. The AZ has been withdrawn in the UK. Then they have 'stopped offering' the mRNA products to most people who are healthy from all age groups.

Vaccine recomendations change as situation change. That isn't a bad thing.

Sorry but I don't see how you position make sense. Your claim is that they withdrew one vaccine on safety grounds but also that they kept using others that are worse

If they are behaving unreasonably as you claim then withdrawl of one isnt evidence of poor safety. You can't really have it both ways.

They should have never released them in the general public in the first place as they have had no evidence that these products were safe and effective. The rest is vaccine apologetics.

Your evidence free statements on a conspiracy site are definitely more convincing than the vast amount of scientific evidence in favour of the vaccines.

Let's see the facts again as the facts speak for themselves:

Deaths due to the vaccine
Debilitating conditions due to the vaccine
Severe adverse reactions due to the vaccine
Withdrawal of the vaccine from most countries


Hardly a success story and hardly the miracle of science as it has been described by the press and the journalists who themselves played a crucial role in propagating misinformation and disinformation all along.

Saying there is no evidence is like denying reality but you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. Is not something new.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

I just found the letter that I received....

Will the vaccine have side effects?

Like all medicines, vaccines can have side effects. Most of these are mild and short term, and not everyone gets them. Even if you do have symptoms from the first dose, you still need to have the second dose. Although you should get good protection from the first dose, having the second dose should give you longer lasting protection against the virus.

Very common side effects include:
..having a painful, heavy feeling and tenderness in arm......tends to be worse 1-2 days after vaccination.
..feeling tired.
........ headache

..general aches, or mild flu like symptoms.

That's the only side effects mentioned on the info sheet that was posted to my home.
I wonder if you had another info sheet to read (and possibly sign) when you turned up at the vaccine center?

What do you think they will mention? Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia? Heart attacks?

Vaccine apologetics and denialism don't work on a 'conspiracy site'. Better try the BBC and the other mainstream media. They are masterminds in misinformation and disinformation.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: SkyAngel
AstraZeneca was banned here in Denmark pretty fast.

However, it doesn't mean that my country is perfect or anything because they still allowed other useless vaccines!

I think it is time for humanity to spend less time online, and instead, fight for the truth in real life!

Just saying...

Yes! Actually the first country to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine given the serious adverse reactions it could cause and deaths. Then everyone else followed and started withdrawing the vaccine.

It seems there are still those who argue the vaccine wasn't withdrawn but it was replaced for more effective and safe vaccines such as the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products.

So your logic is they withdrew the Astrazeneca vaccine on safety grounds.

But kept using MRNA vaccines that are less safe.

That makes sense to you?

Who said they have been reasonable?! This is the most absurd scientific and medical campaign ever. At least they have withdrawn the AZ vaccine and in your country the UK they stopped offering all Covid vaccines to those under the age of 50. Probably by now they are not offering any type of vaccines to those under the age of 75 unless they are in a high risk group.

So yes. The AZ has been withdrawn in the UK. Then they have 'stopped offering' the mRNA products to most people who are healthy from all age groups.

Vaccine recomendations change as situation change. That isn't a bad thing.

Sorry but I don't see how you position make sense. Your claim is that they withdrew one vaccine on safety grounds but also that they kept using others that are worse

If they are behaving unreasonably as you claim then withdrawl of one isnt evidence of poor safety. You can't really have it both ways.

They should have never released them in the general public in the first place as they have had no evidence that these products were safe and effective. The rest is vaccine apologetics.

Your evidence free statements on a conspiracy site are definitely more convincing than the vast amount of scientific evidence in favour of the vaccines.

Let's see the facts again as the facts speak for themselves:

Deaths due to the vaccine
Debilitating conditions due to the vaccine
Severe adverse reactions due to the vaccine
Withdrawal of the vaccine from most countries


Hardly a success story and hardly the miracle of science as it has been described by the press and the journalists who themselves played a crucial role in propagating misinformation and disinformation all along.

Saying there is no evidence is like denying reality but you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. Is not something new.

Millions of lives and trillions of dollars saved by covid vaccines.

Benefit to harm is massively in favour.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Did you see the thread about the 14 year old Japanese girl?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: SkyAngel
AstraZeneca was banned here in Denmark pretty fast.

