Armchair Critic,

<<That I should be ok with injecting into my bloodstream whatever poison these pharmaceutical companies have skipped regular trials for >>

Do you read all of the numbers on the back of products when you go shopping? You might have an allergic reaction to one of those poisonous additives.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-e-numbers-and-should-you-avoid-them-in-your-diet-43908#:~:text=In%20Australia%2C%20it%20can%20be%20found%20on%20labels,colour%20164%E2%80%9D%20in%20Australia%20%28or%20E164%20in%20Europe%29.

For example one part of the article says: "Everything is toxic in a high enough dose. Even caffeine is toxic if you have enough of it."

Personally re food additives and getting allergic reactions to these, I doubt though you're even going to care. If you eat 100% certified organic food or go vegetarian you might have a better chance of avoiding all of these additives, but most in Australia don't live that way.

Finally an Australian man has died in India after contracting COVID-19, authorities have confirmed. Taking a vaccination here is a public interest issue and the more that can be done to kill off COVID-19 the better!

The question is not whether the vaccine is a uni-dimensional good.

For starters, it's not a vaccine, okay? It's an irreversible permanent genetic modification, that has not been approved by ordinary law, but only on an emergency basis, even though safer and more effective treatments are available, without paying zillions for IP rights to Pharma. The clinical trials are not due to finish for at least another year. The animal trials were skipped, and previously were discontinued because they killed so many animals. It is causing deaths, strokes, heart-attacks, and many other injuries to people who took it - any other medicine would have been banned at this stage. Informed consent is missing. The jabs do not stop you getting the virus, the disease, or transmitting it.

Gross mortality figures *have not significantly changed* in the last 5 years, which means THERE IS NO PANDEMIC.

Listen. Since 300,000 people have supposedly died of covid in the USA, why isn't there an extra 300,000 deaths on top of the usual 3 million deaths per year?

Because, since the PCR tests cannot distinguish between covid and a pawpaw, a pheasant, dog urine, or Coca-Cola, THEY CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INFLUENZA A AND B, AND COVID.

Okay? Got that?

And flu has magically disappeared!

The CDC has stated that only 7% of the deaths that it previously said were from Covid, were actually of Covid alone. The other 97%, the people are dying of co-morbidities - pneumonia, heart attack, HBP, diabetes, and flu.

Okay?

So even if the taking of vaccines is volunteered, and without any coercion - which they aren't - they still wouldn't have informed consent, and thus breach the Nuremberg principles for which doctors hanged.

And even if people gave informed consent, they can't consent for others whom they infect and who suffer injuries and wrongs, including the deaths of unborn children.

Now. Can you see in all these facts, any implication for the ASSUMPTION that there is no question that the imposition of vaccines is automatically justified because muh covid??

Sheesh! What is wrong with you people?

Is Mise,

Fact, not hairsplitting. Once you get permanent residence, you've got it made: don't have to call yourself Australian, don't even have to speak English. And you can toddle of back home anytime and stay as long as you like - always expecting to have the same privileges as native born and naturalised Australians - and whine and call everyone a racists when it doesn't work out that way.

Cumberland,

No answers to my questions about your accusations directed at me. What a surprise. Rather than your 'sheeshing' about what is wrong with other people, you should consult a professional to find out what is wrong with you.

As the world responds to the COVID-19 pandemic, we face the challenge of an overabundance of information related to the virus. Some of this information may be false and potentially harmful.

Inaccurate information spreads widely and at speed, making it more difficult for the public to identify verified facts and advice from trusted sources, such as their local health authority or WHO.

However, everyone can help to stop the spread. If you see content online that you believe to be false or misleading, you can report it to the hosting social media platform.

World Health Organisation.

Yes Paul, & now we actually know that what ever these concoctions are, they are not vaccines in the tradition of vaccines.

They do not prevent people from catching the virus, although they still claim to reduce the severity of the infection, if you have survived the vaccine itself.

They do not prevent you transmitting the to other folk, so can not in any way promote herd immunity.

So what the hell do they really do, & why are we wasting so much public money on the garbage?

Fool governments signed up sight unseen for these things probably to be seen to be doing "SOMETHING". They, & the taxpayer, have been totally ripped off just as a fool buying a used car sight unseen would be.

Foxy and Ttbn

Okay, sorry.

Foxy, did you know that:
1. they have never tried an mRNA treatment on humans before?
2. the animals trials were discontinued because all the animals died within 2 years, when they trialled mRNA for SARS? Pfizer's ex-Vice President, a senior scientist in all kinds of vaccines, said he thinks anyone taking it will be dead in 3 years?
3. they skipped the animal trials for this jab, which means, you are the guinea pig?
4. it has the highest rate of adverse events of any vaccine in history?

If they didn't informed you, that means they are guilty of breaching the Nuremberg principles, which means it's a crime against humanity as defined by law.

Did you know that when you got the jab?

Ttbn
"What point? What issues?"

The point and issues, that it is not good enough to say, it's voluntary, and if you want, take it, and if you don't, don't.

I think there are a number of issues.

IF the jab did not present a risk to others of having a non-consensual permanent modification of their genome with insertions of nanotechnology, THEN the consent of the patient would answer all questions of morality. But that's not the case: Pfizer.

Even if one consents, that does not justify covid policy.