O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[frogmiller]

No one can argue?
Frog you flew over the cuckoos nest.

Maybe you should take this nurse and let her come with me.

https://x.com/thekeksociety/status/1...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

[KerrAvon]

No one can argue with this fair assessment of public opinion and an easy way to quash folks that have a similar mindset to mine

https://x.com/cartlanddavid/status/1...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

I'll happily argue with it, Frog.

Which data sets is he talking about? If it's patient level data then there are likely to be very good data protection reasons why it hasn't been released. I'd also be surprised if it has been released to Pfizer.

It may also be the case that the data set or analysis of the same is incomplete in which case releasing it to the public to be misquoted and taken out of context on Twitter doesn’t seem terribly sensible.

The bottom line is that I’m not sure which data the bloke is talking about and I’m not sure that he does either, otherwise he would have been a bit more specific about exactly what he was asking for.

And of course, there has been a massive data set released to the world by the ONS that shows that all cause mortality in the vaccinated in the UK has been running at lower level than for the un-vaccinated since the spring of 2021. I’m guessing that he wants a data set that says something different.

[KerrAvon]

Maybe you should take this nurse and let her come with me.

https://x.com/thekeksociety/status/1...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

I’m not sure what this clip has to do with vaccines?

The book that she says has been taken off bookshelves is currently available on Amazon – probably the largest bookshelf in the world. The kindle version is £11.52 and the hardcover is £16.94. There’s also an audio version available.

She also has a very shiny website.

Crucially, the book was published in August 2020 – before the vaccine roll out.

My takeaways from the video were:

1. I agree that politicians don’t make good doctors, which begs the question why the views of the likes of Robert Kenndy Jnr, Senator Ron Johnson, Liz Gunn, Andrew Bridgen and now Philip Davies MP (from the loony wing of the Tory Party) have featured so heavily in this thread.

2. The clip that she played appeared to be a dispute between her and a doctor as to whether attempts should have been made to resuscitate an obviously very ill patient. On the face of, she and the doctor made different clinical decisions. I don’t know who was right - or even if there was an absolute 'right' -and would not be equipped to make that decision even if I heard the full clip as opposed to the bit that one of the ‘sides’ in that disagreement chose to play.

3. I know a bit about the law relating to murder. I don’t think you would see juries convicting many doctors of that offence simply because someone else didn’t agree with their clinical judgment.

4. The suggestion seems to be that financial considerations played a part in clinical decisions. I personally think that the model of health care provision in the US is bonkers (and discriminatory), but I would be very slow to suggest that doctors would make life or death decisions based upon how much they could make out of someone And surely, they could bring more cash in by allowing hopeless patients to limp on , which suggests a logical inconsistency in her views

[frogmiller]

I'll happily argue with it, Frog.

Which data sets is he talking about? If it's patient level data then there are likely to be very good data protection reasons why it hasn't been released. I'd also be surprised if it has been released to Pfizer.

It may also be the case that the data set or analysis of the same is incomplete in which case releasing it to the public to be misquoted and taken out of context on Twitter doesn’t seem terribly sensible.

The bottom line is that I’m not sure which data the bloke is talking about and I’m not sure that he does either, otherwise he would have been a bit more specific about exactly what he was asking for.

And of course, there has been a massive data set released to the world by the ONS that shows that all cause mortality in the vaccinated in the UK has been running at lower level than for the un-vaccinated since the spring of 2021. I’m guessing that he wants a data set that says something different.

So basically don’t know what data he’s talking about and he’s talking about the abuse that the ONS has come into from folks like me.

He’s asking for the information to be released that has been given to the phama companies and you argue with it.

Would that be one of the best ways of satisfying the masses?

Let us find out the reason it’s been withheld.

Several requests have been placed for this information and its fuelling the conspiracy.

[KerrAvon]

I have no idea what he is talking about. I don't think he does. My suspicion is that he is simply parroting Bridgen. The clue for that is where he talks about ‘young and previously healthy people are dying at home from cardiac-related events, and we do not know why’ without establishing whether that is actually the case over and above the way it has always happened.
.
I have no idea what data has been realised to Pfizer. Do you?

