Illnesses after covid jabs

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
221

robroy:
So there we have it folks.
Anybody who dares to have an opinion that differs to the (proverbial) official line on Covid, and who does not subscribe to the version that it is/was the biggest risk to humanity since The great Plague or Aids, is wholly and totally WRONG…
But Franglais,.(who incidentally denies he sees himself as an expert btw, :open_mouth: ) …is right.
Ok. :neutral_face:

Franglais:
DONT take my word for it. DONT blindly trust me.
DON`T blindly trust Bridgen
Go and look at the data for yourself!

Go on.
Go look at what is being said and being misused by Bridgen and others.

Im not saying "trust me". Im saying get out there and look for yourself.

222

Franglais:

robroy:
So there we have it folks.
Anybody who dares to have an opinion that differs to the (proverbial) official line on Covid, and who does not subscribe to the version that it is/was the biggest risk to humanity since The great Plague or Aids, is wholly and totally WRONG…
But Franglais,.(who incidentally denies he sees himself as an expert btw, :open_mouth: ) …is right.
Ok. :neutral_face:

Franglais:
DONT take my word for it. DONT blindly trust me.
DON`T blindly trust Bridgen
Go and look at the data for yourself!

Go on.
Go look at what is being said and being misused by Bridgen and others.

Im not saying "trust me". Im saying get out there and look for yourself.

So why did you not say that in the first instance instead of trying to be a smart arse?

223

robroy:

Franglais:

robroy:
So there we have it folks.
Anybody who dares to have an opinion that differs to the (proverbial) official line on Covid, and who does not subscribe to the version that it is/was the biggest risk to humanity since The great Plague or Aids, is wholly and totally WRONG…
But Franglais,.(who incidentally denies he sees himself as an expert btw, :open_mouth: ) …is right.
Ok. :neutral_face:

Franglais:
DONT take my word for it. DONT blindly trust me.
DON`T blindly trust Bridgen
Go and look at the data for yourself!

Go on.
Go look at what is being said and being misused by Bridgen and others
Im not saying "trust me". Im saying get out there and look for yourself.

So why did you not say that in the first instance instead of trying to be a smart arse?

What ? Is…

Franglais:
DONT take my word for it. DONT blindly trust me.
DON`T blindly trust Bridgen
Go and look at the data for yourself!

Ambiguous in any way?

224

As I said, the obligatory and tiring childish comments.

And before you jump back in with more of your bad comedy material…, No…I’m definitely NOT offended.
It just gets a bit tiresome after a while…not to mention your pomposity where everybody else must be wrong because you think you have a more superior type of opinion…usually a copy of the official one.
Hate to say it but basically you just irritate me. :smiley:

225

robroy:
As I said, the obligatory and tiring childish comments.

And before you jump back in with more of your bad comedy material…, No…I’m definitely NOT offended.
It just gets a bit tiresome after a while…not to mention your pomposity where everybody else must be wrong because you think you have a more superior type of opinion…usually a copy of the official one.
Hate to say it but basically you just irritate me. :smiley:

So, your feelings (again) nowt to do with the subject matter.

226

Franglais:

robroy:
As I said, the obligatory and tiring childish comments.

And before you jump back in with more of your bad comedy material…, No…I’m definitely NOT offended.
It just gets a bit tiresome after a while…not to mention your pomposity where everybody else must be wrong because you think you have a more superior type of opinion…usually a copy of the official one.
Hate to say it but basically you just irritate me. :smiley:

So, your feelings (again) nowt to do with the subject matter.

:laughing: Aye whatever…if you like.
Just ignore the fact that I have actually commented on the subject matter, the MP in question, the situation he found himself in making his speech, my opinion on the reasons for that scenario, and by your own calculations numerous views and opinions on the Covid fiasco… but as long as you can make your point…that’s fine.

(Walks away grinning and shaking his head…with no sign of any strings of pearls… :laughing: )

227

The good doctor’s video of what looks like collusion by all factions of the uniparty in parliament to discredit and cut short what should have been an important debate about ongoing deaths and injuries following the recent vaccination trials on the public, trials which pre absolved the pharmas of any reponsibility for any subsequent damage, kerching.

Already been posted by CF a few days ago but conveniently been lost in the subsequent arguments, well played Franglais :smiling_imp: , 'll just bump this back here again :wink:

youtube.com/watch?v=SpGcEf2yCok

228

Juddian:
The good doctor’s video of what looks like collusion by all factions of the uniparty in parliament to discredit and cut short what should have been an important debate about ongoing deaths and injuries following the recent vaccination trials on the public, trials which pre absolved the pharmas of any reponsibility for any subsequent damage, kerching.

