• Paying members only

    Can now disable the avatars on the home page and forum pages. Go and click on your name (top right) ---> Preferences ---> Disable Avatars

The Covid enquiry.

Remember Klopp the prick saying he wouldn’t sign unvaccinated players.
He’d fallen for the shame tactics like many, compared us to drink drivers from memory.

The time when people lost their minds, no wonder the alien shit is kept under wraps.
 
He’d fallen for the shame tactics like many, compared us to drink drivers from memory.

The time when people lost their minds, no wonder the alien shit is kept under wraps.
How easily did so many turn into nazi bastards though for the sake of getting abroad?
 
The impact of the COVID restrictions in terms of debt, missed cancer appts, kids missing school, mental health etc will be far greater than the virus would ever have been.

Too little of that will be looked into by this inquiry.

The lockdown cheerleaders will be forgotten about.
 
The impact of the COVID restrictions in terms of debt, missed cancer appts, kids missing school, mental health etc will be far greater than the virus would ever have been.

Too little of that will be looked into by this inquiry.

The lockdown cheerleaders will be forgotten about.
Luckily for you, we only have data for one half of the argument, so you can never be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong of course.
 
Luckily for you, we only have data for one half of the argument, so you can never be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong of course.
Also, many of the negative impacts from lockdown will take many years to hit.
 
Luckily for you, we only have data for one half of the argument, so you can never be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong of course.
no data to determine whether lockdown is the right approach? Strange, you'd think they'd be having teams of analysts calculating whether global economic shutdown is going to save lives
 
no data to determine whether lockdown is the right approach? Strange, you'd think they'd be having teams of analysts calculating whether global economic shutdown is going to save lives
There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
 
There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
Apart from the nations and states that didn't lockdown I guess. But you've completely missed the point, why wasn't there teams of analysts gathering data and determining what was happening as a result of the global shutdowns? Why wasn't any of that raised at the enquiry? Why didn't they turn to modelling, they felt that was good enough to enforce lockdowns (for some reason), they could model consequences of their actions?
 
Apart from the nations and states that didn't lockdown I guess. But you've completely missed the point, why wasn't there teams of analysts gathering data and determining what was happening as a result of the global shutdowns? Why wasn't any of that raised at the enquiry? Why didn't they turn to modelling, they felt that was good enough to enforce lockdowns (for some reason), they could model consequences of their actions?
Every economy is different, as is the population and it's response to non-enforced recommended behaviour.

What would be the point? Economic modelling never produces reliable results.
 
The impact of the COVID restrictions in terms of debt, missed cancer appts, kids missing school, mental health etc will be far greater than the virus would ever have been.

Too little of that will be looked into by this inquiry.

The lockdown cheerleaders will be forgotten about.

Quite a lot of lockdown cheerleaders were on this forum

Twatlock
Bigfatron

2 of the main ones
 
There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
Simply disagreeing with "the other sides" opinions eh! What a thought 😤
 
Apart from the nations and states that didn't lockdown I guess. But you've completely missed the point, why wasn't there teams of analysts gathering data and determining what was happening as a result of the global shutdowns? Why wasn't any of that raised at the enquiry? Why didn't they turn to modelling, they felt that was good enough to enforce lockdowns (for some reason), they could model consequences of their actions?
We relied too much on people whose brief was too narrow. For example epidemiologists whose sole brief was to reduce transmission of the virus without any other considerations.

We also relied on people who were blatantly incompetent and had a track record of being so. The prime example was Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College modelling. Ferguson had predicted thousands of deaths from swine flu and SARS and had never modelled anything correctly yet his predictions were treated as gospel.

Finally, it was clear that infections had peaked before the 1st lockdown as the decline accelerated early in lockdown which given the incubation period meant that peoples' own choices and actions were having an impact.
 
We relied too much on people whose brief was too narrow. For example epidemiologists whose sole brief was to reduce transmission of the virus without any other considerations.

We also relied on people who were blatantly incompetent and had a track record of being so. The prime example was Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College modelling. Ferguson had predicted thousands of deaths from swine flu and SARS and had never modelled anything correctly yet his predictions were treated as gospel.

Finally, it was clear that infections had peaked before the 1st lockdown as the decline accelerated early in lockdown which given the incubation period meant that peoples' own choices and actions were having an impact.
That last bit doesn't sound like my recollection at the time, I'd be interested if you've got any data to see if I need to revise my opinion.
 
