An important video in French by Nicholas Dupont-Aignan to share with all
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, sometimes referred to by his initials NDA, is a French politician serving as President of Debout la France since 2008. He has been the member of the National Assembly for Essonne’s 8th constituency since 1997 and was previously Mayor of Yerres from 1995 to 2017.[Wikipedia]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Dupont-Aignan)
If I wasn’t so busy myself I would post a transcription. Any offers ?
Didn’t bother to finish watching it as merely activating against bringing in the law to require mandatory vaccination certificates in some situations. That doesn’t bother me.
He says he’s not an anti-vaxxer, just wants more studies into the mRNA vaccines.
We will decide for ourselves what is important,and what isn’t
Just a propaganda video, not informative at all. Misleading subject description.
@JaneJones
“mandatory vaccination certificates in some situations. That doesn’t bother me.”
It is of greater concern to younger people as some scientists have suggested it is likely to cause cancer or infertility
@Eddie
“We will decide for ourselves what is important,and what isn’t”
I doubt the government will respect you opinion Eddie or your right of refusaL
@IzzyM
“not informative at all. Misleading subject description”
I had no idea this was being presented at the National Assembly in January. Apologies if you considered it unnewsworthy.
He is a populist creep, DLF and the RN are bonnet-blanc and blanc-bonnet.
So do many things in life that young people use or approach with happiness. The research done to produce the new forms of vaccine may also be helpful in parallel research to treat cancer.
And you can’t get cancer if you are dead.
I’m not trying to be rude or have a dig at you @ukpatco , or anyone, especially not today, but statements like this concern me greatly.
For starters we have ‘some scientists’, is that 5 out of the 10 million scientists in the world or 5 million of the 10 million in the world? What is their background, what is the study they did do decide it? Do other scientists, and the scientific world at large agree with the conclusion? Can they replicate the findings?
Then we have ‘suggested’, so is that something they have seen in the results or just something they have seen in the past when using similar drugs or perhaps some of the ingredients? Suggested may be the most worrying word of all. They shouldn’t be suggesting something so important, they should be speaking with a level of certainty about something so important if they are going to, say “in 0.0001% of cases we’ve seen this, but it’s so small a percentage we don’t consider it to be a big deal” or in fact “we think in as many as 20% of patients this could be an issue”, not some vague suggestion about something so major
Then ‘likely’, likely is pretty certain to me, not may, not could, not potentially in a rare number of cases but likely, which seems like a very strong statement to make, so I’d be interested where that is, what context, and whether the wider scientific community agrees with the use of likely
Ditto ‘cause’. Not be a factor in, not heighten, but cause. Is it permanent or just temporary? What percentage does it affect? Does it cause complete infertility or just worsen the situation for those already in a bad state? Is there a certainty it affects these things or is it just people covering backs because it shows a potential risk that there’s been no evidence of happening so far?
None of these questions I expect you, or perhaps even anyone outside of the scientific community to be able to actually answer with knowledge and certainty, but it highlights the point of these statements that get thrown out by people these days which are often not worth the paper they’re written on. Perhaps the statement is 100% accurate, but without knowing in far greater detail exactly where this comes from and what it really means, it means nothing. It what the newspapers are masters of, which is why of course red wine is bad for you on Tuesday, and by Friday they’re saying it’s a superfood that we should all have 3 times a day. Taking something written in a scientific paper out of the context it was written and intended, often a single line, and turning it into a 2000 word double page spread that will play well with the target readership.
Anyway, that’s my waffle for the morning.
Not waffle by any means, just an essential corrective to sloppy thinking and pernicious proselytising for a dangerous and reckless cause IMO.
Thank you so much for this. My gut reaction to these suggestions is that it is fear mongering but you lay out your arguments beautifully and hopefully it will allow these who are frightened of the vaccine to think about those fears more rationally.
Thought the vaccine has a micro chip in it so either Bill Gates or Zuckerberger can track us all and finally take over the world…?
…on reflection .thought I should add its said in jest
Haven’t they pretty much done that already?
Don’t now use LinkedIn ( MS) or Facebook or Instagram only WhatsApp for free calls so maybe I’m not profitable personal data…yet!
Breathing can cause cancer and infertility. This is a pointless statement without clinical evidence.
I actually doubt that any reasonable government will make the vaccination compulsory, unless they already do for other vaccines (in which case they are probably not a reasonable government).
It does get to me sometimes that some people harp on about x or y being evil because it is possibly carcinogenic, as they sit on their sofas munching bacon sandwiches loosening their belts round their 36 inch stomachs. It seem proven that lifestyle issues are a signifiant cancer risk, so rather ironic to refuse a vaccine because of an infinitesimal risk if those people have not already sorted all the other protective factors.
Ho hum…boxing day ruminations as I wait for other to finish breakfast…
If I had only a 36" waist I would be able to eat bacon sandwiches every day
Typo…46”…