Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
See Harrow, it's not hard to apologise
Why does it stick in your craw so much that I'm not a fan of bitcoin?
Select to expand quoteok said..
Anyone else want to start the conversation about the rise in cases of vertigo n strokes following these jabs? The guys at risk of vertigo / stroke are the common age of users on seabreezerssss
I wonder how bad it's got to get before there's a proper investigation? WHY ARE ALL THE HEADS OF THE TGA, health ministers all quitting???
I don't think anyone who didn't get jabbed regrets not getting jabbed. Even terminator has apologised for his mistake in encouraging it. 
"Of a total of 470,962 vaccine recipients (mean [?SD] age, 72.6?10.4 years), 97,234 (20.6%) received the monovalent vaccine and 373,728 (79.4%) received the bivalent vaccine (Fig. S2 and Table S1). After inverse probability of treatment weighting, sociodemographic and health-status characteristics were well balanced between the two groups (Fig. S3). At 21 days after the booster dose, we found no evidence of an increased risk of cardiovascular events among the recipients of the bivalent vaccine as compared with recipients of the monovalent vaccine. The evaluated events included ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 1.27), hemorrhagic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.61), myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.36), pulmonary embolism (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.40), and all four events combined (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.09) (Table 1). Thus, our results provide reassurance regarding the continued use of this bivalent vaccine."
Select to expand quoteok said..TonyAbbott said..
Found out a friend died of a heart attack last night
Late 40's
All too common these days, it should not be though
FU covid vaccines
Sorry for your losss.
www.gofundme.com/f/loving-memory-of-eddie-dos-santos?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_content=undefined&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer&utm_term=undefined
Bloke my age from my town in my circle of friends died of brain aneurysm last week.
Anyone else want to start the conversation about the rise in cases of vertigo n strokes following these jabs? The guys at risk of vertigo / stroke are the common age of users on seabreezerssss
I wonder how bad it's got to get before there's a proper investigation? WHY ARE ALL THE HEADS OF THE TGA, health ministers all quitting???
I don't think anyone who didn't get jabbed regrets not getting jabbed. Even terminator has apologised for his mistake in encouraging it.
So many young people dieing, so many people with heart problems. Never seen anything like it.
I regret getting The Vax. I am sure it has no significant negative impact on me, but it has had zero positive impact either. I am definitely not getting any booster, ever.
People that did not get it have no regrets. They call themselves 'pure bloods'. They wear this title as a badge of honour and are proud of their now vindicated choice.
I wonder if people who got it will start denying that they did so they can claim some honour back. Steal valour as a 'pure blood'
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
So many young people dieing, so many people with heart problems. Never seen anything like it.
I regret getting The Vax. I am sure it has no significant negative impact on me, but it has had zero positive impact either. I am definitely not getting any booster, ever.
People that did not get it have no regrets. They call themselves 'pure bloods'. They wear this title as a badge of honour and are proud of their now vindicated choice.
I wonder if people who got it will start denying that they did so they can claim some honour back. Steal valour as a 'pure blood'
Why are so many young people using a die? No idea, beats me.
Your logic is very hard to prove or disprove. You have no idea if the vaccine helped you or hindered you.
"Pure bloods" - pure wankers as far as I am concerned, but I am sure plenty will disagree with me. A badge of honor for not doing anything and not aiming to help the rest of society? Sure, whatever works for them.
As for the choice being 'vindicated'? Under what logic is that? If the rest of us hadn't got vaccinated would the whole of us, your buddies included, have had a hard time of it and had a random but high chance of dying? Check back on the 1918 Flu pandemic to see the results of that. Millions died. More than in the actual world war.
If I can summarise, you are saying that these 'pure bloods' are vindicated only because the rest of us took the hit and helped out by trying to reduce the transmission in the community. What marvels of modern society they are.
As for 'never seeing anything like it'; the modern news cycle means that you can find a lot of things almost instantly and find more if you go looking for it. It's like watching the evening news and wondering why the world is going to hell, yet its the same as it has always been.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..
As soon as the many eminent scientists and medical experts began to be censored in the press and social media it was obvious that the narrative was not robust enough to weather criticism and debate.
Robust scientific hypothesis welcomes debate and examination. Same reason the justice system operates in the way it does. Anyone whose had anything to do with kids knows that to find out the truth of a matter it is essential to listen to both sides.
Our eminent Seabreeze researchers appear to have waived this tenet.
It would be amusing were it not for the misery this period of history has witnessed.
Here we go again.
Which eminent scientists were censored?
I know there were many who claimed to be so when their scientific hypotheses and methodology were examined and found to be insufficient.
