Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And I bet you attribute none of that to the vaccine. Call it a hunch.

I made a lot of comments here, please find anything that I said that relates to that.

i can play that game too, i guess you believe millions of kids were saved by closing schools and was a huge net benefit, that the lab leak was debunked, masks were effective as advertised, getting over covid did not provide natural immunity, call it a hunch..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Oddly the Vaccine doesnt seem effective against the most prevalent strain of Omicron.

"The CDC data also indicates that Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5 continues to dominate cases. The subvariant, which is considered immune evasive, accounted for 89.6% of weekly cases as of March 3. The prior week, it accounted for 85.4% of cases."

Good news is that Omicron is the most benign variant so far, despite being the most contagious. So if it offers cross-protection, it should hypothetically snuff out other variants and limit the number of life-threatening infections.

Would this variant have occurred without the vaccine, with more deaths, less strain to economy?

I do not know. We cant go back in time.

lets see what vaccines are made after 2024...suddenly drug companies will say its too risky to develop them due to potential lawsuits.. even though they are very safe and effective...

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I made a lot of comments here, please find anything that I said that relates to that.

i can play that game too, i guess you believe millions of kids were saved by closing schools and was a huge net benefit, that the lab leak was debunked, masks were effective as advertised, getting over covid did not provide natural immunity, call it a hunch..

Masks helped to some degree. Have not looked into it but I don't think anyone ever claimed they were completely effective. We were dealing with a new crisis and masks were a reasonable response while we figured things out. Same for school closures. Natural immunity was always known to be critical in the war on covid. People that died did not get to develop it. I listened to John Stewart on the lab leak from the beginning - would be hard to convince me it did not come from the lab.

[tpeichel]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Masks helped to some degree. Have not looked into it but I don't think anyone ever claimed they were completely effective. We were dealing with a new crisis and masks were a reasonable response while we figured things out. Same for school closures. Natural immunity was always known to be critical in the war on covid. People that died did not get to develop it. I listened to John Stewart on the lab leak from the beginning - would be hard to convince me it did not come from the lab.

I have to disagree with your statement on natural immunity. The government never considered it to be critical, in fact they said it was insufficient. Vaccine mandates were forced onto many people even when they claimed they did not need it because they had natural immunity.

And the government certainly claimed the vaccines were completely effective. With natural immunity you would still get covid and could pass it on, while the vaccine was a dead end for the virus. The vaccinated would not get covid and they would not pass it on.

Eventually they had to walk back their claims as they became obviously untrue.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Masks helped to some degree. Have not looked into it but I don't think anyone ever claimed they were completely effective. We were dealing with a new crisis and masks were a reasonable response while we figured things out. Same for school closures. Natural immunity was always known to be critical in the war on covid. People that died did not get to develop it. I listened to John Stewart on the lab leak from the beginning - would be hard to convince me it did not come from the lab.

people with natural immunity who did not die were still forced to have vaccines or to take a vaccine to not lose anything were you for that. Given the fact 95+ percent did not die in most ages if not higher...

masks are still being recommended, have we figured things out yet? I will assume you are still ok with masks being worn, not sure why you mention 'while we figure things out' has that happened yet? are masks still a reasonable response, if not when did they stop being reasonable....you forget about all the media attention on that issue as well..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Masks helped to some degree. Have not looked into it but I don't think anyone ever claimed they were completely effective. We were dealing with a new crisis and masks were a reasonable response while we figured things out. Same for school closures. Natural immunity was always known to be critical in the war on covid. People that died did not get to develop it. I listened to John Stewart on the lab leak from the beginning - would be hard to convince me it did not come from the lab.

you always spin as well by making your argument the extreme position.

.i not saying the standard was masks to be completely effective..didnt people claim they were effective to a degree that they were worth wearing and the science says they werent .do you agree with that?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

I have to disagree with your statement on natural immunity. The government never considered it to be critical, in fact they said it was insufficient. Vaccine mandates were forced onto many people even when they claimed they did not need it because they had natural immunity.

And the government certainly claimed the vaccines were completely effective. With natural immunity you would still get covid and could pass it on, while the vaccine was a dead end for the virus. The vaccinated would not get covid and they would not pass it on.

Eventually they had to walk back their claims as they became obviously untrue.

right and what does it say they he has to quote jon stewart...only jon stewart could get people to go against the wet market theory? Thats the news source? Not the tons of blasted media, scientists and political sources on right who at least argued that perhaps the lab leak was plausible.....if only jon stewart could of argued that early on than the majority of the media and their followers would of finally considered i guess.