Already been posted by CF a few days ago but conveniently been lost in the subsequent arguments, well played Franglais :smiling_imp: , 'll just bump this back here again :wink:

youtube.com/watch?v=SpGcEf2yCok

Sinister?

Was there any attempt to shut Bridgen up? Was he in any way gagged by the speaker etc?
No.
He was allowed to make his statement, in the house, without hindrance wasn`t he?

Doesn`t seem to matter how misleading statements are in the HoC (see Johnson et al) they go ahead.

Campbell: “Crouched over in case he is observed”. Does that seem credible?
The Tory(?) MP who walks along a bit crouched is keeping out of the line of sight of Mr Speaker and Bridgen. A bit unnecessary but a courtesy.

Mountains?/Molehills?

Campbell has history in the art of inuendo. Mind you, he is of the lay-it-on-with a-trowel-school, not the subtle-art-of-school.

Bizarre event? Speaking to an empty house?
3 minutes of hard graft at the coalface of Google reveal that the Bridgen speech was an “Adjournment Debate”.
A debate at the end of the day, and in this case a Friday, and notably with no vote afterwards.
If he was raising new or substantial material, (the House is always informed of the subject matter,) might have encouraged some to stay, but a rehash of old fake news, isn`t news.
No surprise that the rest of the House buggered off.

Campbell fails, of course, to play the reply to Bridgen by Will Quince.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/1 … %3A35%3A27
Bridgen starts at 15hr35, and is followed by Quince.

229

It takes a lot for me to laugh out loud before eight o`clock on a damp grey morning,m but I did to-day.
youtube.com/watch?v=iyo2UNQcdpQ

Apart from the obvious: correlation is not causation

The laughter was at 1min50 when Campbell stresses it is a pre-print and is not peer reviewed.
Certainly true, and that is why anyone with any sense would treat it with, at the least, caution.

Campbell suggests it may never get published by a reputable magazine. So, why is he publishing it on air?
Is he disreputable? Well, clearly he is.
His previous videos are full of omissions of evidence contrary to his stance, contain many other errors.

Wait until the paper has been reviewed and then see if those reviews are in any way biased, so he can show there really is a conspiracy? Nah, chuck it all out there and doubtless some will fly around and stick somewhere.

A once reasonable guy, now earning well from sensationalist videos.

230

I’m guessing he was once a reasonable guy right up to the moment when he started to question that which you have such an investment in that you couldn’t conceive of any line but the official one?

231

the maoster:
I’m guessing he was once a reasonable guy right up to the moment when he started to question that which you have such an investment in that you couldn’t conceive of any line but the official one?

No, he seemed quite reasonable when he accurately reported on what was going on.
Since his more recent videos are demonstrably not accurate I say he is no longer reasonable.

232

Nothing wrong at all with questioning the “official line” at all.

Misrepresenting facts, and ignoring facts, in order to “prove” that the “official line” is wrong, is equally as bad as having a wrong “official line”.

He seems to be more concerned with proving there is a conspiracy out there (and getting millions of lucrative hits on YT) than looking dispassionately at all the facts.
Repeatedly he cherry picks his stats ignoring what isn`t on his side.
All the original data is out there. He only shows the bits supporting his arguments.

233

Franglais:
Nothing wrong at all with questioning the “official line” at all.

Misrepresenting facts, and ignoring facts, in order to “prove” that the “official line” is wrong, is equally as bad as having a wrong “official line”.

He seems to be more concerned with proving there is a conspiracy out there (and getting millions of lucrative hits on YT) than looking dispassionately at all the facts.
Repeatedly he cherry picks his stats ignoring what isn`t on his side.
All the original data is out there. He only shows the bits supporting his arguments.

The irony when it’s you who misrepresents or ignores facts that don’t fit your own narrative.
Tell us exactly which data has Dr.Cambell ignored or misrepresented and how.
As opposed to facts like a joint Chinese and US gain of function research programme involving both Fort Derrick and Wuhan facilities and Porton Down’s documented involvement in the ‘vaccines’.
Or the fact that the so called ‘vaccines’ are just experimental genetically engineered gene therapies let loose or inflicted on the public under emergency licence and a laughable CCP style propaganda operation.
Which really just leaves the question emergency nothing to lose anti dote to a gain of function chimaera release.
Or deliberate depopulation programme to meet the stated aims of people like Gates to solve the population problem obviously especially in high consumption high living standards expectation western countries.
I’ve changed my original view in that regard bearing in mind that Campbell was firmly in your camp on your deluded or sinister side of
this sham at the start of it.

