Quote from JedRothwell

I would say the Chinese sinovac vaccine does not work well against the Delta variant, and it does not work well until after the second dose. That is the main one they are using. That is no coincidence. I would also say that 10 deaths out of 26,000 cases means the vaccine is preventing serious illness.

They used the Sinovac vaccine in the past, but it doesn't count anymore. Their count is based on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations. Yes they appear to largely prevent serious illness, but recall the issue at hand : virus spread in a highly immunized population.

Jurg's Heil and Navid's Reich have inspired me.

A masked man knocks on the door of Jedidiah's home in the good old USA.

Knock knock.

Jedidiah : who's there?

MM : Heil Foxci!

Jedidiah : Pardon me? (opens door fully)

MM : Heil Fauxci!

Jedidiah : Excuse me? You're sounding muffled.

Jedidiah : How about you remove 3 of your 4 layers of mask, and I'll add an additional 3 layers to mine, and we should be safe.

MM : OK. (removes three layers)

MM : I.L. Fauci!

Jedidiah : It can't be! You're too young. And tall! And what does I.L. mean?

MM : Illustrious Leader. I'm not him of course, but I'm here on his behalf. You have been chosen to present his message to the Forum.

Jedidiah : Oh! Yes isn't he wonderful! Just like Governor Cuo... I mean, never mind.

Jedidiah : Present what message, and ... what is that strange strobing light hanging from your neck?

MM : You like it? It's a light of immense power, and unfortunately it is meant to both hypnotize you and erase your memory of this meeting.

Jeddidiah : Very funny. The light is almost hurting my eyes, but oddly I don't see a connection to a power source.

MM : Very perceptive of you. It has a power source but it's very tiny. And exotic.

Jedidiah : Oh now I'm really interested, please explain.

MM : It's classified, but since you'll forget anyway, I'll just tell you it's an exotic energy source from an Italian American inventor.

Jedidiah : No. It can't be.

MM : It can. And you're changing the subject. Now to the matter at hand. You will listen intently to what I say

Jedidiah : Intently

MM : Vaccines are totally safe and effective.

Jedidiah : safe and effective

MM : Even if the vaccine has you incapacitated in bed for two days, it's just a immune strengthening process, and you're not really sick

Jedidiah : not really sick

(This goes on for 15 minutes)

Jedidiah : That's strange, sorry somehow I must have blacked out. Maybe it was all the layers of masks. No wait. Masks are very effective and very safe. Anyway. You were saying something about presenting a message?

MM : I know you like the Governor of New York, and the new one is even better. Build back better, you know.

Jedidiah : Yes, build back better. Wait ... for some odd reason I have an urge to sell my house and my beautiful new computer and screens and my powerful AV system and just rent instead

MM : To make you even more happy, here is my business card with the URL for a video I know will trigger the best in you.

MM : Have a great day!

From a liberal source:

The Risk to Kids From COVID Is Miniscule. Do Not Let Them Mandate Vaccines | Opinion

Do Not Let Them Mandate Vaccines | Opinion

I remember quite clearly the first time I explained what COVID was to my young children in early March of 2020. I lay down in one of their beds at bedtime and told them about what it was and how it might affect our lives for the next few weeks or perhaps even the next month or two (oh, how naive I was then!).

I reassured them about their safety and ours, and pulled up a chart from China and Italy about the death rates broken down by age. I explained to them the nature of the virus, that it thankfully spared children of their age, and almost everyone under the age of 40. I comforted them that their grandparents and great-grandmother would exercise caution due to their increased risk, but thankfully, everyone their parents' age and down, but kids especially, were statistically quite safe from ill-effects, even if they were to get sick.

Nearly two years later, the data has continued to bear this out. As the New York Times' David Leonhardt pointed out this week, an unvaccinated child is at less risk of serious Covid illness than a vaccinated 70-year-old—even a vaccinated 40-year-old, according to a British study.