[irv]

Fauci, the CDC and their media. All corrupt and crooked. I just hope Fauci and whoever else peddled all the lies pays large for what they did.

And people laughed and labeled me a conspiracy theorist and chuckled when I posted non MSM links.

If it weren't for FOX news, many wouldn't have a clue how crooked, corrupt and evil the other side is.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322006888112

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

people with natural immunity who did not die were still forced to have vaccines or to take a vaccine to not lose anything were you for that. Given the fact 95+ percent did not die in most ages if not higher...

masks are still being recommended, have we figured things out yet? I will assume you are still ok with masks being worn, not sure why you mention 'while we figure things out' has that happened yet? are masks still a reasonable response, if not when did they stop being reasonable....you forget about all the media attention on that issue as well..

How many places are mandating you wear a mask or getting a vaccine right now? I highly doubt you wear a mask or are vaccinated. What jail are you in as a result? Hope it’s going ok.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

How many places are mandating you wear a mask or getting a vaccine right now? I highly doubt you wear a mask or are vaccinated.

I've seen the needle and damage done...

I caught you knockin' at my cellar door
I love you, baby, can I have some more?
Ooh, ooh, the damage done

I hit the city and I lost my band
I watched the needle take another man
Gone, gone, the damage done

I sing the song because I love the man
I know that some of you don't understand
Milk blood to keep from running out
I've seen the needle and the damage done

A little part of it in everyone
But every junkie's like a settin' sun

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I've seen the needle and damage done...

I caught you knockin' at my cellar door
I love you, baby, can I have some more?
Ooh, ooh, the damage done

I hit the city and I lost my band
I watched the needle take another man
Gone, gone, the damage done

I sing the song because I love the man
I know that some of you don't understand
Milk blood to keep from running out
I've seen the needle and the damage done

A little part of it in everyone
But every junkie's like a settin' sun

Pretty sure Neil Young wants his lyrics back. You do realize that Young pulled out of Spotify because Spotify's Joe Rogan was promoting anti vax/anti scientific information, don't you? Don't you?!?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Pretty sure Neil Young wants his lyrics back. You do realize that Young pulled out of Spotify because Spotify's Joe Rogan was promoting anti vax/anti scientific information, don't you? Don't you?!?

The zenith of irony isnt it?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The zenith of irony isnt it?

Yep, Neil's so woke, he cancelled himself and made Joe Rogan more popular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTiBFLi55Ss

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The zenith of irony isnt it?

Or ignorance

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Or ignorance

Oh no, That's reached hourly on these boards!

Its "Unprecedented"

Boy if only I could go back a few years and.never have heard that word

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Yep, Neil's so woke, he cancelled himself and made Joe Rogan more popular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTiBFLi55Ss

Pretty sure he was not trying to win a popularity contest. Guy was probably unhappy with politicians and talking heads getting their base to make decisions based on politics and not their doctors’ advice.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Pretty sure he was not trying to win a popularity contest. Guy was probably unhappy with politicians and talking heads getting their base to make decisions based on politics and not their doctors’ advice.

Certainly not in science. Naw, cant be.

For those keeping score

Protection from the relatively new COVID-19 bivalent vaccines can begin to wane as soon as two month after administration, according to a Finnish study.

It also found that among chronically ill adults between the ages of 18 and 64, the bivalent vaccine did not reduce the risk of severe COVID outcomes.

Certainly gives pause for some, ya know, ones that dont make decisions based on politics.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Certainly not in science. Naw, cant be.

For those keeping score

Protection from the relatively new COVID-19 bivalent vaccines can begin to wane as soon as two month after administration, according to a Finnish study.

It also found that among chronically ill adults between the ages of 18 and 64, the bivalent vaccine did not reduce the risk of severe COVID outcomes.

Certainly gives pause for some, ya know, ones that dont make decisions based on politics.

Listen to your doctor. Not Joe Rogan or whoever else. I’ve asked you to send me a peer reviewed study that says the vaccine is ineffective and unsafe. Still waiting.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Pretty sure he was not trying to win a popularity contest. Guy was probably unhappy with politicians and talking heads getting their base to make decisions based on politics and not their doctors’ advice.

LOL. Can you post a pic of your admired Doc? I'd like to see the wings on his back and the halo over his head myself.

