high level vaccine skeptics

#251
Downzero said:
Those criticisms have been debunked by literally every media source in the world that covered the issue, last May. Even Forbes, hardly a liberal outlet, reported on it.

It is an absolute bs conspiracy theory myth that any hospital ever falsified anything to get paid more. And in Cook County, Illinois, the medical examiner did a full autopsy on every single COVID death in 2020, so it's not as if there's a lack of data on that issue.

As to the "died with covid" or "died from covid" nonsense, nobody dies from COVID. Their actual death is caused by hypoxia, or a blood clot incident to COVID, etc. COVID is not, itself, a cause of death. So that is a meaningless criticism latched onto by people who don't really understand the medical process and examination of death. It's almost like asking if someone died with a gunshot wound or from a gunshot wound, when the actual cause of death is bleeding (incident to being shot in the chest).
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Here's another question for you then, sport.

Why the FUCK do you care what I think or do? You're probably out first in line for vaccine boosters so you've got nothing to worry about, right?

You're safe. You took the magical elixir that's going to protect you from the evil cold virus.

So piss off. Don't worry about us dirty unvaxxed masses, we'll all be dead soon, amirite?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Emerson0311, Yasherka, MCSO1357 and 5 others
#253
Baron23 said:
Ah, retard?…..no, he’s an M.D. real doctor.

What’s your medical education background?

Take the vaccine or don’t take the vaccine, I really don’t care. You do you and I’ll do me.

But many here who have been throwing personal shade at this Dr. wouldn’t get past the first semester of med school….but nonetheless want to call him a “retard”??

Just can’t even make this shit up. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
www.cnbc.com

The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don't want you to know about

More than 250,000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com


I've known some great docs! I have also known some retards that have the title. Just saying
 
#254
LawnMM said:
Uh huh. Here's another question for you then, sport.

Why the FUCK do you care what I think or do? You're probably out first in line for vaccine boosters so you've got nothing to worry about, right?

You're safe. You took the magical elixir that's going to protect you from the evil cold virus.

So piss off. Don't worry about us dirty unvaxxed masses, we'll all be dead soon, amirite?
Click to expand...
The fact that you have to ask simply suggests that you don't understand how infectious disease works. Even though I don't want to be in this or anything other than this forum with you, the reality is that we are all in this together. The day I become convinced that your choice to remain unvaccinated doesn't impose costs on me, I will absolutely stop caring. If you want to jump out of airplanes or engage in other risky behavior that doesn't impose costs on me, I do not care. But that you don't seem to recognize the profound benefits to our world that vaccines have provided or care about infecting others, you're damn right I have a serious problem with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDXGS
#255
Downzero said:
The fact that you have to ask simply suggests that you don't understand how infectious disease works. Even though I don't want to be in this or anything other than this forum with you, the reality is that we are all in this together. The day I become convinced that your choice to remain unvaccinated doesn't impose costs on me, I will absolutely stop caring. If you want to jump out of airplanes or engage in other risky behavior that doesn't impose costs on me, I do not care. But that you don't seem to recognize the profound benefits to our world that vaccines have provided or care about infecting others, you're damn right I have a serious problem with that.
Click to expand...
Oh goody, you took the bait!

I'd say YOU have a serious problem then, friend. If you think I'll be ceding my right to make my own medical choices for myself, or forfeiting any of my freedoms, just to help YOU feel better about something YOU are scared about then YOU are in for a disappointment.

The question is ... the fuck ya gonna do about it?

I already know the answer, do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311, MJF, TxWelder35 and 5 others
#256
LawnMM said:
Oh goody, you took the bait!

I'd say YOU have a serious problem then, friend. If you think I'll be ceding my right to make my own medical choices for myself, or forfeiting any of my freedoms, just to help YOU feel better about something YOU are scared about then YOU are in for a disappointment.

The question is ... the fuck ya gonna do about it?

I already know the answer, do you?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that as it comes to public health where there is a true public health issue. And neither have the majority of our citizens throughout the history of this country, with exceedingly limited exception not relevant here. And when the tiny minority of you protest because you don't think we have that authority, I say let the chips fall where they may.

Personally, I can't wait until precisely that issue reaches the Supreme Court of the United States. Because there are libertarian scholars who agree with the government on this point, that's how small of a minority position among the relevant experts that you represent.

