Amid concerns of a low vaccine uptake among professional footballers, the Premier League has sent a briefing note to all 20 clubs outlining that the body might reward teams for making sure their players are double jabbed. What these potential incentives may be remains unclear. In addition, the Premier League has cited concerns over international travel and the likelihood of vaccine passports being introduced in the near future. The Mail has the story.
The Premier League has written to clubs informing them of plans to “reward” teams who have the highest numbers of vaccinated players
Chelsea midfielder N’Golo Kante was confirmed on Tuesday as the latest player to contract Covid, forcing him to miss his side’s Champions League clash against Juventus on Wednesday night.
And Sportsmail can reveal that in a briefing note sent to clubs last week, the Premier League are stepping up their efforts to ensure more players are fully vaccinated due to fears over a slow uptake.
The document read: “According to the data we have, only seven clubs’ squads are more than 50% fully vaccinated, so we have a way to go.”
Sportsmail revealed last week that at least two Premier League sides have no more than six players vaccinated.
But Wolves, Brentford and Leeds have reported between 89 and 100% vaccination levels and there is growing optimism that the figures at other clubs will increase in the coming weeks.
The note continued: “We are considering if and how best we can ‘reward’ those squads/players who are most Covid-compliant and who have opted to be vaccinated.
“It is increasingly clear that full vaccination will be the key criteria for Government and health authorities, in terms of international travel and potential Covid certification at large scale events.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Right. Wrong, they are not vaccines.
The downvoter is delusional and I suspect cheap.
And let’s ignore reality – 20 K dead from the Rona over 2.5 years – lower than most flu years. 150 – 200 K dead post stabs. Hmm…That must mean for the idiot author and his corrupt friends that they are safely effective. For 200 years the quackcines have killed and injured – and saved no one.
Natural immunity did not exist for almost half the UK population according to a letter issued by the DHSC and signed by CMO’s of the 4 nations and Jonathan Van-Tam for good
Modernameasure.DHSC had no information to support this statement and tried to backpedal (FOI-1347862):
Letter CEM/CMO/2020/044 – 31 December 2020
https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAttachment.aspx?Attachment_id=103
“Perhaps….” In the last para: That’s a generous view, given the evidence about how the promoters, including the active politicians as well as some of the medical trade. “Something must be done” might be a better term than “safetyism” in this context, though. Compared with most high safety issues in much of industry outside the pharmaceutical trade, it looks weird, with an absence of the use of the term “safety integrity level” and the associated sums etc. If we assume that there is some kind of SIL for the product under consideration, it could be that the level is variable depending on the recipient. What it does show is that there has been a lot of blatant lying, in the interests of marketing to the general public. “Safe and Effective” – pull the other one.
“I don’t necessarily disagree that the public health establishment is too risk averse and the vaccines should have been approved sooner, so long as they weren’t mandated. After all, different groups of people face different risks.”
Oh dear. The vaccines were experimental and you do NOT perform experiments on the public.
They were experimental by legal designation – in the CDC documentation. And they were experimental by moral definition, because the planned features and manner of working, in particular the fact it was stated the spike proteins would remain confined to the injection site and/or spleen and flush from the body in hours or maximum, two days, was utter made up nonsense. If something doesn’t work as it is planned it should, it is by indisputable definition, experimental.
These are facts, so it rather seems you think it is OK to experiment on the public. You don’t quite say that Noah and you can of course qualify any reply to this point, but what you are saying very much appears to amount to that. If you are going to conduct experiments, it needs to be part of a trial, where there are participants fully aware of and agreed to the objective of the experiment. Not part of a general rollout with a sheet of tiny text on a “possible reactions” note, where the immediate assumption of pretty much every recipient is that “the authorities won’t be giving me this unless those reactions are vanishingly rare.”
Additionally the vaccines have had a negative effect on the health of the recipient with proven lowering of resistance to further strains of Covid-19. This is wholly unaceptable and definitive evidence they are to a greater or lesser extent, harming the immunise system of the recipients.
Plus there is the built in geometric bias in the efficacy calculations that is the result of people getting added to the vaccinated total as soon as they receive the shot, but only count as vaccinated against any subsequent events if 21 days have elapsed. It’s been mathematically shown that even if the population were given a placebo, the efficacy data of that placebo would appear to be the same as the mRNA vaccines. So put simply, when this is taken into account it’s clear they don’t work.
