[Kryptid]

anonymous whistle blowers are fine if they help the corporate system and its agendas and bad if they don't, sorry if I find the double standard rediculas.

Well, I don't hold that double standard.

All anonymous whistle-blowers should be viewed with suspicion.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

anonymous whistle blowers are fine if they help the corporate system and its agendas and bad if they don't, sorry if I find the double standard rediculas.

Well, I don't hold that double standard.

All anonymous whistle-blowers should be viewed with suspicion.

While I'm inclined to agree, whistle blowers used to be offered protection under the law, sadly today, we see whistle blowers like, Seth Rich shot in the back in cold blood, and other whistle blowers like Chelsea Manning in prison being tortured,  or as with Edward Snowden in Russia incapable of being able to return to America for the same reasons, there can be no expectation of a fair trial for Snowden and the clear possibility that he might not even survive long enough on returning to America to see a trail.

Seems clear the only option for whistle blowers today is to do so in secret, or risk being murdered or tortured by states like Britan and America that claim a moral high ground over countries that do exactly the same thing.

Whole of the west is ran by complete and total hypocrisy. Ruled by thugs.

I ponder what you suggest a whistle blower is to do? Allowing the criminality they seek to expose to continue out of fear,  is exactly the response those that are currently torturing whistle blowers seek.

We should we do just except that criminal thugs control our counties? Those same criminal thugs use anonymous sourses all the time to further their agendas.

[Bored chemist]

We need a new system.

To the extent that what you say is true (and that's not a zero extent but...) what we need is the old system back again.

A system where we don't hand power to billionaires just because they claim that running a country is the same as running a business (where they don't mind going bankrupt from time to time).

[Bored chemist]

I ponder what you suggest a whistle blower is to do?

Join forces with other whistle blowers (and whatever you want to call the people who have noticed that the system has gone to Hell in a hand cart.

[alancalverd]

the suggestion that the market is better then government to control society has allowed regulators to be captured by the very market forces they are meant to be monitoring. 

Whilst I have always found  European Union Directives to be fundamentally biassed in favor of the market, everyone I have worked with in ethics committees and national regulatory agencies (apart from the Health and Safety Executive) has been scrupulously honest and for the most part competent.

[Kryptid]

I ponder what you suggest a whistle blower is to do?

Get a hold of objective evidence.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I ponder what you suggest a whistle blower is to do?

Get a hold of objective evidence.

Which is basically saying nothing, whistle blowers generally release objective evidence, that proves the government or security services were acting criminally. The objective evidence isnt the issue, when providing that evidence lands a person in prison being tortured by the very criminals they sort to expose.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

the suggestion that the market is better then government to control society has allowed regulators to be captured by the very market forces they are meant to be monitoring.

Whilst I have always found  European Union Directives to be fundamentally biassed in favor of the market, everyone I have worked with in ethics committees and national regulatory agencies (apart from the Health and Safety Executive) has been scrupulously honest and for the most part competent.

Not sure that is relevant,  if the system has been designed intentionally to benefit the designers, honesty for participants in a system that is achieving its objectives, doesn't change the corruption the system was built to allow and protect.

[Kryptid]

So what objective evidence was given by that anonymous nursing home worker in Germany to support their claims?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So what objective evidence was given by that anonymous nursing home worker in Germany to support their claims?

It was as part of an interview the whistle blowers voice is changed to help hide their identity.

https://players.brightcove.net/6223967412001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6235744314001

[Kryptid]

It was as part of an interview the whistle blowers voice is changed to help hide their identity.

https://players.brightcove.net/6223967412001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6235744314001

Before I spend time watching a 39-minute video, tell me whether any objective evidence that Pfizer vaccinations actually caused deaths are presented or if the only thing we are given is the word of this anonymous caregiver.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It was as part of an interview the whistle blowers voice is changed to help hide their identity.

https://players.brightcove.net/6223967412001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6235744314001

Before I spend time watching a 39-minute video, tell me whether any objective evidence that Pfizer vaccinations actually caused deaths are presented or if the only thing we are given is the word of this anonymous caregiver.

You'll just have to watch it make up your own mind,  he describes his experience,  discusses how the 8 people died,  the changes in behaviour of the 11 other that suffered side effects, overall changes in the behaviour of all the people vaccinated. Their shock seeing army soldiers inside the care home protecting the Vaccine. It's the care givers perspective, that 7 died after the 1st vaccination isnt really in dispute.

[Kryptid]

You'll just have to watch it make up your own mind,  he describes his experience.

So an anecdote then.

that 7 died after the 1st vaccination isnt really in dispute.

Where has it been confirmed? How do we know that the vaccine was responsible?

[evan_au]

Re: How long should a Vaccine Trial take?

The field trial of a new 3rd generation vaccine could take a lot longer, if:
- It comes on the market in (say) 1 year,
- after herd immunity is achieved in some country
- and there is little virus circulating in that country

Solutions might be to:
- Test the new vaccine in a country which has a high level of circulating virus
- or high levels of a new strain of the virus
- Or, assuming the basic design/manfacturing process of the vaccine is already proven, to test the effectivenes of the vaccine in generating antibodies against the new (and old) strains
- This is how the lead-time for producing the seasonal flu is kept under 12 months - they don't actually do a double-blind placebo-controlled trial (the latter "gold-standard" clinical trial was done for the COVID-19 vaccines that were approved in countries with an independent approval body)

[Jolly2 (OP)]

You'll just have to watch it make up your own mind,  he describes his experience.