I hope we don't ever have to use force to get people vaccinated, but I also know history and I know the government has the power to do so and that the judges will not refuse to carry it out even if challenged. I hope it never comes to that, but if someone told you that the government lacks the authority to do so, or that courts would entertain challenges to a requirement that people do so, just stay tuned for the next 12 months of constitutional law.
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: MCSO1357, armorpl8chikn and stefan73
#262
Pfizer Board of Directors: James C. Smith, Age: 57
President and Chief Executive Officer of Thomson Reuters Corporation, the world's leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals, since January 2012, its Chief Operating Officer from September 2011 to December 2011, and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomson Reuters Professional Division, from 2008 to 2011. Prior to the acquisition of Reuters Group PLC (Reuters) by The Thomson Corporation (Thomson) in 2008, he served as Chief Operating Officer of Thomson and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Thomson Learning's Academic and Reference Group. He began his career as a journalist and rose through the ranks at the Thomson Newspaper Group, which he joined in 1987, to become the head of its North America operations. With the sale of the Thomson Newspaper Group in 2000, he joined Thomson as Executive Vice President in 2001. Currently, he is a member of the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum, the International Advisory Boards of British American Business and the Atlantic Council. Our Director since 2014. Chair of our Compensation Committee and member of our Audit and Science and Technology Committees.


Scott Gottlieb is an American physician and investor who served as the 23rd commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 2017 until April 2019. He is presently a senior fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, a partner at the venture capital firm New Enterprise Associates, a member of the board of directors of drug maker Pfizer, Inc, a member of the board of directors of Illumina, Inc., a contributor to the cable financial news network CNBC, and a frequent guest on the CBS News program Face the Nation. He is the author of the The New York Times best selling book Uncontrolled Spread on the COVID-19 pandemic and the national security vulnerabilities that it revealed. Before becoming FDA commissioner, he was a clinical assistant professor at New York University School of Medicine, the FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, a venture partner with New Enterprise Associates, a member of the policy board of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and a member of the Federal Health Information Technology Policy Committee, which advises the United States Department of Health and Human Services on healthcare information technology. He was previously a resident fellow at AEI from 2007 to 2017 prior to joining the FDA as commissioner in May 2017.

James Smith | Pfizer

www.pfizer.com www.pfizer.com


Hahn, who served as the FDA head in former President Trump's administration, oversaw the emergency use authorization of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in December.

MSN

www.msn.com

Fauci has a long list of crap to include his wife in the NIH.


I wonder how their positions and prior positions played into this? No conflict of interest going on here at all:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10ring'r
#263
Downzero said:
And when the tiny minority of you protest because you don't think we have that authority, I say let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...
Mighty tough talk from the safety of your little faggoty office somewhere. Stand up for your position, pick up a needle and go door to door in support of your cause.

You exhibit the same flawed logic as other typical liberals. "I know the government has the authority" and "I know how the courts and scholars will decide this issue"

I'll point the flaw out for you because you're still missing it... I don't care if you find some judge or lawyer or doctor or whoever that agrees with you. The only medical shit that happens to me will be of my choosing.

If you want to try to force the issue, well, good luck with that.

thumbs-up-okay.gif

As usual you liberal nutbags have it backwards. What's alarming isn't that people choose not to go along with what you see as the consensus and you believe, whether correctly or not, that there's risk to the majority in that refusal.

What's alarming is your failure to grasp the founding principles of this country and realize that individual liberty is never secondary to collective security / safety / health / whatever the fuck you want to call it.

Whether you agree or not, I really don't care. See you on the front porch, bring a needle and a lot of friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311, TxWelder35, Lange Carabine and 7 others
#266
Lange Carabine said:
So, only unvaxxed people impose costs on you. What about those that have had the jab and still catch covid? I reckon they dont cost you anything, is that right?
Click to expand...

Vaccinated people are far less likely, between 5 and 11 times, to even have a viral load high enough to trigger a positive test. Even if they become infected, they tend to have milder infection (by an extreme margin) to unvaccinated people and their disease is short-lived, comparatively and on average. As a result, the probability of them even being able to transmit the virus to anyone else is lower, because the vast majority of them will never be infected at all, and those who do will overwhelmingly not be sick enough to infect anyone else (or will be sick for less time, giving them less opportunity).

People want black and white answers to this, but this isn't a black and white issue, it's a complex game of probability. Unvaccinated people start the game with their body knowing zero about fighting the virus. Vaccinated people don't. The difference is tremendous.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: MCSO1357, armorpl8chikn, 10ring'r and 4 others
#268
LawnMM said:
How about people that have already had it and recovered, genius?
Click to expand...

