Exposing the cover up of Astrazeneca vaccine-induced deaths

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
I don't have much faith in any of the covid vaccines, long term research and broad form research was not adequately done to prove safety.

I've asked this question multiple times, and never had anyone even bother to answer, let alone provide a reasonable answer...

How can anyone trust these mega-corporate psychopathic liars and fraudsters about anything, even so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

What is more likely?
a) They were good, honorable, trustworthy people right up to 2020 and the introductiuon of these experimental gene therapies sold to everyone as 'vaccines'?
Or
b) They have always been psychopathic liars and fraudsters the entire time, and have lied just as much about the safety and efficacy (through fraudulent tests) of each and every drug they have ever brought to market, including so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

Occam's Razor being what it is, I know what the most likely true answer is.

Do you?

I would think that these 'big medicine' and 'socially aware governments' have improved quality of life, and extended lifespans, far more than they have done the opposite. This is obvious and self evident. It is simple, verifiable and not complicated to grasp - Ockham's Razor.

Ockhams Razor would support the cyclical cycle in the rise and fall of society's throughout history.

Really?

Pease tell me a system of government, prior in time to to the American revolution, that gave people lifetimes of longer than "four score years and ten" and improved the quality of life as significantly?

But, yeah, empires fall.

I cant, we live in unprecedented times. To me that indicates we are due based on history.

“Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
And, weak men create hard times.”

G. Michael Hopf

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
I don't have much faith in any of the covid vaccines, long term research and broad form research was not adequately done to prove safety.

I've asked this question multiple times, and never had anyone even bother to answer, let alone provide a reasonable answer...

How can anyone trust these mega-corporate psychopathic liars and fraudsters about anything, even so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

What is more likely?
a) They were good, honorable, trustworthy people right up to 2020 and the introductiuon of these experimental gene therapies sold to everyone as 'vaccines'?
Or
b) They have always been psychopathic liars and fraudsters the entire time, and have lied just as much about the safety and efficacy (through fraudulent tests) of each and every drug they have ever brought to market, including so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

Occam's Razor being what it is, I know what the most likely true answer is.

Do you?

The answer is B.

But remember, this new virus allowed them to introduce the "new and improved" RNA vaccines that never passed testing before...because they got Warp Speed authorization which actually negated the more stringent testings that were required before. This gave the pharma companies more profits and I feel it does not just apply to vaccines or emergencies. Notice since that time how many new medicines have been approved?

The pharmaceutical industry has been given a present by not having to test long term safety as thoroughly now. At least alchemists used to test on themselves first, then their own family, then they got evidence to give them confidence to promote their creations. Although, in my research I have been studying epigenetics and it's relation to medicines and food chemistry, so even the alchemist's tactics were flawed because of the vast difference in people's diversity. One mans poison is another man's medicine applies.

The big pharma companies are in it to make profits. Some smaller companies are more into making meds they know are safe, but the small company does automatically mean they are not covering things up either.

If profiting was not the main drive in medicine creation, it would be a lot better.

a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps you need to take a look on why the vaccine was withdrawn in the first place and that's not only because of its effectiveness. It wasn't safe and effective and has caused a lot of vaccine injuries the deaths.

The Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from every country that was using it at one point and there is a specific reason for it. Trying to dismiss and downplay the reality of the injuries it has caused it's not a wise strategy and exposes irreversibly the position of those who try to argue in favour of failed vaccines.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
I don't have much faith in any of the covid vaccines, long term research and broad form research was not adequately done to prove safety.

I've asked this question multiple times, and never had anyone even bother to answer, let alone provide a reasonable answer...

How can anyone trust these mega-corporate psychopathic liars and fraudsters about anything, even so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

What is more likely?
a) They were good, honorable, trustworthy people right up to 2020 and the introductiuon of these experimental gene therapies sold to everyone as 'vaccines'?
Or
b) They have always been psychopathic liars and fraudsters the entire time, and have lied just as much about the safety and efficacy (through fraudulent tests) of each and every drug they have ever brought to market, including so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

Occam's Razor being what it is, I know what the most likely true answer is.

Do you?

I would think that these 'big medicine' and 'socially aware governments' have improved quality of life, and extended lifespans, far more than they have done the opposite. This is obvious and self evident. It is simple, verifiable and not complicated to grasp - Ockham's Razor.

Ockhams Razor would support the cyclical cycle in the rise and fall of society's throughout history.

Really?

Pease tell me a system of government, prior in time to to the American revolution, that gave people lifetimes of longer than "four score years and ten" and improved the quality of life as significantly?

But, yeah, empires fall.

That's another exercise in whataboutism I am afraid.