Anyone who had the audacity to even suggest a different path other than lockdowns and mass vaccination were told to pipe down and get with the programme, why was that?
 
images
 
Every economy is different, as is the population and it's response to non-enforced recommended behaviour.

What would be the point? Economic modelling never produces reliable results.
Every economy is different and yet multiple nations used the same modelling software to determine what would happen without certain restrictions. Economic modelling never produces reliable results? Pandemic modelling pathetically attempting to simulate a nation's numbers treating all population densities, cities, towns as the same and was held up by witty, valance and all the media as signs of impending doom with it being used well into 2021 for justifying further restrictions and insane policies like "rule of 6", "substantial meals", "tier system restrictions", "qr code signin and track and trace", "essential items only for purchase" - it's great how sceptical pro lockdown are when it comes to finding ways of justifying lockdown while at same time spreading their arse wide open for whatever crap gov dreamt up and enforced on the nation in a 24 hour period. No way, we can't possibly model any consequences of these actions to get even a rough idea of how much long term damage we are doing not only economically, but also socially - maybe instead of burning billions on track and trace that never produced any results, we could have put effort into collecting real data to justify the ongoing insanity of completely fucking everything up. As for never producing reliable results, insurance companies use modelling when setting rates only they are expected to deliver results so they actually get people who are competent to create them. It's amazing how effortlessly lockdown bellends contradict themselves while holding up this pretence of being a rational science based thinker
 
There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
We don’t need the data. Francis Collins, of NIH fame, is admitting precisely what the public health short comings were. They had zero consideration for anything outside of “saving a life from the disease”. As noble a goal as that is, the wider collateral damage, and potential deaths that result from such policy responses, were not taken into consideration. Now, seeing excess deaths elevated globally in 2022 and 2023, it would appear that whatever those public health policy responses to COVID were, they were a failure.

 
We don’t need the data. Francis Collins, of NIH fame, is admitting precisely what the public health short comings were. They had zero consideration for anything outside of “saving a life from the disease”. As noble a goal as that is, the wider collateral damage, and potential deaths that result from such policy responses, were not taken into consideration. Now, seeing excess deaths elevated globally in 2022 and 2023, it would appear that whatever those public health policy responses to COVID were, they were a failure.

Can’t be true mate as this thread had been moved to the sweet & sour forum, so it must be a conthpirathy theory.
 
Who has moved this off the main forum?

The fall out from the pandemic and lessons learned are of public interest, and it needs courage to face the realities of what happened.

Hiding threads of this importance in corners of the forum is not a courageous move.
 
Who has moved this off the main forum?

The fall out from the pandemic and lessons learned are of public interest, and it needs courage to face the realities of what happened.

Hiding threads of this importance in corners of the forum is not a courageous move.
They don’t like it up em etc
 
Why have they only concentrated on infections leading to deaths? It's natural that these rates would be very high to start with then fall off as medics learn how to deal with the disease.

A drop off in total infections before or shortly after lockdown would back up your argument, was that the case?
Because at the time it was the best way of tracking it. Testing wasn't widespread enough to give accurate results. They were only testing those in hospital.

Then you had idiots who said that everyone dying in hospital with COVID, died of COVID... But that's a whole different point.
 
It’s almost as if someone can’t handle a few home truths and decides to lob the discussion over here onto the weird forum in a hissy fit like a big fanny.
 
Today should be fun, Sturgeon's turn to give evidence. Like Rishi and Boris she has deleted all her Whatsapp messages and apparently her key decison making group didn't take any minutes (probably to avoid having them seen by an inquiry like this).
 
Pfizer's been found guilty of misleading the public about the safety and efficacy of it's Covid vaccine and unlawfully promoting an unlicensed medicine.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ed-regulatory-code-five-times-watchdog-finds/

Sodding paywall, copy and pasted this from here instead.

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/breaking-telegraph-reports-that-pfizer


Credit and attributions of some details to Telegraph, specifically Camilla Turner.

In a pivotal moment for the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer has found itself at the center of massive controversy following a damning verdict by the UK's Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The Telegraph has reported that the authority has accused Pfizer of discrediting the pharmaceutical sector through inappropriate social media promotions of its COVID-19 vaccine, which was unlicensed at the time of the posts.