[Republicaninmass]

Save you the trouble

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

LOL. Can you post a pic of your admired Doc? I'd like to see the wings on his back and the halo over his head myself.

Go down to your local hospital, particularly the ICU, and take a survey. Make sure they have medical degrees and aren’t just internet posters. Probably safer to trust their judgment.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Save you the trouble

LOL.

Originally Posted by Carter08

Go down to your local hospital, particularly the ICU, and take a survey. Make sure they have medical degrees and aren’t just internet posters. Probably safer to trust their judgment.

No need to. They used to post the numbers in my local liberal newspaper but for reasons unknown, they quit all of a sudden.

https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/152855

Any idea why they'd do such a thing, Carter?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

LOL.



No need to. They used to post the numbers in my local liberal newspaper but for reasons unknown, they quit all of a sudden.

https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/152855

Any idea why they'd do such a thing, Carter?

Not sure what that link is supposed to tell me. What do you think it means? Again, you’re better off talking to actual doctors .

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not sure what that link is supposed to tell me. What do you think it means? Again, you’re better off talking to actual doctors .

I was beginning to think you needed to be told/shown everything but I was hoping, deep down, that that wasn't the case just yet.

Step 1) click on link
Step 2) read link
Step 3) scroll down
Step 4) take note of hospital/ICU numbers
Step 5) pay particular attention to the unvaxxed vs vaxxed numbers in ICU
Step 6) re-evaluate your position
Step 7) learn to live with the decisions you made
Step 8) pray going forward all will be well with you and your family
Step 9) take a break from this covid thread

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

LOL.



No need to. They used to post the numbers in my local liberal newspaper but for reasons unknown, they quit all of a sudden.

https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/152855

Any idea why they'd do such a thing, Carter?

Your link clearly shows if you are vaccinated you have a less chance of ending up in the ICU. So thanks for confirming my beliefs that the vaccine works.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

I was beginning to think you needed to be told/shown everything but I was hoping, deep down, that that wasn't the case just yet.

Step 1) click on link
Step 2) read link
Step 3) scroll down
Step 4) take note of hospital/ICU numbers
Step 5) pay particular attention to the unvaxxed vs vaxxed numbers in ICU
Step 6) re-evaluate your position
Step 7) learn to live with the decisions you made
Step 8) pray going forward all will be well with you and your family
Step 9) take a break from this covid thread

I think you might be going crazy. Your link says the opposite. Tin foil hat and the war in Ukraine have you too riled up to think for yourself.

[G1911]

It's all about what "works" means. The data suggests it does lower odds of death and this supports that.

However, the link reports 89% of the province has taken a shot. And cases are going up, with many more vaccinated people in the hospital than unvaccinated. It does not "work" in the sense that it does not do what science, the institution and not the method, said it would do.

3X-4X as many vaccinated patients as unvaccinated sure doesn't seem like what a vaccine does, as the word was defined through early 2020. (https://web.archive.org/web/20191013...ccine#examples vs. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine).

Does it work as a preemptive treatment to improve outcomes for those who get it later (possibly for a short time only)? Yes. Does it work as a vaccine? No. It doesn't significantly affect immunity or transmission, in stark contrast to what was said by science, the institution and not the method, when the state and big business was attempting to force it into people.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think you might be going crazy. Your link says the opposite. Tin foil hat and the war in Ukraine have you too riled up to think for yourself.

Oh, really?

You might want to look again. I had no idea, but I shouldn't be surprised, the vaccines affected ones eyesight and reading comprehension too.

"Fully vaccinated" in the hospital=460 cases.
Fully "unvaccinated" in the hospital=148

Fully vaccinated in the ICU=60
Fully unvaccinated in the ICU=25

Remember when they said "if you get these shots you won't get covid"
Remember when they had you convinced that in order for your vaccine to work, the unvaccinated needed to get vaccinated too?

Good times, eh.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Oh, really?

You might want to look again. I had no idea, but I shouldn't be surprised, the vaccines affected ones eyesight and reading comprehension too.

"Fully vaccinated" in the hospital=460 cases.
Fully "unvaccinated" in the hospital=148

Fully vaccinated in the ICU=60
Fully unvaccinated in the ICU=25

Remember when they said "if you get these shots you won't get covid"
Remember when they had you convinced that in order for your vaccine to work, the unvaccinated needed to get vaccinated too?

Good times, eh.

