Yes Vivian either explanation is possible, but the fact remains that this nonsense is on public record. Either old geezer would have insisted on seeing any record of the meeting and would not have put their names to something like this which would destroy our reputation for real (not what the New York Times writes, the real stuff).
Good Lord! Those two contradictory sentences taken from the minutes are beyond belief - obviously nobody in that august forum read the minutes. Alternatively, it might well be the case that anyone who did read and pointed this contradiction out was told not to be so pernickety because 'time was short' and it wasn't important anyway in the grander scheme of global vaccination things.
My inner Victor Meldrum is suddenly coming to the fore ...
"This collection was withdrawn on 18th January 2025"
"The data on this page has been temporarily withdrawn from publication. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and transparency, and this information will be republished shortly".
Translation -It appears that some old geezer/s actually read the original published minutes and noticed what may have possibly been perhaps arguably some contradiction. Whilst we ourselves are persons of the utmost integrity we have to follow orders and as such the no contradictions whatsoever, ie the accurate, version will appear when those on high are happy with our efforts.
I am keeping an eye on the inquiry for you. In brief, it continues to be a wash (imo). Think of what we could have done with ALL the money being paid to the legal experts, the woman managing the inquiry and ALL the admin staff. It does not bear thinking.
I do really wish that I could say this, along with all the other revelations, is surprising. But the tragedy is, that at this point, its not. Coming as it does from a group of 'professionals' who are tasked with caring for the welfare of the public by understanding and monitoring a novel and rapidly produced medicine, it amounts to criminal negligence; by definition, this is 'an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant.'
John, I have to take some comfort imaging these reprehensible individuals standing in the dock on serious criminal charge otherwise…..I am just getting very very ANGRY!
'Dr Stephen Wright died from vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, caused by the AstraZeneca covid vaccine he received on 16th January 2021. Like many others he was assured it was Safe and Effective and that he should take it to protect others. His family mentioned the vaccine could be the cause when he was hospitalised and a Yellow Card was completed in early February 2021...
...In Austria, the 1st suspected death resulted in immediate suspension on 7th March 2021; MHRA’s response was to issue a statement to reassure people of its safety instead “It has not been confirmed that the report of a blood clot was caused by the AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine. People should still go and get their COVID-19 vaccine when asked to do so”. By this stage at least 4 suspected deaths had occurred in the UK.'
So what sort of a signal did the EWP expect? Some sort of semaphore? Cattle prod? Waving?
I mean if the fatalities were underreported using the yellow card system, then how many deaths would have still been considered to be OK under the system & still not a signal of increased risk? Does anybody know? If every yellow card report - reported therefore serious- had been a fatality would that have been a signal? 50% 25% ? Anyone?
Fatalities is one thing, but I would be worried too about the incidence of Long Covid following vaccination. It is increasing ignored that Long Covid is a debilitating chronic condition impacting tens of thousands.
Yes Vivian either explanation is possible, but the fact remains that this nonsense is on public record. Either old geezer would have insisted on seeing any record of the meeting and would not have put their names to something like this which would destroy our reputation for real (not what the New York Times writes, the real stuff).
Best, Tom.
Good Lord! Those two contradictory sentences taken from the minutes are beyond belief - obviously nobody in that august forum read the minutes. Alternatively, it might well be the case that anyone who did read and pointed this contradiction out was told not to be so pernickety because 'time was short' and it wasn't important anyway in the grander scheme of global vaccination things.
My inner Victor Meldrum is suddenly coming to the fore ...
Mine too Vivian
The minutes to which you refer :-
"This collection was withdrawn on 18th January 2025"
"The data on this page has been temporarily withdrawn from publication. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and transparency, and this information will be republished shortly".
Translation -It appears that some old geezer/s actually read the original published minutes and noticed what may have possibly been perhaps arguably some contradiction. Whilst we ourselves are persons of the utmost integrity we have to follow orders and as such the no contradictions whatsoever, ie the accurate, version will appear when those on high are happy with our efforts.
I am keeping an eye on the inquiry for you. In brief, it continues to be a wash (imo). Think of what we could have done with ALL the money being paid to the legal experts, the woman managing the inquiry and ALL the admin staff. It does not bear thinking.
I do really wish that I could say this, along with all the other revelations, is surprising. But the tragedy is, that at this point, its not. Coming as it does from a group of 'professionals' who are tasked with caring for the welfare of the public by understanding and monitoring a novel and rapidly produced medicine, it amounts to criminal negligence; by definition, this is 'an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant.'
John, I have to take some comfort imaging these reprehensible individuals standing in the dock on serious criminal charge otherwise…..I am just getting very very ANGRY!
Come, come. There is never any evidence if you are not looking for it. That's obvious.
There was a signal but the EWG missed it:
https://www.hartgroup.org/three-years-on-from-the-first-covid-vaccine-death/
'Dr Stephen Wright died from vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, caused by the AstraZeneca covid vaccine he received on 16th January 2021. Like many others he was assured it was Safe and Effective and that he should take it to protect others. His family mentioned the vaccine could be the cause when he was hospitalised and a Yellow Card was completed in early February 2021...
...In Austria, the 1st suspected death resulted in immediate suspension on 7th March 2021; MHRA’s response was to issue a statement to reassure people of its safety instead “It has not been confirmed that the report of a blood clot was caused by the AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine. People should still go and get their COVID-19 vaccine when asked to do so”. By this stage at least 4 suspected deaths had occurred in the UK.'
So what sort of a signal did the EWP expect? Some sort of semaphore? Cattle prod? Waving?
I mean if the fatalities were underreported using the yellow card system, then how many deaths would have still been considered to be OK under the system & still not a signal of increased risk? Does anybody know? If every yellow card report - reported therefore serious- had been a fatality would that have been a signal? 50% 25% ? Anyone?
Who are these people?
Logic?! Pah! Just follow The Science(tm). .....and you won't lose your job.
I think they follow the money…..but what do I know…..I just pay their salaries.
You're right. They follow the money not The Science(tm)
Fatalities is one thing, but I would be worried too about the incidence of Long Covid following vaccination. It is increasing ignored that Long Covid is a debilitating chronic condition impacting tens of thousands.