Nationwide statistics from England show an even larger age skew. Children under 12 (a group that’s combined with teenagers in this chart) appear to be at less risk than vaccinated people in their 40s if not 30s.

Indeed, the realization that COVID infection carries different risks depending on age is a well-known fact internationally. The risks for kids "are similar to the other respiratory viruses you probably don't think much about," Alasdair Munro, a Clinical Research Fellow Paediatric Infectious Diseases with NIH in the United Kingdom, explained on Twitter. In fact, for children pre-school age and under, viruses like RSV are much more likely to result in hospitalization than COVID.

Unfortunately, for many Americans, this is new information—thanks to the fact that unlike Leonhardt, too many in the liberal media have pushed a hysteria when it comes to kids and COVID. And it's skewed the way parents are relating to the subject.

As a pediatrician in a liberal stronghold on the West Coast told me recently, "I've seen a ton of COVID; when I try to reassure parents that kids don't spread it and are low-risk, I often am met with a confused response. They are not hearing the same thing from other trusted sources."

The information is out there. That's not the problem. The problem is the refusal of thought-leaders in the media and government to adjust their rhetoric on kids and COVID, which has resulted in real consequences for an entire generation of kids.

Parents in liberal strongholds ended up putting their own children at a disadvantage because of misplaced fears stoked by those in power and in the media. Fully recognizing that online schooling was of lower quality than in-person instruction, they were still reluctant to prioritize the return of in-person instruction because of misinformation in liberal circles about the dangers of COVID to kids. "While school was clearly a challenge, and it may have been the decisions of teachers and administrators to keep things online, it is also clear that the parents very often preferred that," the 2021 American Family Survey from Deseret News and the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University found.

And now this misinformation about the risk of COVID to kids is driving yet another trend in this pandemic: the possibility, and many think probability, of vaccine mandates for kids to return to in-person education. This is already reality in California, and there's the possibility of it spreading to more states and counties in the U.S.

How is this happening, given how low the risk to kids from COVID is?

Throughout the pandemic, COVID extremists promised massive pediatric death tolls, whenever a school would reopen or a mask mandate was dropped. These promised death tolls, mercifully, never materialized, and yet we have learned no lessons about the dangers of COVID when it comes to kids, or the lack thereof.

Many parents are waking up. In one survey, just 44 percent of parents said it was important for students and teachers to be vaccinated, while 55 percent believed it was unimportant or were neutral. And in a new Axios-Ipsos poll, just 47 percent of parents planned to vaccinate their kids, with 42 percent leaning against.

Given the very clear data on the risk of COVID to kids—"so low as to be difficult to quantify," as the Times' Leonhardt put it, why the rush to vaccinate kids? And more importantly, why the rush to mandate it when most parents are unconvinced it's necessary, even after the scaremongering we've unscientifically been subjected to?

Scotland's excess deaths at highest since January But it can't all (or even mostly) be blamed on COVID ... what is killing people?

The 315 excess deaths logged last week represents a 30% increase on the five-year pre-pandemic average for this time of year.

They include;

• 44 cancer deaths,
• 40 more deaths linked to circulatory conditions,
• 27 dementia or Alzheimer's deaths,
• and seven from respiratory conditions.

This marks the 20th consecutive week with excess deaths above the five-year average, and highest since the week ending 10 January, 2021.

Lockdown wellbeing: children who spent more time in nature fared best

Children from less affluent backgrounds are likely to have found COVID-19 lockdowns more challenging to their mental health because they experienced a lower connection with nature than their wealthier peers, a new study suggests.

A study has found that children who increased their connection to nature during the first COVID-19 lockdown were likely to have lower levels of behavioural and emotional problems, compared to those whose connection to nature stayed the same or decreased - regardless of their socio-economic status.

The study, by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the University of Sussex, also found that children from affluent families tended to have increased their connection to nature during the pandemic more than their less affluent peers.

Nearly two thirds of parents reported a change in their child’s connection to nature during lockdown, while a third of children whose connection to nature decreased displayed increased problems of wellbeing - either through ‘acting out’ or by increased sadness or anxiety.