So an anecdote then.

Asking you to think for yourself is hardly anecdotal.

that 7 died after the 1st vaccination isnt really in dispute.

Where has it been confirmed? How do we know that the vaccine was responsible?

Sadly the media and social media are suppressing any negative reporting on the vaccines. I honestly don't know how people like yourself are going to find any truth, with regard to the vaccines.

[Bored chemist]

Asking you to think for yourself is hardly anecdotal.

True. Asking us to think wouldn't be anecdotal.
But that's not what you did is it.
What you were doing was asking us to let some anonymous guy on the internet who claims to be a care worker make up our minds for us.

And that's why we don't think you understand how science works.

Sadly the media and social media are suppressing any negative reporting on the vaccines.

Then how do you know about it?

If you know about it, then it's plain that it hasn't been suppressed, has it?

[Bored chemist]

Asking you to think for yourself is hardly anecdotal.

True. Asking us to think for ourselves wouldn't be anecdotal.
But that's not what you did is it?
What you were doing was asking us to let some anonymous guy on the internet who claims to be a care worker make up our minds for us.

And that's why we don't think you understand how science works.

Sadly the media and social media are suppressing any negative reporting on the vaccines.

Then how do you know about it?

If you know about it, then it's plain that it hasn't been suppressed, has it?

[Kryptid]

Asking you to think for yourself is hardly anecdotal.

No, I'm saying that the evidence presented in the video is anecdotal.

Sadly the media and social media are suppressing any negative reporting on the vaccines. I honestly don't know how people like yourself are going to find any truth, with regard to the vaccines.

So is that an admission that the claims of this anonymous caregiver cannot be confirmed?

Let me pose some questions to you: do you require that any claims presented in the media have to be back-checked as true before you accept them as truth? Likewise, do you require that any claims presented by an anonymous source on the Internet be back-checked as true before accepting them as true? If you have different standards for one than the other, please explain why.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Asking you to think for yourself is hardly anecdotal.

No, I'm saying that the evidence presented in the video is anecdotal.

Sadly the media and social media are suppressing any negative reporting on the vaccines. I honestly don't know how people like yourself are going to find any truth, with regard to the vaccines.

So is that an admission that the claims of this anonymous caregiver cannot be confirmed?

Currently, but I do not see why that would be a reason to dismiss them out of hand. Rather surely such an interview should spark an investigation into finding the truth.

As I said before there seems to be an agenda to suppress all negative information about the current vaccines. Supressing data isn't scientific, are you not concerned that health care workers feel the only way to tell the truth is by doing so in secret, in the same way someone fleeing the mafia would. The current climate imposed by the media corporations have a lot to answer for in that regard
 

Let me pose some questions to you: do you require that any claims presented in the media have to be back-checked as true before you accept them as truth?
Likewise, do you require that any claims presented by an anonymous source on the Internet be back-checked as true before accepting them as true? If you have different standards for one than the other, please explain why.

I don't think I suggested that they were True 100% unquestionably,  An anonymous source is an anonymous source with all that goes with that. We cant say if it's TRUE or not, hence there should be a wider investigation.

Geert vanden Bossche
Is calling for a halt

https://straightlinelogic.com/2021/03/13/halt-all-covid-19-mass-vaccination-immediately-open-letter-to-the-who-by-geert-vanden-bossche-phd-dvm/

Halt All Covid-19 Mass Vaccination Immediately (Open Letter to the WHO) , by Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DvM

Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM, is a vaccine research expert. He has a long list of companies and organizations he’s worked with on vaccine discovery and preclinical research, including GSK, Novartis, Solvay Biologicals, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr Vanden Bossche also coordinated the Ebola vaccine program at GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization).

He is board-certified in Virology and Microbiology, the author of over 30 publications, and inventor of a patent application for universal vaccines. He currently works as an independent vaccine research consultant.....

He believes that:

Ongoing mass vaccination deployments are “highly-likely to further enhance ‘adaptive’ immune escape as none of the current vaccines will prevent replication/transmission of viral variants”
As such, “The more we use these vaccines for immunizing people in the midst of a pandemic, the more infectious the virus will become”.
And “With increasing infectiousness comes an increased likelihood of viral resistance to the vaccines”.

[Bored chemist]

Rather surely such an interview should spark an investigation into finding the truth.

There will have been one.
But the local police looking into it and finding that there's no actual story won't get reported in the news, will it?
So the lasting message that the people get from this non issue is "vaccines are bad".
That was entirely predictable.
So, the remaining question is why do you spread these  fairy tales?

Speaking of entirely predictable.
Man wants current vaccinations stopped because....
"Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM, is a vaccine research expert....

He is ... inventor of a patent application for universal vaccines. He currently works as an independent vaccine research consultant...."

Do you remember the damage caused by Andrew Wakefield when he did much the same thing with the MMR vaccine.
Wakefield also worked for a competitor to the vaccine he lied about.