Additionally, you seem to simply ignore Prof Norman Fenton’s other data contribution to the debate where he has demonstrated the official statistics on rates of illness amongst the unvaccinated is almost certainly wrong. The problem being that the unvaccinated population is calculated from subtracting vaccinated from the total population, but total population figures are wholly unreliable. If they are incorrect (which they clearly are – the question is to what degree), then ALL the safety claims based on population are wrong because the denominator used to calculate death and illness rates is wrong. The same problem applies to the US data. Even the statistics ombudsman has agreed he is right in his analysis of the problem.
The response of the ONS? In supreme kafkaeque style, they put a note on the data, leaving the errors as they are, but saying it can’t be used for analysing safety so implying people like Fenton are doing something illegitimate with the data (he isn’t and of course it can be used to analyse safety – but needs to be corrected) when it is the very problem he has highlighted that has led them to add the note.
“Vaccine effectiveness against infection wanes to such an extent that several datasets showed evidence of negative effectiveness. (This may be partly attributable to many unvaccinated people having natural immunity, which provides better protection against subsequent infection.) Mandating vaccines for healthcare workers was therefore no guarantee of safety.”
Additionally why are you using the language of the establishment here? No it’s not “negative effectiveness.” Call it what it is; actual positive harm! If the vaccinated get infected more than the unvaccinated, it can only mean one thing. Their immune systems have been harmed!
This evidence is strong. It’s throughout our own ONS data, in spite of the huge biases serving to reduce the size of the signal, and if the vaccinated are more prone to infection (and not just covid infection BTW) than the general population, it is undeniable their immune systems have been harmed. The question is only about to what degree.
It is simply unacceptable to do a general vaccine rollout with the safety signals so strongly against the product.
And of course all the yellow card data. The implications of which are simply being ignored. Professor Carl Heneghan has, of course, pointed out this is likely under reported by 98% and the data such as it is is already unprecendented with many multiples the number of adverse reactions and deaths that have meant previous products have had to be taken off the market.
It is unconscionable to put an experimental gene therapy into peoples bodies with no understanding of long term effects, and the long term effects are definitely turning out to be bad.
Lastly, I am mightily angered by the intransigence of the authorities. We have got so bogged down, we have got tired of the argument and are still missing obvious giant glaring evidence of malpractice. So the breakdown between vaccinated and unvaccinated simply disappeared for a number of months (when things seemed to be turning bad), and the data for the breakdown that the ONS surely have isn’t made available to analysts like Prof Norman Fenton to help him work out what is going on. So there is an unprecedented experimental product where by moral right everyone should be working hard to transparently establish safety, and we have behaviour that is the complete opposite.
Long time since we met anyone who has got Covid was WAS NOT jabbed.
I FoI’ed MHRA on two matters
Answer NO in both cases.
I then provided them with a document from the NIH in the US, stating clearly that these were experimental “vaccines” (my qoutes). And a document from Moderna lodged with public authorities in the US stating that their jabs were “Gene Therapy”. I sent these to MHRA, noting that they or those on the other side of the pond were lying.
Oddly, they never got back to me.
so these products did not stop you getting or passing on the cold, but they are still supported why? what possible logic is at play? is it just to be nice to the purveyors of this toxic substance or to pat on the back the authority so it doesn’t feel bad for the suffering and misery itsinflicted on millions.
People may as well have been injected with saline, a polio injection or tetanus, each would have been equally as good, and let’s face it less likely to kill.
There is no defence for these novel genetic changing products and those who used billions as nothing more than lab rats.
Those who defend are just the good germans of our time
Am I right in thinking that transmission is only a risk where the source is symptomatic? In which case they should take responsibility for the situation and not appear in public coughing and sneezing it over others.
On the three occasions in the last 60-odd years that I have had flu, I have been unable to leave the house so not an isue – if on the other hand, I have a cold, it’s business as usual.
As we always did before with any such cold or other RSV…
“Elderly people and those with certain pre-existing health conditions faced a significant risk of death from Covid, so it would have made sense for them to get vaccinated even before the safety data were in.”
Are you serious? Really? Take an intervention with no idea of the risk? That’s apart from the fact that there were well-proven “safe and effective” treatments available that were deliberately held back.