Quality of life has been improved but that doesn't mean we must accept whatever medical interventions are out there and are known to have caused injuries and deaths. The reality proves you wrong for once more as the AZ vaccine failed and was cancelled because of the fact it failed.

originally posted by: ksihkahe

originally posted by: WaESN

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Armageddon17

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Armageddon17
a reply to: chr0naut

The deaths and injuries from the AZ vaccine are not as rare as you think they are. I can't believe people are using the same lines and the same excuses used by the medical establishment in the last three years.

AstraZeneca vaccine: risk of death is 1 in a million, but what does that mean?

The people are using the medical establishment's and government's 'line's because they are the only source of credible data.

Everything else is made-up. Usually by kooks with an online following.

You mean the usual 'safe and effective' line?!
It didn't work very well unless you think it's still a good explanation.

Safety and effectiveness are not absolutes. Water, sugar and salt are all not 'absolutely' safe.

And "Safe and Effective" is still a good explanation in terms of real-world risk.

Excess sugar and salt intake and simply driving around in a car are way more dangerous than modern immunizations.

Immunization from what? Many vaccinated people I know have had Covid two, three, or in one case four times!

Do you understand what vaccines actually do?

In the case of mRNA COVID vaccines what they do is result in more adverse event reports in the US than all other available vaccines combined along with a demonstrable increased risk of death and long term disability for many people that take them.

Glad I could explain that for you.

Absolutely!

And these adverse reactions are well recorded.
The highest number of adverse reactions than all other vaccines put together and that's what happens when untested, experimental, and potential dangerous medical products are pushed through mass vaccination programs to unsuspected populations under the label of safe and effective vaccines.

a reply to: chr0naut

When you try to support the pharmaceutical companies and their failed products you must produce so good evidence other than arguing everyone else is a victim of misinformation and doom porn (whatever this means). Again the reality proves you wrong as the AZ was cancelled because it was dangerous, unsafe and ineffective.

You seem to be portraying yourself as an authority on this subject but with no evidence to back your claims these products were safe and effective and you aren't an authority of course. They have been cancelled and the facts speak for themselves. Those who blindly supported the vaccine campaign and lockdowns have been irreversibly exposed.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Rosby123

How is something they admit to, have withdrawn from use, and pay out compensation for, a cover up?

I wonder when companies that sell foods with excess sugar and/or salt, or add carcinogenic additives, are going to withdraw their products and pay compensation?

They haven't admitted anything in the first place. Read the story again.

The wife of the this man made enormous efforts to change the wording of the cause of death on her husband's death certificate. The 'natural causes' explanation was a complete fabrication and a cover up of the real cause of death: Vaccine induced thrombosis.

If it wasn't for her and many others who pushed against the deception and lies by the pharmaceutical companies and those in the health systems who went along the official narrative and dogma then the cause of death would have remained as 'natural causes'.

originally posted by: Gradcrop
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps you need to take a look on why the vaccine was withdrawn in the first place and that's not only because of its effectiveness. It wasn't safe and effective and has caused a lot of vaccine injuries the deaths.

The Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from every country that was using it at one point and there is a specific reason for it. Trying to dismiss and downplay the reality of the injuries it has caused it's not a wise strategy and exposes irreversibly the position of those who try to argue in favour of failed vaccines.

I am not denying that the AZ immunization was discontinued in several countries.

Can you please explain how you can believe that these big pharma companies are forcing dangerous and and useless medicines on us...

... but at the same time are also withdrawing products that aren't proving to be as effective anymore?

It seems to me that there is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance there?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps you need to take a look on why the vaccine was withdrawn in the first place and that's not only because of its effectiveness. It wasn't safe and effective and has caused a lot of vaccine injuries the deaths.

The Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from every country that was using it at one point and there is a specific reason for it. Trying to dismiss and downplay the reality of the injuries it has caused it's not a wise strategy and exposes irreversibly the position of those who try to argue in favour of failed vaccines.

I am not denying that the AZ immunization was discontinued in several countries.

Can you please explain how you can believe that these big pharma companies are forcing dangerous and and useless medicines on us...

... but at the same time are also withdrawing products that aren't proving to be as effective anymore?

It seems to me that there is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance there?

The withdrawal came after public pressure and the efforts by a number of individuals, groups, politicians and lawmakers.

The big pharma forced through mandates the use of their dangerous products. That's how it happened. It's rather simple.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance....

originally posted by: Gradcrop
a reply to: chr0naut

When you try to support the pharmaceutical companies and their failed products you must produce so good evidence other than arguing everyone else is a victim of misinformation and doom porn (whatever this means). Again the reality proves you wrong as the AZ was cancelled because it was dangerous, unsafe and ineffective.

