O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[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.