Irv, what percentage of the population was vaccinated versus unvaccinated? It’s in the article. If you try hard enough you can find it. Or do you not think that number matters when assessing the numbers you provide. I wouldn’t be surprised if you think that’s the case I suppose. Sigh. Sad that people think this way.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

How many places are mandating you wear a mask or getting a vaccine right now? I highly doubt you wear a mask or are vaccinated. What jail are you in as a result? Hope it’s going ok.

again more spin, they are still recommending masks in many places , where is the pushback on that, i still seem many people wearing them around town...also it appears before 'right now' you admit it was mandated. (wrongly?)

so before they were wrong when mandating masks and vaccines? At what point were they wrong when it was mandated or were they never wrong.. You hear about you forget about when the ERs were full argument, but you dont hear the you forget when people were called crazy/lose their jobs/other detrimental issues due to incorrect science argument)

The argument if they were wrong before how is it crazy to think will be wrong again or at least be able to question something in the future without being banned or taken off the internet, lets talk about clemente books being banned, now forcing people to do things under 'science' when it turns out the opposite was true....we are ok to the banning of that but again clemente books thats the huge banning political side..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Listen to your doctor. Not Joe Rogan or whoever else. I’ve asked you to send me a peer reviewed study that says the vaccine is ineffective and unsafe. Still waiting.

There are lots of things that are effective and safe (define safe) (even though in all of those things you can sue, here we cant )but not forced on people to lose job and ban opposing points of views. Basically saying that closing all schools if it saved 1 life thats worth it even with all the negatives such as costs/lost education/mental health issue/missing child abuse etc..

its a flawed argument you are making, the fact you are making that argument now as your best argument is hilarious...

[irv]

After SARS outbreak in 2003 DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) spent the next 12-15 years studying the best way to combat a coronavirus pandemic. Their solution was clear...Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine where the only effective measures. In fact the study included mRNA vaccines and showed they were not useful “The gene-encoded, or “mRNA,” vaccines work poorly because they are synthetic replications of the already-synthetic SARSr-CoV-WIV spike proteins and possess no other epitopes.”

‘Top secret’ docs released by Project Veritas suggest Fauci lied, US officials ‘ignored’ COVID shot data, cures

Murphy’s report also sheds light on other hotly-debated aspects of America’s COVID response, including the ineffectiveness of the new mRNA COVID vaccines and the effectiveness of preexisting therapeutics such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Some of these treatment protocols also inhibit the action of the engineered spike protein. For instance, Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response. Of note, chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloroquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon (identified May 2020 as curative).”

“By contrast, the “gene-encoded, or ‘mRNA,’ vaccines work poorly because they are synthetic replications of the already-synthetic SARSr-CoV-WIV spike proteins and possess no other epitopes,” the report continues.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/le...nded-research/

[irv]

Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

2019 Fauci goes on a panel discussion on the difficulties of convincing the public to take a new form of vaccine and creating a vaccine and how they often take decade or more to prove safe. Literally months later we are saying billions around the world need jabbed even those that show little to no danger from the virus.

NIH, CDC and big pharma is a revolving door. You are a fool to not understand this was at bare minimum used by them on multiple levels as an enrichment tool as well as a testing platform on both govt control and acceptance new form of vaccinations. They knew telling people about how mRNA vaccines works would not have people lining up at the door to be jabbed for the seasonal flu. They had to have something they could sell as much, much worse.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

After SARS outbreak in 2003 DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) spent the next 12-15 years studying the best way to combat a coronavirus pandemic. Their solution was clear...Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine where the only effective measures. In fact the study included mRNA vaccines and showed they were not useful “The gene-encoded, or “mRNA,” vaccines work poorly because they are synthetic replications of the already-synthetic SARSr-CoV-WIV spike proteins and possess no other epitopes.”

‘Top secret’ docs released by Project Veritas suggest Fauci lied, US officials ‘ignored’ COVID shot data, cures

Murphy’s report also sheds light on other hotly-debated aspects of America’s COVID response, including the ineffectiveness of the new mRNA COVID vaccines and the effectiveness of preexisting therapeutics such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Some of these treatment protocols also inhibit the action of the engineered spike protein. For instance, Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response. Of note, chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloroquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon (identified May 2020 as curative).”

“By contrast, the “gene-encoded, or ‘mRNA,’ vaccines work poorly because they are synthetic replications of the already-synthetic SARSr-CoV-WIV spike proteins and possess no other epitopes,” the report continues.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/le...nded-research/

Project Veritgas as a source. That is so outrageous you might as well have used a cartoon from the 70s as your source as it wouldn't be as silly.

