On each occasion, I posted a comment which was not published. On the first occasion, NO comments were published. I wonder why! (Not).
The latest Mail article elicited a hardly credible 23 comments. Go figure.
My comment, in each case, was simply this:
Two questions:It seems to me that the Mail finds these questions a tad uncomfortable. Can they answer them to to satisfaction of the populace? I doubt it.
1) What percentage of those allegedly killed by swine flu had the vaccine last year?
2) What evidence is there to support the assertion that the deaths *were* caused by swine flu?
Not hard to see where their loyalties lie and why we should not trust the MSM.
Update: And here they go again.The Telegraph is at it, too. Do we have the makings of yet another government campaign to finance Big Pharma? Perchance for election contributions?
Related:
.bmp){kind=small}
7 comments:
Agreed.
The Beeb are being fairly coy about this this year, just a brief mention towards the end of radio news slots.
I know of only one group that allegedly had swine flu last year. They were Spanish schoolchildren on an exchange trip, cooped up together in a college hall of residence to keep them safe from the pedos lurking in the family homes that used to host them.
Your blog loads much more easily now Fausty, have you done something to it?
Lets see how long these two comments last
"hardly constitutes 'sweeping Britain'. Bit of scaremongering there, methinks".
- Woodstock, Upper Pratts Bottom, UK, 17/12/2010 16:59
Rating +154
"6 people is not an EPIDEMIC SWEEPING THE COUNTRY. Negative, opportunistic, irresponsible, traffic-chasing journalism at it's very worst. The writers on this site should be ashamed - this is the kind of thing that got people into a panic last year, creating millions spent on drugs (which was deemed to be unnecessary after the event - for one by this newspaper, who condemned the drugs companies for fuelling the fire of panic). Pure hypocricy going on here
- Andy, Hornchurch, UK, 17/12/2010 14:42 Rating +50
Tony From essex got a lot of stick for
"swine flu epidemic sweeping Britain" Get a grip.
Rating +168
The Mainly Fail's loyalties are to itself, and they follow the 'if it bleeds, it leads' model. No doubt they make a few bob selling advertising to Big Pharma but I think they're more in the useful idiot category than the co-conspirator one.
The Beeb is still smarting from the revelation that much of its pension revenue derives from 'green' technology, I'd guess, banned.
I've removed a few widgets, banned. Although I can't imagine that they took up much bandwidth. Dunno! Glad it's loading quicker and thanks for the feedback.
It is quite bizarre that 6 is considered to be an epidemic. :)
I'm sitting on the fence on that one, Angry Exile. Probably a bit of both?
our local rag is full of 'reasons' why they old and the vulnerable, whatever they are, should have a flu jab but the good news is the paper allowed this common sense comment to be posted which negates all of the NHS spin...
I normally have a flu jab each year but have decided against it this time around after finding out it contains the swine flu vaccination.Of course swine flu is a concern but I'm more worried that maybe not enough research has been done on the vaccination
Perhaps the mods missed the comment, Frank!
Post a Comment