Quite incredible.

People who reported adverse reactions should write to this clown and tell him exactly what they think of his opinion.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The idea that people would seek out and go through the reporting process for a sore arm is an insulting and demeaning comment.

The usual nonsense from the usual source.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I've heard that only ten percent of adverse reactions ever get reported.

It's just not true that most people who receive injections are aware of the reporting process and/or bother going through a reporting process for whatever reason. The authorities know about this and it's an accepted fact.

As for the consequences of the covid jabs and boosters and their affects on the immune system I can only hope it's positive. I'm not hearing great things but I'll reserve judgement until the system is willing to be objective on the matter.

Once again, the media and governmental response to the massive number of excess deaths (higher than covid) has to stand in stark contrast to their behaviour during the pandemic itself.

In my view we are seeing a massive arse covering exercise.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2023 4.46am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'd argue they did have the data by then but nevertheless.

[Tweet Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The claim that collateral damage was expected (the public weren't told that but instead were fed a diet of one way propaganda) or that we have to accept the consequences of lockdowns and excess deaths because....'we just can't say another way was better'.

These excuses are awful. In the business world a person saying that bad outcomes aren't bad because without their choices they would be worse...unless there were evidence for that claim would quite rightly be sacked on the spot.

When it's pointed out that other countries had better outcomes without the same level of lockdown then we get another excuse....and another excuse.

These people aren't interested in truth, only in arse covering.

Let's be serious, because of the choices that were made the NHS became a Covid service.

Diagnoses of things like Cancer (forms of cancer kill over one in four people) were basically near stopped to perform a covid service for a virus that at its very worse was going to kill one in twenty of our most vulnerable.

The warnings were stated at the time....and ignored....that the consequences of this would prove far worse than any airborn virus. People with common sense know that early diagnoses of cancer is often the most important factor in survival.....but they decided that it was covid and little else.

The fear mongering worked on a population that is far too trusting of the competent of their elites....especially their ability to weigh up all the factors and judge the consequences ..and the systems of regulations.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2024 12.35am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

No one has ever suggested that the outcomes of having to lockdown weren’t bad or known to be going to be bad. Far from it. It was always known. What is suggested is that those who had to make the decisions, rather than just pontificate about them, with the relatively poor data available at the time they needed to be made, decided that to lockdown was the least bad of all the bad scenarios.

Making comparisons with other countries is a pointless diversion. Their circumstances are so dissimilar as to make any comparison meaningless.

Simply pointing out now what has happened when what that result was broadly anticipated is just a point scoring exercise. We know that the late diagnosis of cancer is a major issue. We also know that was going to happen during the pandemic, until the vaccine programme became effective, whatever course of action was followed, but that to allow the virus to spread more freely by not locking down would so overwhelm the NHS as to make the impact worse. That was the decision taken, however reluctantly, by those who actually had to make it.

Clever dicks with theories based on hindsight exist in bars everywhere. Thank goodness they don’t run the country.

Turning now to Professor Angus Dalgleish, who is someone I recall has featured here before. If I recall correctly he was a guest of Dr John Campbell, which is enough on its own to raise suspicions. He is indeed a “top doctor”, with a distinguished record in cancer research. Not though virology. He was also a UKIP candidate and has had a variety of controversial accusations made about him. It is then hardly a surprise to see him with Farage stirring the pot on excess deaths. To claim these are just being ignored and not studied is not credible. Of course they are, as the many studies already done and still continuing demonstrate. Nothing that has been found shows any linkage at all to the vaccine programme, which is what the naysayers want you to believe.

Dalgleish is politically active and subscribes to several conspiracy theories, believing, without any proof, that Covid was a biologically modified virus developed in China. Something that could be true but probably won’t ever be known. He holds stock options in a pharmaceutical company and has been involved in developing cancer vaccines. His position on the excess deaths raises more questions in my mind about him than it does about the excess deaths.

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.