“ and vaccinating the elderly saved lives.”
Did you see the increase in deaths among the elderly as soon as this toxic jab was rolled out? I post here the latest ONS weekly deaths. The timescale explains key events.
There has been a net increase in deaths. As I have said many times, if there is a claim that the jab saved people from covid, then there has to be a balancing claim that it increased death from other causes.
Quite so. 14 elderly people died in a home near me a few days after their first vaccination, whilst COVID was active (thus ignoring the longstanding pronicple of not vaccinating during epidemics). There is every chance they suffered the now well-reported vulnerability to infection in the first week or two after vaccination.
The point is, such a conclusion was never officially reached in their case, and so they are counted in the stats as “COVID deaths in the unvaccinated (within 14 days of vaccination)” rather than “deaths due to vaccination.” Multiply such instances up around the world and the idea that vaccines saved elderly lives is, at best, unsubstantiated.
Yes, quite.
The efficacy of an intervention needs to be assessed from the point at which it is designed to work – maybe a week or two.
The safety of an intervention needs to be assessed from its very first administration.
I see obfuscation around these two measures that tends to favour the intervention – and ensure profit from it.
Absolutely right…and if we are supposed to believe it saved lives..that would be predominantly in the elderly…right?
Wrong!…..according to this …so who did it save?
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/us-nursing-home-data-shows-clearly?r=o7iqo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
US nursing home data shows clearly that the COVID vaccines made the elderly MORE likely to die from COVID.CMS publishes record-level nursing home data by week. When you analyze this data different ways, the conclusion is always the same: the vaccines were a disaster, increasing the death rate from COVID.
Euromomo report 200,000 excess deaths in the >85 age-group in 2020 and in 2022. I don’t think vaccines saved many lives.
Asking older people to have been given the option to get vaccinated prior to vaccine safety checks, I see pros & cons.
Pros, it may have encouraged old people to be less afraid. Equally it may have allowed us to ditch the gaslighting of younger people, guilt tripping them into thinking they were about to kill granny.
Cons, informed consent has been a casualty of all the hysteria. In the same way that kids were pressured into consenting to a novel treatment when the JCVI weren’t decided, we’d have been asking old people to participate in an early stage drugs trial.
I honestly can’t believe I’m even reading this. I despair. As if these injections had anything to do with saving lives! Naive beyond belief. Safetyism?! Good god.
If this was about saving lives, why were children injected? Hanania has the stuff in his body, so like so many others he’s scratching around in the dirt trying to kid himself and others that this was a good faith attempt to save lives. It patently, obviously, definitely was nothing of the sort. Are we really being asked to believe that the same authorities that worked so hard to kill people in early 2020 were desperately keen to save people in late 2020?
Why are we dignifying this disgusting lie-ridden attack on humanity in these terms? Get real.
..me either..utterly bewildered. I will never forget or forgive the absolute horror of the last three years….that Government’s allowed and facilitated pharmaceutical businesses to do a medical experiment on the population of the world..for profit….I’m basking in Noah’s munificence for not thinking we should have mandated these atrocities…!!
The fact is that after all this time and the actual real world evidence of the massive harms….…if Noah wants to believe some computer modelling..which is the ONLY basis of his claim that vaccines have saved lives…I really couldn’t care less….patently lessons will never be learned by some….?
Nick Hudson, who is an actuary by training, commented yesterday on the quality of the mathematicians who work in epidemiological modelling – they’re the bog standard ones as all the brightest & best have gone into fields which attract, demand & pay for them.
Explains a lot, doesn’t it Mrs G?
Nick Hudson from PANDA was our guest at MD4CE yesterday evening. One thing he said which chimes with how wrong Noah is was that as there was no deadly disease, no lives were saved by a “vaccine”. Think you’ll enjoy the recording of the meeting when it’s uploaded to the rumble channel: https://rumble.com/user/cbkovess
I’m about to cook with this in the background – thanks!
My pleasure! Enjoy!
Anyone of any influence who says/thinks that mRNA jabs are safe should be made to read and if possible try to understand even a little of this. . Warning, it is, as the author states, a very long read –
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/megathread-33-sars-cov-2-infectivity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=650045&post_id=135861704&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
And a very worrying read for the jabbed.
