Chomper Higgot

“the effectiveness of vaccines and if and how they prevent transmission is totally irrelevant to my observation.” The effectiveness of vaccines and if and how they prevent transmission is totally relevant to my observation. That you don’t understand the relevance does not negate the relevance.

If a waiter is vaccinated, s/he is less likely to be infected, less likely to have a breakthrough infection, and will recover in a shorter period. Less likely to be infected and infected for a shorter period = less likely to be infectious at any given time.

Says who? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

But they do reduce the probability of both catching and spreading the virus.

Assange is facing trial in an open court, he’ll have legal representation and Constitutional rights. Now I know Assange is an Australian but what’s all this imaginary nonsense about kangaroos?

Absolutely no need to have an offshore account. Stick with a UK bank, use online banking and make all your communications paperless.

If Assange has only engaged in journalism then he has nothing to fear. The charges angus at him are espionage, these charges will be tested in an open court trial. There isn’t going to be another Trump administration and the terms of his extradition are binding. He has one last hope. If he has dirt on the UK Government he might have his extradition quashed by the Home Secretary.

Snowden and Farage are completely different.

And what Farage was up to meeting with Assange directly after returning from meetings with theses same convicted criminals.

Assange has lost his appeal to prevent his extradition to the US. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/10/julian-assange-can-be-extradited-to-us-to-face-espionage-charges-court-rules

It his facts are bang up to date.

The FDA have a very practical reason to seek protection of the confidentiality of documents submitted to them during drug trials and drug authorizations. The task of review and authorization requires full and candid disclosure of findings, which will inevitably include data useful to competitors of the applicant, without assured confidentiality of data submitted there is a commercial risk to applicants and therefore a commercial imperative to be less candid in their submissions.

The misrepresentation of facts, data and reports by anti-vaxxers is a thing. What we never get to see is where the OP found this ‘accusation’, he surely did not happen upon a court judgement by chance then immediately stumble across an obscure risk assessment procedure.

Excellent post, thank you.

Well the information is released now. Let us know what you think they were trying to keep from us (with quotes from the released report please).

Industrial secrets may be legally kept indefinitely, they are not ‘public property’. I, and I have no doubt many other members here, have personally signed confidentiality agreements that forbid me discussing the information I have regarding the businesses I have worked for or with, these secrecy agreements run indefinitely. I assure you of this, nothing I ever came across is being withheld from anyone for sinister reasons. If you allege sinister reason you need to prove sinister reasons. I suggest you start by trying to find a disparity between this released report and the published safety data. After all, if there is something being hidden that something is in the report. My observation is the only thing not revealed is the number of doses to which the reported ‘adverse events’ relate. References (b) (4) are missing from the OP.

I don’t support the ‘fact’. I point out that it is very normal practice. You need to produce evidence of sinister intent that is a bit more substantial than half baked innuendo.

You are misrepresenting a vaccine assessment methodology as being proof of a vaccine risk existing. If you’ll tell us who’s feeding you this utterly ingenious conclusion we’ll know who to blame.

Confidentiality of industry/business information is nothing new and without proof of sinister intent your innuendo regarding this information being withheld is just that ‘innuendo’. You’ve taken pains to quote numbers of reported ‘adverse events’, which may be anything between a headache to severe reaction. What is not provided in this report is the total of vaccinations to which these ‘adverse events’ relate. The safety data sheet for the vaccine is published and has been available since the vaccines were released for use. Unless the reactions and incidence of reactions in this report is significantly different from that recorded in the published data sheets there is no scandal, nothing being hidden no conspiracy.

So people, many of them children, die of a list of diseases, therefore COVID doesn’t matter.

What you think is entirely up to you, but if you post what you think into a discussion forum then what you think is up for discussion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you got the jabs. Good choice.

It’s killing people who aren’t vaccinated on a order of magnitude greater than those who are vaccinated, regardless of any other health issue.

Bronchitis is usually, but not always an accompanying infection with a cold or flu but can also be caused by smoking and airborne pollution. Masks are not 100% effective, nor is social distancing, nor is hand washing, nor are vaccine, but you already know that. “I've caught nothing since COVID started.” Haven't you previously stated you were believed you were infected with COVID? Forgive me if, like masks, my memory is not perfect.

‘Chance’ is probability, the vaccines reduce the probability of becoming infected. The statement ‘’Don’t necessarily reduce the chance of getting COVD’ is both illogical and a misrepresentation of factual probability. The failure of a vaccine to provide a protection is already expressed within the probability of it providing protection. The vaccines do (dramatically) reduce the chance (probability) of serious illness. I don’t believe there is such a thing as a ‘bad dose’ of COVID, though there are bad outcomes arising from infection. More often visited upon the unvaccinated. Vaccines do not eliminate the virus nor do the reduce the viral load, but they do provide the immune system with a head start to do so. So I agree, not an outright lie, but mixed truth with fudged facts and an illogical statement.

That’s a very odd thing to say on an Internet forum.