Project Veritas is known for publishing misinformation-laden and context-twisting hidden camera “investigations” into progressive groups, news media, Planned Parenthood, and pharmaceutical companies. It had a faithful audience of conservative donors and followers who were eager for dirt on their enemies. O’Keefe was the face of that brand, so it makes some sense that those loyal followers would not jump to attack him, even after allegations of misusing donor funds for extravagant personal expenses and fostering an abusive workplace culture.

But the group’s followers didn’t just turn a blind eye to the allegations. Instead, they launched an entire campaign to cancel Project Veritas itself. The narrative quickly emerged on social media: The company, which was founded to humiliate people and get them canceled for being corrupt and/or too liberal, was itself corrupt and/or too liberal.

[irv]

Because there is no money in Ivermectin and the fact they wouldn't get their EUA, they themselves, and their complicit funded media slammed Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and outright lied to the American public by convincing them, once vaccinated, covid stopped in its tracks.
Many don't know they didn't even test to see if this was true. They just spewed as if it was.

[irv]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Project Veritgas as a source. That is so outrageous you might as well have used a cartoon from the 70s as your source as it wouldn't be as silly.

Project Veritas is known for publishing misinformation-laden and context-twisting hidden camera “investigations” into progressive groups, news media, Planned Parenthood, and pharmaceutical companies. It had a faithful audience of conservative donors and followers who were eager for dirt on their enemies. O’Keefe was the face of that brand, so it makes some sense that those loyal followers would not jump to attack him, even after allegations of misusing donor funds for extravagant personal expenses and fostering an abusive workplace culture.

But the group’s followers didn’t just turn a blind eye to the allegations. Instead, they launched an entire campaign to cancel Project Veritas itself. The narrative quickly emerged on social media: The company, which was founded to humiliate people and get them canceled for being corrupt and/or too liberal, was itself corrupt and/or too liberal.

You're current govt is deathly afraid of James O'Keefe and therefore used every trick in the book to slam and shame him, including kicking him off Twitter, just like they did with numerous medical professionals and experts during this plan-demic so I'm not surprised one bit you lapped this right up too.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Project Veritgas as a source. That is so outrageous you might as well have used a cartoon from the 70s as your source as it wouldn't be as silly.

Project Veritas is known for publishing misinformation-laden and context-twisting hidden camera “investigations” into progressive groups, news media, Planned Parenthood, and pharmaceutical companies. It had a faithful audience of conservative donors and followers who were eager for dirt on their enemies. O’Keefe was the face of that brand, so it makes some sense that those loyal followers would not jump to attack him, even after allegations of misusing donor funds for extravagant personal expenses and fostering an abusive workplace culture.

But the group’s followers didn’t just turn a blind eye to the allegations. Instead, they launched an entire campaign to cancel Project Veritas itself. The narrative quickly emerged on social media: The company, which was founded to humiliate people and get them canceled for being corrupt and/or too liberal, was itself corrupt and/or too liberal.

It’s easy to smear the publisher, but is there any evidence or reason to think the documents are forgeries? I hadn’t heard of these before and will have to do some reading.

[tpeichel]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's all about what "works" means. The data suggests it does lower odds of death and this supports that.

However, the link reports 89% of the province has taken a shot. And cases are going up, with many more vaccinated people in the hospital than unvaccinated. It does not "work" in the sense that it does not do what science, the institution and not the method, said it would do.

3X-4X as many vaccinated patients as unvaccinated sure doesn't seem like what a vaccine does, as the word was defined through early 2020. (https://web.archive.org/web/20191013...ccine#examples vs. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine).

Does it work as a preemptive treatment to improve outcomes for those who get it later (possibly for a short time only)? Yes. Does it work as a vaccine? No. It doesn't significantly affect immunity or transmission, in stark contrast to what was said by science, the institution and not the method, when the state and big business was attempting to force it into people.

Answering these questions is what is supposed to happen during long-term clinical trials.

Even now, we would have very useful adverse event data for comparison if Pfizer had not offered the vaccine to the control group of their clinical trial participants after only three months.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

Answering these questions is what is supposed to happen during long-term clinical trials.

Even now, we would have very useful adverse event data for comparison if Pfizer had not offered the vaccine to the control group of their clinical trial participants after only three months.