I would love to hear any coherent arguments against the article.
Our knowledge and depth of understanding about the toxicity of mRNA jabs is now such that anyone advocating them should be prosecuted (eg S.23 and 24 – Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
Dammit, articles like this are why I never get anything done!
(Keep ’em coming though – still reeling from a documentary someone posted called ‘In Lies We Trust’. And only halfway through. Reason enough never to trust any vaccine again.)
“By contrast, young people without pre-existing health conditions faced little risk of death or serious illness from Covid, so it would have made sense for them to wait slightly longer.”
‘wait slightly longer’ – retarded. Where’s the editor?
Ignoring all the other numerous flaws of this article, conceding that the vaccines were beneficial, even for the young ‘after waiting slightly longer’, justifies mandates, even if the author disagrees with them.
Classic slippery slope greased with dogshit yoghurt. See also “climate change is real but you are going about it the wrong way guys”.
So why was there a vaccine response?!
There should NEVER have been a vaccine response to a disease that wasn’t a serious threat to most people! How about pointing out the bleedin’ obvious Noah Carl.
When is the lid well and truly going to be blown off this biggest scam in history?!?!
I am flabbergasted that there is anyone still claiming any benefit from this poison.
It is highly unlikely that this poison provided any benefit to people over 80 due to immunosenesence – the group that harboured the greatest number of dead. In anyone under 65, the poison’s risks far outweighed any supposed benefit.
But worst of all – we know they have intentionally been ignoring and not researching adverse events. When AEs could no longer be ignored, they pretended they were ‘rare’ – as they intentionally never gathered data, the few AEs that got recorded probably do look ‘rare’. But what both of you are ignoring, is the fact that even now, almost 3 years after they started injecting this poison, the scientists claim not to know exactly what is causing the various problems – the mrna code for the spike, the immune response itself, the LNPs. Until that basic point is resolved, there should be no claim of benefit. We still don’t know how long the spike keeps getting produced in people and why – I believe there are studies showing spike production at least 4 months later and circulation in the blood stream longer than that. Do we know whether spike production could be reactivated in some way? I don’t want to hear how ‘unlikely’ that is, I want to see several years of real research PROVING that it is not happening.
What about the passing of mrna in breast milk, previously denied as a possibility, now proven to have happened? How about the IgG4 class switch? Again, no point saying it’s probably not a big problem – it was supposedly a surprise, they don’t know exactly what’s causing it and they do not know whether it will allow the body to tolerate spike without causing harsh symptoms, at the same time allowing the spike to cause irreparable damage. Get back to me when you’ve got several years of research on people who have undergone the IgG4 switch and let me know how they’re doing, then you can tell me that taking the poison was worth the risk.
By the by, vaxx mandates did not ‘fail to recognise natural immunity’ – that makes it sound like an oversight or misunderstanding. It was absolutely intentional policy to force the poison into people. Fraudci is on record as saying in the past that previous infection is always superior to vaxx – the dollar signs changed that little fact. The Dutch health authority wanted natural immunity recognised on the nazi pass for at least 1 1/2 years – it was on EU insistence that it was reduced to a mere 6 months, meaning people would then still have to get stabbed.
Exactly!
This is a massive fraud!
Are people seriously going to line up for these worse than useless injections AGAIN?!
Noah: “I agree on two major points: the vaccine mandates were a bad idea, and vaccinating the elderly saved lives.” But on July 11th, from this very organ: Florida Provides the Latest Proof That the Covid Vaccines Did Not Save Lives – The Daily Sceptic
Hmm. What proof do you have of this Noah?
Ffs
Take an untested medicine for a bad flu? Madness.
Negative contribution? Because we don’t agree with you?
Has anyone given valid consent to these worse than useless medical interventions?
Not in my opinion…
See my presentation to PANDA:
Considering jab mandates: Voluntary informed consent and mass population Covid-19 vaccination.
No. Informed consent is required. There was no information on safety, the claims about effectiveness were false. Recipients were being told vaccination would prevent disease and transmission, yet the manufacturer did not make these claims as there was no evidence to back them up.
The effectiveness claims were political statements – lies.
Exactly.
And who is responsible to obtain valid consent?
The injectors…none of whom were qualified to obtain voluntary informed consent.
