Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[Macca]

Or he could have said that 40% of the people in hospital had two Jabs

Bur this would have been bad spin as most of the electorate can't do 100 - 60 = 40 made much worst whit that symbol that one mostly type by mistake above the 5

So if most peoples had the 2 Jabs what is it? 86 %? and the rest 34 % ? has not out of 100 in hospital by having the vaccine one is only about 1/4 or 1/5 less prone to end up in hospital

Vaccines = no so good as they tell you

You may not die from the Fauci virus if you had the vaccine, which is just what is wanted from you from big pharma, there you go one more happy returning customer

It would be much better if Vitamin D is discussed in the main stream media and Ivermectin and such get studied properly

So you're still far more likely to require hospital treatment if you haven't been vaccinated. I've seen figures as high as 80%. Not really much more to say is there?

I'm all in favour of people being allowed to make their own irrational decisions and live with the consequences. But when it comes to encouraging others to follow their example it gets very close to, possibly even crosses, the acceptable limits of freedom of speech. Essentially the same as shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.

[Bksabath]

Oxford’s PRINCIPLE Trial: Ivermectin Being Considered as Part of the Study (trialsitenews.com)

Long paper
Just a quote from it

Because the FLCCC physicians are convinced the meta-analyses research from both sides of the Atlantic points to a clear case of efficacy, they worry about the control group patients. As the group maintains that the existing evidence for Ivermectin is overwhelmingly indicative that the medicine is highly effective in reducing hospitalization, inhibiting transmission and lowering COVID-19 death rates as well as accelerating viral clearance, they cannot morally support a placebo-controlled study at this point.
They believe it’s a mistake and that the Oxford PRINCIPLE Trial should be designed as a dose-finding study and/or sophisticated observational study. Kory told TrialSite, “It is grossly unethical to enroll patients in a placebo-controlled trial. Such a study will lead to harm to the control group.” What he means is that from their perspective, because the drug is known to work, purposely not giving the control group that drug brings a heavy burden on those funding and designing the study.

[Bksabath]

So Martin
Would you like to see more discussion about Vitamin D on the main stream media ?
Do we need to know if it works or not?
An if so
Would you agree that Ivermectin deserves to be fully investigated?

would not those from what we know so far further increase your chances not to end up in hospital?

and possibly take the Ro number below 1 ( Ro < 1 = no more Fauci virus)

would not the 3 millions and over human being that have immune suppressant problems just in this country deserve to see this information?

[Macca]

So Martin
Would you like to see more discussion about Vitamin D on the main stream media ?
Do we need to know if it works or not?
An if so
Would you agree that Ivermectin deserves to be fully investigated?

would not those from what we know so far further increase your chances not to end up in hospital?

and possibly take the Ro number below 1 ( Ro < 1 = no more Fauci virus)

would not the 3 millions and over human being that have immune suppressant problems just in this country deserve to see this information?

I think vitamin D can't hurt but prior to the pandemic there was a lot of discussion about vitamin D in the mainstream media with regards to the widespread issue of vitamin D deficiency. I've been taking a vitamin D supplement for years.

Ivermectin is being studied, the link you provided is all about that. My understanding as a non-medical professional is that as it is a steroid-based drug it is not without potential side effects therefore it's probably not wise to hand it out like candy if in fact there is no benefit.

I think the suggestion that it is an established cure that is simply being supressed by 'Big Pharma' is risible. I think the suggestion that taking vitamin D as a potential aid to immunity is being suppressed and deliberately not being covered by the 'msm' is also risible. Hope that clarifies.

[Marco]

I'm all in favour of people being allowed to make their own irrational decisions and live with the consequences. But when it comes to encouraging others to follow their example it gets very close to, possibly even crosses, the acceptable limits of freedom of speech.

Just to be clear. what are you referring to as "irrational decisions" - choosing not to have a vaccine, or what?

Also, one man's 'rational' could be another man's 'irrational'. Not everyone has to sign up to your notion of rationality.

Marco.

[Bksabath]

Hi Marco
What is your position given that:
The Vaccine may stop you requiring hospitalization for a unknown and made very confusing amount of instances for argument sake call it 1/4 less chances
The Vaccine have low probability shorth term side effects and unknown long term side effects
You may require a new vaccine next year
The vaccine open the gateway for the Fauci virus to mutate
The Vaccine does not give you natural immunity as would you get by contracting the Virus

Would you agree whit those points?

If you take it or not is entirely your choice.

[Marco]

Hi Marco
What is your position given that:
The Vaccine may stop you requiring hospitalization for a unknown and made very confusing amount of instances for argument sake call it 1/4 less chances
The Vaccine have low probability shorth term side effects and unknown long term side effects
You may require a new vaccine next year
The vaccine open the gateway for the Fauci virus to mutate
The Vaccine does not give you natural immunity as would you get by contracting the Virus

Would you agree whit those points?

If you take it or not is entirely your choice.

Hi Sandro,

My position is very clear on the above: in a free and democratic country, people should be able to do what THEY think is RIGHT/rational for THEM, based on THEIR judgement criteria, and that choice should subsequently be RESPECTED (not ridiculed or condemned) by others, who may disagree and equally have exercised their RIGHT to do something else.

I also disagree that someone's perfectly valid stance, such as yours (and many others), on possible alternative ways to successfully treat this virus, and the influence in that respect of big pharma, is 'risible'.

For me, that choice of language is both disrespectful and derogatory. By all means, disagree and therefore challenge that statement or observation, as robustly (but politely) as necessary, but don't LAUGH at it, as that's only liable to get someone's back up, who's simply committed the heinous crime of thinking differently!

Anything that seeks to stifle free thinking/the right to be an individual, and make you comply with 'the norm'/behaviour of the masses, is more dangerous than anything else, and a sure route towards fascism!

Marco.

[guy]

Hi Sandro,

My position is very clear on the above: in a free and democratic country, people should be able to do what THEY think is RIGHT/rational for THEM, based on THEIR judgement criteria, and that choice should subsequently be RESPECTED (not ridiculed or condemned) by others, who may disagree and equally have exercised their RIGHT to do something else.

I also disagree that someone's perfectly valid stance, such as yours (and many others), on possibly alternative ways to successfully treat this virus, and the influence in that respect of big pharma, is 'risible'.

For me, that choice of language is both disrespectful and derogatory. By all means, disagree and therefore challenge that statement or observation, as robustly (but politely) as necessary, but don't LAUGH at it, as that's only liable to get someone's back up, who's simply committed the heinous crime of thinking differently!

Anything that seeks to stifle free thinking/the right to be an individual, and make you comply with 'the norm'/behaviour of the masses, is more dangerous than anything else, and a sure route towards fascism!

Marco.

Hi Marco,

You need to be careful with statements like that, some idiots will always try to take advantage of a general "right" to do as they please (often in the name of religion).

I have sympathy with what you are thinking, but there need to be caveats or some people will take advantage, for example "the children of god" :

Its founder, David Berg, told members that God was love and love was sex, so there should be no limits, regardless of age or relationship. Berg's cult spread and claimed to have 10,000 full-time members in 130 communities around the world by the 1970s.

[Marco]

Yes, I completely agree, but then you're talking about extremism, and in my opinion, ALL forms of extremism are bad (religious, political or whatever), so that should be controlled.

However, it's quite different effectively bullying others into behaving the same as you, simply because you think that you're 'right' or more 'rational' than they are, especially when their alternative behaviour is perfectly valid and reasonable.

It's a form of brainwashing/coercion I'm deadly against, and that is also incompatible with a democracy, and which subsequently can create dangerous divisions, leading to the eroding of freedoms.

I've not been in England yet since the wearing of masks was made non-mandatory, so what's it been like? Are folks not wearing masks being frowned upon/discriminated against, or worse, for exercising their (now) legal free choice?

If you haven't seen that happening yet, then I predict it'll come, especially when, in that respect, the rest of the UK shortly follows suit. And that's what happens when a precedent is set for allowing people to persecute others for not thinking the same as THEM, and doing what THEY think they should be doing instead!

Marco.

[Bksabath]

Cool we agree then
Could you make your position 100 % clear by ticking yes or no on each of the bullet points on my posts 8413 and 8416

Martin IMO fail to provide any meaningless opinion and this is a typical example of the endemic response one get from the main stream media and establishment
"would you like to see more discussion about vitamin D in the main stream media?" would require simple and honest yes or no answer and I commend the skill and waste of space that he employs, I am not going to keep going on and ask him over and and over answer the question as wee seen done on same major Networks far to fascionable a trend of late I may add

About the "Risible" rant that is his personal opinion he is totally entitle to it and it is on record for when the conspiracy disproved or not

I do not find any relevance to it to my post 8413

Possibly it has same relevance to same of my previous posts

Maybe the ones stating "big pharmas have not interest in curing you they want returning customers" where is the conspiracy in that?
Is like saying that Car manufacturer want to sell you a car and keep making money when you buy spare parts or get a service done on it.

I believe he decided that I am wearing a tin hat or such
I believe that he know how much consequence I will place on any of his views

I am asking you and you all in general to put a tick yes or know on any of those questions, keep it private if you like, but do act on it for your own and love ones.

Keep going on about conspiracy as well if you like I will keep calling this the Fauci virus till you show me the spill over animal that aledgdley caused this mess. What is it now 19 months and counting?