Many many people are so proud to be getting their "1st dose" of some unnecessary experimental mystery shot

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from (self.conspiracy)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]RightousBob 25 insightful - 6 fun25 insightful - 5 fun26 insightful - 6 fun -  (53 children)

The vast majority of vax takers have fallen for the Hegelian dialectic once again. Problem (covid), reaction (fear, submission, "save us from this KILLER virus") solution (take our magic vax that does NOT stop you from contracting said " virus", is experimental and may be more harmful than the "virus" itself). Then you have the virtue signalers who are "taking one for the team" to "do their part!" and finally the true sheep who would line up to jump off a fucking bridge if the news told them everyone else was doing it. I'm a staunch supporter of personal physical sovereignty so I support the decisions of these sheep to rush out and "take the jab!" but I also expect to be able to exercise my personal sovereignty by telling those that offer me this "miracle shot" no thanks, and kindly shove it up your ass. My body, my choice.

[–]VirgilGriff 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (52 children)

15% of people who contract COVID-19 get a serious case and require hospitalization, and likely have long-term damage to their lungs and other organs. A significant percentage of those die, especially if you're 65+.

Why do you think the effects of the vaccine are anything approaching that level of danger?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (38 children)

Why do you think the effects of the vaccine are anything approaching that level of danger?

Do the waxxes prevent the spread of the virus? Can you provide a source?

Edit: inserting an open secret

WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu Head of Health Emergencies Program “best estimates” put IFR at 0.14%

[–]LesbianOutlaw 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

You anti-vaxxer nutjobs are straight-up delusional. Provide YOUR sources that the vaccines have no effectiveness. All the sources I’ve seen for the Pfizer vaccine show a >90% effectiveness in preventing infection and 100% effectiveness in preventing illness serious enough to require a hospital stay.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 13 insightful - 8 fun13 insightful - 7 fun14 insightful - 8 fun -  (4 children)

You anti-vaxxer nutjobs are straight-up delusional.

Starting out with a personal attack, huh?

Are you trying to deliberately undermine your own credibility???

All the sources I’ve seen for the Pfizer vaccine show a >90% effectiveness in preventing infection and 100% effectiveness in preventing illness serious enough to require a hospital stay.

Then it should be easy for you to provide multiple sources that support your claim.

  • 90% in whyral infection
  • 100% hospital visits

I won't hold my breath

Good luck with that.

Edit: https://saidit.net/s/VaccineSkepticism/comments/7om2/states_report_growing_number_of_covidcases_among/

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

Why should we have to spoonfeed you nutjobs? Is this your first day on the Internet? A quick search for “Pfizer vaccine effectiveness” yields literally thousands of articles and scientific journals.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccines-int/pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-highly-effective-after-first-shot-in-real-world-use-u-s-study-shows-idUSKBN2BL2UW
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2036242
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious

But “oh no it’s all a fake conspiracy by teh j00s and this one tinfoil hat Bitchuter I watch is the only one telling the truth, promise!”

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

"Effective" by their measurements is a reduction in symptoms.
They claim the symptoms are reduced to some degree.

They don't have a symptom efficacy yardstick, or symptom efficacy calibration device.

It's completely nebulous.

Someone could die, and they would still claim the patient has "reduced symptoms", and it was effective.

They haven't studied transmission of illness. To date.

Wasn't part of the study.

No reduced flu/cold transmission.

[–]Node 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Wait, is this actually a troll trying to make the vaxxers look retarded?

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Why are you here?

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

To be fair, the astra zeneca is so innefective against the south african variant that they stopped its distribution to anyone under 55 in Canada because even the corrupted gouvernment think it would be a waste of time. 10.4 % effectiveness.

Source : https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210317/astrazeneca-vaccine-ineffective-against-s-african-variant

Also, Anti vax has nothing to do with a new experimental vaccine. i'm 100% pro vax when it comes to old vaccine approved by the FDA. The covid vaccine have yet to be approved, they have been autorized, not approved which tell a lot about them.

Source : https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-third-covid-19-vaccine source : https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/emergency-use-authorization-fda-approval-vaccines-fact-check/65-7391e595-cee0-4a00-8468-194a6e0a21a4

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

Invalid rebuttal.

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

I believe that vaccines are fairly effective at preventing and spreading covid infections.

Do you accept that when vaccines “work” they will necessarily cause a certain percentage of people to be injured, to develop chronic life long autoimmune illnesses and in some cases to die? Do you understand that immune reactions can go wrong in some people (we all have highly unique immune systems) and will cause the body to attack itself?