I understand in the UK, all sorts of people were giving the jabs, eg hairdressers and air stewards.
Unbloodybelievable…
This is a ginormous scandal brewing…no-one has given valid consent…
Do you also agree that standard practice from decades of knowledge gained, that vaccination of a population against a pathogen which is circulating in the population is contraindicated?
Reasons: vaccination stresses the immune system for a period of 14 to 21 days, suppressing its response to opportunistic infection including the target pathogen, increasing infection risk and increasing risk of severity and therefore mortality.
You ‘agree’ that vaccination saved lives of the elderly, when we know that hospitalisations and deaths from infection originating in that 14 to 21 day window were logged as ‘unvaccinated’, and used to promote effectiveness, and when the most vulnerable had comorbidity and would die anyway vaccinated or not, and when there is no falsifiable data just claims. ‘Evidence’ offered is post-vaccination reduction in deaths coincident with the seasonal decline of viral activity which happened the year previous at the same time, prior to the so-called vaccines being available.
Can we please stop this Curate’s Egg, ‘I agree with some not all’ approach to mRNA products?
“Perhaps if the “moderate vax skeptics” had not been side-lined by the public health establishment we could have had a more rational policy that actually took account of the risks and benefits to different individuals.”
They didn’t want ‘rational policy’ – it was an advertising and promotion programme to make sales of the product.
Money has been changing hands.
There really can be no other explanation for the continued relentless promotion of the mRNA juice despite overwhelming evidence they were not effective, were in fact dangerous, were of no benefit to the young, that the more boosters a person has the risk of disease from new variants and severity and mortality increases proportionately.
I am willing to entertain other explanations for this, although I think that two years later, error, panicked, incompetence, saved ‘some’ lives, won’t cut the mustard.
Agreed. There was a strong whiff of opportunism in the trade, even to the extent of investing in facilities to manufacture other products using mRNA, if you look at some of the sceptical people’s output , like J Campbell. Whether the technique itself is hazardous, or related to the specific product, is not clear. However, if it increases revenue compared with the expense of product development, a more robust analysis is probably wise.
Noah Carl and Richard Hanania arguing about how effective the Covid vaccines have been, based on highly dubious statistics, is like the blind leading the blind.
Professor Norman Fenton:
“I don’t believe there’s a single study claiming covid vaxx safety/efficacy that is without some kind of systemic bias, flaw or fraud. Many – including the Pfizer RCT – have all these attributes”
https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1690105464246132736
There were massively more Covid deaths after mass vaccination compared with before, when nobody was vaccinated, in many highly vaccinated countries such as:
South Korea
Japan
Taiwan
Malaysia
Australia
New Zealand
Vietnam
Thailand
Indonesia
Philippines
Hong Kong
Singapore
Turkey
Greece
Finland
Norway
If the vaccines were effective at reducing deaths in the UK, why would they not also be effective at reducing deaths in all these other highly vaccinated countries too? Mass vaccination was supposed to result in reductions in Covid deaths not massive increases, so how can these Covid vaccines be described as ‘effective’?
In addition, there were also either increases or no reductions in Covid deaths in many other highly vaccinated countries, after mass vaccination compared with before, such as:
Israel
Germany
France
Portugal
Ireland
Lithuania
Serbia
Croatia
Czechia
Slovenia
Slovakia
Hungary
USA
Canada
Highly vaccinated Israel’s worst weeks for Covid deaths were in January and February 2022.
It’s difficult to find any country with a clear-cut big reduction in Covid deaths after mass vaccination.
These are not indications of effectiveness.
Meanwhile…check out Papua New Guinea – a control group?
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/papua-new-guinea
Absolutely! It’s the blind leading the blind! Would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Leading people astray.
There should not have been a vaccine response to a disease it was known from the beginning was not a serious threat to most people…
See my BMJ response, published in March 2020:
Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2 | The BMJ
In this post Dr Carl reiterates his belief that the injections saved many lives and this claim is based on his detailed analysis of the relevant data. However, other analysts who appear to be equally adept at data analysis come to the opposite conclusion. As far as I am concerned this confirms my approach which is to wait and see. There have already been a very high number of severe adverse reactions including death and the drugs are still in there evaluation stage. There is still plenty of time for further unpleasant side effects to emerge.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say….short term, they appear to be useless and kill people…just over two years in, we still are jabbing because they appear to be useless and kill people…..when we’ve waited a bit longer, we will see that they appear to be useless and kill people…
Please read and investigate further. There most certainly have been serious adverse reactions and deaths. Why not watch UK Column news (at 1 pm every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and watchable thereafter) to keep yourself up to date? They are a very good source of what is really going on in the world (not just about the Covid jabs) – definitely worth watching, particularly, if like us, you don’t watch the BBC or any other news and don’t read a newspaper (I’ve given up on the MSM).
