I with you MHB, Huxleypiggles and MikeAustin too..fantastic!!!!! Big hugs 🤗

Totally agree with you Speedstick.

This isn’t about ‘anti’ anything, it’s about Pro-choice (for all) which is protected by international law but clearly causing some existential distress for the hysterical ones frightened of stepping outside their sanitised, air tight homes. If an individual chooses not to receive an unlicensed ‘unavoidably unsafe’ mixture of manufactured ingredients still in the experimental phase for a few more years where initial studies conducted were on those selected of being ‘of good health’ rather than the vulnerable, then I think it’s only reasonable to exercise ones human right and be able to make a balanced personal decision based on this and not be forced or coerced or mocked to ‘take one for the team’ by those still struggling with the fact that they’re mortal beings and no amount of hiding or projecting fear onto others will stop the inevitable. For those that exercised pro-choice and have the ‘vaccine’ get on with life and may you enjoy mixing with those also exercising pro-choice who haven’t had the ‘vaccine’ and are getting on with their lives. If not, then please; stay at home, stop whining and protect the rights of those willing to live with liberty, self respect and self responsibility.

Correct. In another context, the usual suspects are quite keen on the ‘precautionary principle’. Sauce for the goose, etc.

The human race is rotten.

I cannot believe the abuse and vitriol spouted at those who wish to exercise caution and their right to bodily autonomy and decline to be experimented on. The pro vaxx camp that wish to abuse and shame other are IMHO the lowest of the low and tbh utter morons. If you are vaxxed why do you care if someone else is not? I have said it before we will get the future we deserve.

Crowd's of sheep lining up to be injected with god knows what for a virus their immune systems will handle no bother anyway 😆 Maybe they should research capital punishment to see the preferred method of state sanctioned murder... funnily enough lethal injection.

Is there an evil plan to reduce the worlds population using these vaxxes? Probably not but when nothing else makes any fucking sense why take the risk? I will take my chances with covid.

I do believe there is something rotten
(i) in how the U.K. governments (and media) have kept the focus on vaccines/vaccine-like products rather than broader health choices/provision,
(ii) in how data on risks are discussed,
(iii) in how relevant data collection seems avoided, and
(iv) the lack of transparency of ethical consideration.

I would be delighted to be wrong on these points. I’ll comment on each in turn even though they do overlap.

(i) The ‘vaccines’ are presented as having an efficacy of about 90%. Higher has been claimed for efficacy against death in some groups, but I’ll stick with the 90% for ease, and will assume it is true for those with existing health issues. Looking at the NHS England data for hospital death with covid until 18th March, in the 40-59 age group, the number dying with a comorbidity was 5,481 and with no comorbidity was 604, about an order of magnitude. This suggests moving people from having a comorbidity to not having a comorbidity is about the same effect as having a ‘vaccine’. I believe many of the comorbidities in this age group are related to metabolic health and can be addressed on a timescale of a few months with diet (at least off sugar, off processed carbs and off seed oils), progressive resistance training and (with care) REHIT. Moreover additional, though correlated, risk factors are also reduced by this approach and with long term benefit. To my knowledge there was not a genuine push to educate for and to enable this – it is pretty hard for many of the vulnerable to access the required diet and exercise choices. It is even possible to argue that the U.K. governments have encouraged an increase in the vulnerable population by closing sources of appropriate exercise and leaving supermarket shelves as one of the few areas of distraction.

I think there is potentially something rotten here.

(ii) Using the numbers above and the antibody prevalence data (about 30%) as a lower bound for infection suggests an IFR of 0.1% and 0.01% for the two 40-59 year age groups above, presumably lower at the younger end of the age group. These numbers should be presented dynamically and compared with the risks from ‘vaccines’. If the IFR for the healthy group is within an order of magnitude of serious side effects from vaccines then much clearer informed consent should be sought (so more finesse than the age groups and approximations above is needed). There is no real clarity in these risks, and for the next age group lower, the risk from the virus decreases again. Also it might be the case (- I stress, I do not know this -) that in other nations that are being more hesitant with vaccines than England, that their IFRs are lower (perhaps having the capacity / strategy to treat symptoms early even in the less vulnerable), the balance of the decision is different. It would be good to see IFRs across healthy individuals of different countries. Finally those who have already had the virus will already have some level of protection, vaccinating these people is again a different risk balance, what is gained verses the risk.

I think there is potentially something rotten here.

(iii) I wonder whether there is a data avoidance exercise in action. Currently antibody prevalence is reported and is running at around 70% in older age groups due to vaccine roll out. However taking a prior blood sample for a random sample of those being vaccinated should be done to determine proportion showing either antibody or T-cell response prior to the vaccination program. Perhaps this is being done and I have missed the results, if it is not being done it is throwing away learning and there cannot be any reason for doing this.

I think there is potentially something rotten here.

(iv) Apart from the lack of ethical consideration in giving informed consent, I suspect there is no ethical consideration in pushing covid vaccination to lower and lower age groups. If healthy younger groups are subject to increasing personal risk purely on the basis of some positive externality to help the protection of others, then this is of deep ethical concern. We are all aware of Judith Thomson’s trolley problem paper of 1976, therein the example of whether it is ‘right’ to kill a healthy person to provide organ transplants to five ill patients brings home the depth of some of these ethical considerations. I would certainly be interested in seeing how the Govt have made such considerations if vaccinations are pushed to ever younger groups.

I think there is potentially something rotten here.

I would certainly be interested in seeing how the Govt have made such considerations if vaccinations are pushed to ever younger groups.

I think there is potentially something rotten here.

There is no ethically correct answer to the trolly problem. That's why it's interesting. There is always something rotten in any large public health matter. Sacrifices must be made. It's banal. The NHS is the biggest employer in the world, near enough, except perhaps the Chinese army. Hence there will always be something rotten there somewhere, i'm looking at the ONS who I suspect have done exaggeration.