One study has shown comparable immunity from recovery. The remainder of the entire body of the literature has shown significantly greater immunity from the vaccine than from recovery. New studies (in the last month) show greater immunity from both than from either alone. I don't know the answer other than to say that recovery from the virus is not a reason not to get vaccinated on the basis of current evidence. Obviously natural immunity works, it probably doesn't work as well as people think it does though (otherwise we wouldn't have needed the vaccine to flatten the curve, and let's face it, regardless of reason, the curve is currently flat).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 10ring'r and KZP
#269
The elephant in the room here, of course, is the socialization of medical risk, through insurance and government mandate. Without that you would be looking at a public health crisis. With it, you are also looking at a public finance issue. I'm not sure how you deal with either one, to be honest. From the public health standpoint, it is clear that the government has a lot of leeway in mandating vaccination, and even Jacobson dealt directly with the issue of whether previous infection is an exemption (it isn't.) That may not be scientifically sound, but it does give context for the history of these mandates, mandates which actually predate the country itself if you look at Washington and making troops eat smallpox scabs. There are parts of the mandate I think might be legally questionable, and parts that I find morally objectionable, but the idea that this has never occurred before or that it is fundamentally unamerican is kind of silly.

As for the public finance part of it, a major problem is that insurers, public and private, cannot discriminate against people for making questionable choices to the degree that it would have an impact on those choices. That is a huge problem, whether we are talking about drinkers, smokers, fatties or people who don't want to be vaccinated. There are actual costs to these behaviors, and we don't see them because we are so used to spreading out medical costs. I don't have much interest in providing care to fat sugar addicts with diabetes, drunks with cirrhosis or other questionable shit, personally.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 10ring'r, stefan73 and Downzero
#270
Downzero said:
Those criticisms have been debunked by literally every media source in the world that covered the issue, last May. Even Forbes, hardly a liberal outlet, reported on it.

It is an absolute bs conspiracy theory myth that any hospital ever falsified anything to get paid more. And in Cook County, Illinois, the medical examiner did a full autopsy on every single COVID death in 2020, so it's not as if there's a lack of data on that issue.

As to the "died with covid" or "died from covid" nonsense, nobody dies from COVID. Their actual death is caused by hypoxia, or a blood clot incident to COVID, etc. COVID is not, itself, a cause of death. So that is a meaningless criticism latched onto by people who don't really understand the medical process and examination of death. It's almost like asking if someone died with a gunshot wound or from a gunshot wound, when the actual cause of death is bleeding (incident to being shot in the chest).
Click to expand...

There is video of Gov Fats Prizker and his health Secretary explaining how deaths are counted.

Fats was ashamed to actually say the actual policy so he deferred to his health mouthpiece and she confirmed die of a heart attack and test positive for covid..........you died of covid on the COD.

Find it. Watch it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCSO1357, 10ring'r, TonyTheTiger and 1 other person
#271
Choid said:
The elephant in the room here, of course, is the socialization of medical risk, through insurance and government mandate. Without that you would be looking at a public health crisis. With it, you are also looking at a public finance issue. I'm not sure how you deal with either one, to be honest. From the public health standpoint, it is clear that the government has a lot of leeway in mandating vaccination, and even Jacobson dealt directly with the issue of whether previous infection is an exemption (it isn't.) That may not be scientifically sound, but it does give context for the history of these mandates, mandates which actually predate the country itself if you look at Washington and making troops eat smallpox scabs. There are parts of the mandate I think might be legally questionable, and parts that I find morally objectionable, but the idea that this has never occurred before or that it is fundamentally unamerican is kind of silly.

As for the public finance part of it, a major problem is that insurers, public and private, cannot discriminate against people for making questionable choices to the degree that it would have an impact on those choices. That is a huge problem, whether we are talking about drinkers, smokers, fatties or people who don't want to be vaccinated. There are actual costs to these behaviors, and we don't see them because we are so used to spreading out medical costs. I don't have much interest in providing care to fat sugar addicts with diabetes, drunks with cirrhosis or other questionable shit, personally.
Click to expand...

As to the first question, I agree that it is a separate question as to whether those were ever good policy from whether they were legal. There are a lot of laws that I think are terrible policy but are nonetheless legal, and that's why I try to be careful with the language I use. I would prefer that no politician ever even think they need to mandate any medical care, vaccination or otherwise. But I'd also prefer a world where people make that decision informed by the actual evidence and non crazy conspiracy crank nonsense. Unfortunately the government has so little credibility, that the large gap in information has been filled with nonsense. This puts the government, which has the power but no obligation to mandate vaccination, in a precarious position. But if nonsense misinformation hadn't put us in that situation in the first place, it seems like it'd be a very different discussion.