I was reliably informed I was a conspiracy theorist for wanting there to be actual, proper trials and not believing an untested claim. I was informed by our members that it is unscientific to apply the scientific method and actual testing without a pre-written outcome instead of listening to what science, the institution, proclaims that day (we're on narrative #387 here or something. Surely the appeals to authority will be right eventually, as humorous as it is to keep reading people insisting on appeals to authorities that have been wrong or lied over and over and over about this issue and can't defend their original positions at all).

Shocking how it has turned out that this untested drug doesn't do at all what science, the institution and not the method, claimed that it did while using force to push people into taking it. Who could have seen that coming?

Disclosure: I have a bias towards Pfizer as a minor shareholder.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I was reliably informed I was a conspiracy theorist for wanting there to be actual, proper trials and not believing an untested claim. I was informed by our members that it is unscientific to apply the scientific method and actual testing without a pre-written outcome instead of listening to what science, the institution, proclaims that day (we're on narrative #387 here or something. Surely the appeals to authority will be right eventually, as humorous as it is to keep reading people insisting on appeals to authorities that have been wrong or lied over and over and over about this issue and can't defend their original positions at all).

Shocking how it has turned out that this untested drug doesn't do at all what science, the institution and not the method, claimed that it did while using force to push people into taking it. Who could have seen that coming?

Disclosure: I have a bias towards Pfizer as a minor shareholder.

Wow, you almost got through another self-applauding post without using "appeal to authority", but you couldn't quite do it.

I wish you would occasionally make an appeal to authority, like cite an actual study showing that your claims are true. But alas, you just exist in your echo chamber.

Traditional vaccines they are not, but the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna mRNA covid vaccines have been shown to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and improve long covid outcomes, time and time again. You do have to get boosters though, as the virus is mutating.

https://covid19.nih.gov/covid-19-top...id-19-vaccines

[tpeichel]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wow, you almost got through another self-applauding post without using "appeal to authority", but you couldn't quite do it.

I wish you would occasionally make an appeal to authority, like cite an actual study showing that your claims are true. But alas, you just exist in your echo chamber.

Traditional vaccines they are not, but the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna mRNA covid vaccines have been shown to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and improve long covid outcomes, time and time again. You do have to get boosters though, as the virus is mutating.

https://covid19.nih.gov/covid-19-top...id-19-vaccines

1) The mRNA therapy forces the body to create spike proteins to produce an anti-body response.

2) Spike proteins cause vascular damage, that is why we are seeing adverse events throughout the body, heart issues, clotting, etc, whether you get the spike proteins from covid or the mRNA.

3) Injecting the mRNA into the muscle was supposed to keep the spike proteins localized and only active for a short time. What they found is that the spike proteins circulate throughout the body and can stay active for longer periods.

How long? Not sure. Does the body keep producing spike proteins? Maybe. That is what long-term trials are for.

mRNA technology has been in development for a long time. Why were the covid vaccines the first to get approved? All previous attempts failed in non-clinical trials because of the adverse events to the animals in the trials.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wow, you almost got through another self-applauding post without using "appeal to authority", but you couldn't quite do it.

I wish you would occasionally make an appeal to authority, like cite an actual study showing that your claims are true. But alas, you just exist in your echo chamber.

Traditional vaccines they are not, but the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna mRNA covid vaccines have been shown to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and improve long covid outcomes, time and time again. You do have to get boosters though, as the virus is mutating.

https://covid19.nih.gov/covid-19-top...id-19-vaccines

I agree, it’s sad that everything is an appeal to authority. It should not be necessary to go over this again and again and again.

I have posted, as many times as I have posted that appeals to authority are not logical arguments, that the ‘vaccines’ do improve end case outcomes, for at least some time, in the overall population.

I don’t know what you want a study saying. You need a study link to show that the ‘vaccine’ does not stop transmission? This has already been admitted by your authorities. You want a study showing it does not produce immunity? Again your authorities have had to concede this. On this very page are some of the original public comments by your authorities showing the original claims, and hospitalization data that it does not make people immune or stop transmission. That data does suggest it improves end case outcome, primarily in at risk groups. I am happy to provide evidence for any and all of my claims to fact. Which one are you looking for the evidentiary basis of?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree, it’s sad that everything is an appeal to authority. It should not be necessary to go over this again and again and again.

I have posted, as many times as I have posted that appeals to authority are not logical arguments, that the ‘vaccines’ do improve end case outcomes, for at least some time, in the overall population.

