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 →

[–]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.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

K.

The IFR of COVID-19 is many times greater than influenza

Well, the WHO data says it's less deadly, so take it up with them.

Good luck being experimented on, because you will have no legal recourse. None.

These gene therapy manufacturers cannot be sued for any damages, so you're 100% on your own.

Maybe you have a wise boomer relative who can spoon feed you in your wheelchair.

Good luck with all of that, and may God bless you.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

  1. You've previously said to not trust the WHO

  2. The WHO have said, along with numerous other organizations and independent researchers, that the IFR of COVID-19 is many times greater than the flu.

Good luck being experimented on, because you will have no legal recourse. None.

When you agree to be vaccinated you agree to the terms of the EUA, which means immunity for the corporations that made the vaccines. If you don't accept that, don't get the vaccine until it has full approval in some months. Advise others to do the same all you wish, but you won't convince rational people unless you can formulate rational arguments that can withstand basic scrutiny.

These gene therapy manufacturers cannot be sued for any damages, so you're 100% on your own.

I never said otherwise, though it's not gene therapy

Maybe you have a wise boomer relative who can spoon feed you in your wheelchair.

You've offered not even a hint of evidence that the vaccines could do this, and have continuously retreated from all your past arguments when challenged and given specific counter-claims that were then your duty to rebut, but you did not. Why should I take this claim any more seriously?

Good luck with all of that, and may God bless you.

If you have my best interests at heart you are duty-bound to take this argument seriously and not continually abandoned your previous lines of reasoning, and actually address my counter-claims. For if you believe what you say, you could save my life by mustering an actual defense that's grounded in evidence and medical observation.

Instead, I've used your own sources, like VAERS, against you, showing that what you were claiming about the vaccine side effects has not been recorded, as you claimed.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Thanks for the robot response.

It's obvious that you're a bot.

Anyone with a grey cell would have moved on.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It's nice to see you have such an opinion of your own value about as low as I've come to conclude

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

That's nice to know, because insults from shills are a form of high praise.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

When someone forces you to confront errors in your argument which you can't refute, and calls you to task for your attempts to ignore those faults, they're obviously a shill. Because otherwise that'd mean that you're making mistakes, and that can't possibly be the case.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Sure. Can you refute the WHO stating that this is only as deadly as the flu?

That fact alone makes this a moot point.

Since this is a fact, why are you adamantly pursuing this moot point?

It doesn't take a genius to guess the answer.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You previously said not to trust the WHO. Also the WHO has said it's more deadly than the flu.

But using non-WHO sources, here are American researchers who calculated a range for the IFR of COVID-19 infection: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

The "Scenario 5: Current best estimate" is 0.002%, 0.05%, 0.6%, and 9% for age ranges 0-17, 18-49, 50-64, and 65+, respectively.

The gross IFR regardless of age brackets is 1.15% for first-world countries (where old people don't die from other causes first) and 0.23% for third-world countries: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percent

The IFR for normal influenza is 0.039%: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3883/rr

So the gross IFR is 5.9 to 29.5 times higher for COVID-19 when compared to influenza. WHO sources are also similar to these.

It doesn't take a genius to guess the answer.

Any conclusion you come to on any topic is evidence that it doesn't take a genius to do it.

Will you now return to your failure to defend the flaws in your argument that I pointed out by showing you the VAERS data?