234

conservativewoman.co.uk/why … vid-virus/

Dr Mike Yeadon’s words should be read and digested by anyone who considers themselves awake.

How long will it take for the inevitable character assassination of the good doctor here :smiling_imp: , plus some comments about how he must be raking it in :laughing:

235

For starters, how about:
“no other conclusion is supported by the facts than that it’s a huge crime, extensively planned”
Really?

Stating there is only one possible conclusion, seems rather extreme.

But more than that, the solid conclusion is that the *entire worlds governments colluded in this massive conspiracy,* when we all know most of em cant agree on *anything*, and couldnt organise a ■■■■ up in a brewery!
Nonsense.

236

Franglais:
For starters, how about:
“no other conclusion is supported by the facts than that it’s a huge crime, extensively planned”
Really?

Stating there is only one possible conclusion, seems rather extreme.

But more than that, the solid conclusion is that the *entire worlds governments colluded in this massive conspiracy,* when we all know most of em cant agree on *anything*, and couldnt organise a ■■■■ up in a brewery!
Nonsense.

Next you’ll be telling us that the fact of the WHO’s a UN’s and CCPs existence and part in all this and more than one national government following their narrative, is a conspiracy theory.
Remind me what is the letter W refers to in that.
Or for that matter facts like mRNA gene therapies being dressed up as a ‘vaccine’ and the definition of ‘vaccine’ being altered to suit by more than one national government.
Are you saying that didn’t happen ?.

237

I was listening to PM Questions this morning… :open_mouth:
I can do ‘intellectual’ when I put my mind to it you know,.I ain’t all 'Beer, birds,.and football :bulb: :laughing: …(maybe not as pseudo intellectual.as The Rt Hon Dr Franglais and Professor Carryfast though. :smiley: )

Anyhoo …this guy came on saying one of his constituents lives was basically totally and utterly ■■■■ ed after a Covid injection, they could only claim a cap of something like 100k I think it was,.so would the PM join him in trying to help this poor guy.

After the usual standard b/s statement of ‘I can not comment on individual cases’ :unamused: …the answer was so very carefully constructed and laid out , and obviously rehearsed for when this stuff came up.

We got all the …‘‘While we all know the injections are safe and crucial blah blah, very few people have suffered blah blah., minimal cases blah blah. high success rate blah blah’’…
It was so obvious.then he told the MP that his guy could claim his money and was then free to sue the Pharnaceutical co on top if he wished…so basically left to his own ends and fate eh?..great help, nice one Ricci. :unamused:

As I said they are sh scared that these contrary to the official line type opinions are going to be held by the majority,.and do not want to set a precedent of bringing these cases to the fore front and helping them (draw your own conclusions for the reasons)…that is of course always providing they are not already a majority held view .

238

I see you as more 3 B’s……beer, birds and Brexit :wink:

239

switchlogic:
I see you as more 3 B’s……beer, birds and Brexit :wink:

Yeah but I can’t take ANY of that as a criticism. :smiley:

240

robroy:
I was listening to PM Questions this morning… :open_mouth:
I can do ‘intellectual’ when I put my mind to it you know,.I ain’t all 'Beer, birds,.and football :bulb: :laughing: …(maybe not as pseudo intellectual.as The Rt Hon Dr Franglais and Professor Carryfast though. :smiley: )

Anyhoo …this guy came on saying one of his constituents lives was basically totally and utterly [zb] ed after a Covid injection, they could only claim a cap of something like 100k I think it was,.so would the PM join him in trying to help this poor guy.

After the usual standard b/s statement of ‘I can not comment on individual cases’ :unamused: …the answer was so very carefully constructed and laid out , and obviously rehearsed for when this stuff came up.

We got all the …‘‘While we all know the injections are safe and crucial blah blah, very few people have suffered blah blah., minimal cases blah blah. high success rate blah blah’’…
It was so obvious.then he told the MP that his guy could claim his money and was then free to sue the Pharnaceutical co on top if he wished…so basically left to his own ends and fate eh?..great help, nice one Ricci. :unamused:

As I said they are sh scared that these contrary to the official line type opinions are going to be held by the majority,.and do not want to set a precedent of bringing these cases to the fore front and helping them (draw your own conclusions for the reasons)…that is of course always providing they are not already a majority held view .

Ive gone through PMQs for yesterday, but cant find what you are referring to. Anyway, I`ll take it as you describe it.

You think that the PM had a friendly question from his own side about vaccines, because he had a pre-prepared answer?
Agreed it is a common way to go about things. Your own side plants a question so you look good.

So, why plant a question about a topic they want to hush-up, or are worried about?