After the 'infected blood' scandal has proven....and it still amazes me just how trusting people are.....that the establishment, including the medical profession will lie and cover up whatever they deem to be in their interests using the 'go along to get along' ideology of paying their mortgage.....Cummings posted a rather interesting take on it.

[Link]

The take confirms what many of us suspect about the system in general....it's not fit for purpose.

At some point what you see here on 'infected blood', will happen over covid.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 May 2024 9.09pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

So there is only one correct interpretation. Any other conclusions are proof of belief in conspiracy theories and/or general ignorance.

There are obviously many interpretations. None of which will be “correct” as all will be opinion.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Why decisions are taken always depends on the circumstances and knowledge at the time they are taken. As is how they are managed. One person’s “cover-up” can be another’s attempt not to frighten.

That is not to say that mistakes aren’t made by the NHS, any other organisation or government, all of whom depend on humans, with all their character faults, to function.

As can be seen with this event when things do go wrong the subsequent enquiries reveal the pathways which teach lessons, improve procedures and act as disincentives to ignore warnings.

There will always be mistakes. The best to be hoped for is to minimise them and then ensure that everyone unfortunately impacted by them is adequately compensated.

The only alternative is not to do anything.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I see there is mention of 'hindsight' on here.

Who could have possibly guessed that blood from vagrants and criminals, superficially tested vaccines and the chemical castration of children would be problematic?

If you are short of blood, and without it people will die, but you can obtain some from a trusted partner, who it later turns out has used commercial ways to obtain it, sometimes from prisoners, was that decision wrong? With hindsight, probably yes, but at the time, possibly no.

The vaccines, as has been explained several times, were not “superficially tested” at all. They were developed very quickly, but in a way that ensured all the safety parameters were met.

Rather than pass comment on the introduction of “chemical castration” into an unrelated matter I suggest this is read:-

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.