cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: One Million Vaccinations
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
Wyot Rick wrote:
This coverage just HAS to start including the public on its list of significant and culpable actors.

Aside from your personal perception Rick, can you point to evidence of a systematic breaking of restrictions by a majority - or even significant minority - of people in the UK?
Rick And so it goes on: in the press conference this afternoon, idiots like Robert Peston asking for guarantees that this target will be met and this aim will be achieved, etc etc - any sane person understands that all of this depends to a great extent on public compliance, and no scientist or politician can 'guarantee' that unless they opt for martial law. You may as well ask a journalist if his newspaper can meet its sales targets - it doesn't entirely depend on them! This coverage just HAS to start including the public on its list of significant and culpable actors.
Honey Baroness Boothroyd on the vaccine.

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1346163973683556353
Honey Alison wrote:
Honey wrote:
giving people a medical treatment they haven't consented to?


Vaccination is voluntary.

But strongly recommended.


No. They (sensibly) agreed to have the first part now and the second part three weeks later.
They agreed to a treatment that would leave them fully protected.
The manufacturers say there is no evidence of protection after three weeks.

Now, it may or may not be the best thing for these people to be left with either less or no protection and end up as unwilling volunteers in an experiment they did not choose.

It might well work out ok, but that isn't the point.
It is not ethical. Matt Hancock (or possibly the manufacturers) has lied about the efficacy. They cant BOTH be telling the truth. It stinks.

When we take away the right to properly consent to medical treatment, we are in trouble.
Alison Honey wrote:
giving people a medical treatment they haven't consented to?


Vaccination is voluntary.

But strongly recommended.