I couldn't agree more with your second paragraph. The government wants to construct a world where truly voluntary individual choices, like me choosing to shoot rifles, ride motorcycles, etc., are "social" costs. When they do that, they will necessarily make those decisions subject to the whim of the masses, which I'm absolutely against, because as you suggest, the reasonable precaution there is to not overeat, not smoke, not drink to excess, etc. Infectious disease though, what's the reasonable precaution?
 
#272
Downzero said:
One study has shown comparable immunity from recovery. The remainder of the entire body of the literature has shown significantly greater immunity from the vaccine than from recovery. New studies (in the last month) show greater immunity from both than from either alone. I don't know the answer other than to say that recovery from the virus is not a reason not to get vaccinated on the basis of current evidence. Obviously natural immunity works, it probably doesn't work as well as people think it does though (otherwise we wouldn't have needed the vaccine to flatten the curve, and let's face it, regardless of reason, the curve is currently flat).
Click to expand...

If natural immunity doesn't work long term than neither will vaccines.

We used to have this thing called the flu that you would get one year and damn you could get it the next - no immunity.

Pharma would make three best guesses and tell people "take this you wont get the flu.......maybe".

Flu shots were not mandated in general nor should they be at all as they are a guess.

Do you want to live a life of mandated shots based on a guess? And be denied service if you havent submitted thus you have no papers? I suggest a tag like dogs.

if your answer is yes I suggest you suck your medicine from your freshly vaccinated boyfriends cock.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: adubeau, armorpl8chikn, EddieNFL and 1 other person
#274
pmclaine said:
If natural immunity doesn't work long term than neither will vaccines.
Click to expand...
If this was true, vaccines would have never eradicated any disease from the earth. But it is a fact that smallpox was eradicated--through vaccination. Since there is a counterexample that is directly contrary to your assertion, there's only one thing I can call this claim: wrong.

If vaccines provide greater protection, or create immunity without mass death and suffering (e.g., smallpox, polio), then they can "work" in the policy sense of the question by eliminating the human threat through vaccination.
 
#276
Choid said:
The elephant in the room here, of course, is the socialization of medical risk, through insurance and government mandate. Without that you would be looking at a public health crisis. With it, you are also looking at a public finance issue. I'm not sure how you deal with either one, to be honest. From the public health standpoint, it is clear that the government has a lot of leeway in mandating vaccination, and even Jacobson dealt directly with the issue of whether previous infection is an exemption (it isn't.) That may not be scientifically sound, but it does give context for the history of these mandates, mandates which actually predate the country itself if you look at Washington and making troops eat smallpox scabs. There are parts of the mandate I think might be legally questionable, and parts that I find morally objectionable, but the idea that this has never occurred before or that it is fundamentally unamerican is kind of silly.

As for the public finance part of it, a major problem is that insurers, public and private, cannot discriminate against people for making questionable choices to the degree that it would have an impact on those choices. That is a huge problem, whether we are talking about drinkers, smokers, fatties or people who don't want to be vaccinated. There are actual costs to these behaviors, and we don't see them because we are so used to spreading out medical costs. I don't have much interest in providing care to fat sugar addicts with diabetes, drunks with cirrhosis or other questionable shit, personally.
Click to expand...

Probably one of the better comments on this (I'm so proud of you :LOL: :LOL: ). It is a good comment in all seriousness.

Cost analysis of the person potentially being forced to vaccinate. Virus risk, vaccination risk and financial risks.

I think there would be less hesitance if the protections for pharma did not exist. Looking at the politics and money involved I doubt this will change.

Did they provide the same protections for the makers of AZT under Fauci?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downzero
#277
Downzero said:
Vaccinated people are far less likely, between 5 and 11 times, to even have a viral load high enough to trigger a positive test. Even if they become infected, they tend to have milder infection (by an extreme margin)
Click to expand...

