Covid is still a hoax, people.

submitted by mongre from (self.conspiracy)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 16 insightful - 4 fun16 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

The cost is sacrifice of freedom.

Also, many are terrified because they think it's a highly lethal superbug.

It's a PsyOp to have the public demand a hoax vaccine.

[–]GConly 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

it's a highly lethal superbug.

My healthy eighteen year old went from a rower training for a marathon to having pneumonia and so much difficulty breathing we had to call ambulance. She's never even been particularly I'll with flu since she was a baby.

I've seen what it can't do first hand. This is way worse than flu, my health is pretty dicey and I want a sodding vaccine. There's a real risk it could kill me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is way worse than flu, my health is pretty dicey and I want a sodding vaccine. There's a real risk it could kill me.

The flu has been pretty serious in the recent past, as well. 650,000 confined deaths from influenza in the 2017-2018 flu season.

There's a very real risk the vaccine could kill you, as well. Every previous vaccine for this has been a failure.

The handful of versions that made it to animal testing ultimately killed all of the animals the next time they encountered CV.

Relying on the safety of fastracked vaccine that hasn't been fully tested is an unacceptable risk; given the low fatality rate of CV 19.

It's a serious gamble.

[–]GConly 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I never said I wanted a fast tracked vaccine. I'm as lary of that anyone else.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are fastracking all of the coco vaccines.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Listen, NOBODY is denying that there are SOME PARTICULAR fringe cases in which an otherwise inoffensive virus has dire consequences. Hell, some people die from eating fucking PEANUTS. I'm sorry about your kid going through rough times, I really am. But it's not because EXTREMELY RARE cases become serious that there has to be a so-called "vaccine", which have never done anything for human health to begin with.

Even Pasteur himself, who freaking INVENTED vaccines said on his death bed, "Tell Béchand I was wrong and he was right: the milieu is everything and the pathogen is insignificant". What does allopathic medicine do? Ignore the wisdom of one of its own greatest visionaries... BECAUSE PROFIT COULD BE HAD FROM DOING SO.

[–]LarrySwinger2 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Vaccines are risky in general, and sometimes more deadly than the disease they're meant to prevent. And regardless, there isn't a vaccine right now. I recommend looking into other options such as exposing yourself to sunlight regularly, not isolating yourself (so as to keep your immune system intact), and taking Vitamine D pills.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

sometimes more deadly than the disease they're meant to prevent

That's utter bullshit.

[–]LarrySwinger2 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No it isn't. See this paper, which examines the effects of DTP, a vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. From the conclusion:

DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs. [...] All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/dtp/statement112002/en/

Analysis of the WHO-sponsored studies is now complete. All the studies show reduced mortality rates in the children vaccinated with all of the vaccines. In particular, the studies showed no negative effect of DTP vaccination and no difference was found between males and females.

The Committee concluded that the evidence is sufficient to reject the hypothesis for an increased non-specific mortality following vaccination.

You're also not taking into account the lives saved by not getting these diseases. For example, mortality from diphtheria is about 20% in the under fives.

So the vaccination is nowhere near as dangerous as the disease

[–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have serious doubts about the reliability of WHO-sponsored studies, but even if it is reliable: those researchers simply came to a different conclusion, but that doesn't do anything to address the findings of the paper I linked to. You cited a paper from 2000, while I cited one from 2017. We know more now, so the 2017 one is much more relevant.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It doesn't stop the mortality from diphtheria alone. If that gets loose into an unvaccinated population you'll lose a sizeable chunk of your kids.

I think you don't seem to understand that there's a mass of people not dying because of the vaccines. The paper you used mentioned mortality was 500/1000 in 1978.

If you were to look at mortality in a vaccinated Vs totally unvaccinated population with unchecked disease you'd be shocked. For example, measles has a mortality of about 1/300 in children, and virtually everyone catches it as a child in non vaccinated areas (R17).

I have a few observations on that paper as well. It didn't look at other parenting issues. Particularly bottle-feeding is linked to higher mortality from infections, you see it more in urban areas where people will have easier access to medical clinics and vaccinations.

Such info is absent from it.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't stop the mortality from diphtheria alone. If that gets loose into an unvaccinated population you'll lose a sizeable chunk of your kids.

I'd just like to respond to the info you included before the edit. You mentioned a mortality rate of up to 20%. It should be noted that the most widely quoted number is 5-10%, and that this only pertains to cases, which are 100-200 per 100,000 persons.[1] If we give it the benefit of the doubt twice, that gives us 200 / 100,000 * 0.1 = 0.02% of the population who would die from diphtheria if there is no vaccination. Since you removed the details: I'm guessing you caught on to the misrepresentation?

I think you don't seem to understand that there's a mass of people not dying because of the vaccines. The paper you used mentioned mortality was 500/1000 in 1978.

I agree that that's a ridiculously high number, but there's nothing in there that suggests that's due to a lack of vaccinations; that's your assumption. It must have something to do with that particular community, because under-5 mortality rates in Guinea-Bissau by average were around 250/1000 at the time. [2] There was a general downward slope in this number over the decades, which could've been due to general development, and it isn't apparent that the introduction of vaccines brought the number down further. In fact, the introduction of a nation-wide vaccination program in 1986 coincides with an upward bump. I don't have the data on the specific community they studied, but if the under-5 mortality rate had been significantly reduced after the introduction of vaccines, I think the researchers would've noticed and not come to the conclusions they did. They found that the study found a 5-fold higher mortality rate as a result of DTP; that number accounts for deaths prevented by the vaccinations.

If you were to look at mortality in a vaccinated Vs totally unvaccinated population with unchecked disease you'd be shocked. For example, measles has a mortality of about 1/300 in children, and virtually everyone catches it as a child in non vaccinated areas (R17).

I'm not opposed to vaccinations in general. We have no disagreement about vaccines against the measles.

I have a few observations on that paper as well. It didn't look at other parenting issues. Particularly bottle-feeding is linked to higher mortality from infections, you see it more in urban areas where people will have easier access to medical clinics and vaccinations.

Such info is absent from it.

So bottle-feeding could've contributed to the mortality rate, but what's your point? I don't think that takes away from their conclusions regarding mortality due to DTP.

1: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/782051-overview#a4 (disable Javascript to see the full article) 2: https://tradingeconomics.com/guinea-bissau/mortality-rate-under-5-per-1-000-wb-data.html

[–]72ndGender 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

100% agree. Every time we give a little more freedom, the rulers raise the bar on how much they will go after next time. No one cares about constitutional limitations of the government, apparently.