I don’t know what you want a study saying. You need a study link to show that the ‘vaccine’ does not stop transmission? This has already been admitted by your authorities. You want a study showing it does not produce immunity? Again your authorities have had to concede this. On this very page are some of the original public comments by your authorities showing the original claims, and hospitalization data that it does not make people immune or stop transmission. That data does suggest it improves end case outcome, primarily in at risk groups. I am happy to provide evidence for any and all of my claims to fact. Which one are you looking for the evidentiary basis of?

So you agree with the statement that "Traditional vaccines they are not, but the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna mRNA covid vaccines have been shown to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and improve long covid outcomes, time and time again. You do have to get boosters though, as the virus is mutating"?

I was never under the impression that the vaccine was billed as stopping transmission. When was that claimed?

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N31F20E

[tpeichel]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So you agree with the statement that "Traditional vaccines they are not, but the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna mRNA covid vaccines have been shown to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and improve long covid outcomes, time and time again. You do have to get boosters though, as the virus is mutating"?

I was never under the impression that the vaccine was billed as stopping transmission. When was that claimed?

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N31F20E

The vaccine was supposed to stop transmission. That was why they said you were killing Grandma by exposing her to covid if you remained unvaccinated.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

The vaccine was supposed to stop transmission. That was why they said you were killing Grandma by exposing her to covid if you remained unvaccinated.

You forgot the link proving your point.

And I think you may be confused. You were killing Grandma if you didn't wear a mask AND refused to get vaccinated, and hung out with your Grandma who was also unvaccinated and didn't wear a mask. That was your best bet.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So you agree with the statement that "Traditional vaccines they are not, but the Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna mRNA covid vaccines have been shown to reduce deaths, hospitalizations, and improve long covid outcomes, time and time again. You do have to get boosters though, as the virus is mutating"?

I have said this numerous times, over and over and over and over again in this thread, except for the last part about boosters, on which I have made no claim.

I have said it on this very page of the thread. The data suggests the "vaccine" does have some treatment validity, that it reduces the odds of death, of hospitalization, and of having a very bad case. I have made no comment about the relative value of boosters, and I don't know if the 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th shot or whatever number we are on now improves outcomes. Most data sets do not separate beyond the 2nd injection.

I fundamentally disagree that people "have to" do almost anything, which is a value opinion, rooted in my liberal, until very recently leftist, approach that the right of the free individual is greater than the right of his neighbors to force him to do what they want, if you mean that statement in the sense that people must submit to the injection.

The body of people who disagree with you do not all agree with each other. I posted a breakdown just yesterday (or maybe the day before) of where Irv and I seem to disagree or agree. This thread is long and lots of people have said lots of things, but if you are going to take the time to accuse someone of a view, make sure that they are not on record saying the opposite. When they are on the transcript consistently stating the opposite it really sinks the 'gotcha!'.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I was never under the impression that the vaccine was billed as stopping transmission. When was that claimed?

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N31F20E

My source is the esteemed Dr. Fauci. He claimed numerous times that the vaccine produced an effective dead end; so much so that people who took it were at such tiny risk of spread that, even if they were infected, they did not need to wear masks as a result. This has had to be walk backed since, of course, it is abundantly obvious that people with 2+ injections can still commonly spread and get the virus (those hospitalization records are helpful).

Here's a source of one of these, from a source with a left bias: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...e-coronavirus/

So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.

“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” Fauci said. “In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.”

Recently, as has been posted before, Pfizer has admitted in court that they didn't even really test for this claim at all. Taking the shots does not significantly alter transmission or "prevent the spread of the virus throughout the community", and nobody is even really trying to defend that now, even though it was absolutely part of their sales pitch.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have said this numerous times, over and over and over and over again in this thread, except for the last part about boosters, on which I have made no claim.

I have said it on this very page of the thread. The data suggests the "vaccine" does have some treatment validity, that it reduces the odds of death, of hospitalization, and of having a very bad case. I have made no comment about the relative value of boosters, and I don't know if the 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th shot or whatever number we are on now improves outcomes. Most data sets do not separate beyond the 2nd injection.

I fundamentally disagree that people "have to" do almost anything, which is a value opinion, rooted in my liberal, until very recently leftist, approach that the right of the free individual is greater than the right of his neighbors to force him to do what they want, if you mean that statement in the sense that people must submit to the injection.