The results strengthen the case for nature as a low-cost method of mental health support for children, and suggest that more effort should be made to support children in connecting with nature - both at home and at school.

The researchers’ suggestions for achieving this include: reducing the number of structured extracurricular activities for children to allow for more time outside, provision of gardening projects in schools, and funding for schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to implement nature-based learning programmes.

The study, published today in the journal People and Nature, also offers important guidance in relation to potential future restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We know that access to and engagement with nature is associated with wide-ranging benefits in children and adults, including lowering levels of anxiety and depression, and reducing stress,” said Samantha Friedman, a researcher in the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Family Research, first author of the study.

She added: “The COVID-19 lockdowns meant that children no longer had their normal school activities, routines and social interactions. The removal of these barriers gave us a novel context to look at how changes in connection with nature affected mental health.

“Connecting with nature may have helped buffer some UK children against the effects of the lockdown, but we found that children from less affluent families were less likely to have increased their connection to nature during that time.”

An increased connection to nature was reflected in reports of children spending time gardening, playing in the garden or doing physical activities outdoors. This was commonly linked to having more time available for these activities during lockdown. Conversely, according to parents, a decreased connection to nature was explained by an inability to access some natural spaces due to travel restrictions in place at the time.

“Connecting to nature may be an effective way of supporting children’s wellbeing, particularly as children return to normal routines, such as school and extracurricular activities,” said Dr Elian Fink, a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sussex who was also involved in the study.

She added: “Our findings could be helpful in redesigning lockdown rules should the UK need to return to these conditions in the future, and particularly to countries whose lockdown restrictions prevented children from accessing nature at all.

“Extending the amount of time that children can access nature, or extending the distance that children could be allowed to travel to access nature, could have a beneficial impact on their mental health.”

The study used an online survey to collect responses from 376 families in the UK, with children between three and seven years old, between April and July 2020. Over half of these families reported that their child’s connection to nature increased during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The remaining parents whose children’s connection to nature decreased or stayed the same during this period also reported that their children were experiencing greater wellbeing problems.

A widely-used, gold standard questionnaire was used as a measure of each child’s mental health - assessing emotional problems such as unhappiness, worrying, anxiety and depression; and behavioural problems such as anger and hyperactivity.

“Mental health problems can manifest in different ways in different children. We found that a greater connection with nature was associated with reductions in both emotional and behavioural problems,” said Fink.

She added: “In reality the contrasting experiences of access to nature between different socio-economic groups may be even starker than our study found because respondents to our online study were largely drawn from more affluent societal groups.”

Parents with children between three and seven years old responded to the study survey with reference to one particular child. The researchers focused on this age group because they were likely to experience a lot of disruption due to the pandemic, and also have less understanding of what was happening.

“Our study revealed the wide range of ways that parents can help children get more connected to nature. This might be a bit daunting to some, but it doesn’t have to be camping in the woods and foraging for food – it really can be as simple as going for a walk near your house or sitting outside for ten minutes a day,” said Friedman.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Quote from Fm1

Lockdown wellbeing: children who spent more time in nature fared best

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/931336

Children from less affluent backgrounds are likely to have found COVID-19 lockdowns more challenging to their mental health because they experienced a lower connection with nature than their wealthier peers, a new study suggests.

A study has found that children who increased their connection to nature during the first COVID-19 lockdown were likely to have lower levels of behavioural and emotional problems, compared to those whose connection to nature stayed the same or decreased - regardless of their socio-economic status.

The study, by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the University of Sussex, also found that children from affluent families tended to have increased their connection to nature during the pandemic more than their less affluent peers.

Nearly two thirds of parents reported a change in their child’s connection to nature during lockdown, while a third of children whose connection to nature decreased displayed increased problems of wellbeing - either through ‘acting out’ or by increased sadness or anxiety.

The results strengthen the case for nature as a low-cost method of mental health support for children, and suggest that more effort should be made to support children in connecting with nature - both at home and at school.

The researchers’ suggestions for achieving this include: reducing the number of structured extracurricular activities for children to allow for more time outside, provision of gardening projects in schools, and funding for schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to implement nature-based learning programmes.

The study, published today in the journal People and Nature, also offers important guidance in relation to potential future restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We know that access to and engagement with nature is associated with wide-ranging benefits in children and adults, including lowering levels of anxiety and depression, and reducing stress,” said Samantha Friedman, a researcher in the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Family Research, first author of the study.

She added: “The COVID-19 lockdowns meant that children no longer had their normal school activities, routines and social interactions. The removal of these barriers gave us a novel context to look at how changes in connection with nature affected mental health.

“Connecting with nature may have helped buffer some UK children against the effects of the lockdown, but we found that children from less affluent families were less likely to have increased their connection to nature during that time.”

An increased connection to nature was reflected in reports of children spending time gardening, playing in the garden or doing physical activities outdoors. This was commonly linked to having more time available for these activities during lockdown. Conversely, according to parents, a decreased connection to nature was explained by an inability to access some natural spaces due to travel restrictions in place at the time.

“Connecting to nature may be an effective way of supporting children’s wellbeing, particularly as children return to normal routines, such as school and extracurricular activities,” said Dr Elian Fink, a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sussex who was also involved in the study.

She added: “Our findings could be helpful in redesigning lockdown rules should the UK need to return to these conditions in the future, and particularly to countries whose lockdown restrictions prevented children from accessing nature at all.

“Extending the amount of time that children can access nature, or extending the distance that children could be allowed to travel to access nature, could have a beneficial impact on their mental health.”

The study used an online survey to collect responses from 376 families in the UK, with children between three and seven years old, between April and July 2020. Over half of these families reported that their child’s connection to nature increased during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The remaining parents whose children’s connection to nature decreased or stayed the same during this period also reported that their children were experiencing greater wellbeing problems.

A widely-used, gold standard questionnaire was used as a measure of each child’s mental health - assessing emotional problems such as unhappiness, worrying, anxiety and depression; and behavioural problems such as anger and hyperactivity.

“Mental health problems can manifest in different ways in different children. We found that a greater connection with nature was associated with reductions in both emotional and behavioural problems,” said Fink.

She added: “In reality the contrasting experiences of access to nature between different socio-economic groups may be even starker than our study found because respondents to our online study were largely drawn from more affluent societal groups.”

Parents with children between three and seven years old responded to the study survey with reference to one particular child. The researchers focused on this age group because they were likely to experience a lot of disruption due to the pandemic, and also have less understanding of what was happening.

“Our study revealed the wide range of ways that parents can help children get more connected to nature. This might be a bit daunting to some, but it doesn’t have to be camping in the woods and foraging for food – it really can be as simple as going for a walk near your house or sitting outside for ten minutes a day,” said Friedman.

https://besjournals.onlinelibr…i/full/10.1002/pan3.10270

Display More

Fake news.

Only someone in an idiot in a death cult would gamble with their kids lives using a study like this. Nature is not proven until we have the world's experts sign off and I'm not sure these are those experts.

Further, this study isn't even an RCT. I will trust it when Pharma compares it in a gold standard to our best anti-depressants. I suspect that at the population level trusting parents to use nature is not going to be as cheap, safe or effective as mass prophylaxis with cheap and proven anti-depressants. Don't listen to the anti-pharma antivaxxers.

Quote from Navid

Fake news.

Only someone in an idiot in a death cult would gamble with their kids lives using a study like this. Nature is not proven until we have the world's experts sign off and I'm not sure these are those experts.

Further, this study isn't even an RCT. I will trust it when Pharma compares it in a gold standard to our best anti-depressants. I suspect that at the population level trusting parents to use nature is not going to be as cheap as mass prophylaxis with cheap anti-depressants. Don't listen to the anti-pharma antivaxxers.

Big pharma cringes when a dad yells rub some dirt on it tape it up with DuckTape and let's go. I heard that many times as a child. Funny, I never get infections now as an adult. Thanks dad!!!!!