Daughter in law at first maternity check today ! NHS still heavily pushing the Jab inc boosters
I hope that for hers & the baby’s sake she declined the offer.
Absolutely shocking that they are still pushing an experimental product onto pregnant women.
If your son & she are open to it, get them to read Turtles All the Way Down or to look at the work of Curtis Cost. No baby needs any vaccine – none of them have been properly tested against a placebo & none of them can work as stated because of basic biology.
The more I’ve read & learned, the more I’ve come to the position that Sudden Infant Death is a vaccine side effect. If I had my time over, my daughter would have received none of hers, including the Vitamin K, as all of these injections contain substances which don’t belong in healthy babies. Canine kidney cell in your child? aluminium? Mercury? SV40? (which is a lung cancer cell) Male & female aborted foetal cells? just to name a few…
I’ve stopped taking my dog for his annual boosters as these too contain substances which don’t belong in a healthy dog.
These last 3.5 years have been a real eye opener to the nefarious practices of pharma & how hijacked medical & veterinary professions education have become.
I absolutely agree with you. Our children haven’t had their children vaccinated. But I have heard terrifying stories on UK Column news of, in one case, parents, who simply queried whether their newborn baby would have to have the hepatitis (is it?) jab when they were eight months old, having their baby taken away from them. Frightening things are happening in this country. Family courts are literally a law unto themselves with no jury, no reporting, etc.
She must not have it! Please God she will remain strong and continue to refuse it. There are now lots of facts and figures out there about what it does to the foetus, let alone the mother. Added to which, as BurlingtonBertie says below, what they put into the jabs (the worst for me being the use of aborted foetal tissue in their development).
‘Most elderly people would presumably have chosen to get vaccinated straight away’.
This elderly person and her husband certainly didn’t choose to get vaccinated straight away, let alone at all – we remain proudly unvaccinated (with the Covid jab). I know a 90+-year-old (who might be alive and kicking to this day had she not had the jabs) die of adverse effects after having the Covid booster. Why on earth would anyone have these experimental jabs? Why not trust to our good immune systems, vitamins, alternative remedies, etc? We don’t even think we have had Covid itself… We certainly haven’t been iller than having a cold through these last three years (discounting the fact that my husband has multiple myeloma and has been receiving treatment throughout!!!).
The major flaw in this article is that this medical intervention used a novel, untested technology. Extreme caution should have been applied.
The fact that this technology is still being used whilst at the same time more and more harms are being found is in my opinion criminal and I don’t use this word lightly.
To be honest, I can’t believe I am reading this nonsense – written by an associate editor of the Daily Sceptic. There are so many holes in Noah’s argument, and to be honest, we are all tired now of trotting out the evidence that we have assimilated over the years. In terms of my personal experience, the elderly victims that I know of include my very frail mother – given miserable, painful neuropathy in her upper arm by the injection hitting a nerve (she has no muscle mass)…and getting Covid without really noticing it because it was a cold…..and elsewhere another very fit man in his eighties who went from being ‘fit but occasionally falling’ to ‘barely able to walk’ after a booster – ‘Never again!’ the elderly couple, declared, blaming the mixing of Modern with Pfizer.. as if they had mixed cider with beer. Ordinary people of all ages were rendered incapable of giving informed consent, for reasons that we all know. Please spare us this tripe.
Interesting thoughts but at base just “follow the money “. This will answer most questions.
The problem is that evidence now shows the results of Covid vaccine approval tests were fiddled lied about and incomplete, and some of the necessary ones were not carried out at all. Everyone needs to be aware that large pharmaceutical companied are not interested in the population’s health, but just making money. Dishing out millions of vaccine doses that were not needed achieved exactly that, so our taxes were used by our governments to make billions for them and cripple many countries’ wealth, including ours.