You’ve lost me there Pat. Do you mean the bit about the dead lawyer?
The reference:
Died Suddenly
(Died Suddenly (2022 film) - Wikipedia)
2022 anti-vaccination propaganda film
Died Suddenly is a 2022 American anti-vaccination film produced by Stew Peters, a far-right and alt-right anti-vaccine activist. It promotes false claims about COVID-19 vaccines and Great Reset conspiracy theories. The film was released on Rumble and Twitter on November 21, 2022. On May 30, 2023, Peters released a related film, Final Days, on Twitter. Wikipedia
Reading this propaganda entry, Pat needn’t feel too guilty about being amused.
Hancock will need to find another lawyer willing to posture, lie and cheat about cynical antisemitism allegations 
Yes, I also couldn’t help but laugh at the grim humour and irony of it! Imagine if the judge drops dead in court!
2 Likes
A concrete demand is emerging - Norman Fenton is firming up on what vaccination data needs to be provided to settle the matter. Backed by David Davis MP.
Of course I expect that data will never be provided - but the refusal needs to be made a fuss of.
ED
Experts Demand ‘Shopping List’ of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety From ONS
A group of high-profile scientists and doctors who question the official narrative around vaccines met with MPs including David Davis and Andrew Bridgen
Experts Demand ‘Shopping List’ of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety From ONS
A group of high-profile scientists and doctors who question the official narrative around vaccines met with MPs including David Davis and Andrew Bridgen
12/15/2023
Experts used a Parliamentary meeting with MPs to demand the data needed to prove the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Last week’s meeting, arranged by MP Andrew Bridgen, was attended by well-known figures who have raised concerns about the vaccines, including Dr. Robert Malone, who pioneered the MRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna jabs.
The scientists made a number of presentations to the audience, who included ten MPs and four members of the House of Lords as well as journalists and campaigners.
The long-serving Conservative MP David Davis asked in response to the presentation by technology expert Steve Kirsch how he should frame a request to the Office for National Statistics to obtain the “record level” data needed to settle the debate on the safety and effectiveness of the jabs.
Mr. Kirsch invented the optical mouse and is the author of the book, “Turtles All the Way Down,” which questions the safety of all childhood vaccinations. His presentation highlighted the leaked New Zealand data which led to the arrest of government employee turned whistleblower Barry Young.
In response to Mr. Davis’ questions, Professor Norman Fenton—a mathematician and computer scientist at Queen Mary London University—compiled a list of needed data for the ONS, which he shared on his popular blog “Where Are The Numbers?”
Prof. Fenton said the data needs to be broken down into age groups and that data must be obtained for every single recipient of the vaccines in the UK.
He said the date of each jab must be noted as well as the date of each COVID-19 case they believe they suffered before and since their jabs. The number of hospital visits each jab each subject made prior to and since Dec. 2020 must also be recorded, he said.
Further data should be obtained on each recipient’s list of serious health conditions recorded before Dec. 2020 and the date of any new recorded serious illnesses since that date.
Data should also be obtained on the dates of every hospital admission, where applicable, and the date of death of any deceased. It must also be recorded whether or not Covid was given as the primary factor in each case.
Prof. Fenton said, “We recognise that this data will likely not be held in a single database, but it is surely in the national interest and the capability of the ONS (and only the ONS) to collate this information.”
He explained that once obtained, the data could be further broken down and analysed to obtain a true risk versus benefits analysis for the vaccines.
Prof. Fenton, who has been one of the leading voices in questioning both the lockdowns and the vaccines, said the data should determine whether the number of lives possibly saved by the vaccines is worth the risks when balanced against the number of deaths potentially caused by the jabs and the number of serious adverse reactions resulting in hospital treatment and long-term damage to health.
He said the figures will be used to test the hypothesis—promoted by governments around the world—that the vaccine saves more than it kills, broken down into different age groups.
It should reveal whether the vaccinated suffer from less severe COVID-19 than those who have never been vaccinated—the main claim made by their pharmaceutical giant manufacturers.
The questions should also reveal whether rates of serious new illness is statistically different in the vaccinated compared to their unvaccinated peers, and whether all-cause mortality reduces with each additional dose of the vaccine, as is claimed by the NHS.
