In an aside: thank you for writing about pregnant women as opposed to the Newspeak 'people who are pregnant', 'pregnant people' or 'pregnant individuals'!
Given the preponderance of secret squirrels I am sure we'll never be told how many of the 'formerly pregnant' people or individuals were not biological females ...
" it was a political decision- nothing to do with evidence. When decisions were made and the contracts were signed, the vaccines didn’t even exist. Yes, we agree. Hancock rules, OK."
Spot on. However, when such evidence free political decisions are made, the incompetent virtue signaling politician in question should ALWAYS have the threat of impeachment hanging over them if their genius scheme doesn't work out or wastes £ Billions. A threat now considered "obsolete" for some arcane reason. Could someone ask Tony Bliar why?
My preference would be a nice shiny guillotine sited in the Victoria Tower Gardens. In the spirit of now fashionable "assisted dying", I'd be happy to assist by operating it on a 'Pro Bono Publico' basis, notwithstanding my advanced super-geezer age and the tedious travel this would necessitate..
thanks; I downloaded the paper and entered "pregnant" and first and only hit was
"However, there are younger individuals in the no-risk group who were vaccinated, and therefore do not represent the average population of that age.
(There are reasons why these individuals might have been vaccinated including: being pregnant; working in frontline NHS and social care, or care homes; or being at-risk but incorrectly classified in the data). In such cases it is prudent to exclude these individuals from our analysis, in which case"
endless nonsense these woke creatures spout:
"there are younger individuals in the no-risk group who were vaccinated"
"in the no-risk group "; think on that; "in the no-risk group "; they say that;
then leap on their heads and spout the opposite ........
"There are reasons why these individuals might have been vaccinated including: being pregnant; "
and with effortless madness; they move instantly to say
" In such cases it is prudent to exclude these individuals from our analysis, "
so they are "no-risk" so you jab them;
so you experiment on pregnant women; with an untested experimental therapy; and you jab them for unspecified reasons; being pregnant is alone worthy in your alice in wonderland world;
then you EXCLUDE them from analysis; we can never get these creatures to accept logic ..
what? what? where do you get this non-sequitur nonsense from? Ever heard of thalidomide darling? The sanctity of a mother and her baby?
I'm sorry but any body (in this case the JCVI ) which uses the term -
Pregnant person or
Pregnant people or
Pregnant individual,
does not merit my attention.
It's nice to know though that Clown World is still alive and kicking (which may not be the case as regards some of the unfortunate fetuses whose mothers took the jab at the JCVI's behest).
just a favor for those of you that wasted 5 minutes making the assumption (not James' fault) that the NZ ship ran ashore because of pronoun confusion.
it didn't.
probably a decent analogy though. you don't want people struggling extra to figure out who you are referring (because this type of thing is already pretty tricky in the regular world) to when your ship is sinking.
welcome to the forum Skidoo; "just a favor for those of you that wasted 5 minutes"; gosh; sorry if readers were spending 5 mins making assumptions; good of you to point this out; "it didn't."you seem to know a lot about this; great; to spare our listeners wasting their time, can you tell us what happened; it is a long way away, and we all wondered I think.
I commented on a detail in the paper; but the whole post is just wonderful; many, many thanks; so well written; so well said; how can anyone reason with these woke warriors? Can we make allusions as to who might be funding them? (or their prior endeavours?)
In an aside: thank you for writing about pregnant women as opposed to the Newspeak 'people who are pregnant', 'pregnant people' or 'pregnant individuals'!
Given the preponderance of secret squirrels I am sure we'll never be told how many of the 'formerly pregnant' people or individuals were not biological females ...
" it was a political decision- nothing to do with evidence. When decisions were made and the contracts were signed, the vaccines didn’t even exist. Yes, we agree. Hancock rules, OK."
Spot on. However, when such evidence free political decisions are made, the incompetent virtue signaling politician in question should ALWAYS have the threat of impeachment hanging over them if their genius scheme doesn't work out or wastes £ Billions. A threat now considered "obsolete" for some arcane reason. Could someone ask Tony Bliar why?
My preference would be a nice shiny guillotine sited in the Victoria Tower Gardens. In the spirit of now fashionable "assisted dying", I'd be happy to assist by operating it on a 'Pro Bono Publico' basis, notwithstanding my advanced super-geezer age and the tedious travel this would necessitate..
thanks; I downloaded the paper and entered "pregnant" and first and only hit was
"However, there are younger individuals in the no-risk group who were vaccinated, and therefore do not represent the average population of that age.
(There are reasons why these individuals might have been vaccinated including: being pregnant; working in frontline NHS and social care, or care homes; or being at-risk but incorrectly classified in the data). In such cases it is prudent to exclude these individuals from our analysis, in which case"
endless nonsense these woke creatures spout:
"there are younger individuals in the no-risk group who were vaccinated"
"in the no-risk group "; think on that; "in the no-risk group "; they say that;
then leap on their heads and spout the opposite ........
"There are reasons why these individuals might have been vaccinated including: being pregnant; "
and with effortless madness; they move instantly to say
" In such cases it is prudent to exclude these individuals from our analysis, "
so they are "no-risk" so you jab them;
so you experiment on pregnant women; with an untested experimental therapy; and you jab them for unspecified reasons; being pregnant is alone worthy in your alice in wonderland world;
then you EXCLUDE them from analysis; we can never get these creatures to accept logic ..
what? what? where do you get this non-sequitur nonsense from? Ever heard of thalidomide darling? The sanctity of a mother and her baby?
I'm sorry but any body (in this case the JCVI ) which uses the term -
Pregnant person or
Pregnant people or
Pregnant individual,
does not merit my attention.
It's nice to know though that Clown World is still alive and kicking (which may not be the case as regards some of the unfortunate fetuses whose mothers took the jab at the JCVI's behest).
friends in NZ sent me coverage of the report on why a NZ Navy ship ran up on the shore in daylight on Samoa; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8celDEe7zE
using the correct pronouns at all times, but forgetting to turn off the autopilot; our world
just a favor for those of you that wasted 5 minutes making the assumption (not James' fault) that the NZ ship ran ashore because of pronoun confusion.
it didn't.
probably a decent analogy though. you don't want people struggling extra to figure out who you are referring (because this type of thing is already pretty tricky in the regular world) to when your ship is sinking.
welcome to the forum Skidoo; "just a favor for those of you that wasted 5 minutes"; gosh; sorry if readers were spending 5 mins making assumptions; good of you to point this out; "it didn't."you seem to know a lot about this; great; to spare our listeners wasting their time, can you tell us what happened; it is a long way away, and we all wondered I think.
OK... so it wasn't "Cost"effective in pregnant women... So let's dive a bit deeper... Was it effective AT ALL? Regardless of cost?
Jesus - you portray an incredibly depressing picture of the State’s current healthcare provision.
It could be so good.
I commented on a detail in the paper; but the whole post is just wonderful; many, many thanks; so well written; so well said; how can anyone reason with these woke warriors? Can we make allusions as to who might be funding them? (or their prior endeavours?)