Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Sorry" was aimed at spoiledtalent, i.e. intended to imply that my argument was not with him/her.


I am also sorry - in that you have my sympathy if you have been seriously ill, and if you really do personally know twelve people who have committed suicide as a result of losing their businesses due to Covid.


But you're right, I'm not particularly sorry about not respecting your opinions.

Blurred vision, rash, vomiting....


This is from an article which is warning about the symptoms involved with the (very unlikely) incidence of a blood clot forming - and most people suffer very few if any side effects from any of the Covid-19 vaccines - the most common is the 'day before catching flu' feeling (which may include a headache) and which persists for 4-12 hours. And tenderness at the site of the injection (which is a needle shoved into a muscle, so hardly surprising).


Yes, there are, for a very few people, side effects which are worrying and which can portend a dangerous blood clot reaction (which in most cases, where caught early, is wholly treatable). It should be remembered that blood clots are common (and very dangerous) in those badly effected by Covid-19. It is not clear why those who suffer clots from the vaccine (one in a million to 5 in a million depending on vaccine and cohort) - it may be that they are also more susceptible to blood clotting if they catch Covid-19. The numbers are too small to offer any epidemiological guidance.

RESPONDING to zenoria65


Dear zenoria65


This is my first time posting and wanted to reach out to you.


Thank you for sharing your experience and raising awareness, which I believe will help many people in a similar situation. I am sorry to hear about your current condition and your loss. I pray that you receive the correct medical assistance and begin to heal. Demand the treatment you are entitled to. Be persistent and continue to ask questions. Research, research, research and draw your own conclusions. I attach below, links of which I hope you (and anyone else in your situation) find helpful or can use as a starting point, to make sense out of the nonsense.


The first link provides information for the (new) online support group and discusses yellow card data. The second link discusses the posts from the (old) support group (prior to deletion). Very disappointing that the msm/legacy media will not report the truth - it is the exact reason why hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets of London and Worldwide - to fight for those who have lost loved ones or who have/are still suffering. All those millions of people - they all can't be 'nutcases' or 'nut jobs'. If you do your own due diligence and research and remove the word 'theory', the 'conspiracy' jumps out and slaps you in the face - similar to cv19 after 10pm during lockdown! Follow the money and funding.


https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-10th-may-2021

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/death-by-vaccine-hugo-talks-lockdown_euZPCo5x1gPwzbv.html

https://vaccineimpact.com

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/humanity-on-its-feet-oracle-films-london-24-04-2021_1Hp3TyQIqbcs6QD.html - these have taken place many times globally - why are only the police wearing masks - why are these people not getting sick? The numbers do not lie.


You may also find useful, uncensored information on new media sites - (brandnewtube, brighteon, bitchute) from world leading experts: Dr Judy Mikovits, Dr Sherri Tenpenny, Prof Dolores Cahill and Dr Vernon Coleman. It is worth listening to their information and reading the comments section(s) on videos. Again - do you own research and draw your own conclusions.


Did you receive verbal informed consent from a licensed medical professional or sign a consent form PRIOR to getting the jab - https://cacuk.world/. Were you advised that the jabs are experimental and have been released for emergency use only and that you, along with the general public are part of a clinical trial, which ends [2023]? Nuremburg Code? Hippocratic Oath? Maleficence?


The information above, can be researched via open-source material and government documents and can also be fact checked for anyone willing to take the time to do so.


I too have lost loved ones unnecessarily, have many relatives globally, who are medical professionals and also know an equal amount who work in the NHS. Do not expect them to wake up or to speak out anytime soon. They fear losing their licenses, jobs and homes.


Good luck on your journey to recovery, stay strong and persevere - sending Love, Blessings and Hugs to you.


V

Pfizer 1st dose

I had my shot at 8am and felt ok till 3pm. Then I started having a sore arm but bearable. I started getting strong headache which was coming and going and felt very fatigued and tired through all afternoon and evening. Its been 24h since my shot and still feel bit foggy but much much better than last night.

  • 2 weeks later...

My husband and I had our second dose of AZ a week ago.


The symptoms to look out for re blood clots were stressed but also that there?d been no reports from a second dose. We both had a sore arm at the injection site, mine was worse than the first time but it lasted less long than the first jab for both of us.


I know others who had worse reactions but no one felt anywhere as bad as those who had Covid.