Quote from Mark U

It's like Lithuania, where their Covid pass with its QR code that denies the non vaxxed access to places like supermarkets, is called the Opportunity Pass.

The world wide fascists (free masons, rotary) are back and try to take over all states by enforcing totalitarian laws. Two members here fully support them.

In Italy a X-mafia state leader has to do the dirty stuff. So we see all mafia branches are involved.

Quote from JedRothwell

I really think the notion that we should allow lunatic Death Cult fanatics

Sorry Sir. The only death cult (free mason) member here are you and THH...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The 315 excess deaths logged last week represents a 30% increase on the five-year pre-pandemic average for this time of year.

They include;

A first UK study in 2020 did show that only about 15% are CoV-19 deaths all the rest had severe comorbidity. This is an other reason why we say vaccines just shift the point in time of death. Nothing else.

And vaccines kill 100x more children and cripple 1000x more children than CoV-19....

US Seeing a Decline in COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, Deaths

US Seeing a Decline in COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, Deaths

The United States is seeing a drop in COVID-19 cases, as well as hospitalizations and deaths related to ...

www.theepochtimes.com

Imagine the possibilities, if only we had an early treatment, Covid would be a memory !!! instead...............

Quote from Wyttenbach

And vaccines kill 100x more children and cripple 1000x more children than CoV-19....

Let's store this and do a reality check in two year from now. The good thing with this forum thread is you can go back and forth in time to see and verify a lot of claims, from all parties.

Quote from Fm1

Imagine the possibilities, if only we had an early treatment, Covid would be a memory !!!

If 70% or 80% of people would get vaccinated, COVID would be a memory. We don't need early treatment. Early treatment costs hundreds or thousands more than a vaccination, and the patient must often undergo weeks of misery and life threatening illness even with the best early treatment. The cost to society in lost work is also high.

Shane D: It seems to me you have an extreme double standard. One standard for COVID vaccines, and another for all other medical treatments. Consider this --

Weeks before a person goes in for eye surgery, he has to stop using contact lenses, and he has to apply various eyedrops several times a day. After surgery he has to continue with various drops for a month. Imagine that the patient refused to do these things. No surgeon would agree to perform the operation, even if it meant the patient would go blind. I am sure you would agree with the surgeon. So why would you object to a surgeon who demands the patient be vaccinated for COVID? The post-op condition after a serious operation leaves a person vulnerable to infectious disease. COVID might well kill the patient.

To take another example, if you have something like an infection or high blood pressure before an operation, they will delay for a few weeks while the problem is treated. (That happened to me once.) The patient may have to take medication to fix the problem. Surely you agree this is necessary. You would not dispute the doctors' judgment that the infection must be cleared with antibiotics before proceeding. So why would you dispute the doctors judgment that the patient must be protected against COVID before the operation? Would you object to any other vaccination, such as the one for pneumonia or tetanus? Why is the COVID vaccine any different from these others? The only difference I know is that it is far safer. If the patient does not want the newer mRNA technology, he can get a J&J adenovirus vaccine.

Suppose a patient was going to India for so-called medical tourism, for a hip replacement. Before people travel to India it is highly recommended they get hepatitis A and B shots. If the doctors in India and the US insisted the patient be vaccinated for hepatitis before boarding the airplane, would you say this interferes in the patient's rights? I am sure you would not! I am sure you would agree that the trip should be canceled if the patient does not follow the doctors' orders.

Quote from Mark U

Yes they appear to largely prevent serious illness, but recall the issue at hand : virus spread in a highly immunized population.

Yes, this is common knowledge. The Delta virus spreads in a highly immunized population, but it spreads at a far lower transmission rate than in an unvaccinated population. For example, in the July 2021 Massachusetts COVID outbreak, 75% of the patients were vaccinated. However, 95% of everyone in the crowd was vaccinated, so the unvaccinated 5% had 25% of the cases, 5 times more than the vaccinated people. This is the base rate problem. See, for example:

Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?