Davies was talking about the MHRA as opposed to ONS. I don’t know if he’s been made aware of the ONS data that shows lower all-cause mortality in the vaccinated – it doesn’t get trumpeted very much on Twitter. Too inconvenient, I imagine.

With the greatest of respect, are you qualified to criticise or abuse the ONS for the manner in which they refined the excess death data? Do you think adjusting it to account for an ageing population is the wrong approach? On what basis?

Would it satisfy you if the MHRA did a massive date dump on the internet - a spreadsheet with hundreds of thousand of pages, or would you wait for analysis by the likes of Bridgen, Dr Campbell or 'Died Suddenly' to 'inform' you about what it shows?

The MHRA is a public body. It is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so make a request if you want the documents. You will have to be a bit more specific than the ‘certain data sets’ that Davies referred to.

MPs are as capable of talking crap as you or I. Indeed, some might think that many of them have made a career out of it

[frogmiller]

I have no idea what he is talking about. I don't think he does. My suspicion is that he is simply parroting Bridgen. The clue for that is where he talks about ‘young and previously healthy people are dying at home from cardiac-related events, and we do not know why’ without establishing whether that is actually the case over and above the way it has always happened.
.
I have no idea what data has been realised to Pfizer. Do you?

Davies was talking about the MHRA as opposed to ONS. I don’t know if he’s been made aware of the ONS data that shows lower all-cause mortality in the vaccinated – it doesn’t get trumpeted very much on Twitter. Too inconvenient, I imagine.

With the greatest of respect, are you qualified to criticise or abuse the ONS for the manner in which they refined the excess death data? Do you think adjusting it to account for an ageing population is the wrong approach? On what basis?

Would it satisfy you if the MHRA did a massive date dump on the internet - a spreadsheet with hundreds of thousand of pages, or would you wait for analysis by the likes of Bridgen, Dr Campbell or 'Died Suddenly' to 'inform' you about what it shows?

The MHRA is a public body. It is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so make a request if you want the documents. You will have to be a bit more specific than the ‘certain data sets’ that Davies referred to.

MPs are as capable of talking crap as you or I. Indeed, some might think that many of them have made a career out of it

My suspicion is that the numbers are being manipulated.
I don’t know the details.
His tone seemed different to Bridgen.
The MHRA is a public body but it’s been said that it’s funded more by phama that the government so is more of a facilitator now. This has lead to the head of it stepping down.
I’d like a neutral body set up to look at the figures on the publics behalf. This will lead to the politicians not being able to talk crap as you say it.

I don’t see your problem with that. If it proves that I have been wrong then I have my answer.

Would that not be what you want?

[KerrAvon]

So, the bottom line is that you choose to believe that the ONS have manipulated the data but have no idea how it was done and on the face of it, have no argument to make about why it should not be age adjusted to take into account the ageing population. Am I missing something with that?

With respect, that is not every attractive position to be in. The article by Professor Heneghan that you linked to last week included his view that the amendment to the ONS data was ‘long overdue’ or similar. Do you disagree with that despite posting the link?

I’m not sure whether I have posted a link to this video before, but there is certain degree of circulatory (no pun intended) about the thread. Please view it as I have afforded the same courtesy to the various videos that you have linked to. You will see that the data sets that are being talked about are indeed patient level. With that being the position, I’m not surprised that it isn’t being handed over. If the MHRA gives my personal data to the likes of Bridgen, they will receive a writ from me shortly afterwards;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYx1euSfTXw

The MHRA is part funded by a levy set by HM Treasury on the pharma companies that uses its services. In other words, pharma companies have to pay a fee when they seek approval for a drug or product. What’s wrong with that? Are you saying that HM Passport agency shouldn’t be funded by fees from people who apply to have passport applications assessed or that the DVSA should not be funded by fees from people who apply for driving tests? It’s the same thing

The funding for the MHRA is set by the Treasury not the MHRA. The current head is stepping down after 5 years, which is good innings in such a role. I have seen nothing to suggest that it is based upon any concerns about how the agency has been run.

The ONS data shows that the unvaccinated have a lower all-cause mortality than the vaccinated, which indicates that they are not a factor in the excess death phenomena. I don’t wish to be unkind but the irresistible conclusion to draw from your posts is that you want investigation after investigation and analysis after analysis until you find one that support your beliefs.

