Graham Wharton

@RyanShorthouse I think we should concentrate our efforts in exploiting and exploring high growth markets, instead of limiting and tying our hands to subsume ourselves into a declining trade block, just because it is local, and some people can't hack a 40 minute immigration queue.

Rejoining the EU Single Market (which the Thatcher Government was a prime architect and supporter of) albeit with reforms to freedom of movement and the rule-setting process should be a long-term goal of any UK government.

@DavidtheFish @iamufohunter Just the truth. That's all we ask. Not this anti vax regurgitated garbage from the same old list of names who struggle to keep anything they publish out there for more than a day or so. I see they've now started publishing in alternative medicine journals instead.

Hi, Graham. You are incorrect. Here's why: Hulscher et al. performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. They searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and organ-restricted autopsy reports that mentioned COVID-19 vaccination as an antecedent exposure (up to May 2023). They didn't cherry-pick random deaths or "only those with symptoms they liked." They took every case report/case series in the literature where someone had been vaccinated and then died, and an autopsy was published. After screening, that yielded 44 papers with 325 autopsy cases (plus one heart-only). They were transparent about the limitations: this is not a random sample of all deaths in the vaccinated population. It's a collection of published autopsies on vaccinated decedents—subject to selection bias (doctors only autopsy when something looks suspicious) and publication bias (during the height of the "vaccines are miracle" pressure, academic centers and medical examiners were reluctant to publish anything that smelled like a jab-related problem). The authors explicitly acknowledged this in the paper. Then, because original papers were often written when knowledge of spike protein effects, lipid nanoparticles, etc., was rudimentary, three physicians independently reviewed each case (clinical history, vax timing, autopsy findings) and adjudicated whether the vaccine was the direct cause or significantly contributed. At least two out of three had to agree. They found 240/325 (73.9%) met that threshold. They did not just parrot the original authors because many original reports attributed death to "pre-existing conditions" or "unknown" even when timing and pathology screamed otherwise. This is the opposite of your rabies analogy. It's more like: "Here's every published forensic exam of people who got bit by a suspicious bat and then died, let's re-examine the tissue with modern rabies testing instead of the old dismissals." Not "we only looked at confirmed rabies cases and then claimed rabies kills everyone." They never claimed this 74% represents "the population" or all deaths worldwide. They said: among these published post-vax autopsies, with updated adjudication, a high percentage link back to vaccine mechanisms (cardiac, thrombotic, etc.). They called for more autopsies on all vaccinated decedents and better monitoring—exactly what you'd want if you're not trying to hide something... more visibility! Only people saying, "There's nothing to see here" would be trying to hide something.

🚨 CONCERNING : The largest autopsy study reveals that the vaccine caused 74% of deaths.

@myhiddenvalue The thing that's causing 1000s of babies to die after vaccination is probably the same thing that causes 1000s of babies to die who don't get vaccinated.

They know but they don't care

@DavidtheFish @iamufohunter They selected autopsies based on what they were looking for, then claimed it represented the population. Like only choosing autopsies where the patient had rabies symptoms, the claiming that 75% of everyone in the world died from rabies. That's why the paper was retracted.

The paper highlights a plausible mechanism for harm in a subset, especially cardiac/hematologic, and demands more autopsies instead of the usual hand-waving. In a sane world, this would trigger massive re-evaluation, not ad hominem attacks on the authors or journal. Funny how "follow the science" only applies when the science flatters those in charge.

@Divinions @iamufohunter Did you really think they would depopulate their loyal vaccine loving customers. Nah, covid was a precursor to what comes next. There's no way you're taking an mRNA jab, right. That's just where they want you. May the anti science cull begin.

@iamufohunter COVID was a planned depopulation operation. I'll never be convinced otherwise. Get rid of the elderly who are pulling social security and retirement benefits. And those with weakened immune systems, who may or may not be on disability/Medicaid/Medicare Survival of the fittest

@trigtrader @iamufohunter Did you really think they would depopulate their loyal vaccine loving customers. Nah, covid was a precursor to what comes next. There's no way you're taking an mRNA jab, right. That's just where they want you. May the anti science cull begin.