A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective…

www.covid-datascience.com

In other words, if the people in Singapore had not been vaccinated, there would have been more cases, and many more deaths. You can see an example of this in the data from Vietnam. The Delta outbreak was severe because only a small fraction of the population was vaccinated when it began.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Joe Rogan Show: CNN Shouldn’t Have Lied & Called Ivermectin Horse-Deworm Medication

Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Joe Rogan Show: CNN Shouldn’t Have Lied & Called Ivermectin Horse-Deworm Medication

CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta found himself in the hot seat on the Joe Rogan show. Ostensibly there to promote a book Fox News played back the interaction where

trialsitenews.com

CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta found himself in the hot seat on the Joe Rogan show. Ostensibly there to promote a book Fox News played back the interaction where Dr. Gupta clearly articulated that CNN crossed a line lying about ivermectin. Rogan grilled Gupta on whether it was the right thing to do to outright lie about ivermectin—a drug that has helped hundreds of millions of people. He reminded Gupta the drug’s inventors won the Nobel Prize and that it is used in Japan. Gupta became incredibly uncomfortable, fumbled along, tried to change the focus, and even nervously brought up that the FDA in a snarky kind of way tweeted that the drug was for horses, clearly realizing he was in a sort of Rogan trap. Ultimately CNN’s top doctor came to his senses and acknowledged that it’s a great drug, that his employer was mistaken, and that even the FDA’s move seemed like a cheap potshot.

Rogan pressed on that it becomes incredibly dangerous when major news platforms such as CNN outright lie based on some agenda. Dr. Gupta, ultimately a man with ethics and integrity, came out and declared what CNN did was wrong.

Gupta recognized that hundreds of millions of people have been treated safely; he further admitted that the drug’s inventors won the Nobel Prize and he accepted that it’s a very different situation if Rogan (or any COVID-19 patient) receives their ivermectin from a licensed physician. Rogan was able to expose CNN, the FDA, and others’ agenda conflating veterinary ivermectin and the version made for humans.

While Rogan reminded Gupta that he is the top doctor at CNN and that such outright lying shouldn’t happen under his watch, Gupta did have the decency to at least accept publicly that his employer made a mistake.

TrialSite has followed ivermectin studies since the first lab study at the University of Monash. Over 60 studies have been conducted around the world. While a few of the studies have proven to have problems, many others do not. Yet the media, regulators, and health agencies have ganged up on the drug to make it a false dilemma—ivermectin versus vaccination. This of course is hogwash. The U.S. government paid AstraZeneca $486 million to develop treatments for COVID-19 as prophylaxis as well as awarded $356 million to Merck to develop antiviral medication. Since Merck has announced results (with no data access) the mainstream media has served as free publicity.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated just how biased the U.S. and world health system has become in favor of select branded drugs at the expense of other potentially legitimate approaches. This must change.

Quote from JedRothwell

Shane D: It seems to me you have an extreme double standard. One standard for COVID vaccines, and another for all other medical treatments. Consider this --

Weeks before a person goes in for eye surgery, he has to stop using contact lenses, and he has to apply various eyedrops several times a day. After surgery he has to continue with various drops for a month. Imagine that the patient refused to do these things. No surgeon would agree to perform the operation, even if it meant the patient would go blind. I am sure you would agree with the surgeon. So why would you object to a surgeon who demands the patient be vaccinated for COVID? The post-op condition after a serious operation leaves a person vulnerable to infectious disease. COVID might well kill the patient.

To take another example, if you have something like an infection or high blood pressure before an operation, they will delay for a few weeks while the problem is treated. (That happened to me once.) The patient may have to take medication to fix the problem. Surely you agree this is necessary. You would not dispute the doctors' judgment that the infection must be cleared with antibiotics before proceeding. So why would you dispute the doctors judgment that the patient must be protected against COVID before the operation? Would you object to any other vaccination, such as the one for pneumonia or tetanus? Why is the COVID vaccine any different from these others? The only difference I know is that it is far safer. If the patient does not want the newer mRNA technology, he can get a J&J adenovirus vaccine.