Do you acknowlege that whether 1 in 100 people are damages or 1 in 10,000, that there must be a risk-benefit analysis to determine if the risk of being vaxxed is greater than the risk of not being vaxxed?

Instead of calling each other names, isnt it better to accurately quantify the risk of being vaccinated and accurately quantify the risk of alternative courses of action, and have an intelligent debate? Scientifically? I mean people are treating this like a religious issue and calling each other evil.

[–]VirgilGriff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

The primary outcomes for the clinical trials of the three EUA-approved vaccines were prevention of hospitalizations and death, for which they were ~90% effective when compared to placebo. That is to say, if you've had the vaccine you're 90% less likely to require hospitalization or die from the infection. They didn't study the degree to which it prevents infection, as that's not a primary consideration when the goal is to prevent hospitalization and death.

Now, will you show me your sources showing that the vaccines approach the level of danger posed by COVID-19 infection?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

Now, will you show me your sources showing that the vaccines approach the level of danger posed by COVID-19 infection?

VAERS = Waxeen Adverse Events Reporting System

EDIT: **VAERS is a passive monitoring system. A patient needs to go see a physician, and someone at the hospital has to enter the waxxeen injury into the VAERS database.
Waxxeens are big money, so there is a strong incentive to ignore evidence and reporting injuries into the system rarely occurs.

Doctors who speak out pay a severe penalties in various ways.

A (~2010) Harvard study estimated that less than 1% of injuries are ever reported.

However, over 4 billion dollars in damages have been paid out in injuries by the industry through the govt compensation fund.

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

OpenVAERS.com is a site that pulls data directly from the government CDC VAERS site and the interface is much easier to use.

If you limit the search to people under 50 or so you can clearly see that there are thousands of people having terrible immune reactions and many who are dying.

Its sometimes hard to tell with the elderly but 25 year old just dont drop dead everyday because their platelets are just spontaneously destroyed. People dont want to see that this jab is not worth the risk for certain demographics.

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

25 year old just dont drop dead everyday because their platelets are just spontaneously destroyed. People dont want to see that this jab is not worth the risk for certain demographics.

I'm surprised anyone wants it; given the WHO reports it's only as deadly as Influenza.

People who die from influenza would have died from almost any illness.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

A VAERS search for all reported adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines shows 50,716 people reporting side-effects. Even assuming every person reporting is reporting something that's serious (the vast majority aren't), the US has administered 165M vaccinations so far. That's a reported incidence rate of 0.031%, far lower than even the fatality rate in even the most protected demographics for COVID-19.

I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself will now admit you were wrong to use VAERS as a source for your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID-19 infection.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=842D3148ECE6693409D0EEAD3A51?stage=results&action=sort&direction=MEASURE_DESCEND&measure=D8.M1

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

You're referring to the illness that is so deadly, that almost everyone who has it, needed to go get a test to know they already had it.

Did you watch the video that shows how entries were being removed from the VAERS list?

So it appears that the entries are somehow being manipulated, and removed.

A harvard study conclusively demonstrated that only 1% of wax related injuries/deaths are reported, so whatever is reported is a tiny fraction of what's actually occurring.

Additionally, the WHO (and also Gavi IIRC) committed to having an injury/side-effects monitoring program in place prior to the rollout of the experimental injectable gene therapy, but this never materialized.
Par for the course, because there's an aggressive campaign to suppress the actual information about the actual risks, and facts.

You may have heard about this campaign.

I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself will now admit you were wrong to use VAERS as a source for your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID-19 infection.

For the reasons stated above, I'm sure a reasonable person like yourself would recognize the industry PR/PROFIT motive behind this data manipulation.

Do you have any comments on the WHO reporting that the alleged pandemic illness is only as deadly as Influenza?

WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu Head of Health Emergencies Program “best estimates” put IFR at 0.14%

I'm sure a reasonable person would agree that the reaction to this nominally serious illness is heavy handed, and should be ended immediately.

The WHO could be considered an authority on this issue, correct?

One would think that a reasonable person would not want to participate in an experimental gene therapy; based on nominal severity of this common illness.
Common, because millions have tested positive without showing symptoms.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

You haven't responded to anything I've said. I can only assume you've abandoned your argument as some kind of self-defense tactic your aging boomer mind grasped onto to avoid having to address the flaws in what you were claiming.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

You haven't responded to anything I've said.

Your position is predicated on the notion that this alleged pandemic is based on a "novel" new disease with no natural resistance, and no medical knowledge, or treatments.

Point #1: The WHO has admitted that whatever is going around is not any more lethal then influenza.

You have repeatedly ignored this fact, so it's safe to assume that you aren't disputing the findings of the WHO.