We can spend public money on independent reviews , but any conclusion that does not support the antivax position will immediately be pulled down on Twitter because ‘the chair of the panel has a dog called Bill, which must be reference to Bill Gates’ or some such similar cobblers.

[frogmiller]

So, the bottom line is that you choose to believe that the ONS have manipulated the data but have no idea how it was done and on the face of it, have no argument to make about why it should not be age adjusted to take into account the ageing population. Am I missing something with that?

With respect, that is not every attractive position to be in. The article by Professor Heneghan that you linked to last week included his view that the amendment to the ONS data was ‘long overdue’ or similar. Do you disagree with that despite posting the link?

I’m not sure whether I have posted a link to this video before, but there is certain degree of circulatory (no pun intended) about the thread. Please view it as I have afforded the same courtesy to the various videos that you have linked to. You will see that the data sets that are being talked about are indeed patient level. With that being the position, I’m not surprised that it isn’t being handed over. If the MHRA gives my personal data to the likes of Bridgen, they will receive a writ from me shortly afterwards;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYx1euSfTXw

The MHRA is part funded by a levy set by HM Treasury on the pharma companies that uses its services. In other words, pharma companies have to pay a fee when they seek approval for a drug or product. What’s wrong with that? Are you saying that HM Passport agency shouldn’t be funded by fees from people who apply to have passport applications assessed or that the DVSA should not be funded by fees from people who apply for driving tests? It’s the same thing

The funding for the MHRA is set by the Treasury not the MHRA. The current head is stepping down after 5 years, which is good innings in such a role. I have seen nothing to suggest that it is based upon any concerns about how the agency has been run.

The ONS data shows that the unvaccinated have a lower all-cause mortality than the vaccinated, which indicates that they are not a factor in the excess death phenomena. I don’t wish to be unkind but the irresistible conclusion to draw from your posts is that you want investigation after investigation and analysis after analysis until you find one that support your beliefs.

We can spend public money on independent reviews , but any conclusion that does not support the antivax position will immediately be pulled down on Twitter because ‘the chair of the panel has a dog called Bill, which must be reference to Bill Gates’ or some such similar cobblers.

I expected a shorter yes I see a problem or no I agree with you and don't have a having the data checked by experts.

It's that simple a question but the best defence is to confuse.

[Eternal Optimist]

Pfizer documented evidence unearthed here;

https://twitter.com/karma44921039/st...61954893402535

[frogmiller]

There have been many developments and many new studies based on the mNRA vaccine from all over the world. I haven't been posting them but this one is I think important as Andrew Bridgen was dismissed on this thread for being anti-semitic and that he was a failing MP after being kicked out of the Conservative party for being anti-semitic.


Matt Hancock loses bid to have Andrew Bridgen's libel claim thrown out of High Court.

An update on my libel case against former Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

https://standard.co.uk/news/uk/matt-...-b1146480.html
Show more
Mar 20, 2024


Andrew Bridgen MP

My Statement on the case:

"Mr Bridgen welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice Steyn to allow this important case to continue to a trial. A strike out is a high-risk strategy often used by defendants who are worried about the prospect of a trial, and in this case it failed, thus making clear that there is nothing wrong with the substance of the claim.

On the point in question, the Court said at [75] that “the pleading is not only capable of being cured, it is highly likely that the claimant would have little difficulty establishing reference innuendo”. having noted at [70] the “numerous replies on Twitter to the defendant’s Tweet which indicate that the reader was aware that it was about the Claimant.

At [79] the court also rejected the argument that the pleading was circular, noting that Mr Hancock’s choice of question could give rise to an inference that he anticipated readers would know exactly who it was about.

The tweet Mr Bridgen put out regarding vaccine harms and excess deaths in January 2023 which resulted in his expulsion from the Conservative Party was not just not anti-semitic, it was true and based on evidence, evidence which gets stronger by the day.

Mr Bridgen hopes the Government will take note of this Judgment and suspend the experimental, emergency use mRNA vaccines with immediate effect."

ENDS
Quote
Andrew Bridgen MP