Suppose a patient was going to India for so-called medical tourism, for a hip replacement. Before people travel to India it is highly recommended they get hepatitis A and B shots. If the doctors in India and the US insisted the patient be vaccinated for hepatitis before boarding the airplane, would you say this interferes in the patient's rights? I am sure you would not! I am sure you would agree that the trip should be canceled if the patient does not follow the doctors' orders.

Display More

Needing a new kidney is not an elective procedure, so your analogies don't apply. This patient had Stage 5 disease and will probably die without a transplant. So by your and the surgeons reasoning, the patient should be allowed to meet her almost certain death without a new kidney, because if he does the transplant she MIGHT catch COVID post-op, and MIGHT die from it.

The only way that makes sense is to look at it through the lens of ruthless political ideology, not medicine.

Quote from zorud

The good thing with this forum thread is you can go back and forth in time to see and verify a lot of claims, from all parties.

So lets go back to 2020.

Arrest by a "few" policeman of a doctor that tells the public that CoV-19 is more like a flu than a dangerous illness...

Heiko Schöning, M.D. arrested unlawful at Speakers Corner London 26.09.2020, Interview on English

Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss (www.ACU 2020.org)Spenden / Support "ACU" IBAN: DE 17430609674127654801 PayPal: kontakt@aerzte-fuer-aufk...

www.youtube.com

Of course nothing happened out of this!

In a historical event (first time since 900 years) a German doctor has been arrested for talking at the speakers corner.

Organisiertes Verbrechen: COVID-19 und ANTHRAX-01 – Interview mit Heiko Schöning

https://www.kla.tv/20144

www.kla.tv

Here his most recent interview (in German sorry)

His newest book "game over" is about the FM/R/J/B mafia that since 2020 took control with a planned attack on the population.

He did work on this stuff since 2001 where the famous anthrax attack happened by a whistle blower that finally stopped the first planned attack. He already early in 2019 published that we will see the next attack soon...

France Rejects Forced Vaccine Mandates on Children–Senate rejects proposed law on Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccination

France Rejects Forced Vaccine Mandates on Children--Senate rejects proposed law on Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccination

A political party in France called the Socialists failed in an attempt to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine across the nation via inclusion in a mandatory

trialsitenews.com

A political party in France called the Socialists failed in an attempt to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine across the nation via inclusion in a mandatory national vaccination list necessary for all people in France born in 2018 or after. Consequently, the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be on this list of mandatory vaccinations. The French Senate ultimately rejected the bill seeking to make the COVID-19 vaccine included in the mandatory list. Titled “establishing vaccination mandatory against SARS-CoV-2,” the bill was ultimately put to the side by members of the Socialist Group in late August and was just finally rejected during an October 13 session by a vote of 262 to 64. As a result, the parliamentary effort to mandate these vaccines in France won’t proceed moving forward. However, it’s a moot point as a rigorous vaccine passport system governs behavior in France now and moving forward. While many praise this health pass system others lament the socio-economic inequities that result.

What’s fascinating is how the left and right politics have transformed over the past few years in places like America and France. The traditional left political goals often included an anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment paradigm interested in class and racial inequalities, environment, and universal health for example. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) we suspect would have formulated a very different response to America’s mandate should it have originated from previous POTUS Trump for example. But with the current Biden administration the ACLU is supportive of mandates. In fact, they go one step further and argue that vaccine mandates increase liberties.

Traditionally intertwined with redistributive policies, often in alignment with trade unions, the Socialist Group here became synonymous with a uniform, one-size fits-all approach to overcoming the pandemic via forced inoculation of all children born in 2018 or after.

France Political Parties

With a multi-party system in France, the dynamic politics are unlike what has unfolded in the United States. Continual negotiation and compromise are encouraged as several competing political parties make it a requirement for the government to work. A series of shifting alliances and coalitions progress the people’s business including whether in this case to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine.

