Going to take another deadly gamble on your health, with the new vaccinations?

@Zeusdelight These figures are BIG. Just ONE death in a clinical trial should cause a halt. But THOUSANDS?!! but they just kept on going. Why?

@WalterF Really, one death. What is your experience in analysing clinical trials?

@Zeusdelight I teach a master class in Clinical Research and Pharmacovigilance at one of the most renowned French Universities.

But you are changing the argument. With these covid injections, they cannot hide the hundreds and thousands of deaths caused by them. Nor the hundreds OF thousands of (harmless, of course) adverse events

@WalterF So, we have gone from thousands to hundreds of thousands. What are those figures based on?

@Zeusdelight Did you read the post?

@WalterF I did that is why I asked the question. In the post 1223 is the number of deaths, not hundreds of thousands.

@Zeusdelight My mistake, I think. I was referring to adverse events, of which there were more than 100,000 known ones (including death). I did not mean to imply that Pfizer had conceded such a huge number of deaths (although if external evidence is included, "hundreds of thousands" may be a very conservative estimate).

In any case, 1223 deaths is an unacceptable figure. Obviously, any drug should have been pulled long before that point

@WalterF What do you think the resultant deaths from Covid would have been if the drugs were pulled? Are or we going to get into an argument about the veracity of the statistics?

@Zeusdelight No, no argument envisaged. But many experts say (not, of course, the recognised "experts", but others, equally well if not better qualified than those who opinions are accepted) say that covid was a bad flu, not at all justifying the mega-reaction.

@WalterF Well I think you have got to the nub of the issue. There seem to be the experts who have been listened to and the experts who are out of the loop who have not been listened to.

My question has always been to the experts who are out of the loop, why have they chosen to be out of the loop if they are better qualified than some who are inside? And who can actually judge that they are better qualified than those in the loop?

It is much harder, in my view, to keep working in the loop than to have a position outside of the loop.

@Zeusdelight I don't think it's a matter of CHOICE.

Those outside the loop are the ones whose research and past experience and common sense have led them to have doubts about key questions (the seriousness of this disease; the supposed vulnerability of all age groups as opposed to merely the elderly and people with existing conditions; the need for universal vaccination; the creation of a vaccination in beyond record time; the abandonment of existing well thought out and agreed international pandemic reaction plans; etc, etc. - the list could go on and on).

Because they expressed doubts on some or all of these questions, they were seen to be contesting the unified message that the media were drumming into our minds, following instructions received from Big Pharma and other Bigs, and they were SILENCED - cancelled, deemed to be tin-hatted conspiracy theorists, bioterrorists, granny-killers (!), etc. All the dirt and insults imaginable were dished on them.

Despite their impressive qualifications and experience in the health industry, they were / are passed off as imbeciles and dangerous maniacs.

They didn’t CHOOSE to be outside the loop. They were firmly and viciously PLACED there.

Hence the relatively new term: "The Science" (trademark).

Not "science," where there is - and almost always has been - debate and questioning and contribution from all sides; but rather, an enforced message, with no right of appeal.

Highly suspect. The whole operation has destroyed millions, by death, AEs, loss of jobs, ruined education, ruined childhood, damaged economies... While a tiny minority got vastly rich overnight

Personally, I have not complied, and will not comply to their demands.