Having the jab not only protects me but also brings overall infections and hospitalisation down. Hopefully meaning those who?ve still not gone back to work can later in the month.

  • 2 weeks later...

I had my second Moderna jab yesterday - and was warned about side effects potentially being worse, particularly if you'd had COVID before.


Good news (for me) is that it hasn't felt any worse than last time. An achy arm and a mild headache which has been easily solved with paracetamol.

First AZ jab: shivering and slightly out of breath walking up hills, fine after a couple of days (had both of these but worse when I had Covid last year)

Second jab: tired for a couple of days, again a mild version of what I experienced with Covid.

In both cases taking paracetamol really helped.

Yes that is more or less how it works. To quote "1. Vaccination processes usually imply temporary immune system weakening, before vaccine-induced immunity is acquired. Hence, the vaccinated are fragilized during the vaccination process, and more likely to develop any diseases against which the immune system usually defends the body. This includes any viral and bacterial infections, and individual cancer cells that would escape extermination by the immune system during this vaccination-induced weakened period. This could cause cancer in the medium- or long-term. From "expert evaluation on adverse affects of the pfizer covid vaccine by Frontline doctors" https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/files/expert-evaluation-on-adverse-effects-of-the-pfizer-covid-19-vaccination/

But unfortunately as you will see from this government document

p.15 the vaccinated once in hospital are more likely to die than the unvaccinated. Let's hope this is simply because the vaccinated are from more vulnerable groups rather than the vaccine having an adverse effect on the immune system. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993879/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_15.pdf

Table 6 on page 15 shows that 23 people died who were unvaccinated, and 19 died who were vaccinated, of whom 12 (double vaccinated more than 14 days previous to death) were likely to be (because of their long standing double vaccination) in the more vulnerable groups. Although many more unvaccinated than vaccinated were identified with the delta variant very many fewer were admitted to A&E or hospital.


Only 4.2% of the unvaccinated were admitted to A&E (numbers of whom, because they were only tested when they got into A&E were probably asymptomatic). Of those 2.8% died. 3.3% of those with the delta variant who were vaccinated went into A&E, and of those 4.8% died.


HOWEVER - considering the large number of both groups visiting A&E not knowing they had Covid (tested for it there) and considering why people generally visit A&E - the mortality rates (with Covid 10, not of Covid 19) are hardly surprising. In general over 60s in A&E will have a worse prognosis than under 50s (probably the average age of each group for whatever cause.


What I think your forget in all this is (1) deaths are for any reason but within 28 days of a positive Covid test and (2) the two groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated) are not matched samples - the vaccinated as a group have been defined (and their vaccinations offered) from the most to the least vulnerable - to say that more vulnerable people (by virtue of age and pre-conditions otherwise unrelated to Covid) are more likely to die when they have visited A&E is hardly surprising - the vaccines don't protect from heart attacks, strokes, cancer, emphysema... you name it. They protect wholly and simply from Covid. At which they seem to be doing a good job!

Yes

- The fact that the number of hospital admissions are now skewed towards younger/unvaccinated shows how well the vaccines are working

- Vaccines are working well across all age groups

- But they are not perfect and unfortunately some people still fall critically ill. Mainly older.

- No fully-vaccinated person under 50 has died from delta variant

I honestly and absolutely hope you two are right as my most loved ones are vaccinated. But the proportion of deaths among the vaxxed in relation to the unvaxxed I think is going up https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997414/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_16.pdf (see page 12 a week later)

It really isn't a very useful piece of info. All it really tells us is that the vaccines unfortunately don't save everyone, and the elderly are more susceptible.


Compare the number of people dying now, to the number of people dying last time we had 25K+ cases a day (Nov/Dec for example). It is a different order of magnitude.

That's actually not surprising. 6 months ago, 100% of deaths were unvaccinated. In older age groups which are nearly 100% vaccinated, of course the proportion is increasing.


A vaccine with 90% efficiency doesn't mean that only 10% of people get it. It means that your risk is 10% of someone unvaccinated.

Say that 40 out of 100 80 year olds would be hospitalised and 20 would die from Delta. Double vaxx'd would mean only 4 would be hospitalised and 2 would die.


20 year olds, more likely to be unvaxx'd, have far less risk of serious illness. So we might only expect 10 of 100 to be hospitalised and 1 to die.


Your stats for that group of 3 deaths would be 66% double vac'd which makes a great headline for anti-vexers but ignores the overall reduction in risk.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...