Traditionally French politics here was dominated by two relatively stable coalitions including 1) center-left politics led by the Socialist Party which include minor partners The Greens and the Radical Party of the Left and 2) the center-right cohort led by The Republicans and Union of Democrats and Independents.

A change came to the world by 2016 in the U.S. and France in 2017 with the election of the current French president Emmanuel Macron, a centrist from La Republique En Marche, an independent party. This victory represented the first time a third party won the national election. He beat out the right-winger Marine Le Pen of the National Rally.

Voting Along Partisan Lines

According to the French Senate public site the Socialists nearly universally sought out mandatory vaccines, joined only by a few from the center and the right. Most other groups were opposed to any mandatory vaccines while 14 of the senators abstained.

The sentiment of the majority was summed up by Adrien Taquet, the Secretary of State for Children and Families who declared “We prefer to convince than to coerce.”

Vaccine Passport in France

Called Health Pass (pass sanitaire) it would extend the vaccine passport system to July 31, 2022.

Presently this ubiquitous national vaccine passport scheme drives more vaccination as it is increasingly necessary for employees and patrons of business to prove vaccination status. For example, proof of COVID-19 vaccination is necessary for employees as well as customers to access long-distance transport or even local restaurants, cafes, bars, movie theaters, sporting events, and the like.

The Cost—Inequity for Some

But there are socio-economic costs for such a system. A two-tier class system could possibly emerge essentially amounting to a situation where one set of the population checks on the others with the rights of children and poorer communities trounced upon.

Along these lines critics lament that the French vaccine passport system carries inherently socio-economic and racial bias as activists such as Claire Hedon of la Defenseure des droits (defender of rights) declared recently that a “democratic debate” should have occurred prior to the passage of a law that “is suggesting deep changes to rights and freedoms, which are really the foundation of our social and republic pact.”

Covid-19 : le Sénat rejette la proposition de loi sur l’obligation vaccinale

Le vaccin contre le covid-19 ne rejoindra pas la liste des vaccinations obligatoires. Les sénateurs n’ont pas adopté ce 13 octobre la proposition de loi…

www.publicsenat.fr

Quote from JedRothwell

Shane D: It seems to me you have an extreme double standard. One standard for COVID vaccines, and another for all other medical treatments. Consider this --

Weeks before a person goes in for eye surgery, he has to stop using contact lenses, and he has to apply various eyedrops several times a day. After surgery he has to continue with various drops for a month. Imagine that the patient refused to do these things. No surgeon would agree to perform the operation, even if it meant the patient would go blind. I am sure you would agree with the surgeon. So why would you object to a surgeon who demands the patient be vaccinated for COVID? The post-op condition after a serious operation leaves a person vulnerable to infectious disease. COVID might well kill the patient.

To take another example, if you have something like an infection or high blood pressure before an operation, they will delay for a few weeks while the problem is treated. (That happened to me once.) The patient may have to take medication to fix the problem. Surely you agree this is necessary. You would not dispute the doctors' judgment that the infection must be cleared with antibiotics before proceeding. So why would you dispute the doctors judgment that the patient must be protected against COVID before the operation? Would you object to any other vaccination, such as the one for pneumonia or tetanus? Why is the COVID vaccine any different from these others? The only difference I know is that it is far safer. If the patient does not want the newer mRNA technology, he can get a J&J adenovirus vaccine.

Suppose a patient was going to India for so-called medical tourism, for a hip replacement. Before people travel to India it is highly recommended they get hepatitis A and B shots. If the doctors in India and the US insisted the patient be vaccinated for hepatitis before boarding the airplane, would you say this interferes in the patient's rights? I am sure you would not! I am sure you would agree that the trip should be canceled if the patient does not follow the doctors' orders.

Display More

You seem to really love your analogies. Eye drops for eye surgery - makes sense!, Antibiotics for infections - also logical standard practice! vaccine for surgery - illogical, irrelevant.