The ruling stems from a series of tweets in November 2020 by senior Pfizer executives, including the UK medical director, Dr. Berkeley Phillips. These posts claimed the vaccine's efficacy rates without providing comprehensive safety information or referencing adverse events, leading to what the PMCPA described as the "proactive dissemination of unlicensed medicine."

SEE PREVIOUS 2013 RULING

This misconduct marks Pfizer's sixth reprimand from the PMCPA, underlining a pattern of behavior that has led to growing calls for reform within the regulatory framework overseeing pharmaceutical promotions. The most recent breaches encompassed not only misleading claims about the vaccine's efficacy and safety but also a failure to maintain the high standards expected within the industry.

BOURLA REPRIMANDED PREVIOUSLY

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had previously been chided for creating claims about COVID19 vaccine efficacy out of thin air. Here is the Telegraphs’ coverage.​


Pfizer's CEO rapped by regulator for making 'misleading statements about children's vaccines
Dr Bourla claimed youngsters aged five to 11 benefited from vaccination but the pharmaceutical watchdog said the remarks misled the public

The Telegraph can disclose. Dr Albert Bourla used an interview with the BBC last December to claim that "there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of" vaccinating youngsters aged five to 11 against Covid-19.

Pfizer's UK spokesman responded to the PMCPA's findings with an acknowledgment of the issues raised and an apology, emphasizing the company's commitment to adhering to strict social media policies and regulatory codes. Pfizer has also initiated a review of its employees' use of social media to ensure compliance and prevent future incidents.
Critics, including Ben Kingsley from the campaign group UsForThem, argue that the penalties levied against Pfizer are insufficient given the seriousness of the offenses, suggesting a dire need for a more robust regulatory system. Meanwhile, David Watson of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) defended the existing code of practice, highlighting its role in setting high standards that surpass UK law.
Share

The incident has led some to call for action by US regulators to hold vaccine manufacturers responsible in their communications about vaccine efficacy and safety, particularly on platforms with vast public reach.


Safe and effective though, remember?
 
Pfizer's been found guilty of misleading the public about the safety and efficacy of it's Covid vaccine and unlawfully promoting an unlicensed medicine.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ed-regulatory-code-five-times-watchdog-finds/

Sodding paywall, copy and pasted this from here instead.

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/breaking-telegraph-reports-that-pfizer





Safe and effective though, remember?
The ruling doesn't say anything about the vaccine not being safe or effective? It just says the social media promotion was before the vaccine was licensed doesn't it?
 
The ruling doesn't say anything about the vaccine not being safe or effective? It just says the social media promotion was before the vaccine was licensed doesn't it?

No, but they created a false perception of their safety to a general public desperate for a way out of lockdown, where there was *zero* medium to long term clinical safety data. And led to people being bullied, shamed & censored, who dared question how Pfizer could possibly have concluded they were safe with so little data.

Anyway we don’t need to quibble over the particulars here, because Moderna have acknowledged how toxic they are now, three years too late…

 
Last edited:
No, but they created a false perception of their safety to a general public desperate for a way out of lockdown, where there was *zero* medium to long term clinical safety data. And led to people being bullied, shamed & censored, who dared question how Pfizer could possibly have concluded they were safe with so little data.

Anyway we don’t need to quibble over the particulars here, because Moderna have acknowledged how toxic they are now, three years too late…

Indeed.

My safe and effective comment was based around something unlicensed being pushed as safe and effective, the meat on this particular bone though is the article and ruling.
 
Bad boy Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance getting skewered by the US Select SubCommittee today and rightly so.

He will be getting charged at some point NQAT and not before time.


 
Last edited:
Bad boy Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance getting skewered by the US Select SubCommittee today and rightly so.

He will be getting charged at some point NQAT and not before time.


Not much fuss in the MSM about all of this is there.

Funny that.
 
@Krom Can’t reply in the Corona thread as Julie hit me with her rhythm stick, aka the ban hammer.

The NIH funding of the GoF research was something I posted about in the early days on here(all you had to do was follow the money), something I was banned for then too.

I look forward to the day the journos catch up with the person who funded Fauci’s NIH’s who in turn funded Wuhan.
 
Check the bit with Don Lemon out halfway through too, absolutely shocking comments.

To think many on here were simping for him after Musk fucked him off recently too.
 
Back
Top