To the "Anti-vaxxers"

[kaz]

You have nothing.

Funny, just what I was going to say to you. That's why you're lying that Democrats aren't doing government mandates. My God you're a liar. You just lie and lie and lie all the time. It's why you are a Democrat, lying is your way

 

[kaz]

What exactly didn’t I understand about it?

Re-read the discussion. You didn't even realize you were confused? Wow, ...

 

[Juicin]

I provided data and you’re discarding it.

Yea because it's not race centric

You gotta give me the race stats.

Then i get to point fingers

That's how our society works now. I don't know why you don't understand this.

 

[Magnus]

well sure, you all think they disappear. That's just a fact. I explained by that comment I say they don't. Feel free to challenge me. Don't post back at me giving me my quote.

Again, moron, stating something doesn't constitute a fact. Learn the language if you want to debate me. After you learn, then give an explanation of your points. Till then, you are a moron. Let me know if you are still confused.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Funny, just what I was going to say to you. That's why you're lying that Democrats aren't doing government mandates. My God you're a liar. You just lie and lie and lie all the time. It's why you are a Democrat, lying is your way

I back up my claims. Which is more than can be said of you.

And we both know why that is.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yea because it's not race centric

You gotta give me the race stats.

My claim isn’t race centric.

I compared the vaccine rates of Republicans to blacks. Then I backed up my claim.

This isn’t complicated.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Re-read the discussion. You didn't even realize you were confused? Wow, ...

Yea I didn’t think you would actually answer that either.

I notice you don’t like to back up your claims.

 

[Juicin]

My claim isn’t race centric.

I compared the vaccine rates of Republicans to blacks. Then I backed up my claim.

This isn’t complicated.

Our society is race centric

So if you're not, then realign buddy

lol

Can't just turn it on and off as you please. This is US political message boards. And now we only care about race stats

Disparate impact. The blacks are killing us. Wahhhhhhh

 

[XponentialChaos]

what is our supposed claim you referred to was my question.

You don’t even know what you’re arguing against?

I made a claim and I supported it with those charts. Go read it if you don’t know. Or dont. I don’t care.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So your new rule is that I can only object to anything that affects me personally. Not even my own family.

Reading can be challenging for some people.

Here’s what I asked: “Who, specifically, has mandated that you wear a mask?”

 

[XponentialChaos]

Our society is race centric

My claim isn’t race centric.

I specifically stated that Republicans are less likely to get the vaccine compared to blacks.

What part of this do you not understand?

 

[Juicin]

My claim isn’t race centric.

I specifically stated that Republicans are less likely to get the vaccine compared to blacks.

What part of this do you not understand?

Yea and because it's not race centric it's meaningless

What part do you not understand?

You don't get to just drop it when you want. Idiot

Now live with it or shut the fuck up. Republican isn't a race so I don't wanna hear about it. Nor does anybody else

Race centrism is fine. Let's fucking do it. It's people like you's inability to be consistent with this bullshit that allows you to imagine it's relevant in the first place.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yea and because it's not race centric it's meaningless

I don’t care that it’s meaningless to you.

 

[Nostra]

Who, specifically, has mandated that you wear a mask?

TSA and FAA for a few.

 

[XponentialChaos]

TSA and FAA for a few.

Fine with me if they enforce their rules.

If you don’t like it, you can drive.

 

[Nostra]

Fine with me if they enforce their rules.

If you don’t like it, you can drive.

I don’t care if you are fine with it or not.

You we’re obviously ignorant on the topic and needed me to educate you.

Yer welcome.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don’t care if you are fine with it or not.

You we’re obviously ignorant on the topic and needed me to educate you.

Yer welcome.

I already stated that I’m fine with businesses and organizations enforcing their rules as long as they are lawful.

If you don’t like it, then do business elsewhere. Very simple.

 

[Nostra]

I already stated that I’m fine with businesses and organizations enforcing their rules as long as they are lawful.

If you don’t like it, then do business elsewhere. Very simple.

I didn’t comment one way or the other on if I liked it.

I simply educated you on your obvious ignorance of the topic.

 

[amethyst]

Well the inventor of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, would disagree with you, and I think he's worth listening to and believing over anyone else.

Inventor of mRNA Vaccine Floats Inconvenient Question About Possible 'Safety Issues' with Genetic Jab

Trust the science: The phrase has echoed across the world throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, a supposed safeguard against questioning what mainstream “science” feeds us — or even injects into us.

But as controversial as it seems, basement-dwelling, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists aren’t the only ones acknowledging that something could go wrong with mRNA vaccines — some of the first vaccines authorized for distribution and COVID-19 prevention in the U.S.

This time Dr. Robert Malone — the inventor of mRNA vaccines — is considering the idea himself.
...
“What happens to confidence in public health and USG if ivermectin turns out to be safe and effective for COVID, and the genetic vaccines turn out to have [significant] safety issues?” he asked in a tweet on Saturday. “This looks like a very plausible scenario from where I sit.”
...
“Regarding post-COVID genetic vaccine syndromes. I know they happen, do not know how severe or frequent,” he wrote. “I argue for data transparency from @CDCGlobal @CDCgov and #QALY based risk/benefit assessment. Data. Science-based Medicine. Honesty. Transparency. Bioethics. Not conspiracy.”
...
Malone isn’t the only person to question just how safe mRNA vaccines are and to argue for transparency on the issue, but, as the man who pioneered mRNA science, it’s safe to say his arguments pack a punch.

With so little insight into mRNA vaccines at the time their distribution began, shouldn’t scientists have been wary of advocating for the widespread use of this new technology so soon?

Malone seems to think so.

Even without advocating for or against the administration of mRNA COVID vaccines — or any COVID vaccine, for that matter — scientists should be open to all possibilities and should ensure that their “consumers” are aware of these possibilities as well.

Questions like Malone’s have led Big Tech companies to slap free-thinkers with “medical misinformation” warnings and, along with them, a threat to ban these users from their platforms altogether.

Asking questions about this new technology is obviously highly discouraged.

And we can safely assume why.
.
.
.

More on the 'Mayo Clinic' below...

Have you even heard of Noravax? I bet not, ever wonder why? It's a traditional vaccine being developed in the US that shows more promising results than the mRNA vaccines.

Novavax's COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know

As far as your copy/paste herd immunity bs, I can find as many articles and links that will say say just the opposite. Suddenly herd immunity is no more?? lol But, trust the science, right???

Overall, 166,477,481 people or 51% of the population have been fully vaccinated out of a population of 331,449,281, that's a little over 50%, according to the CDC there have been over 35.8 million cases of covid, so that puts us at over 202 million people either vaccinated or having had covid. That's not including people that had it and never knew and never got tested, or people that had symptoms and didn't get tested because a family member had it and they assumed they had it. So we are well approaching herd immunity numbers, but they don't want that out because it may discourage people from getting their vaccine, and we can't have that.

Why Is There Such Reluctance to Discuss Natural Immunity?
...
Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.

For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.” Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”

Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:


Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”

While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it.

Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.

...

The Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method?) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”

Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?

Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?

Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.

None of these people or these institutions are to be trusted, period.

I heard noravax wasn't that much safer.

 

[OldFlame]

I heard noravax wasn't that much safer.

From where? It's not mRNA, it's a traditional vax.