They admitted in court that the vaccines contain blood clots. Don’t believe the media headline regarding supply. Use your logic. They’ve admitted it’s caused 80 deaths. This is just the start. When the real harm is revealed things will be shocking.
80 deaths out of tens of millions of doses is statistically insignificant, however awful it must have been for those people. I would prefer to look at all the millions who may have died of Covid if not for the vaccines, and no conspiracy theorist will ever persuade me otherwise. So you're not right now and you weren't right then.
First they said it was 100% effective. This was a lie. The vaccine certainly wasn’t effective. It didn’t stop transmission. Then they said it’s 100% safe. It’s not, and they’re finally admitting that it’s not safe. (It’s much much worse than they’re admitting currently by the way). I was right about both. Thanks.
You're making statements without backing them up with any solid evidence whatsoever. No one will say anything is 100% effective or safe. That is nonsense.
Who is forcing anyone to take any vaccines? But there was a time when they were essential to getting life restarted. 300 Americans a year die from anaesthetic during operations. 150 people a year die from falling coconuts. I just think the conspiracy people are blowing this up - when really we should we banning coconut trees.
It was never claimed, and it's good for every vaccine, to be 100% safe or effective at any point, your post is a lie, totally misleading. Oh by the way vaccines play a part in reducing transmission by preventing infection or reducing viral load. You were wrong then and are now, there will be no great 'revelation'. Posting this will have no effect on your delusions or is it wind ups, but may be of interest to others. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/...-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/ "Social media users (AKA crackpot conspiraloons) are circulating video clips of testimony by a Pfizer executive, who is said to “admit” that the company and its partner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out – which is something the companies were not required to do for initial regulatory approval, nor did they claim to have done. To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time. As these results on transmission were emerging in early 2021, national health authorities in many countries implemented or proposed vaccine-passport-style regulations that prompted ongoing debate (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi5245, opens new tab) over the ethical and legal basis of the rules. The misleading posts imply that national restrictions such as vaccine passports were based on a promise of vaccines blocking virus spread that neither the companies nor EU regulators made before the vaccines were marketed." There's lots more involving transmission reduction here including. "VACCINE DID REDUCE TRANSMISSION Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUKKBN2AQ1A7) and Israel (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762, opens new tab(21)00127-7/fulltext) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus. In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736, opens new tab(21)00448-7/fulltext) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person.
It's not just the trees. https://killercows.co.uk/facts-stats/when-cows-attack/ 74 fatal attacks in the UK since 2000. please log in to view this image
https://x.com/13orangesbc/status/1786424878234509447?s=46 Here are videos of doctors on ITV’s morning show saying vaccines are 100% safe and effective. Also Rishi Sunak and Boris used the words 100% safe and effective. You guys doing mental gymnastics to protect corrupt Tory politicians is truly amazing for me to witness
And yet they said it, pushed endless propaganda about it and tried to enforce travel bans to force people into having a dangerous injection
I assumed you meant Astra-Zeneca - who claimed 79% effectiveness and had to back down to 76%. Who cares what Sunak and Boris say? They are idiots. Paracetamol isn't 100% safe and effective.
That is utter bollocks. A vaccine that may have side effects for a tiny proportion of the population is not dangerous. There is more danger in driving to work.
@Osvaldorama I have taken you at face value here and gone to find where that idiot Boris said vaccines were 100% safe. The internet has not got one quote backing that up. Can you find me one? He says they are safe but never says 100% safe. Are you just making things up?
I heard 50% to 70% protection, almost 100% at preventing deaths and could save your life. As for protecting the tory arseholes how you can draw that conclusion requires a huge stretch of your imagination, it's just not so.
