- This topic is empty.
January 19, 2021 at 17:17 #65503N_
“‘It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,’ Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ.“
Listen to the wriggling (source: British Medical Journal, a Big Pharma in-trade marketing tool – and if this is what they are admitting…):
“The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.”
Yeah sure, and if they hadn’t been given this stinking vaccine they wouldn’t have suffered these adverse reactions and they would still be alive.
Note that this is the first time mRNA vaccines have ever been used on large populations. The word “common” presumably means that the tendency of mRNA vaccines to cause fatal reactions in elderly people was already known during testing. Or in a phrase used to “justify” US military crimes in Vietnam, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes”.
Yeah, I bet they have. These are the authorities that practically destroyed the Traveller community in Norway, kidnapping their children and forcibly sterilising women as the white supremacist government did to Aboriginal people in Australia – but unlike in Australia there have never been any “sorry books”.January 20, 2021 at 13:15 #65553mods-cm-org
N_, your last two replies have been deleted because they comprised anti-vaccination scaremongering based on a distorted analysis unsupported by the sources to which you referred.
From your first reply:
“An effective way to “reduce the population problem”? Damned right it is.”
” … even Big Pharma advertising sheets such as the Briti$h Medical Journal are having to admit that, whoopsadaisy, in Norway elderly people are dropping dead like gassed flies shortly after they’ve taken the vaccine.
Don’t risk it. Seriously, do not take the p*ss out of yourself. Value your life. It’s not difficult to find out what foods and minerals strengthen the immune system.”
These are clear examples of conspiracy theory, false claims and incitement to reject public health advice. Any more propaganda in that vein and you will excluded from the forum permanently.January 21, 2021 at 18:35 #65615Dave
Before taking your jab you’re required to sign a consent form, so don’t put out any scare story’s, otherwise people may not agree to waive their rights aka consent form!January 21, 2021 at 21:34 #65623glenn_uk
You actually recognise a true point for once, BNP-Dave. Putting out loads of scare stories will indeed reduce the uptake of vaccination. That will result in more death.
Is that your aim – to kill off as many people as possible? I ask because the far-right (of which you are an obvious fanboy) is clearly a death cult. Your work here obviously fills the purpose of increasing death.
So it goes with your anti-vaxxer BS, climate change denial, AIDS denial, pro-libertarian notions pumped out year after year. Increase death. Destroy society, people, and hopefully the planet, right?January 22, 2021 at 01:47 #65631ET
Before taking your jab you’re required to sign a consent form, so don’t put out any scare story’s, otherwise people may not agree to waive their rights aka consent form!
The consent forms for vaccination are very poor, I agree Dave. There is nowhere to record what complications may occur, nowhere to record that possible complications were even discussed. This goes against all the GMC advice on informed consent. Informed consent has been a big thing in medicine for quite a number of years and rightly so. This is a retrograde step and it will lead to a storm of litigation.
May I ask a question of you Dave?
A bit of preamble. Medical informed consent means that you as a doc must be sure that not only did your patient sign the consent form but that they understood what they were consenting to and understood the possible adverse outcomes and that there was no pressuring them to do so. You would have to document how you came to that conclusion.
Would you agree that consenting to a credit card agreement or a bank loan should meet the same stringent criteria?January 22, 2021 at 08:21 #65652Dave
Softly softly catch the monkey!
ET did you see how Glenn-UK wants an uniformed public to ensure everyone has the jab, rather than provide any information about the pros and cons (called scare story’s) of doing so.
You mention the lack of informed consent, but worse, the consent form is to indemnify those giving the jab, the forms waive the patients rights, now why do this, wouldn’t that be alarming in itself, and how many know what their doing, and it applies to the planned ‘vaccination’ of entire populations. That’s why news about side-effects is being suppressed, but you get virus terrorism 24/7, which shows the whole thing is unethical and sinister.
Informed consent is I believe a legal starting point, for all legal transactions, the fact its downplayed, could constitute criminal negligence, but some want to scare people, not to exercise their rights, but would a court be prepare to hear the case?January 22, 2021 at 09:23 #65657SA
For a good balanced discussion as to why we should take the vaccines but also be cautious, this interview of the Director of the Chinese CDC is vey informative. Yes the vaccines should be treated with caution, but given the unprecedented high risk from Covid-19 not only of causing death, but also of paralyzing society, it is important to proceed with vaccines. This is a balance between risk and benefit and the benefit outweighs the risk. The interview also touches on other subjects, especially about the conspiracy theories that China let the virus loose from a laboratory. But the most important point that comes out is that to combat this epidemic, we need a universal unified approach, and we need to be aware of the disruptive nature of the ‘infodemic’ which is the pseudoscientific quackery of the conspiracy theorists.
When will Dave join the pseudo Marxist into exile? It is actually very telling that Dave agrees with no one else but N_ who claims to be a Marxist, the most dreaded form of politics for Dave. Is there some dissonance there?January 22, 2021 at 11:24 #65670Dave
Many words mean different things to different people. I’d be happy to say I’m a socialist when it comes to public services, but alas the word has been very tarnished by the word communism, that is irredeemably linked, fairly or not, with the old Soviet Union, who despite being communist, called themselves socialist, so its a mess.
The problem is when the peasants stop fighting among themselves and recognise the power of the ruling elites, the populist revolt, how do you describe the elite 1%? How do you describe the deep state which rules over us, and clearly exposed by Trump (an anti-racist civic nationalist) and the stolen US election.
I suppose the ‘right’ may call them communists and the ‘left’ calls them fascist, and both would be right, but what name could be used instead to show the ruling elite are the enemy of both left and right? Its difficult as it needs to be something everyone understands, but as soon as you try, the ruling elite, and Clark, will call it anti-Semitic!January 22, 2021 at 13:44 #65683Clark
I call Dave anti-Semitic because (1) he’s called the 9/11 attacks “Jewish lightning”, meaning an insurance fraud because the WTC site leaseholder Larry Silverstein is Jewish, (2) because Dave told me to “find Jesus”, described me as a “member of the tribe” meaning Jews, and (3) described Jews as “professional victims”.
Dave, stop hiding behind the smears directed at Jeremy Corbyn, and tell the readership about your association with the BNP and the National Front.
I called N_ anti-Semitic because N_ promoted the “Jewish doctors’ plot to murder Stalin”.January 22, 2021 at 22:06 #65707ET
how do you describe the elite 1%?
Greedy. Just that, greedy. We live in a world where profit and the pursuit of profit supercedes any other consideration. We have allowed law and legislation, trade agreements and much else to be fashioned for just one consideration, profit.
You mention the lack of informed consent, but worse, the consent form is to indemnify those giving the jab, the forms waive the patients rights
A consent form doesn’t indemnify anyone Dave nor waive anyone’s rights. In fact, the vaccination consent form is so bad I suspect any decent lawyer would tear it to shreds in a court in 30 seconds.January 23, 2021 at 06:22 #65739Dave
“A consent form doesn’t indemnify anyone Dave nor waive anyone’s rights. In fact, the vaccination consent form is so bad I suspect any decent lawyer would tear it to shreds in a court in 30 seconds”.
Very interesting point, please elaborate. I understand informed consent is required and there is a difference between theory and practice, I mean if its so bad, shouldn’t it have already been challenged? So is the consent form, a deception to appear to meet a legal standard, giving the vaccinators immunity, but in practice fails the test making the entire vaccination experience illegal, but requiring someone to take up the case, in fear of being called an anti-vaxxer?