CDC: Vaccinated at Higher Risk from Covid Than Unvaxxed

[Slade3200]

I don't forget and won't let them forget either. I remember names and faces and I'll document what they say vs what I say so I can smear their faces right back in their faces when the time comes.

Take screenshots of conversations and keep them for future humiliation campaigns!

Y’all know this OP is a lie right? The actual link in the OP contradicts the headline. I showed this to the OP and all he could reply with is GFY. Are y’all riding the same train of ignorance and dishonesty?

 

[WEATHER53]

Y’all know this OP is a lie right? The actual link in the OP contradicts the headline. I showed this to the OP and all he could reply with is GFY. Are y’all riding the same train of ignorance and dishonesty?

Man your imbecilic addiction to “you read the words wrong” has worn out and needs to go

 

[Slade3200]

Man your imbecilic addiction to “you read the words wrong” has worn out and needs to go

Why has that worn out? The headline is literally lying about what the link in the OP says. And I showed that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Y’all know this OP is a lie right? The actual link in the OP contradicts the headline. I showed this to the OP and all he could reply with is GFY. Are y’all riding the same train of ignorance and dishonesty?

Written as an ignorant, gullible cretin, that mindlessly, stupidly believes and obeys every lie that Big Brother tells him, no matter how obvious a lie it is.

 

[Slade3200]

Written as an ignorant, gullible cretin, that mindlessly, stupidly believes and obeys every lie that Big Brother tells him, no matter how obvious a lie it is.

Haha. No. speaking as an objective observer. I read a headline that’s said the CDC reported something. Then I click in the link to read the report and it doesn’t say what the OP claimed it did.

Take your partisan agenda out of it. Take the subject out of it. The facts simply don’t line up. The OP was lying. Plain and simple. I pointed it all out.

You go ahead and defend it though. No surprise there

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Take your partisan agenda out of it. Take the subject out of it. The facts simply don’t line up. The OP was lying. Plain and simple. I pointed it all out.

The entire #CoronaHoax2020, including the promotion of these dangerous experimental drugs, was created as, and driven by, a partisan agenda.

Your side just doesn't get to engage in this sort of bullshit, and then falsely accuse of who call it out for what it is of having a “partisan agenda”.

 

[Lastamender]

EXCLUSIVE: FDA Refuses to Provide COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Data to US Senator

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is refusing to provide COVID-19 vaccine safety data to a U.S. senator.

www.theepochtimes.com

Why would they deny the Senator?

 

[Slade3200]

The entire #CoronaHoax2020, including the promotion of these dangerous experimental drugs, was created as, and driven by, a partisan agenda.

Your side just doesn't get to engage in this sort of bullshit, and then falsely accuse of who call it out for what it is of having a “partisan agenda”.

That’s a strawman. What this thread is about is a CDC report that is being misrepresented in the right wing propaganda media. Read the OP then read the source it’s based on. You’ll see they don’t sync up. Simple as that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That’s a strawman. What this thread is about is a CDC report that is being misrepresented in the right wing propaganda media. Read the OP then read the source it’s based on. You’ll see they don’t sync up. Simple as that.

I checked. The report says exactly what the OP claims that it says. There's a lot of doublespeak and obvious bias in the report, but among all that, this statement does appear: “BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines.”

As it appears in the report, it is rather ambiguous and obviously downplayed. It's unclear whether it is saying, as the OP claims, that it is more capable of causing infections in those who have accepted the dangerous experimental mRNA drugs, than in those who have not, or whether it is more capable of causing infections than other strains, or both. Given the otherwise obvious bias in the report, the ambiguity appears to be deliberate, and that, in itself, is quite telling.

 

[Lesh]

Frogging lying idiots.

What the CDC. ACTUALLY said was that previous vaccinations may not be as effective against this strain.

Not that unvaxxed are better off

 

[Slade3200]

I checked. The report says exactly what the OP claims that it says. There's a lot of doublespeak and obvious bias in the report, but among all that, this statement does appear: “BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines.”

As it appears in the report, it is rather ambiguous and obviously downplayed. It's unclear whether it is saying, as the OP claims, that it is more capable of causing infections in those who have accepted the dangerous experimental mRNA drugs, than in those who have not, or whether it is more capable of causing infections than other strains, or both. Given the otherwise obvious bias in the report, the ambiguity appears to be deliberate, and that, in itself, is quite telling.

I’ll give you kuddos for actually checking, that’s more than the OP did.

And you pulled the correct quote:
“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines.”