Many of these would cry they were being censored while still being free to publish as they wished, because they couldn't admit they made some incorrect assumptions.
They cried they were being censored even when they were invited to the Whitehouse to brief the president and his staff (the 45th, not the current guy).
If they were truly being censored instead of being scientists unwilling to admit hat their analyses, studies, papers, investigations were proven to be incorrect or inaccurate at best (all the while claiming the same about the mainstream information that they were challenging), how did you hear about it?
Why is their 'censored' material still widely available?
(Edit for typo)
Look it up. Better still expand your research and read Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci.
Funny how the man has a book written about him that absolutely lambastes his whole professional career and yet he avoids challenging any of it!
The same Kennedy who got blasted by his own family?
Who got called out by his own wife for the crazy stuff he comes out with?
Do you reckon he's right? That you are braver than Anne Frank hiding from the Germans?
You win. Should know better than to prove Mark Twain wrong.
I'm ok with having my ideas challenged and being proven wrong.
But when the guy throwing out the accusations has a decades long history of making wild claims that aren't backed up with scientific evidence (at least good Science) that don't stand up to analysis. I'm probably not keen on spending money to read a book that is apparently just one long personal attack.
Out of interest, have you read it?
Yes I have read it. I downloaded it in early May last year. It took a while to get through it. There is a list of the eminent scientists and medical people in who were censored by the way.
Select to expand quotejapie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..
As soon as the many eminent scientists and medical experts began to be censored in the press and social media it was obvious that the narrative was not robust enough to weather criticism and debate.
Robust scientific hypothesis welcomes debate and examination. Same reason the justice system operates in the way it does. Anyone whose had anything to do with kids knows that to find out the truth of a matter it is essential to listen to both sides.
Our eminent Seabreeze researchers appear to have waived this tenet.
It would be amusing were it not for the misery this period of history has witnessed.
Here we go again.
Which eminent scientists were censored?
I know there were many who claimed to be so when their scientific hypotheses and methodology were examined and found to be insufficient.
Many of these would cry they were being censored while still being free to publish as they wished, because they couldn't admit they made some incorrect assumptions.
They cried they were being censored even when they were invited to the Whitehouse to brief the president and his staff (the 45th, not the current guy).
If they were truly being censored instead of being scientists unwilling to admit hat their analyses, studies, papers, investigations were proven to be incorrect or inaccurate at best (all the while claiming the same about the mainstream information that they were challenging), how did you hear about it?
Why is their 'censored' material still widely available?
(Edit for typo)
Look it up. Better still expand your research and read Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci.
Funny how the man has a book written about him that absolutely lambastes his whole professional career and yet he avoids challenging any of it!
The same Kennedy who got blasted by his own family?
Who got called out by his own wife for the crazy stuff he comes out with?
Do you reckon he's right? That you are braver than Anne Frank hiding from the Germans?
You win. Should know better than to prove Mark Twain wrong.
I'm ok with having my ideas challenged and being proven wrong.
But when the guy throwing out the accusations has a decades long history of making wild claims that aren't backed up with scientific evidence (at least good Science) that don't stand up to analysis. I'm probably not keen on spending money to read a book that is apparently just one long personal attack.
Out of interest, have you read it?
Yes I have read it. I downloaded it in early May last year. It took a while to get through it. There is a list of the eminent scientists and medical people in who were censored by the way.
Censored?
Or made claims that were proven wrong or inaccurate at best, then their ego couldn't take it and claimed Censorship while still being able publish and disseminate wrong information?
I'm sure eminent scientists are supposed to be able acknowledge mistakes and errors when reviewed by others?
Like when after successfully conducting safety trials in tens of thousands of people, it was found that the Astrazeneca vaccine had rare but serious adverse events in wider population (after hundreds of thousands of doses) they changed the recommendations and advice. (This might get looked over sometimes because the post marketing monitoring is standard part of vaccine approvals)
Or is Professor Ioannidis one of those names listed?
So is the book really just one long personal attack on Fauci?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
As for the choice being 'vindicated'? Under what logic is that? If the rest of us hadn't got vaccinated would the whole of us, your buddies included, have had a hard time of it and had a random but high chance of dying? Check back on the 1918 Flu pandemic to see the results of that. Millions died. More than in the actual world war.
If I can summarise, you are saying that these 'pure bloods' are vindicated only because the rest of us took the hit and helped out by trying to reduce the transmission in the community. What marvels of modern society they are.
The Lancet article I posted above estimates, "that COVID-19 vaccines helped avert 19.8 million deaths across the globe during the first year after vaccination campaigns were initiated."
Select to expand quoteremery said..FormulaNova said..