You seem to be portraying yourself as an authority on this subject but with no evidence to back your claims these products were safe and effective and you aren't an authority of course. They have been cancelled and the facts speak for themselves. Those who blindly supported the vaccine campaign and lockdowns have been irreversibly exposed.

I make no claim to be an expert. I'm as uncredentialled in virology, or immunology, as the next guy.

And I usually get my data from authorities like the CDC, peer reviewed and credibly published academic papers, and the statistics departments of several governments.

If I knew of more credible data sources, then I would probably use them. Can you advise me, as you seem to have some idea of data that I cant seem to find reflected in my sources?

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps you need to take a look on why the vaccine was withdrawn in the first place and that's not only because of its effectiveness. It wasn't safe and effective and has caused a lot of vaccine injuries the deaths.

The Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from every country that was using it at one point and there is a specific reason for it. Trying to dismiss and downplay the reality of the injuries it has caused it's not a wise strategy and exposes irreversibly the position of those who try to argue in favour of failed vaccines.

I am not denying that the AZ immunization was discontinued in several countries.

Can you please explain how you can believe that these big pharma companies are forcing dangerous and and useless medicines on us...

... but at the same time are also withdrawing products that aren't proving to be as effective anymore?

It seems to me that there is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance there?

The withdrawal came after public pressure and the efforts by a number of individuals, groups, politicians and lawmakers.

The big pharma forced through mandates the use of their dangerous products. That's how it happened. It's rather simple.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance....

As I recall, the withdrawal of the AZ immunization was done rather quietly with no government announcement, and definitely there was not any specific great public outcry against it, in comparison to any of the other immunizations, before it happened.

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
I don't have much faith in any of the covid vaccines, long term research and broad form research was not adequately done to prove safety.

I've asked this question multiple times, and never had anyone even bother to answer, let alone provide a reasonable answer...

How can anyone trust these mega-corporate psychopathic liars and fraudsters about anything, even so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

What is more likely?
a) They were good, honorable, trustworthy people right up to 2020 and the introductiuon of these experimental gene therapies sold to everyone as 'vaccines'?
Or
b) They have always been psychopathic liars and fraudsters the entire time, and have lied just as much about the safety and efficacy (through fraudulent tests) of each and every drug they have ever brought to market, including so-called 'traditional' vaccines?

Occam's Razor being what it is, I know what the most likely true answer is.

Do you?

I would think that these 'big medicine' and 'socially aware governments' have improved quality of life, and extended lifespans, far more than they have done the opposite. This is obvious and self evident. It is simple, verifiable and not complicated to grasp - Ockham's Razor.

Ockhams Razor would support the cyclical cycle in the rise and fall of society's throughout history.

Really?

Pease tell me a system of government, prior in time to to the American revolution, that gave people lifetimes of longer than "four score years and ten" and improved the quality of life as significantly?

But, yeah, empires fall.

I cant, we live in unprecedented times. To me that indicates we are due based on history.

“Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
And, weak men create hard times.”

G. Michael Hopf

So, This post of yours said that it was all just historical cycles, and then when I asked for specific historical examples, your next post suggested that it was unprecedented?

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Rosby123

How is something they admit to, have withdrawn from use, and pay out compensation for, a cover up?

I wonder when companies that sell foods with excess sugar and/or salt, or add carcinogenic additives, are going to withdraw their products and pay compensation?

They haven't admitted anything in the first place. Read the story again.

The story only presents one side of the argument and therefore is not likely to document the admissions by the pharma companies.

The truth is that the pharma companies and authorities have admitted to there being rare serious adverse reactions and deaths.

In the incidence referred to in the article, the cause of death was written up by a doctor and not by the government authorities, nor by a pharma company.

The issue of changing the cause of death requires a legal action against the medical opinion of the attending physician or coroner and requires objective evidence that their decision was wrong.

The wife of the this man made enormous efforts to change the wording of the cause of death on her husband's death certificate. The 'natural causes' explanation was a complete fabrication and a cover up of the real cause of death: Vaccine induced thrombosis.

If it wasn't for her and many others who pushed against the deception and lies by the pharmaceutical companies and those in the health systems who went along the official narrative and dogma then the cause of death would have remained as 'natural causes'.

Neither the pharma companies nor the government authorities filled out the death certificate.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop
a reply to: chr0naut

When you try to support the pharmaceutical companies and their failed products you must produce so good evidence other than arguing everyone else is a victim of misinformation and doom porn (whatever this means). Again the reality proves you wrong as the AZ was cancelled because it was dangerous, unsafe and ineffective.