Had you not injected your spin if applause yoir reply…. But no the OP is not saying what that quote says. It is claiming that those who have been vaxed have more of a chance of getting infected than the unvaxxed. Nothing in that study back up that statement. Just because it doesn’t state the narrative you’re trying to prove as true doesn’t make it ambiguous or dishonest. It says what it says and that’s not what the OP is saying. We both know that

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I’ll give you kuddos for actually checking, that’s more than the OP did.

And you pulled the correct quote:
“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines.”

Had you not injected your spin if applause yoir reply…. But no the OP is not saying what that quote says. It is claiming that those who have been vaxed have more of a chance of getting infected than the unvaxxed. Nothing in that study back up that statement. Just because it doesn’t state the narrative you’re trying to prove as true doesn’t make it ambiguous or dishonest. It says what it says and that’s not what the OP is saying. We both know that

The dissembling in that report is rather obvious.

Somewhat akin, albeit less blatant, to the article covered in this thread; acknowledging heart damage caused by the spike proteins associated with COVID-1984, but absurdly trying to claim that these proteins are harmful only when carried by the virus itself, while implying that they are beneficial when generated in response to the dangerous experimental mRNA shit. As if to say that cyanide will kill you if you drink orange juice laced with it, but help you if you drink cola laced with it. It's the same poison, no matter how it is introduced to your body.

 

[Slade3200]

The dissembling in that report is rather obvious.

Somewhat akin, albeit less blatant, to the article covered in this thread; acknowledging heart damage caused by the spike proteins associated with COVID-1984, but absurdly trying to claim that these proteins are harmful only when carried by the virus itself, while implying that they are beneficial when generated in response to the dangerous experimental mRNA shit. As if to say that cyanide will kill you if you drink orange juice laced with it, but help you if you drink cola laced with it. It's the same poison, no matter how it is introduced to your body.

See now your back to the strawman attacking the vaccines. That’s not what this thread is about… and if you need to use hidden interpretations to dissemble the meaning of a report, then that’s just spin. The report says what it says and it doesn’t say what the OP claimed

 

[Bob Blaylock]

See now your back to the strawman attacking the vaccines. That’s not what this thread is about… and if you need to use hidden interpretations to dissemble the meaning of a report, then that’s just spin. The report says what it says and it doesn’t say what the OP claimed

I am not attacking vaccines.

Genuine vaccination is based on sound, proven science.

This dangerous experimental mRNA shit is not a genuine vaccine, and it is not backed by sound science at all.

It was pushed prematurely into general use, without being vetted for safety or effectiveness as the FDA normally requires of all new drugs, and the increasing body of empirical evidence seems to clearly indicate that if it is ever held to the standards that the FDA normally requires, that it will be found to fail to meet these standards, both for safety, and for efficacy.

The self-destructive stupidity of those of you who chose to be injected with this poison is your own problem, and not a reflection on those of us who are smart enough to know better.

 

[Slade3200]

I am not attacking vaccines.

Genuine vaccination is based on sound, proven science.

This dangerous experimental mRNA shit is not a genuine vaccine, and it is not backed by sound science at all.

It was pushed prematurely into general use, without being vetted for safety or effectiveness as the FDA normally requires of all new drugs, and the increasing body of empirical evidence seems to clearly indicate that if it is ever held to the standards that the FDA normally requires, that it will be found to fail to meet these standards, both for safety, and for efficacy.

The self-destructive stupidity of those of you who chose to be injected with this poison is your own problem, and not a reflection on those of us who are smart enough to know better.

Yes when I said vaccines I was referring to the COVID vaccines you’ve been railing on. Again, it’s a strawman to the point I’m making in this thread which was pointing out the dishonest headline. You came in defending that so stop trying to change the subject

 

[Lesh]

Yes when I said vaccines I was referring to the COVID vaccines you’ve been railing on. Again, it’s a strawman to the point I’m making in this thread which was pointing out the dishonest headline. You came in defending that so stop trying to change the subject

Again… the CDC did NOTsay that unvaxxed are at less risk than vaxxed.

That was a LIE

 

[WEATHER53]

The CDC will soon declare that even though the vaccines are ineffective and non preventative that they do have the benefit of making lib loons feel more safe spacey and therefore are of emotional support value.

 

[WEATHER53]

Again… the CDC did NOTsay that unvaxxed are at less risk than vaxxed.

That was a LIE

You declaration of that being a lie IS a lie

 

[Slade3200]

Again… the CDC did NOTsay that unvaxxed are at less risk than vaxxed.

That was a LIE

Yup, Thats been my point all along... The OP is completely lying and the link in his OP shows it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes when I said vaccines I was referring to the COVID vaccines you’ve been railing on.

Which are not actually vaccines; nor are they based on sound science, as genuine vaccines are.