As for the choice being 'vindicated'? Under what logic is that? If the rest of us hadn't got vaccinated would the whole of us, your buddies included, have had a hard time of it and had a random but high chance of dying? Check back on the 1918 Flu pandemic to see the results of that. Millions died. More than in the actual world war.
If I can summarise, you are saying that these 'pure bloods' are vindicated only because the rest of us took the hit and helped out by trying to reduce the transmission in the community. What marvels of modern society they are.
The Lancet article I posted above estimates, "that COVID-19 vaccines helped avert 19.8 million deaths across the globe during the first year after vaccination campaigns were initiated."
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming "primarily a marketing machine" and co-opting "every institution that might stand in its way"
journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Select to expand quoteD3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..D3 said..japie said..
As soon as the many eminent scientists and medical experts began to be censored in the press and social media it was obvious that the narrative was not robust enough to weather criticism and debate.
Robust scientific hypothesis welcomes debate and examination. Same reason the justice system operates in the way it does. Anyone whose had anything to do with kids knows that to find out the truth of a matter it is essential to listen to both sides.
Our eminent Seabreeze researchers appear to have waived this tenet.
It would be amusing were it not for the misery this period of history has witnessed.
Here we go again.
Which eminent scientists were censored?
I know there were many who claimed to be so when their scientific hypotheses and methodology were examined and found to be insufficient.
Many of these would cry they were being censored while still being free to publish as they wished, because they couldn't admit they made some incorrect assumptions.
They cried they were being censored even when they were invited to the Whitehouse to brief the president and his staff (the 45th, not the current guy).
If they were truly being censored instead of being scientists unwilling to admit hat their analyses, studies, papers, investigations were proven to be incorrect or inaccurate at best (all the while claiming the same about the mainstream information that they were challenging), how did you hear about it?
Why is their 'censored' material still widely available?
(Edit for typo)
Look it up. Better still expand your research and read Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci.
Funny how the man has a book written about him that absolutely lambastes his whole professional career and yet he avoids challenging any of it!
The same Kennedy who got blasted by his own family?
Who got called out by his own wife for the crazy stuff he comes out with?
Do you reckon he's right? That you are braver than Anne Frank hiding from the Germans?
You win. Should know better than to prove Mark Twain wrong.
I'm ok with having my ideas challenged and being proven wrong.
But when the guy throwing out the accusations has a decades long history of making wild claims that aren't backed up with scientific evidence (at least good Science) that don't stand up to analysis. I'm probably not keen on spending money to read a book that is apparently just one long personal attack.
Out of interest, have you read it?
Yes I have read it. I downloaded it in early May last year. It took a while to get through it. There is a list of the eminent scientists and medical people in who were censored by the way.
Censored?
Or made claims that were proven wrong or inaccurate at best, then their ego couldn't take it and claimed Censorship while still being able publish and disseminate wrong information?
I'm sure eminent scientists are supposed to be able acknowledge mistakes and errors when reviewed by others?
Like when after successfully conducting safety trials in tens of thousands of people, it was found that the Astrazeneca vaccine had rare but serious adverse events in wider population (after hundreds of thousands of doses) they changed the recommendations and advice. (This might get looked over sometimes because the post marketing monitoring is standard part of vaccine approvals)
Or is Professor Ioannidis one of those names listed?
So is the book really just one long personal attack on Fauci?
Read it and you will find out.
This film epitomises the corruption that ram rife throughout the Covid era.
In October 2020 Dr. Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
Tess Lawrie had the foresight to record her zoom conversation with him after he did an about turn on his initial enthusiasm for the medication after reviewing the data.
Watch him squirm!
worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/dear-andy-dr-tess-lawrie/
Select to expand quotejapie said..
This film epitomises the corruption that ram rife throughout the Covid era.
In October 2020 Dr. Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
Tess Lawrie had the foresight to record her zoom conversation with him after he did an about turn on his initial enthusiasm for the medication after reviewing the data.
Watch him squirm!
worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/dear-andy-dr-tess-lawrie/
The same Tess Lawrie now promoting Homeopath as a cure for Covid?
Select to expand quotejapie said..remery said..
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming "primarily a marketing machine" and co-opting "every institution that might stand in its way"
journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
That's over a decade old and about advertising in the journal, not the peer reviewed articles. But you knew that.
Select to expand quote
Yes I have read it. I downloaded it in early May last year. It took a while to get through it. There is a list of the eminent scientists and medical people in who were censored by the way.
Censored?
Or made claims that were proven wrong or inaccurate at best, then their ego couldn't take it and claimed Censorship while still being able publish and disseminate wrong information?
I'm sure eminent scientists are supposed to be able acknowledge mistakes and errors when reviewed by others?
Like when after successfully conducting safety trials in tens of thousands of people, it was found that the Astrazeneca vaccine had rare but serious adverse events in wider population (after hundreds of thousands of doses) they changed the recommendations and advice. (This might get looked over sometimes because the post marketing monitoring is standard part of vaccine approvals)
Or is Professor Ioannidis one of those names listed?
So is the book really just one long personal attack on Fauci?
Read it and you will find out.
You've not really described it as a enthralling page turner.
Can't I have the cliff notes?
If only for the sake of everyone here? If I read it, I'll probably have to post massive responses to each and every chapter.
Consider it in the best interests of the forum?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
The same Tess Lawrie now promoting Homeopath as a cure for Covid?
"Tess Lawrie has been promoting ivermectin for COVID-19 for two and a half years. Of late, she has becoming more of a general multipurpose quack, promoting ivermectin to treat cancer. Now she's promoting homeopathy for COVID"
So what do you reckon guys?
What's the probability of a young healthy weight woman such as this actress having to be put on a ventilator because they caught Covid? And does she deserve an Oscar?
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
So what do you reckon guys?
What's the probability of a young healthy weight woman such as this actress having to be put on a ventilator because they caught Covid? And does she deserve an Oscar?
www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00081-0/fulltext
3%ICU Admission with covid til June last year were 18-25 year Olds.
Higher than you'd think
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
So what do you reckon guys?
What's the probability of a young healthy weight woman such as this actress having to be put on a ventilator because they caught Covid? And does she deserve an Oscar?
It was a good ad that didn't really match reality. So what!
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
3%ICU Admission with covid til June last year were 18-25 year Olds.
Higher than you'd think
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
It was a good ad that didn't really match reality. So what!
So what? Do you accept Government propaganda?
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
There's about 20 Australians under 20 who have died of COVID.
Select to expand quoteremery said..D3 said..
The same Tess Lawrie now promoting Homeopath as a cure for Covid?
"Tess Lawrie has been promoting ivermectin for COVID-19 for two and a half years. Of late, she has becoming more of a general multipurpose quack, promoting ivermectin to treat cancer. Now she's promoting homeopathy for COVID"
Based on an interview she did
"When I posted about this conversation on Thursday, a few readers shared their understandable scepticism that a substance so diluted can have any effect. Isn't it then just water, after all? Well, Dr Fibert points out that we now have the technology that allows us to see the nanodoses found in homeopathic remedies. I really enjoyed exploring this with Dr Fibert: we spoke about Luc Montagnier's work on water having memory, and she referred me to the work of Professor Iris Bell in Arizona, who has investigated immunity and homeopathy's potential for stimulating an immune response to produce a healing effect. While we don't fully understand the mechanism as to how homeopathy works, it is so incredibly safe, there seems little reason not to give it a try. If you'd like to find a homeopath, Dr Fibert shared the following resource for the UK: Find a Homeopath - Search for Registered PractitionersNon-UK-based readers, if you know of similar resources for your respected countries please let me know in the comments and I will add them to this post."
Tess Lawrie
Does it not occur to you that searching for a criticism of someone rather than listening to what they say or write exposes your bias and makes you look like a twat?
Select to expand quotejapie said..remery said..D3 said..
The same Tess Lawrie now promoting Homeopath as a cure for Covid?
"Tess Lawrie has been promoting ivermectin for COVID-19 for two and a half years. Of late, she has becoming more of a general multipurpose quack, promoting ivermectin to treat cancer. Now she's promoting homeopathy for COVID"
Based on an interview she did
"When I posted about this conversation on Thursday, a few readers shared their understandable scepticism that a substance so diluted can have any effect. Isn't it then just water, after all? Well, Dr Fibert points out that we now have the technology that allows us to see the nanodoses found in homeopathic remedies. I really enjoyed exploring this with Dr Fibert: we spoke about Luc Montagnier's work on water having memory, and she referred me to the work of Professor Iris Bell in Arizona, who has investigated immunity and homeopathy's potential for stimulating an immune response to produce a healing effect. While we don't fully understand the mechanism as to how homeopathy works, it is so incredibly safe, there seems little reason not to give it a try. If you'd like to find a homeopath, Dr Fibert shared the following resource for the UK: Find a Homeopath - Search for Registered PractitionersNon-UK-based readers, if you know of similar resources for your respected countries please let me know in the comments and I will add them to this post."
Tess Lawrie
Does it not occur to you that searching for a criticism of someone rather than listening to what they say or write exposes your bias and makes you look like a twat?