The parliamentary meeting heard presentations from Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. David Martin, Dr. Ryan Cole and Professor Angus Dalgleish, as well as Dr. Malone and Prof. Fenton.
Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Mike Yeadon were both prevented from giving their pre-recorded video presentations due to technical problems, which Dr. Kory suggested afterwards could have been caused by saboteurs.
Writing on the event, billed as a meeting “For Democracy, Truth and Freedom,” Dr. Kory said that filming had not been allowed and many people were prevented from attending because the room had been changed from the original to one with a far smaller capacity.
Dr. Kory paid tribute to his colleagues on his blog: “I recall the quote, ‘In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ And I consider my colleagues serious revolutionaries. The talks were incredibly powerful, none more so than the ones by Steve Kirsch and Angus Dalgleish.”
A member of Mr. Davis’ staff confirmed to The Epoch Times that the MP intends to submit a list of questions to the ONS once the wording and detail to yield the best results has been agreed.
Professor Fenton should (perhaps) be applauded for asking the ONS for all the data referred to by @Evvy_dense above and repeated here:
- needs to be broken down into age groups
- for every single recipient of the vaccines in the UK
- data should be obtained on each recipient’s list of serious health conditions recorded before Dec. 2020
- date of any new recorded serious illnesses since that date
- dates of every hospital admission
- date of death of any deceased
However, in my humble opinion, if a guy with his intellectual capacity cannot see clearly from the evidence already available, he is acting exactly like a gatekeeper. There is enough data presented in Andrew Brigden’s parliamentary meeting to clearly show that the jab is harmful. Other sources of data freely available data include US DOD records, US Medicare records, the UK’s Yellow Card scheme, UK’s PIP data, NZ’s recent data, and even the ONS’s own data, as limited as it may be, confirm the harms and show the ‘safe and effective’ trope to be BS.
It seems to me that it is criminal to not face facts. Everyone knows that driving in rain at 100 miles an hour is dangerous. One doesn’t need to know exactly which age group are killed in 100 mph accidents in the rain, their previous driving record, what type of car, was the road lit, was it a motorway or dual carriageway, to say we have to stop driving at 100 in the rain or at the very least, not coerce them with propaganda to continue driving like that.
IMHO, anyone presented with even a smattering of evidence as all the MP’s were at that meeting, are either blind, corrupt, or protecting their own interests at the expense of the general population.
2 Likes
Totally agree @PatB - also it has been pointed out that the evidence to date passes all of the Bradford Hill conditions showing that the jab is the cause of death and serious harm :
Bradford Hill - according to wikipedia
" In 1965, the English statistician Sir [Austin Bradford Hill] proposed a set of nine criteria to provide [epidemiologic] evidence of a [causal relationship] between a presumed cause and an observed effect. (For example, he demonstrated the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.) The list of the criteria is as follows:
- Strength : A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
- Consistency : Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
- Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.
- Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
- Biological gradient ([dose–response relationship]: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.
- [Plausibility]: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
- Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that “lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations”.
- Experiment: “Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence”.
- Analogy: The use of analogies or similarities between the observed association and any other associations.
Some authors consider, also, Reversibility: If the cause is deleted then the effect should disappear as well.
( Reversibility looks like the establishment of control groups in a lab experiment or documented in a population, i.e. no covid jab group )
cheers
2 Likes
Untested products shouldn’t even be on the market but even if the covid ‘vaccines’ had been tested there is a clear onus for them to be confirmed to be safe in the postmarketing stage - the threshold for new products is guilty until proven innocent.
Fenton and his group are the biggest and most heavyweight critics of the ONS data.
I can sort of see where Fenton is coming from. Given that minds need to be changed, someone neutral-looking has to front the demand for data.
In overdoing the neutrality he’s perhaps getting the worst of the two worlds - he will still get flak as an ‘antivaxxer’ due to his scathing critcisms of the ONS he has already made.
I think he/they should have made more of the fact that the onus of proof is on the authorities and that means addressing all the concerns - not in due course, but before anyone else is poisoned.
2 Likes