China these days is communist in name only.
Their system is referred to as State Capitalism.
The Chinese themselves call it Market Socialism.
Pfizer vaccine report
- Thread starter Trazor
- Start date
- Status
Their system is referred to as State Capitalism.
The Chinese themselves call it Market Socialism.
Sponsored Links
Russia isn't communist even in name.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
This is why AZ shareprice dropped - their science is sketchy.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
Sponsored Links
That's a bit of a smoking gun report really. Low on fact. What can be said is
Testing was slow as just UK based initially and mention of testing in other countries that seemed to take a while. But uk testing initially was looking for adverse reactions. As the report mentions UK infection rates were low at the time.
The USA trial was halted due to 2 adverse reaction that it seems can be bought on by vaccinations. Seems to be an adverse immunity response. It really would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind starting the trial up again and more on the adverse reactions.
Not much about on the Brazil trial other than who received them.
Then comes the accident. I don't believe it was but depends on how it's looked at. Somebody did it and it was found by back tracking results - that may be the accidental aspect - deciding to look closer at dosages.
So it's pretty clear why it lags behind others not helped by initially testing it on people in the Thames valley to save them having to travel far. Not sure when and if that was widened.
All I have seen on testing is the protocols not the results. There is also the tested on people with stable underlying conditions on one of them as well. If that is correct.
Testing was slow as just UK based initially and mention of testing in other countries that seemed to take a while. But uk testing initially was looking for adverse reactions. As the report mentions UK infection rates were low at the time.
The USA trial was halted due to 2 adverse reaction that it seems can be bought on by vaccinations. Seems to be an adverse immunity response. It really would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind starting the trial up again and more on the adverse reactions.
Not much about on the Brazil trial other than who received them.
Then comes the accident. I don't believe it was but depends on how it's looked at. Somebody did it and it was found by back tracking results - that may be the accidental aspect - deciding to look closer at dosages.
So it's pretty clear why it lags behind others not helped by initially testing it on people in the Thames valley to save them having to travel far. Not sure when and if that was widened.
All I have seen on testing is the protocols not the results. There is also the tested on people with stable underlying conditions on one of them as well. If that is correct.
Which all goes to show that all of them are being rushed through with no thorough research/testing, and only a lunatic would take a jab that could prove to be a long term poison!
But hey, I'm happy for the lunatics to line up like lemmings. And then I'll make a judgement as to which to take (or none at all) when there has been a real and proper independent evaluation of the effectiveness and possible side effects of all of the jabs
We have a lot of health workers that will be getting it early on. Then it works down the age range. That seems to be the current intention anyway.
Usually with new drugs they keep a close watch on side effects. All treatments have some on some people so the numbers are categorised on that basis, severity and numbers etc. There have been cases where the shear number of people who use a drug has bought up some surprises. Statins is one for instance.
Usually with new drugs they keep a close watch on side effects. All treatments have some on some people so the numbers are categorised on that basis, severity and numbers etc. There have been cases where the shear number of people who use a drug has bought up some surprises. Statins is one for instance.
I heard a report recently about the "side effects" of statins.
A study has been done, and they've concluded that most of the "side effects" are actually "nocebo effect" instead. "Nocebo" meaning you get a placebo but, rather than improve your symptoms, you actually feel worse.
So much so that, once the patients had the results shown to them, almost 90% either went straight back onto the statin , or had intended to but couldn't yet get a GP appointment to sort their new prescription out.
The question is, will they have to take whichever jab is put in front of them as part of their job requirements?
That serial 'virus catcher' borisconi won't think so...
But hey, let us celebrate a gammon being led to the slaughter!
I think you are misinformed.
All those 65 years of age or over
come before
Adults aged 18 to 65 in an at-risk group
At-risk includes not just "fat bastards" but
solid organ transplant recipients
haematological cancers
certain neurological conditions
chronic kidney disease
immunosuppression
dementia
stroke
poorly controlled diabetes
chronic pulmonary disease
obesity (BMI greater than 40)
malignancy
liver disease
The latest Public Health England guidance puts clinically extremely vulnerable into the same tranche as 70 -74.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...bject_to_MHRA_approval_of_vaccine_supply_.pdf
- Residents in a care home for older adults . Staff working in care homes for older adults
- All those 80 years of age and over. Health and social care workers
- All those 75 years of age and over
- All those 70 years of age and over. Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals (not including pregnant women and those under 18 years of age)
- All those 65 years of age and over
- Adults aged 18 to 65 years in an at-risk group (Table 3)
- All those 60 years of age and over
- All those 55 years of age and over
- All those 50 years of age and over
and does that include fat bastards?
Surely they're in table 3?
edit
yes they are
"Morbid obesity Adults with a Body Mass Index ≥40 kg/m²."
Illegitamacy is not mentioned.
So basically (if you believe the hype of course) we choose to 'prioritise' the most useless members of society downwards first?
(apart from of course health care workers)
The usual guff from politicians looking out for themselves...
You only have to check out the credentials of the newly appointed corrupt "minister in charge of Covid-19 vaccine rollout" to realise it's a con!
But as recent history has shown, they know they can get away with it without a care in the world...
Due to a dumbed down electorate and draconian laws affecting free speech!
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Locked