The body of people who disagree with you do not all agree with each other. I posted a breakdown just yesterday (or maybe the day before) of where Irv and I seem to disagree or agree. This thread is long and lots of people have said lots of things, but if you are going to take the time to accuse someone of a view, make sure that they are not on record saying the opposite. When they are on the transcript consistently stating the opposite it really sinks the 'gotcha!'.



My source is the esteemed Dr. Fauci. He claimed numerous times that the vaccine produced an effective dead end; so much so that people who took it were at such tiny risk of spread that, even if they were infected, they did not need to wear masks as a result. This has had to be walk backed since, of course, it is abundantly obvious that people with 2+ injections can still commonly spread and get the virus (those hospitalization records are helpful).

Here's a source of one of these, from a source with a left bias: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...e-coronavirus/

So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.

“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” Fauci said. “In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.”

Recently, as has been posted before, Pfizer has admitted in court that they didn't even really test for this claim at all. Taking the shots does not significantly alter transmission or "prevent the spread of the virus throughout the community", and nobody is even really trying to defend that now, even though it was absolutely part of their sales pitch.

It is unfortunate that Dr. Fauci used the term "deadend." But I believe that Dr. Fauci was basically correct when he said that in May of 2021, because that was before the virus mutated and became much more contagious. Back in May 2021, after one received two doses of the vaccine, "the level of virus is much lower in their nasopharynx, the top part of their throat that lies behind the nose, than it is in someone who is unvaccinated." As you probably know, future strains of the virus were more contagious, and a booster was needed to address those strains. I think at that point, Fauci was really stressing people to wear masks after they were vaccinated.

So you aren't claiming that Pfizer/Biontech or Moderna ever claimed that you would actually become immune, are you?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It is unfortunate that Dr. Fauci used the term "deadend." But I believe that Dr. Fauci was basically correct when he said that in May of 2021, because that was before the virus mutated and became much more contagiou. Back in May 2021, after one received two doses of the vaccine, "the level of virus is much lower in their nasopharynx, the top part of their throat that lies behind the nose, than it is in someone who is unvaccinated." As you probably know, future strains of the virus were more contagious, and a booster was needed to address those strains. I think at that point, Fauci was really stressing people to wear masks after they were vaccinated.

Unfortunately, he did, repeatedly many times, claim that it does effectively stop transmission.

If the vaccine had, in fact, stopped transmission of the variants present at that time but not later ones, Facuci's pitch here would have been reasonable. We can't predict the future, or prove a medication, drug, injection, vaccine or "vaccine" against conditions or diseases that do not yet exist will work. However, the vaccine, at no point, ever stopped transmission. That was never the case. It was never a dead end. It was not true in May 2020 or May 2021 or May 2022. He, the authority leading the states push and the most commonly appealed too, either did not know this huge claim was untrue, or he lied.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So you aren't claiming that Pfizer/Biontech or Moderna ever claimed that you would actually become immune, are you?

My claims, as you yourself observed, have been posted repetitively many times. Nowhere have I said Pfizer itself made the claim to immunity? Hence my words, repetitively used, referring to science, the institution and not the method, and the state. It was the state and 'science' that sold it and forced it, not the manufacturers directly who reaped a windfall at 0 risk with that protection from any responsibility for whatever their injection ended up doing to people.

I would have to research this claim I have not made.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It is unfortunate that Dr. Fauci used the term "deadend." But I believe that Dr. Fauci was basically correct when he said that in May of 2021, because that was before the virus mutated and became much more contagious. Back in May 2021, after one received two doses of the vaccine, "the level of virus is much lower in their nasopharynx, the top part of their throat that lies behind the nose, than it is in someone who is unvaccinated." As you probably know, future strains of the virus were more contagious, and a booster was needed to address those strains. I think at that point, Fauci was really stressing people to wear masks after they were vaccinated.

So you aren't claiming that Pfizer/Biontech or Moderna ever claimed that you would actually become immune, are you?

Wait, they didn’t know everything about this new situation at the time? Conspiracy!!!!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Wait, they didn’t know everything about this new situation at the time? Conspiracy!!!!

Yeah, it seems like harping on Fauci for calling the vaccine a dead-end for the virus is splitting hairs, given that at the time he said it, two doses of the vaccine basically was a dead-end because of how it limited the virus in the nasopharynx, thereby bringing transmissibility close to zero. And to entertain the idea that Fauci was lying is a bridge to crazytown.

One thing that has always bothered me was that it was even called a vaccine in the first place. If they had called it something else, it may have reduced the confusion.