Esther McVey MP speaks in a debate on the Vaccine Damage Payments Bill on the 20 October 2023| Esther McVey
Of his speech he talked about the phrase safe and effective and I'd like to pick up on that phrase and start my speech from there uh phrase safe and effective that became the co vaccine catchphrase we'll call it that that was repeated so many times over the last couple of years it cropped up everywhere in government Communications in interviews with experts and across a media too only too happy to run with that Co slogan safe and effective so ingrained did that become in the National psyche that to ever then ask questions about the co vaccine became very very difficult to do indeed and asking questions is a vital part of scientific and indeed political debate however when discussing Co we no longer appeared to be dealing with science oh no Mr Deputy speaker but rather the science and to question the science was to risk being called and labeled a CO idiot or that most poisonous of terms and vaa people who just wanted to query this new vaccine were closed down and were vilified so I looked up the definition of antivaxer and was surprised.
to discover that there are 246 of us in this to discover that it is someone who opposes the use of some or all vaccines regulations mandating vaccination or typically both, and that there are 246 of us in this house who on the 13th of July 2021 voted against mandating the vaccines for care workers that's 246 antivaxers in this house according to the latest definition and that's absolute nonsense people weren't antivaxers other people have been now concerned that other vaccines families are losing faith in because of the way they were treated due to the co 19 There has been a decrease in the MMR and polio immunizations, among other vaccinations.
which is incorrect since individuals do need to receive such vaccinations, but everyone in this house wants to argue and question the new vaccine.
it particularly when this house was wanting to mandate it on people and on care workers so my point is this if we allow language to be corrupted in Word definitions become distorted in this manner, depriving us of the means to engage in sophisticated discussion. The only way to
debate that we get to the central gravity of truth I don't think we've had anything like a wide and open debate on the topic of the coid 19 uh coid 19.
vaccines about their safety and their efficacy and I come back to the word safe free from harm or risk of any kind a word with an absolute definition not to be qualified or diminished and yet we know the co 19 vaccines like all medical interventions are not 100% free from risk or danger and that's why the blue guide a document published by the Mr MH which gives detailed guidance on the legislation controlling how medicines are advertised in the UK says this advertising which states or suggests that something is safe is unacceptable. Every medication has the potential for undesirable side effects, and nothing is risk-free because every patient responds to treatment differently. The UK pharmaceutical company's own self-regulatory code of practice echoes this idea and states that the word "safe" must not be used without due thought.
to discover that there are 246 of us in this to discover that it is someone who opposes the use of some or all vaccines regulations mandating vaccination or typically both, and that there are 246 of us in this house who on the 13th of July 2021 voted against mandating the vaccines for care workers that's 246 antivaxers in this house according to the latest definition and that's absolute nonsense people weren't antivaxers other people have been now concerned that other vaccines families are losing faith in because of the way they were treated due to the co 19 There has been a decrease in the MMR and polio immunizations, among other vaccinations.
which is incorrect since individuals do need to receive such vaccinations, but everyone in this house wants to argue and question the new vaccine.
it particularly when this house was wanting to mandate it on people and on care workers so my point is this if we allow language to be corrupted in Word definitions become distorted in this manner, depriving us of the means to engage in sophisticated discussion. The only way to
debate that we get to the central gravity of truth I don't think we've had anything like a wide and open debate on the topic of the coid 19 uh coid 19.
vaccines about their safety and their efficacy and I come back to the word safe free from harm or risk of any kind a word with an absolute definition not to be qualified or diminished and yet we know the co 19 vaccines like all medical interventions are not 100% free from risk or danger and that's why the blue guide a document published by the Mr MH which gives detailed guidance on the legislation controlling how medicines are advertised in the UK says this advertising which states or suggests that something is safe is unacceptable. Every medication has the potential for undesirable side effects, and nothing is risk-free because every patient responds to treatment differently. The UK pharmaceutical company's own self-regulatory code of practice echoes this idea and states that the word "safe" must not be used without due thought.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0DyItbDv9Y
.jpg)
0 Comments