@iamufohunter They want you dead! Gates and WEF have all aspired openly to population control! Did you really think they wouldn't actually do it! #EvilIsReal

@BloodybushEdge @Suewilson91 Yeah, I'm sure that explains the abrupt change In the mid 70's. The trend reversed quite dramatically.

@Graham_Wharton @Suewilson91 Cattle breeds improved. So we had less cattle producing more protein.

A large nnumber of Brexit voters have, to put it bluntly, now died. With younger voters overwhelmingly pro-EU, any decision to align further with the EU carries less political risk than at any point since 2016 – something Labour are sensing. thelondoneconomic.com/politics/bretu…

@NXT4EU If you're giving starmer 100% credit for the zero numbers this week, then you have got to blame him 100% for last week's shit show.

In the last week, 0 migrants have arrived in the UK across the English Channel. Starmer has been the first UK PM to stop illegal migration, and to take back control over their borders.

@johnross77777 @Suewilson91 Yep, we still have many cows in the UK. Just a lot less than before we entered the EEC.

@Graham_Wharton @Suewilson91 That’s odd, I’m sure it was British 🇬🇧 beef we had for dinner on Sunday.

@fourier63879 @artur_why @EUCouncil Yeah, we have to send them billions of pounds every year, forever, in legally binding payments, if we want to participate in the internal energy market.

@artur_why @EUCouncil You realise this benefits the EU as well

Today, the Council greenlit talks with the UK on agreements on: - participation in the EU’s internal electricity market - financial contribution to the EU’s cohesion policy It also agreed to allow the 🇬🇧 participation in the Erasmus+ programme for 2027. →link.europa.eu/M9GGFx

@artur_why @EUCouncil If you read the EU document on the UKs participation in the EU's internal energy market, it requires the UK to make billions of pounds in permanent contributions to the EU to combat social inequalities within the EU. That's why the EU want us to be in the internal energy market.

@EUCouncil why do they need our internal electricity market when they are the ones who wanted to leave the eu and we have a energy crisis?

@EUCouncil Why does the UK taking part in the EU internal energy market require the UK to make permanent and legally binding financial contributions to the EU to combat social inequalities within the EU? Asking for the UK population. We'd like to know.

@Suewilson91 Is it because the EU are running out of money, perhaps.

All positive steps but still just tinkering around the edges. Time to take joining the EU seriously. itv.com/news/2026-03-3…

@dave43law Just more talks where the EU try to fleece us for more money. Like taking part in the EU internal energy market would require the UK to make permanent and legally binding budget contributions to help fix social inequalities within the EU. That's a no from me.

‘Breturn’ edges step closer as EU Council greenlights key talks with UK thelondoneconomic.com/politics/bretu…

@dave43law Brefuckoff

@WW3finalboss No. We don't want the euro, schengen or free movement. Closer cooperation, by all means, but giving away our sovereignty, nope.

I have never seen anyone against the EU 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺 Europe should unite and be a country! Do you support this? Yes or No?

@ian76426554 @Ivermectinkart @MonicaRicen2 Fenben intake for long periods of time at these dosages is known to destroy your liver. Did the twitter doctors not tell you that?

@Ivermectinkart @MonicaRicen2 I know a friend, his family member around 50 ys old, treated breast CA since 2021 under chemotherapy and targeted, now is under He got Fenben and IVM and milk thistle. Liver function is not good. What’s your suggestion to start Fenben (222mg to 2 g) and others.thanks

This is nothing short of a miracle. Dr John Campbell breaks down the study of an 83yr old woman with stage 4 breast cancer that had metastasised to the liver, spine and bones. Usually a death sentence. She took a daily dose of 222mg of FenBen for 8 months. Which normalised her liver enzymes. The tumor marker dropped from 316 to 36. There was an absence of any abnormal metabolic activity indicative of cancer.

@Ivermectinkart @MonicaRicen2 3 months, wow, that's way way way beyond any recommended dosage demonstrated as safe. You know you could probably kill the cancer in the liver completely, by killing their liver itself with an overdose of fenbendazole.

@MonicaRicen2 this is enough, Now all you have to do is take the medicine regularly for 3 months....

@Ivermectinkart Where is the safety record for humans for fenbendazole given at 222mg every day for extended periods of time. That's way way way more than the recommended safe dose.