However, it doesn't mean that my country is perfect or anything because they still allowed other useless vaccines!

I think it is time for humanity to spend less time online, and instead, fight for the truth in real life!

Just saying...

Yes! Actually the first country to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine given the serious adverse reactions it could cause and deaths. Then everyone else followed and started withdrawing the vaccine.

It seems there are still those who argue the vaccine wasn't withdrawn but it was replaced for more effective and safe vaccines such as the mRNA products.

The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison to the mRNA products.

So your logic is they withdrew the Astrazeneca vaccine on safety grounds.

But kept using MRNA vaccines that are less safe.

That makes sense to you?

Who said they have been reasonable?! This is the most absurd scientific and medical campaign ever. At least they have withdrawn the AZ vaccine and in your country the UK they stopped offering all Covid vaccines to those under the age of 50. Probably by now they are not offering any type of vaccines to those under the age of 75 unless they are in a high risk group.

So yes. The AZ has been withdrawn in the UK. Then they have 'stopped offering' the mRNA products to most people who are healthy from all age groups.

Vaccine recomendations change as situation change. That isn't a bad thing.

Sorry but I don't see how you position make sense. Your claim is that they withdrew one vaccine on safety grounds but also that they kept using others that are worse

If they are behaving unreasonably as you claim then withdrawl of one isnt evidence of poor safety. You can't really have it both ways.

They should have never released them in the general public in the first place as they have had no evidence that these products were safe and effective. The rest is vaccine apologetics.

Your evidence free statements on a conspiracy site are definitely more convincing than the vast amount of scientific evidence in favour of the vaccines.

Let's see the facts again as the facts speak for themselves:

Deaths due to the vaccine
Debilitating conditions due to the vaccine
Severe adverse reactions due to the vaccine
Withdrawal of the vaccine from most countries


Hardly a success story and hardly the miracle of science as it has been described by the press and the journalists who themselves played a crucial role in propagating misinformation and disinformation all along.

Saying there is no evidence is like denying reality but you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. Is not something new.

Millions of lives and trillions of dollars saved by covid vaccines.

Benefit to harm is massively in favour.

Yes we know the story and the official narrative! Millions of lives have been saved by the Covid vaccines....bla bla bla. You need better and more convincing limes.



Let's see the facts again as the facts speak for themselves:

Deaths due to the vaccine
Debilitating conditions due to the vaccine
Severe adverse reactions due to the vaccine
Withdrawal of the vaccine from most countries


Hardly a success story and hardly the miracle of science as it has been described by the press and the journalists who themselves played a crucial role in propagating misinformation and disinformation all along.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

Did you see the thread about the 14 year old Japanese girl?

Don't you know the story? Millions of lives have been saved with the save and effective vaccines...

Two of them have been already withdrawn. AZ and J & J. But they were safe and effective...

The argument becomes even more hilarious when it is argued why the mRNA products haven't been recalled too? As the matter of fact in the UK and other countries the mRNA products are only offered in the elderly populations.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

Did you see the thread about the 14 year old Japanese girl?

How many threads would there be about individual cases from the far far higher number of people who would have died without the vaccines?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

At least in your country they are no longer offering any vaccine to those who are under 75.

Wrong again.

People aged 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those aged 5 years and over with a weakened immune system will be offered a booster of coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine this spring.

www.gov.uk...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

Did you see the thread about the 14 year old Japanese girl?

How many threads would there be about individual cases from the far far higher number of people who would have died without the vaccines?

I don't know......do you?

Anyway... I still don't know if you saw the thread about the 14 year old girl.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You do realise that the average age of a covid death was 82.

That's higher than general life expectancy.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

You do realise that the average age of a covid death was 82.

That's higher than general life expectancy.

Average is largely irrelevant when looking at who should get vaccinated or not.

It's relative benefit v risk of that demographic.

I am not familiar enough with japans vaccine policy to comment but they will certainly consider be efit v risk when recommending vaccines.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

You do realise that the average age of a covid death was 82.

That's higher than general life expectancy.

Average is largely irrelevant when looking at who should get vaccinated or not.

The average age of a covid death was 82......it's relevant.

Do you know who was recommended to get the vaccines?