Combined Flu jab

[RonnieI]

It's a trade off. Not either/or. Life itself is a high risk.

Indeed. As my dad used to say "Life is a sexually transmitted disease with 100% mortality".

 

[Jacob]

Meanwhile, not that MSM have much to say on the matter, high excess deaths remain concerning and unexplained....

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...-for-3-years-running-since-start-of-pandemic/

..and so what exactly? Have you actually read the article?

 

[Jacob]

I would encourage anyone making an argument that implies that 'scientific concensus' means there is no longer any need for further exploration or discussion of a topic to look up Galileo Galilei, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis etc etc etc.

Nobody says this in the first place and anyway scientists know this better than anyone.
A consensus may change continually as research continues. They never rest!
Climate change is in the forefront of course and the consensus is very consistent, but it's about projected probable outcomes rather than definitive proof.
If anything the consensus here underestimated the rates of change, as events are now showing, around the globe. Maybe that's all they dared to publish, not to be too alarmist!
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news
PS your examples are not very good. Except for the last two they did not all overthrow "scientific" consensus, there were non on their subjects. Rather they made discoveries and/or simply introduced science.

 

[NickDReed]

PS your examples are not very good. Except for the last two they did not all overthrow "scientific" consensus, there were non on their subjects. Rather they made discoveries and/or simply introduced science.

Your link appear to be articles about weather events. One particular in Morocco that is seemingly reported by locals as positive as there has been a significant period of drought. It should also be remembered that the Sahara was once fertile and green and became a desert without any help from carbon entering the atmosphere by man. These articles are not proof of man made climate change as a result of co2 and to claim they are is disingenuous.

The 5 examples are all scientist who's theories stood in opposition of thinking at the time and were roundly dismissed and derided by the popular 'consensus' whether that was scientific or not. This attitude and behaviour is exactly what we see now from proponents of man made climate change when presented with alternate hypotheses.

 

[Norman Boyes]

I think it's called "free speech" - enjoy it whilst it is still allowed.

It is nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

 

[johnb80]

View attachment 189659
From what I’ve read it’s more common for men under 40 but I’d rather not take the chance.
I’ll continue with the traditional Flu vaccine for the time being.

Water has been known to kill humans!

Ive been involved with trials of this vaccine (I volunteered) it was absolutely fine.

 

[Jacob]

...

The 5 examples are all scientist who's theories stood in opposition of thinking at the time and were roundly dismissed and derided by the popular 'consensus' whether that was scientific or not.

Not entirely true. If you take them in the order given, the time taken for their oppositions to concede actually reduces with time passing, as modern science itself expands and becomes more efficient and open minded. Scepticism itself is the driving force behind science and only to be expected.

This attitude and behaviour is exactly what we see now from proponents of man made climate change when presented with alternate hypotheses.

Exactly untrue.
There is no science published explaining how the activities of mankind could possibly have no effect on climate.
Non of your "alternative hypotheses" address this simple issue.
The amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is quantifiable. The greenhouse effect is well established simple lab science since 1894.
How could it be that the CO2 would not act according to the known science and the forecasts (first made in1896).
There would have to be another process at work countering the greenhouse effect, and another explanation of the climate change we are seeing.
We have the latter of course - other "natural" processes at work, but we don't have any explanation of how the greenhouse effect could not be working as forecast when we pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
In fact the climate change deniers haven't even attempted to explain this at any point.
They never really got started on the topic and have nothing interesting to say.

 

[Jacob]

..... It should also be remembered that the Sahara was once fertile and green and became a desert without any help from carbon entering the atmosphere by man. .......... not proof of man made climate change as a result of co2 and to claim they are is disingenuous.

Speak for yourself! It's disingenuous of you to suggest that anybody is suggesting that prehistoric events are a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions!
Although the Gaia hypothesis might have something to say on this.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Exactly untrue.
There is no science published explaining how the activities of mankind could possibly have no effect on climate.

There's no scientific evidence to prove God doesn't exist, either. It's a negative.

 

[Vulcan]

Meanwhile, not that MSM have much to say on the matter, high excess deaths remain concerning and unexplained....

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...-for-3-years-running-since-start-of-pandemic/

31 Million so far, but nobody wants to talk about it.

This just popped up in my YouTube feed. I think it’s very worrying what the drug companies are getting away with. I didn’t know about the polio Vaccine, truly shocking.

 

[Vulcan]

Or not catch flu, RSV, Covid and not attribute that to my vaccinations?
But it might be because I walked under a ladder, or forgot to throw spilled salt over my shoulder?
How would you prove it either way?

Yeah, good luck with that. You just keep believing everything the drug companies say.

 

[Jacob]

Yeah, good luck with that. You just keep believing everything the drug companies say.

Not the drug companies, but the wider scientific opinion. The drug companies get a good working over too, as your video shows. Quite right too. A rare side effect apparently.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/a...cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood-platelets

You just keep believing everything a gang of headbangers says!
Not sure why, "denialism" is a phenomenon of its own and it isn't clear what purpose it serves.

 

[Jacob]

31 Million so far, but nobody wants to talk about it.

BMJ seems to be talking about it? You are talking about it - what do you make of it yourself?
Have you read around the topic?

This just popped up in my YouTube feed. I think it’s very worrying what the drug companies are getting away with. I didn’t know about the polio Vaccine, truly shocking.

Didn't bother watching this headbanger nonsense.
What we do know about the polio vaccine is that it virtually eliminated polio.

 

[Ed Weber]

I'll just add a couple of points to this meandering thread.
1. It's pretty telling what comes up on Vulcan's YouTube feed
2. I trust my Doctors, you know, the people who actually study the body, medicine, etc,, over a bunch of YouTube randos who are pushing conspiracies.

 

[RobinBHM]

It may be a small percentage but it’s still of concern.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001201_EN.html

Then there’s this.

View attachment 189664

“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ective-covid-vaccine-severe-illness-rcna71027

I personally don’t know anyone that hasn’t had Covid.

infection acquired immunity is a great option

its not such a great option if the infection kills you

 

[RobinBHM]

Proof of Vaccine Harm?



Linked BMJ document:

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

good old John Campbell

he has a youtube channel that started out as being informative and unbiased.............and then he realised he could massively increase his subscriber base by disappearing down a conspiracist rabbit hole

I actually went to the effor tof fact checking him very carefully and discovered he had doctored the numbers he quoted that originated from a study.

if you look at his videos he often has a piece of paper with a print out which he then writes notes on -those print outs are created by him and are sometimes the figures are edited to suit his narrative

 

[RobinBHM]

I do wish you'd look at peer-reviewed high impact journals

for those interested in such things, here are a few:

Nature.com
Oxford academic
the Lancet
Wiley online
elsevier
centre for disease control and prevention


these sources may include biased studies due to funding or specifically commissioned for a specific outcome.........but they will be real scientific studies and you can see the methodology, who funded it, who carried out the study etc.

anything from facebook, youtube, substack, twitter etc must assumed to be unreliable at best and conspiracy theory at worst.........sadly people who quote for these almost never do any due diligence / cross referencing etc

 

[RobinBHM]

I'll just add a couple of points to this meandering thread.
1. It's pretty telling what comes up on Vulcan's YouTube feed
2. I trust my Doctors, you know, the people who actually study the body, medicine, etc,, over a bunch of YouTube randos who are pushing conspiracies.

social media algorithms are very good at radicalising people

I have no doubt if a person started searching for "there is evidence they are eating the dogs" then no doubt that person recommendations would provide loads of videos of dogs, cats, geese, ducks, swans etc being eaten.