I had covid in September. Got it from a fully vaxxed person. My supervisor, also fully vaxxed, got it too from the same guy in the same meeting. The spreader, to my knowledge never got tested because he, being vaxxed, refused to even consider the fact that he could catch, much less spread, the covid once he took the jab.
Most of the people where I work have had it at least once by now.
To my knowledge none of the unvaxxed had any serious complications, however 3 among the vaccinated wound up in the hospital on oxygen, one on a ventilator for 4 or 5 days. All pulled through, thank God.
I also personally know 4 other people in my community the caught the covid despite being fully vaxxed, and died.
One was a cousin, 27 years old.
Another was a 32 yo SC State Trooper.
As far as vaxxed people not having a viral load high enough to test positive, unvaxxed people can fit in that catagory too.
 
Last edited:
#278
Lange Carabine said:
All the precautions in the world ain't worth a plug nickel if they catch the covid anyway.....and plenty do.
Click to expand...
Also not true, already discussed above. Even if they "catch" COVID, it's milder, shorter in duration, and unlikely to create the serious sort of complications that them in a position to transmit the virus to others.

The curve is flat because of vaccination. That didn't and wouldn't have happened without it. If there wasn't a reduction in transmissibility from there being 1) a lower incidence of infection and 2) as a result, fewer opportunities for transmission, the virus would still be running rampant through the population. The reason you are wrong is that the precautions do work, by substantially reducing the probabilities. They're just not perfect.
 
#281
Downzero said:
Did Forbes report that Trump was a Russian agent? Curious minds want to know.
Click to expand...
yes.

www.forbes.com

Trump Kompromat Claimed: Kremlin Documents Reportedly Show Putin Conspiring For Billionaire

The Russian President reportedly met with his spy chiefs and senior ministers in early 2016 and agreed to back a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump’s candidacy.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

www.forbes.com

Mueller Exposes Putin's Hold Over Trump

Mueller Investigates A Massive Election Fraud By Trump With Five Main Areas Of Criminality
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

www.forbes.com

How Russia Is Still Running Interference For Trump

How can the social media executives “defeat Russian disinformation” when the President himself is conducting essentially the same disinformation campaign from the White House?
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: NotByWorks, TimC in KY, Yasherka and 6 others
#282
Downzero said:
If this was true, vaccines would have never eradicated any disease from the earth. But it is a fact that smallpox was eradicated--through vaccination. Since there is a counterexample that is directly contrary to your assertion, there's only one thing I can call this claim: wrong.

If vaccines provide greater protection, or create immunity without mass death and suffering (e.g., smallpox, polio), then they can "work" in the policy sense of the question by eliminating the human threat through vaccination.
Click to expand...

Those vaccines work.

My post was specific to CV19, not any other situation.

You knew that but you are just trying to deflect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yasherka and armorpl8chikn
#285
Imagine having to beg, bribe, threaten and mandate people to get a vaccine for a disease so deadly you have to take a test to see if you even have it.


DR Hubris is at the peak of Mt Stupid on the Dunning-Krugger graph. I can't imagine being this smug and condescending. But he has that $200k dollar piece of paper that lets him know how god damn right he is.


You are everything i have come to expect from "modern medicine"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311, Lange Carabine, Yasherka and 4 others
#286
pmclaine said:
Those vaccines work.

My post was specific to CV19, not any other situation.

You knew that but you are just trying to deflect.
Click to expand...
Oh c'mon, if you guys want to debate, you can at least not just repeat nonsense from 5 pages ago.

The graph demonstrating the divergence in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations was posted several pages ago as well.
 
#287
stefan73 said:
Probably one of the better comments on this (I'm so proud of you :LOL: :LOL: ). It is a good comment in all seriousness.

Cost analysis of the person potentially being forced to vaccinate. Virus risk, vaccination risk and financial risks.

I think there would be less hesitance if the protections for pharma did not exist. Looking at the politics and money involved I doubt this will change.

Did they provide the same protections for the makers of AZT under Fauci?
Click to expand...
I don't know. My understanding of AZT was that it had already been judged as safe, but ineffective, for its original treatment, so there was probably less need to indemnify anybody at that point. On the other hand, it makes sense, at least to me, that if the government is going to ask for submissions for emergency vaccines or treatments, that are going to be used before full authorization, the companies are going to need to get some protection against lawsuits. Of course, that protection doesn't cover willful bad acts, as it shouldn't. Everybody is going to see it differently, but I don't see that as an unreasonable deal on either side, nor really incriminating in any way.
 
