"Confidential" but it concludes its safe? Same game everytime.
TOP SECRET PFIZER DOCUMENT LEAKS ONLINE...
Pfizer vaccine data. Of particular interest is page 30. You’re welcome. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfrumble.com
Nah I haven't yet.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Britain’s Covid experts ‘abandoned their objectivity and misled with alarming models’
Government adviser delivers damning verdict on scientists’ pandemic response, adding they ‘weren’t looking at the bigger picture’
Scientists abandoned their objectivity, misled with alarming models and failed to appreciate the damage lockdown would cause, a government adviser has claimed in a damning indictment of Britain’s pandemic response.
In his memoir, The Year The World Went Mad, Prof Woolhouse claimed that lockdowns “had surprisingly little effect” and just “deferred the problem to another day, at great cost”.
Imperial College London published an analysis the following June, claiming that lockdown had saved nearly half a million lives in Britain.
However, Sweden managed to bring its epidemic under control without lockdown, leaving Imperial College to conclude that it was Sweden’s ban on mass gatherings that played the decisive role – even while arguing it had not been enough in other countries.
“The conclusion wasn’t remotely plausible,” wrote Prof Woolhouse. “Analyses by other researchers came up with quite different conclusions that the UK epidemic was already in decline before lockdown took effect.
Prof Woolhouse also accused the BBC of over-egging the risks from Covid and that said scientists had abandoned their objectivity by wading into policy.
“It became routine during the pandemic for scientific advisers and commentators to push for one policy or another,” he wrote.
“As citizens, they have every right to do that. But when there is a constant stream of government scientific advisers in the media calling for a lockdown, as there was during the second wave in Oct 2020, then we have crossed a line.”
Prof Woolhouse also said it was an “awkward” truth that the people who benefited most from suppression of the virus, such as the elderly and vulnerable, were not the group that suffered most from the impact of lockdown: young people and low-income workers.
“Even before the UK first went into lockdown in Mar 2020, we knew that novel coronavirus was far more dangerous to the elderly, the frail and the infirm than to healthy young adults and children,” he added.
“That should have shaped our response. Instead, the UK administrations continued to act as though everyone was equally at risk. They even actively promoted this misinterpretation to try to bolster acceptance to a lockdown strategy.”
No surprise to some of us, fake news/not important to the rest.
Makes sense that when the first data drop pfizer was forced to release with all the side effects was crickets all across mainstream media. Not a peep anywhere.Biden Administration paid media $1 billion for COVID shot propaganda
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Biden administration paid nearly the entire corporate media, including so-called “conservative” media outlets, with taxpayer dollars to engage in a massive campaign to push only positivewww.thedesertreview.com
I’m not really trying to argue, just want to point out that people probably don’t care about the side effects data because it doesn’t seem to have any real implications on people’s lives.
I'm talking about the dirty business and how shit is run.
But wasn’t it safe and effective given the fact that 4.4B got it and there was no major fall out from it? I guess people could argue effectiveness, but safety I think is pretty much confirmed. Especially when drugs with much worse side effects are considered safe.
Listen to yourself tho bruh lol.
Biden Administration paid media $1 billion for COVID shot propaganda
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Biden administration paid nearly the entire corporate media, including so-called “conservative” media outlets, with taxpayer dollars to engage in a massive campaign to push only positive
mediabiasfactcheck.com
I know where you’re coming from theoretically, but let’s not gloss over the reality of what happened. 4.4B fully vaccinated and no major side effects to speak of. Wouldn’t that suggest that someone knew this would be the outcome? Or were they taking a shot in the dark and got lucky on what would be the biggest gamble in history? So safety wise, pretty safe.
No one cares about the source when it confirms their bias. And any source that contradicts their bias is corrupt or has their own bias. And this goes for either side of any argument nowadays.Overall, we rate The Desert Review Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the frequent promotion of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding covid-19.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Pseudoscience, Conspiracy, Poor Sources, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Founded in 2012, The Desert Review is a community website and weekly printed newspaper serving the Imperial Valley/County in Southern California.
The website and paper lack transparency as they do not clearly indicate ownership, and some authors use pseudonyms rather than their real names.
The Desert Review - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
The source that was posted in this thread isn't the actual source. It's in the beginning of the article.
How would they know the outcome beforehand?
I am really trying to skip over your posts and have a good day.
