Jul 27, 2023·edited Jul 27, 2023Liked by The Underdog
Thanks for your theoretical summation of the events surrounding this supposed 'safety exploration' by Oxford University and others, masquerading as Cambridge University. I would draw exactly the same conclusions as you, but as those pushing the narrative would contend, we are supposedly fanatic Conspiracy Theorists with a pre-meditated agenda and biased thought process.
Question; How do the conspirators mentioned know the injection status of unjabbed UK residents?
That question could be broadened to cover the complete world population! Is there a REGISTER?
If there is a REGISTER of us unjabbed, will it be used and targeted against us after the (WEF's) WHO gets their evil 'TREATY' to take over our medical Freedom of choice? Will the WHO try to segregate us as dangerous, obstructive, unjabbed contagious humans, supposedly to 'protect the idiots' that accepted the jab without studying the implications and dangers? Or, worse, will the WHO's new Treaty Powers entitle them to IMPRISON US indefinitely or until we exceed to accept the DEATH SHOT?
If 'Vax' makers accepted LIABILITY (financial and legal) we could view 'vaccines' as a potential medicine for good purpose - not just for PROFIT, no matter the cost in human misery and early deaths (DEPOPULATION of our overcrowded planet!
Darted and undarted are all coded to their current status.
They know the easy compliers, there is those who took the darts in good faith, some have seen the damage around them, others the lies and are not happy so are less likely to comply.
With the crap weather here and the climate emergency none stop on the news, this last week I’ve had half dozen customers of all ages say the same thing, it’s about making money and taxing us more.
They all said they stopped watching the news and are turning their tvs off full stop, heard the same thing while out and about this last few weeks from others
The only emergency everyone agrees on, is how our government is trafficking people from France, putting them up in luxury while pretending they can’t stop or deport them while taxpayers get to foot the bill making their cronies richer.
People are sick to the back teeth of the lot of them, in fact they comment on how Labour would be worse.
My wife tells me we opted out some years back. I checked and verified this retention of my right to privacy. As I recall, we might have had suspicions that the 'powers that be' may have used our 'consent' to steal our body parts without our permission. Not that much of my 78 y/o parts are worth recycling these days. BFN! Mick.
You can always contact Access to Records/FOIA at your local GP surgery and request to know whether or not you've opted out.
My earlier comment was purely to point out the NHS dragnets everybody's details and unless they have explicitly opted out, it is referred to third party research. The majority of people haven't opted out, hence why they can determine shot status. I imagine they also assume that those who have explicitly opted out, also don't trust the government regarding the shots either.
I'll try to retrospectively 'opt out'. But I'm afraid they'll have enough on me to know how to terminate me for besmirching Big Pharma, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Albert Bourla and all the other MURDERERS! Mick.
So I am unfamilar with the British medical system, but I was under the assumption that one's vaccine status was private medical data, so how could the trial be offered only to those who happen to have received a covid jab?
These days I hardly trust anything from these 'scientific' circles. Pfizer's trial was "randomised" but their books were truly thoroughly cooked.
From your link, it even contradicts the 'age only' criterion, and mentions this weird line:
"Broad eligibility criteria have been employed to maximise eternal validity"
Eternal validity? What?
Also this suggests a non-random sampling (the trial is full of anomalies):
"The exact number invited will vary between practices to achieve recruitment targets based on their characteristics and any associations with recruitment (eg, more invitations to people in more deprived areas)."
I can remark one thing - the area definitely was not 'deprived'. My area is though.
"will be randomised, stratified by practice location deprivation score52 and prevalence of AF reported in the Quality and Outcomes Framework."
Another 'random but not random' remark. Curious.
"Randomisation will be implemented using a secure online randomisation system (Sortition53) hosted by the University of Oxford Clinical Trials Unit."
Ah, randomisation - and selection - by Oxford, huh? Well, isn't that a fine and dandy coincidence.
"Practices will be randomised using random permuted blocks within nine strata corresponding to three groups (tertiles) of practice location deprivation score and three groups (tertiles) of practice-level prevalence of AF."
Translation: we'll assign greater selection to areas suffering from more AF (read: took the shot and got poisoned). But it's random, trust us guys!
Link is absolutely fascinating and just raises my eyebrows further.