#289
Downzero said:
As to the first question, I agree that it is a separate question as to whether those were ever good policy from whether they were legal. There are a lot of laws that I think are terrible policy but are nonetheless legal, and that's why I try to be careful with the language I use. I would prefer that no politician ever even think they need to mandate any medical care, vaccination or otherwise. But I'd also prefer a world where people make that decision informed by the actual evidence and non crazy conspiracy crank nonsense. Unfortunately the government has so little credibility, that the large gap in information has been filled with nonsense. This puts the government, which has the power but no obligation to mandate vaccination, in a precarious position. But if nonsense misinformation hadn't put us in that situation in the first place, it seems like it'd be a very different discussion.

I couldn't agree more with your second paragraph. The government wants to construct a world where truly voluntary individual choices, like me choosing to shoot rifles, ride motorcycles, etc., are "social" costs. When they do that, they will necessarily make those decisions subject to the whim of the masses, which I'm absolutely against, because as you suggest, the reasonable precaution there is to not overeat, not smoke, not drink to excess, etc. Infectious disease though, what's the reasonable precaution?
Click to expand...
Exactly. I am not in favor of socializing any risk we don't need to, but there are some we agree are, like national defense, policing, and, yes, pandemic outbreaks. This is pretty long accepted doctrine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downzero
#290
Downzero said:
The fact that you have to ask simply suggests that you don't understand how infectious disease works. Even though I don't want to be in this or anything other than this forum with you, the reality is that we are all in this together. The day I become convinced that your choice to remain unvaccinated doesn't impose costs on me, I will absolutely stop caring. If you want to jump out of airplanes or engage in other risky behavior that doesn't impose costs on me, I do not care. But that you don't seem to recognize the profound benefits to our world that vaccines have provided or care about infecting others, you're damn right I have a serious problem with that.
Click to expand...
Lets make one thing clear...a lot of people have jumped out of airplanes and engaged in all kinds of risky shit to ensure you have the freedoms you think your entitled to. So realize that lofty perch you sit on came at no cost to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311, MJF, Lange Carabine and 1 other person
#291
Downzero said:
Also not true, already discussed above. Even if they "catch" COVID, it's milder, shorter in duration, and unlikely to create the serious sort of complications that them in a position to transmit the virus to others.

The curve is flat because of vaccination. That didn't and wouldn't have happened without it. If there wasn't a reduction in transmissibility from there being 1) a lower incidence of infection and 2) as a result, fewer opportunities for transmission, the virus would still be running rampant through the population. The reason you are wrong is that the precautions do work, by substantially reducing the probabilities. They're just not perfect.
Click to expand...
So you're just going to ignore my real world experiences and observations from the post above and continue to believe the .gov propaganda bs anyway.
Oh well, carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
#294
So, we had the guy applauding the unvaccinated deaths. Followed up by a guy who reprimanded prior guy and has since took his place, just with different tactics. Then tagged-teamed up by the heart-string guy...

I'm sure just a coincidence.

🤪🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311
#295
newsrescue.com

Follow the Money: Bill Gates with Major Shares in Pfizer & BioNTech Funds UK MHRA, Chair JVCI, the Agencies Advising Govt. on Vaccines… Kids to be Jabbed Despite High Risk-Benefit Ratio - NewsRescue.com

UPDATE: Dec 22 2021: WHO Director-General: “Some Countries Are Using to Give [sic] Boosters to Kill Children, Which is Not Right…it is Better to Vaccinate the Elderly…” (Video) NewsRescue Bill Gates has shares in 8 major vaccine producing big pharma companies Gates bought $55 million – to reach...
newsrescue.com newsrescue.com

This is all that needs to be said about THE vaccine(s). Mac
 
  • Like
Reactions: adubeau, armorpl8chikn, devildog93 and 2 others
#297
mosin46 said:
one of the "doctors" on here spoke about breakthrough cases of infection post vaccination. how many break thru cases have you seen documented involving the salk vaccine,smallpox vaccine? not to mention the more recent shingles and pneuovax items?
Click to expand...

Went to school with a kid crippled by polio. We were the same age, but no idea is he was vaccinated. His twin brother was fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatMiles
Why is the FDA Contaminating America’s Blood Supply?
Replies
10
Views
1K
mrdrar
mrdrar
R
Finally some push back on vaccine passports
Replies
24
Views
1K
Doc68
Doc68
M
crimes against humanity
Replies
8
Views
893
BuildingConceptsllc
BuildingConceptsllc
M
explanation of mindless behavior
Replies
10
Views
724
akmike47
akmike47
R
Walmart's Scarlet Letter and Vaccines
Replies
168
Views
8K
supercorndogs
supercorndogs
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts