Sadly yes
Here’s the NZ article on it. This is NZ broadsheet newspaper.
2 Likes
Is it April the first???
4 Likes
“poop”?!
Surely this must be some brilliant set-up?!
it’s how it was described here
Although it’s tempting to think it’s some kind satire, it’s being lead from the top. One of the lead organisers Brad Flutey is an EMF nut. They have been going around with EMF detectors!
I think this is somewhat consistent amongst a number of antivaxxers across the west - and perhaps the world?
Ours are far less entertaining though. Just lunatics without the fun bit.
2 Likes
Ours had bouncy castles, but they weren’t nearly as entertaining as they thought they were.
3 Likes
I went to an anti-antivax demonstration here in Cologne. At some point the antivaxxers demonstration path crossed where we were. Both sides shouting “Nazis” at each other for 20 minutes. I think it was really productive.
2 Likes
Unbelievable was a total banger to be fair.
4 Likes
It’s a kind of dialogue, isn’t it.
2 Likes
Will there be a future anti-anti-antivax demo? Something along the lines of antidisestablishmentarianism?
1 Like
surely thats just a pro anti vax rally/demo?
1 Like
So Pfizer documents that the FDA wanted sealed until 2097 are being released today…wonder why they wanted them sealed for so long?
Think I saw something about this the other day. 1,000s of deaths from one of their products that the FDA should never have approved.
A significant amount (the pertinent stuff) about the applications are already public. This version of the story is regarding a FOI asking for an additional half a million pages of documents, all of which have to go through a formal vetting process before they are released in accordance with the FOI. The so called “release date” (2076, not 2097) was not the date the FDA was arguing they would be kept confidential until, but that date the final document would be released if they starting releasing them immediately and then continued doing so at regular intervals according to the typical rate of processing and release. Essentially, the FDA has claimed they can do 12,000 pages immediately and with a typical cadence of once a month could release an additional 500 pages per month. That would make the final release be schedule to the public domain by 2076. This was rejected by a court earlier this year demanding the rate of release be increased 100 fold (55k pages a month). All today represents (yesterday?) is the release of the first tranche of documents. The only difference is the volume of material being released today and the scheduled completion date for all the requested documents (7 months as opposed to 60 years).
So, the FDA’s intention was never to keep this under lock and key until the end date as the conspiracy suggests. Instead it was a continual release of documents that would have started immediately. Nor is it some secret as to why it is now happening differently - it was determined in court it had to - i.e. public knowledge of the decision and the explanation for it.
Really, the only debate here is how much of the limited and already stressed resources of a key public health agency should be devoted to this during an acute public health crisis (and how much in good faith are the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency group operating in). It is therefore relevant that the group who submitted the FOIA acknowledged that the documents may be misunderstood by the general public, but such an argument does not apply to them because they are professionals with the expertise to interpret them correctly. It possibly speaks to their actual motivations that they have already posted the entire tranche of released documents to their website immediately without a single word of guidance for readers or annotation seemingly in full understanding that they will be misunderstood.
2 Likes
Interesting and potentially positive data from the RECOVERY trial nicely summarized by these tweets.
2 Likes
I do not post here anymore - I am making an exception in this case because this is important information. Nobody is forcing you to watch this.
Doubtless, there will be a couple of people on here who try to discredit the author, the trials,the scientific institutions, the colour of the Doctors pen.
I will not be responding to any comments - Watch the video and make of it what you will.
- Just for clarity I am triple vaxed and have no agenda - only to come to a conclusion based upon the evidence.
Started watching and will finish later but one immediate question is the study he is referring to different to the one that was withdrawn and discredited for some serious flaws in its reporting? Does he mention that study at all?
I know the anti vax community jumped on Ivermectin despite the lack of solid evidence. I don’t doubt big pharma were playing games either but to jump on an untested drug in lieu of what they call an untested vaccine was a bit odd to say the least.
1 Like
To be fair, only if they are cranks.
I haven’t watched the video, but I don’t think blogging the science on YouTube is a good start. Even if what he is saying is true, it’s probably best to let the science speak through the scientific community.
100% open to the idea that a drug developed for one purpose could be found to also be effective for another (Viagra the classic contemporary example of this). The rheumatoid arthritis drug recently shown to lower the risk of death amongst those with covid a more topical one. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen peer-reviewed evidence in support of Ivermectin though.