You seem to be portraying yourself as an authority on this subject but with no evidence to back your claims these products were safe and effective and you aren't an authority of course. They have been cancelled and the facts speak for themselves. Those who blindly supported the vaccine campaign and lockdowns have been irreversibly exposed.

I make no claim to be an expert. I'm as uncredentialled in virology, or immunology, as the next guy.

And I usually get my data from authorities like the CDC, peer reviewed and credibly published academic papers, and the statistics departments of several governments.

If I knew of more credible data sources, then I would probably use them. Can you advise me, as you seem to have some idea of data that I cant seem to find reflected in my sources?

Of course you're not an expert and good you admitted at least. You're not using the data buy you misinterpret and misrepresent whatever data available to argue in favour of some failed vaccines when at the same time you try to whitewash the wrongdoings of the various governments and pharmaceutical companies when at the same time you gaslight everyone who argues against your narratives.

originally posted by: twistedpuppy
a reply to: ksihkahe

Prove me wrong or cry ignorance, but if you choose to continue lying about COVID vaccines you're going to have a bad time.

You sir/madame should calm down a bit. After all, you and your kind enthusiastically supporting Ivermectin are not that much different from vaccine enthusiasts happily waiting in long queues to get their shots. You both show blind trust in medical gurus. The only difference is that they trust the mainstream gurus while you trust the fringe ones.

I don't promote Ivermectin as a panacea. I denounce liars.

Judging by your posts, you're not a scientist. You have no medical training. You get your "knowledge" from the internet like others.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest. My first comments about my career in public health were made in 2014 I believe. If you review any COVID threads from 2020 up to the hack it's not hard to figure out my old account.

I have been employed in multiple science fields, with a decade in public health. As a public health professional I did a range of things. Most relevant to COVID is that I conducted epidemiological investigations of infectious disease outbreaks, made prophylaxis recommendations to doctors and medical providers for infectious disease exposures, prepared and trained staff on the emergency planning documents as contracted under FEMA, was a public information officer, and handled mandated disease reports from medical and veterinary facilities. I am more qualified in the big picture science surrounding COVID and population health dynamics than anyone I've seen openly posting on this board and the vast majority of the morons on TV that are just reading what they're told. Those TV morons, it should be noted, report from their studios that are heavily subsidized by the pharmaceutical companies and their pet NGOs.

If you'd care to know something then ask and I will provide you links and will educate you on the topic if I can. Unlike the person you're defending I don't care about protecting political narratives and haven't attached my identity to government slogans. I tell the truth and explain it if it's unclear... using knowledge gained from expert level application of public health sciences, not what rhetoric celebrity officials with no real experience are lying about on TV.

If you wish to associate with people that willfully lie, that is your right.

a reply to: ksihkahe





See PM

The first red line is the beginning of COVID, the 2nd red line is the beginning of "vaccine" roll-out.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gradcrop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Rosby123

How is something they admit to, have withdrawn from use, and pay out compensation for, a cover up?

I wonder when companies that sell foods with excess sugar and/or salt, or add carcinogenic additives, are going to withdraw their products and pay compensation?

They haven't admitted anything in the first place. Read the story again.

The story only presents one side of the argument and therefore is not likely to document the admissions by the pharma companies.

The truth is that the pharma companies and authorities have admitted to there being rare serious adverse reactions and deaths.

In the incidence referred to in the article, the cause of death was written up by a doctor and not by the government authorities, nor by a pharma company.

The issue of changing the cause of death requires a legal action against the medical opinion of the attending physician or coroner and requires objective evidence that their decision was wrong.

The wife of the this man made enormous efforts to change the wording of the cause of death on her husband's death certificate. The 'natural causes' explanation was a complete fabrication and a cover up of the real cause of death: Vaccine induced thrombosis.

If it wasn't for her and many others who pushed against the deception and lies by the pharmaceutical companies and those in the health systems who went along the official narrative and dogma then the cause of death would have remained as 'natural causes'.

Neither the pharma companies nor the government authorities filled out the death certificate.

The rare serious adverse reactions is part of the official debunked narrative which you keep peddling I am afraid.

Doctors and physicians don't want to go against the official narratives for obvious reasons and you seem to forget that on the death certificate it didn't say vaccine induced thrombosis but natural causes. If it wasn't for his wife and a huge by her and her lawyers the cause of death would have remained the same.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Does that answer your question?

Well, someone finally took the time to answer - but alas, it falls into the category of 'not a reasonable answer.

All you're doing is gaslighting and propagandizing for big pharma.

Sad, very sad...

a reply to: ksihkahe

If this is the case, then I misjudged you and you have my apologies.