Posted on 12/21/2022 2:03:40 PM PST by nickcarraway
Arguments that run counter to established views aren’t always fake news, but they need to stand up to scrutiny. We must build up our foundation of critical thinking, says SUSS sociologist Omer Ali Saifudeen.
SINGAPORE: We live in an age where everyone seems to claim their own version of “truth” and there is a growing mistrust of experts. The world saw this clearly during the pandemic, particularly around COVID-19 vaccination.
What happens when vaccine misinformation becomes an immediate matter of life and death? On Dec 9, a New Zealand court intervened after the parents of a six-month-old infant refused to allow him to have a life-saving operation unless unvaccinated blood was used.
Temporary custody of Baby W was given to his doctors for urgent surgery to address a congenital heart problem, without which health authorities said he would not have survived. His parents were reportedly concerned that blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19 would adversely affect their child, with the couple’s lawyers calling long-term effects of the vaccine “untested”.
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
Hey Omer,
Stuff it, cretin.
with the couple’s lawyers calling long-term effects of the vaccine “untested”.
Yes, the long term effects of the vaccines are completely untested.
Phase 1 trials, which examine the safety and dosage of a treatment, typically last several months. Phase 2 trials, which examine the efficacy and side effects of a treatment, typically last several months to two years. Phase 3 trials, which examine the efficacy of a treatment and monitor adverse reactions, typically last between one and four years.
But we have had the Covid-19 vaccines in use for far less than that and they were put into use without any Phase 2 or Phase 3 trials. In addition, many drugs go into use, even after Phase 1, 2 and 3 trials with their long term results only known years later, following whith durgs have been withdrawn from the market.
To pretend that two years usage demonstrates “long term” effects is NOT “scientific”.
everyone seems to claim their own version of “truth the only truth is their truth everything we question is a lie in their book, F THEM!
I like how the article fails to tell what happened to the child, (because i am pretty sure it died after getting the blood)
“The family’s lawyer, Sue Grey, told RNZ’s Checkpoint programme late on Friday afternoon that the baby was out of surgery and doing well.”
Different child, same issue. The Aussie Drs used clean blood. Seattle(?) Drs opposed parents and used contaminated blood. the baby suffered immediate total clotting and died.
ah! I was thinking this might be two different cases of this happening.
O, the parents did not deny him the surgery.
The medical profession did because they refused to do it unless it was on their terms.
What the parents requested was not immoral, illegal, or ethically wrong in any way. They could have easily been accommodated except that the tyrants in the medical community wanted to show them who was boss.
I like how the article fails to tell what happened to the child, (because i am pretty sure it died after getting the blood)
_____________
The sad side of this story is that there were a good number of unvaxed individuals who volunteered to donate blood for the child and the ‘officials’ wouldn’t hear of it. This same illogical bullheaded approach is replete throughout this scamdemic. None of the covid BS makes any sense and the people are beginning to wake up to the scam. When they become wide awake woe to the scammers. None of this is normal behavior, which says there is a hidden agenda going on.
The parents did not “reject lifesaving surgery” though. The hospital refused to perform the surgery with unvaccinated blood that was donated and available. It was the hospital that was willing to let the child die rather than bend on their ideological obsession about pumping an untested vaccine into everyone.
Premeditated murder.
So, I hope the monstrous totalitarians pay a heavy price for their stupidity.
You could just as easily fault the government for making this unnecessary vaccine demand in the first place, you cretin. Stuff it.
they are like vampires taking souls
nothing else matters to them
Are you suggesting I read only the headline, and the point of the article is in fact anti-clotshot?
Because the title lead me to think the article was pro-Pfauci, pro-jab.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.