I hadn't heard any mention of the SAFER trial prior to the document discovery in the house, and in this scenario the GP wrote (and even signed - to the point I had to redact it given it was basically a DOX) asking him to join, which isn't what I'd expect from a random sampling.
The trial was started in early 2021, but weirdly the GP letter was mid-2022, over a year later. I forgot to remark about the Pfizer mRNA shot safety data that was sitting on a desk, although there's no evidence they actually took the Pfizer mRNA shot.
The old adage is Oxford for politics (spooks) and Cambridge for scientists (the Science TM)... So the camouflage was there to be utilised... All criminals, all privileged imperialist educated morons, all should meet at my favourite pub, the rope and lamppost.
I went through the 'Opt-out' process yesterday and found that we were already 'opted out'. Not that I now trust anything these days! The authorities do as they like!
My Wife reminded me that we 'opted out' several years ago. Our reasons were;
1. The NHS were considering selling off lucrative divisions to the Yanks who love the opportunity to use health or illness to maximise their fortunes. Most Yanks are on a dozen or so meds per day. Mottos for US Heath (Big Pharma) "There are no profits to be made from healthy people - so how can we make them ill and dependent" (Covid was a recent example.)
2. The other reason we 'opted out' was that if we hadn't and found ourselves hospitalised, we feared they might want our functioning body parts. That would justify an immediate 'Nil by mouth' death sentence applied.
Even by Opting Out, I now don't trust any authority to obey our wishes. They do as they like and what makes the most profit!
Example = If I was in a car crash and suffered a broken leg. The scenario could go like this;
"Oooops! We needed his heart but failed to notice he'd opted out!"
Fortunately, we are now very old so less likely to be 'harvestable'!
Thanks for your theoretical summation of the events surrounding this supposed 'safety exploration' by Oxford University and others, masquerading as Cambridge University. I would draw exactly the same conclusions as you, but as those pushing the narrative would contend, we are supposedly fanatic Conspiracy Theorists with a pre-meditated agenda and biased thought process.
Question; How do the conspirators mentioned know the injection status of unjabbed UK residents?
That question could be broadened to cover the complete world population! Is there a REGISTER?
If there is a REGISTER of us unjabbed, will it be used and targeted against us after the (WEF's) WHO gets their evil 'TREATY' to take over our medical Freedom of choice? Will the WHO try to segregate us as dangerous, obstructive, unjabbed contagious humans, supposedly to 'protect the idiots' that accepted the jab without studying the implications and dangers? Or, worse, will the WHO's new Treaty Powers entitle them to IMPRISON US indefinitely or until we exceed to accept the DEATH SHOT?
If 'Vax' makers accepted LIABILITY (financial and legal) we could view 'vaccines' as a potential medicine for good purpose - not just for PROFIT, no matter the cost in human misery and early deaths (DEPOPULATION of our overcrowded planet!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!
Darted and undarted are all coded to their current status.
They know the easy compliers, there is those who took the darts in good faith, some have seen the damage around them, others the lies and are not happy so are less likely to comply.
With the crap weather here and the climate emergency none stop on the news, this last week I’ve had half dozen customers of all ages say the same thing, it’s about making money and taxing us more.
They all said they stopped watching the news and are turning their tvs off full stop, heard the same thing while out and about this last few weeks from others
The only emergency everyone agrees on, is how our government is trafficking people from France, putting them up in luxury while pretending they can’t stop or deport them while taxpayers get to foot the bill making their cronies richer.
People are sick to the back teeth of the lot of them, in fact they comment on how Labour would be worse.
"Question; How do the conspirators mentioned know the injection status of unjabbed UK residents?"
NHS share data with third parties unless you explicitly opt out first.
https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-data-opt-out
Majority of people have not opted out.
Fury
My wife tells me we opted out some years back. I checked and verified this retention of my right to privacy. As I recall, we might have had suspicions that the 'powers that be' may have used our 'consent' to steal our body parts without our permission. Not that much of my 78 y/o parts are worth recycling these days. BFN! Mick.
You can always contact Access to Records/FOIA at your local GP surgery and request to know whether or not you've opted out.
My earlier comment was purely to point out the NHS dragnets everybody's details and unless they have explicitly opted out, it is referred to third party research. The majority of people haven't opted out, hence why they can determine shot status. I imagine they also assume that those who have explicitly opted out, also don't trust the government regarding the shots either.