Point #2: There are numerous readily available medications and therapy options that don't require injecting an irreversible gene therapy.
The injectable gene therapy you are pushing is completely unnecessary.
It doesn't reduce any infectious spread, and the evidence of reduction in symptoms is superfluous.

Each of these two points fundamentally undermines your position.

A recap:
* Healthy people have natural immune response, and can naturally recover.
* Only the extremely frail or extremely sick are at any risk of death.*
* This is not a particularly deadly disease.
* Highly successful treatment options already exist, and are readily available.

Feel free to take as many experimental injectable gene therapies as you want.

Every individual person has the right to informed consent.

There's no reason to continue this discussion with you.

I can only assume you've abandoned your argument as some kind of self-defense tactic your aging boomer mind grasped onto to avoid having to address the flaws in what you were claiming.

The personal attack is unwarranted, and undermines your position (which is highly dubious).

I wish you the best of luck with all of your experimental injectable gene therapies.

May God bless you.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Your position is predicated on the notion that this alleged pandemic is based on a "novel" new disease with no natural resistance, and no medical knowledge, or treatments.

No it isn't. SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, which a great deal is known about, and is similar to SARS-CoV-1 and MERS. But I never made any statements whatsoever regarding natural resistance. And I'd be the first one to acknowledge the treatments we've developed to fight it, such as supplemental oxygen, Vitamin D, zinc, Remdesivir, monoclonal antibody treatments, dexamethasone, famotidine, and melatonin.

Point #1: The WHO has admitted that whatever is going around is not any more lethal then influenza.

The IFR of COVID-19 is many times greater than influenza, especially for old people and those with comorbidities. Like 5%+ for those aged 65+, and with nasty long-term health implications for a fairly substantial percentage of those infected across all age ranges.

Point #2: There are numerous readily available medications and therapy options that don't require injecting an irreversible gene therapy.

I didn't say there weren't.

Really you're getting more and more incoherent, boomer, and trying to claw yourself further and further away from your indefensible argument regarding VAERS data, to which I directly linked you.

[–]Node 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

15% of people who contract COVID-19 get a serious case

That's ludicrously untrue. Not even CNN would try to say that with a straight face.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The spectrum of symptomatic infection ranges from mild to critical; most infections are not severe [4,24-29]. Specifically, in a report from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention that included approximately 44,500 confirmed infections with an estimation of disease severity [30]:

●Mild disease (no or mild pneumonia) was reported in 81 percent.

●Severe disease (eg, with dyspnea, hypoxia, or >50 percent lung involvement on imaging within 24 to 48 hours) was reported in 14 percent.

●Critical disease (eg, with respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction) was reported in 5 percent.

●The overall case fatality rate was 2.3 percent; no deaths were reported among noncritical cases.

Emphasis added

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-clinical-features

It appears you have been greatly misled

[–]Node 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

According to the World Health Organization (WHO)

That organization has been thoroughly discredited. Information from the World Health Organization (WHO) is propaganda which is not credible. They're like the democrats of the medical world.

But note that you've also changed your claim to symptomatic infection from "people who contract COVID-19".

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

Information from the World Health Organization (WHO) is propaganda which is not credible.

A rare gem from the WHO... .

WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu Head of Health Emergencies Program “best estimates” put IFR at 0.14%

[–]Bigs 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Why do you think Covid is anywhere near as bad as you just said? Got some hot sauce for that?

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The spectrum of symptomatic infection ranges from mild to critical; most infections are not severe [4,24-29]. Specifically, in a report from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention that included approximately 44,500 confirmed infections with an estimation of disease severity [30]:

●Mild disease (no or mild pneumonia) was reported in 81 percent.

●Severe disease (eg, with dyspnea, hypoxia, or >50 percent lung involvement on imaging within 24 to 48 hours) was reported in 14 percent.

●Critical disease (eg, with respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction) was reported in 5 percent.

●The overall case fatality rate was 2.3 percent; no deaths were reported among noncritical cases.

Emphasis added

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-clinical-features

[–]Bigs 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Ah, OK I see your mistake.

As your own link says, high levels of people don't have any symptoms at all. In younger groups that can be over 80%.

"This estimate was based on four large population-based, cross-sectional surveys, among which the median proportion of individuals who had no symptoms at the time of a positive test was 46 percent (range 43 to 77 percent), and on 14 longitudinal studies, among which a median of 73 percent of initially asymptomatic individuals remained so on follow-up"

That 15% you mention is of those who DO HAVE SYMPTOMS. So basically it's "of those who were made ill, 15% of them were severely ill", which is not the same as saying 15% of all those who get it will be severely ill.

When 73% don't even have symptoms, math says that 15% of the remaining 27 is only 4%, see?

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're comparing two studies and concluding that the second one didn't include the proportion of people who are asymptomatic, which it doesn't say. Further sources back up the same claim that 15% of cases progress to severe disease: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-comms-updates/update-36-long-term-symptoms.pdf?sfvrsn=5d3789a6_2

Approximately 10-15% of cases progress to severe disease, and about 5% become critically ill.

Regardless, even if I accepted that argument, it'd mean that 15% of people who are symptomatic with COVID-19 develop serious cases, with all the potential for long-term damage that comes with it. How is that not indicative of a serious disease? I've had a bunch of family and friends at this point who have had it (excluding the ones who may have had it and not known about it) and their experienced have varied from flu-like w/ no apparent lasting damage to severe with obvious lasting damage.

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

It does say, it very specifically says "symptomatic".

"How is that not indicative of a serious disease?"

It's a serious disease, sometimes, but NOT serious enough to throw away our freedoms and economy. It's also not serious enough to continue with bullshit we already know doesn't work, such as masks and social distancing.

We ALSO know that earlier treatment protocols were shit, such as forced ventilation, and killed or hurt more than they helped. Today we know vitamin D, Ivermectin and zinc will literally cure the disease, especially when combined with an antibiiotic.

But still we act like it's a DEADLY PLAGUE! and we all must, absolutely must, enrich certain companies peddling experimental RNA injections?

How about fuck no?

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

It's a serious disease, sometimes, but NOT serious enough to throw away our freedoms and economy.

I didn't say it was serious enough to throw away your freedoms and economy.

It's also not serious enough to continue with bullshit we already know doesn't work, such as masks and social distancing.

If masks and social distancing don't work, how was the flu virtually non-existent in 2020? Coincidence?

Today we know vitamin D, Ivermectin and zinc will literally cure the disease, especially when combined with an antibiiotic.

Lol, HCQ didn't work out so now you think another anti-parasitic drug will? Ivermectin doesn't work: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Vitamin D, zinc, and preventative antibiotics are part of treatment for severe COVID-19, along with remdesivir, monoclonal antibody treatments, dexamethasone, famotidine, and melatonin. It's also critical to catch it early for those treatments to be effective. We currently don't have any drug that can cure COVID-19...it's just limiting the damage your body might do to itself if you have a bad reaction.

But still we act like it's a DEADLY PLAGUE! and we all must, absolutely must, enrich certain companies peddling experimental RNA injections?

You can wait on the vaccines or not take the mRNA ones, as it's an experimental technology. J&J uses an adenovirus vector that's been used in previous outbreaks since the 70s, so perhaps that's less experimental.

How about fuck no?

What's your motivating fear? That vaccinations for COVID-19 will become mandatory?

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

The study against HCQ had to be retracted, because it was fake. Ivermectin already has dozens of studies proving it does work.

Ivermectin does actually cure. It's also a great preventative. I understand your ignorance, as there's a truly massive disinformation campaign underway, hiding reality and pushing an agenda - but you're on Saidit ffs? You should know better. Make an effort?

Yes, my main concern is a mandatory (or effectively mandatory by restricting those without) "vaccine". It's still very experimental, and you know why we didn't already have ANY vaccines for ANY coronavirus? Because every previous attempt has proven harmful, either directly or when the patient is subject to the real virus.

I can't be asked to explain but there are good reasons for this.

I also read that those with the flu jab suffer more from coronavirus, though I suspect that's because they're the exact same people most at risk from both the flu and rona, so probably a moot point.

Tip; try a different search engine from Google.

Edit: as an aside, both my wife and I had something. I went to enter a shop and was told my temperature too high. I felt fine and said it must be a mistake but other people were registering normal. Mmm. Then my wife called and said she couldn't enter shops, she felt fine but had a temperature?

Later we both felt feverish, headache, joints a bit stiff.

So that afternoon we both took the Ivermectin I'd stashed, along with vit D and zinc.

Fine the next day, temperature fine, everything fine. We urged other members of the family that we'd been in close contact to take the same, a single IM tab, a single zinc tab and a large Vit D tab. They did.

Everybody fine.

No that's not a scientific peer reviewed study, but it (literally) works for me.

Edit 2 - I forgot to answer about the vanishing flu. 2 points... 1. Flue deaths are mostly bullshit anyway:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html

Yep, even huffpo is right twice a day. And 2. Flu cases are being classed as Covid. Duh!

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

Fuck off

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

So you have no rebuttal