Except that Homeopath doesn't work. The more potent doses (read lowest concentration) are so dilute they almost won't contain even one particle of the supposed active ingredient. Let alone whatever a 'Nanodose' is.
And the memory of water? Just some magical thinking. Otherwise straight rainwater should be super potent with the miniscule contaminants it picks up from the atmosphere. Or does it need a Homeopath to speak an incantation and wave a magic wand over it to make it work properly?
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..D3 said..
3%ICU Admission with covid til June last year were 18-25 year Olds.
Higher than you'd think
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
What do you consider an issue?
A couple of days at home crook?
A week?
Needing fancy new antivirals to treat the disease?
Admission to hospital?
Admission to ICU?
Cos let's be honest, their chances of suffering any of those are dramatically reduced if they get vaccinated.
And aren't there loads of comments on here stating how unhealthy and unfit our population is? What's the percentage of that age bracket that will have chronic issues?
A significant portion I'd warrant.
Then include the ones who can't afford to take time off from work in the current financial situation.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Based on an interview she did
"When I posted about this conversation on Thursday, a few readers shared their understandable scepticism that a substance so diluted can have any effect. Isn't it then just water, after all? Well, Dr Fibert points out that we now have the technology that allows us to see the nanodoses found in homeopathic remedies. I really enjoyed exploring this with Dr Fibert: we spoke about Luc Montagnier's work on water having memory, and she referred me to the work of Professor Iris Bell in Arizona, who has investigated immunity and homeopathy's potential for stimulating an immune response to produce a healing effect. While we don't fully understand the mechanism as to how homeopathy works, it is so incredibly safe, there seems little reason not to give it a try. If you'd like to find a homeopath, Dr Fibert shared the following resource for the UK: Find a Homeopath - Search for Registered PractitionersNon-UK-based readers, if you know of similar resources for your respected countries please let me know in the comments and I will add them to this post."
Tess Lawrie
Does it not occur to you that searching for a criticism of someone rather than listening to what they say or write exposes your bias and makes you look like a twat?
A twat you say? I'm thinking that attempting to convince gullible people to try a disease intervention that, "we don't fully understand the mechanism [of but], it is so incredibly safe" but actually does nothing, is more tat-like. "Lies have consequences"... just ask Fox News.
While we don't fully understand the mechanism as to how homeopathy works, it is so incredibly safe, there seems little reason not to give it a try.
I can think of one reason. I could spend my money on something that actually works, rather than overpriced sugar pills and bottled water that are supposed to function in complete defiance our understanding of Physics, chemistry and biology.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Flying Dutchman said..
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
There's about 20 Australians under 20 who have died of COVID.
You better not look up suicide rates for young people after the government locked everyone in their own homes. Those 20 deaths were people who already were immune compromised. Covid was just the straw that broke the camels back. We literally put the lives of fit healthy people on hold or destroyed them for the sake of fat lazy people to not get hospitalised by a flu.
I wonder when Dr Peter Mcullogh is going to get an apology for being right about everything he said. 
Select to expand quoteremery said..Flying Dutchman said..
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
There's about 20 Australians under 20 who have died of COVID.
Sorry, I missed your comparison to prior years under 20s cold and flu deaths. Are you suggesting that children didn't die before Covid? Because there's definitely only 20 kids that have died in the last four years and they were all from Covid. Wow, imagine how quickly the planet will become overpopulated now that the covax saves every life. I'm gonna buy some super long term investments now that I'm guaranteed to live forever, how long does it take carbon to form diamonds?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
While we don't fully understand the mechanism as to how homeopathy works, it is so incredibly safe, there seems little reason not to give it a try.
I can think of one reason. I could spend my money on something that actually works, rather than overpriced sugar pills and bottled water that are supposed to function in complete defiance our understanding of Physics, chemistry and biology.
What precisely has this to do with Andrew Hill's u-turn on his endorsing ivermectin anyhow?
Select to expand quoteok said..remery said..Flying Dutchman said..
C'mon D3, let's be honest here.... for a healthy kid of 18-25, Covid's not an issue for 99.999% of them, unless they have multiple underlying heath issues.
There's about 20 Australians under 20 who have died of COVID.
You better not look up suicide rates for young people after the government locked everyone in their own homes. Those 20 deaths were people who already were immune compromised. Covid was just the straw that broke the camels back. We literally put the lives of fit healthy people on hold or destroyed them for the sake of fat lazy people to not get hospitalised by a flu.
I wonder when Dr Peter Mcullogh is going to get an apology for being right about everything he said.
Peter McCullough is a fool according to The Sage ??