Thanks Underdog!
I'll try to retrospectively 'opt out'. But I'm afraid they'll have enough on me to know how to terminate me for besmirching Big Pharma, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Albert Bourla and all the other MURDERERS! Mick.
Speaking of one giant lump of excess deaths, Australia has three giant lumps of them (refer graphs 2 & 3):
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/sustained-overkill
Yeah, that death data is like Mount Killamanjaro compared to the other peaks.
Good article, subscribed!
Didnt have to sub for it, but I do appreciate the restack!
All likes require subs!
So I am unfamilar with the British medical system, but I was under the assumption that one's vaccine status was private medical data, so how could the trial be offered only to those who happen to have received a covid jab?
Have you seen how many NHS data breaches there have been?
They ran Google DeepMind on patient record data without consent.
The system is also "opt-out" only; so you have to explicitly tell them not to include you.
I'm one of the few opted out, not that it means much - I've seen and worked on the system before and the security is godawful.
Ouch.
Link for reference:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139395-google-deepminds-nhs-data-deal-failed-to-comply-with-law/
More info on trial design.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/9/e065066
Random sample, hence why your family member may have been invited but not other eligible family members?
These days I hardly trust anything from these 'scientific' circles. Pfizer's trial was "randomised" but their books were truly thoroughly cooked.
From your link, it even contradicts the 'age only' criterion, and mentions this weird line:
"Broad eligibility criteria have been employed to maximise eternal validity"
Eternal validity? What?
Also this suggests a non-random sampling (the trial is full of anomalies):
"The exact number invited will vary between practices to achieve recruitment targets based on their characteristics and any associations with recruitment (eg, more invitations to people in more deprived areas)."
I can remark one thing - the area definitely was not 'deprived'. My area is though.
"will be randomised, stratified by practice location deprivation score52 and prevalence of AF reported in the Quality and Outcomes Framework."
Another 'random but not random' remark. Curious.
"Randomisation will be implemented using a secure online randomisation system (Sortition53) hosted by the University of Oxford Clinical Trials Unit."
Ah, randomisation - and selection - by Oxford, huh? Well, isn't that a fine and dandy coincidence.
"Practices will be randomised using random permuted blocks within nine strata corresponding to three groups (tertiles) of practice location deprivation score and three groups (tertiles) of practice-level prevalence of AF."
Translation: we'll assign greater selection to areas suffering from more AF (read: took the shot and got poisoned). But it's random, trust us guys!
Link is absolutely fascinating and just raises my eyebrows further.
I hadn't heard any mention of the SAFER trial prior to the document discovery in the house, and in this scenario the GP wrote (and even signed - to the point I had to redact it given it was basically a DOX) asking him to join, which isn't what I'd expect from a random sampling.
The trial was started in early 2021, but weirdly the GP letter was mid-2022, over a year later. I forgot to remark about the Pfizer mRNA shot safety data that was sitting on a desk, although there's no evidence they actually took the Pfizer mRNA shot.
The old adage is Oxford for politics (spooks) and Cambridge for scientists (the Science TM)... So the camouflage was there to be utilised... All criminals, all privileged imperialist educated morons, all should meet at my favourite pub, the rope and lamppost.
That's a great one!
Thanks Underdog!
I went through the 'Opt-out' process yesterday and found that we were already 'opted out'. Not that I now trust anything these days! The authorities do as they like!
My Wife reminded me that we 'opted out' several years ago. Our reasons were;
1. The NHS were considering selling off lucrative divisions to the Yanks who love the opportunity to use health or illness to maximise their fortunes. Most Yanks are on a dozen or so meds per day. Mottos for US Heath (Big Pharma) "There are no profits to be made from healthy people - so how can we make them ill and dependent" (Covid was a recent example.)
2. The other reason we 'opted out' was that if we hadn't and found ourselves hospitalised, we feared they might want our functioning body parts. That would justify an immediate 'Nil by mouth' death sentence applied.
Even by Opting Out, I now don't trust any authority to obey our wishes. They do as they like and what makes the most profit!
Example = If I was in a car crash and suffered a broken leg. The scenario could go like this;
"Oooops! We needed his heart but failed to notice he'd opted out!"
Fortunately, we are now very old so less likely to be 'harvestable'!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer.