Comments by "gerhard7" (@gerhard7323) on "John and Neil" video.

@uffe2063 It should always be a personal, albeit ideally informed choice potentially based on a number of sources. How one arrives at that choice be it medical professionals, friends, workmates, family, social media or whatever is and should STILL remain entirely up to the individual. This is yet another worrying example of state over reach that not only uses a massive sledgehammer to crush a tiny nut it effectively misses the nut and will be responsible for far wider damaging consequences elsewhere.
4
@mickg7299 Not exactly what I asked as you well know and deliberately avoided by you which speaks volumes. Your body, your choice. If you believe entirely and always what you're told by officialdom then that's up to you, but you're effectively not only trying to dictate to others that they must follow your 'example' you're also implying, quite falsely I might add, that those who don't are seriously endangering others. Further to this, those who dare to question the narrative should, according to you, be subject to the ultimate sanction. Quite extraordinary.
4
@mickg7299 So, presumably, knowing for certain that these jabs prevent neither transmission nor contraction, have an officially claimed efficacy of between one to six months and are now no longer being pushed on those below a certain age and are, in fact, charged for for those who still want them you still stand by your claim that capital punishment is warranted in this instance yes?
3
@antonpiskernik7893 They've kinda got a captive audience at the moment and they know it. Hence they're wont to curate the content be it by algo or hoo-man beans.
3
 @santoshayoga5392 And that's the fact of the matter. The legislation exists. The law does not...yet.
2
@mickg7299 So you've had ALL yours to date and given that they are officially ONLY effective up to six months you're having or paying to have two a year yes? Presumably also you think everyone should have them regularly despite the known greater risks to the health of the young these jabs pose than the virus itself?
2
russmartin4888 You're entitled to that belief obviously, but I try and deal in known, verifiable, incontestable facts particularly when it comes to the uber zealots. Might not be your take granted, but if their views can't even stand up to official data and claims then they're clearly not the sharpest tools in the box.
2
@mickg7299 Yeah, having looked at your other comments on this subject it's hardly surprising I didn't pick up on your 'sarcasm'.
2
@mickg7299 They weren't fully informed and unfortunately YT will not permit me to tell you why with an entirely factual, fully verifiable from 'reputable' sources response despite repeated attempts. If that doesn't tell you something then nothing does.
2
@mickg7299 Pointless continuing this. YT's either got its algos or eyeballs on this so everything written by me is being removed.
2
@mickg7299 If you're unsure how more and more people actually feel about these jabs now then just look at the precipitous fall over time in their uptake, the now useless hugely costly government unused supplies and the steady fall in the share prices of their producers. By all means keep making your own choices as to whether you should keep having them but don't assume the right, like our governments came perilously close to, to force others to do the same as you.
2
Potentially...
1
@mickg7299 @mickg7299 It wasn't an informed choice by those who received those jabs nor likely by some of those who administered them. Many of the time honoured protocols for vaccine testing were thrown out, their efficacy was and still is questionable and no adequate time was given to assess the possibility of any side effects. In the case of the mRNA jabs the technology had been around for decades in various forms and never hitherto been deemed safe or effective until the end 2020 funnily enough. In fact the first eight months of administering those jabs in the US was done only under Emergency Use Authorization only ie they weren't fully approved as safe and that's even according to the manufacturers' very own small print on the packet. Not for nothing either was the long understood official definition of what constitutes 'a vaccine' very quietly changed by the CDC in December 2022 as it became clear that multiple repeated doses ad infinitum of these 'vaccines' would apparently be required in the future. Bet most of its recipients weren't told that at the time and nor were they told that they prevented neither contraction nor transmission either although that's what both government and media attempted to imply, albeit not the manufacturers. If you're unsure how more and more people actually feel about these jabs now then just look at the precipitous fall over time in their uptake, the now useless hugely costly government unused supplies and the steady fall in the share prices of their producers. By all means keep making your own choices as to whether you should keep having them but don't assume the right, like our governments came perilously close to, to force others to do the same as you.
1
@mickg7299 I'm actually talking information provided by the 'reputable' Pfizer's, Moderna's, FDA's and the CDC's own websites, but YouTube won't even allow for that.
1
@mickg7299 Most of the people I know didn't know this information then and don't know it now when I talk to them. Still, if you're unsure how more and more people actually feel about them now then just look at the precipitous fall over time in their uptake, the hugely costly, unused, out of date stockpiles and the steady fall in the share prices from their covid peaks of their producers. By all means keep making your own choices as to whether you should keep having them - must be due another - but don't assume the right, like our governments came perilously close to, to force others to do the same as you.
1
@mickg7299 I'm talking Pfizer's, Moderna's, the FDA's and CDC's.
1
@mickg7299 So no more jabs for you either then presumably with your acquired immunity?
1
@mickg7299 So why did the government buy all these unwanted jabs at great cost and why did these companies produce them I wonder if they weren't going to be needed? If they'd only spoken to you and learned about acquired immunity then they could have saved the taxpayer millions no?
1
@mickg7299 So the virus is evolving and these jabs were produced and purchased by government and yet more and more people have decided not to have them because they have come to the conclusion, presumably without professional medical consultation or possibly even with in your case, that they now have acquired immunity is that correct?
1
@mickg7299 Comment removed again!!
1
@mickg7299 YT algo up to no good again.
1
@mickg7299 Try again... treading carefully over YT landmines... How did so many people like you come to realise that they had this acquired immunity and that they no longer needed these newly purchased by government jabs?
1
@mickg7299 How did so many people, including you, all come to realise that they had this newfound acquired immunity?
1
@mickg7299 I deserve an award for perseverance here. I hope you realise that? I keep having to type and retype everything.
1
@mickg7299 Nope. They have a choice and they can exercise it. Their bodies, their choice. Not complicated.
1
@mickg7299 Now back to this acquired mass immunity question and how collectively so many people suddenly realised they had it except, apparently, those over 65...
1
@mickg7299 Now the answer to my question above please. Let call it AI as the matrix doesn't seem to like me calling it by its full name...
1
@mickg7299 Doesn't answer the question. You're effectively claiming that you and apparently millions of others all collectively realised that you all had AI and would no longer need any more of government's stockpiled jabs. A little weird no?
1
@mickg7299 I agree it isn't, but you're insinuating something which is hard to reconcile. Lots of people, people I know in fact, have decided that they no longer wished to have any more jabs and they were adamant their children weren't going to have them. You are the first person I've encountered who puts this down to their own self-diagnosed AI and furthermore suggests that everyone else came to the same conclusion as you. Hence I'm curious...
1
 @marias.6955 It's draft/proposed legislation from the Macron government apparently. There's a good piece on Naked Capitalism posted by Nick Corbishley posted Feb 16.
1
@MelanieMelanie-bv6nw Also a piece in Le Monde on February 14 entitled, Dérives sectaires : l’Assemblée nationale approuve finalement le délit de provocation à l’abandon de soins'
1
@allanedwards1036 The bill is still alive.
1
@allanedwards1036 'The National Assembly finally approved, Wednesday February 14, the creation of a new offense of “provocation to abandonment of care”, in the bill to combat sectarian abuses, after a new deliberation requested by the Macronists in a stormy atmosphere.' 'The article modified by the majority was finally adopted by 182 votes to 137, with the support of the PS in particular. The socialist Arthur Delaporte welcomed the return of this measure, “more necessary than ever” to “defend science”, while “people are saying unacceptable things on social networks” Le Monde 14/2/24
1
@slee2819 Passed by the CoD but still has to pass the Senate.
1