Any time you play with evolution there's a potential for it to backfire.
Respiratory viruses such as rhinovirus, influenza, and coronavirus are NOTORIOUS for rapid mutation, but also generally have a miniscule impact on healthy young and and middle age people. Occasionally you get a strain like spanish flu, and those tend to extinguish themselves for being suboptimal compared to less devastating strains.
Frankly, I just don't see the value in mounting a response to respiratory viruses in general. I think for the energy and wealth we spend every year trying to deal with flu, we could be doing other things and only a few more old and immunocompromised would die every year from it.
The second we knew that 19 wasn't another spanish flu, we should have stopped trying to combat it and just made sure that surge capacity was available. Which we did and ultimately didn't use.
You're thinking on too small of a scale. I'm talking about the ecosystem of viruses in circulation.
If you don't understand how immunization puts evolutionary pressure on viruses then frankly we can't have a conversation because you don't have the foundational understanding to follow what I'm saying.
We certainly shouldn't use them as often as we do.
As I see it, doses of antibiotics should be as tightly controlled as radiotherapy. Nobody should be ALLOWED to take antibiotics home. Nobody should be trusted with them outside of a controlled environment where dosage plans are strictly enforced.
The way society demands instant relief for everything, leading to inappropriate and excessive antibiotic prescribing, is criminal.
The other inconvenient fact is that no new antibiotics for community use have been developed since the 1970s and there isn't really anything revolutionary in the pipeline.
So there is very likely nothing coming to save us once our 50+ year old tricks stop working.
The amount of North Americans who are dependent on sleeping pills is unfathomable.
There's clear guidance that sedative use for any more than a few days/few weeks more or less irrevocably harms the natural sleep-wake cycle and makes people permanently dependent on pills to sleep in any form, even with tolerance building and diminishing returns.
Most patients don't give a shit. They only can about getting to sleep tonight ASAP and don't see anything wrong with requiring a pill every night for decades, other than occasionally coming back demanding "something stronger" when it evitably stops working.
I'm more familiar with what happened with glyphosate resistance.
Farmers get clever and think they can go for a 100% kill and then a year or two later the shit stops working because there's no reservoir of non-immunity.
I've been polite and tried to avoid going straight to the Logan's Run argument, but you haven't let up. Frankly, viruses that single out the old and infirm are a good thing. Your perception of the cost being marginal ignores the significant cost the elderly and infirm take on the economy and society by merely existing.
I'm against the vax for reasons relating to freedom - and due to this not being a real pandemic like smallpox, even if there are fairly serious consequences for some as a result - but nobody knows what the long-term effects are.
How do you know it's safe? This is a vaccine being pushed under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), it's bypassing the standard length of studies. I don't know if they are dangerous, but I'm wary of your type of attitude that flippantly claims to know that they are safe given the facts.
Who are you anyway? Due to an influx of users over time, this place unfortunately already has its share of unethical authoritarian fucks; they just don't realize it until the optics are personally unswallowable. Anyway, you're not the appropriate gatekeeper.
Right before they stopped counting (why would someone stop counting?), 60% of all new cases in a month were "Breakthrough," meaning they were happening in "fully vaccinated" individuals. Not only is it not completely safe, it may as well be worthless after seeing that statistic.
Not only stopped counting, but magically changed the threshold for testing who has the WuFlu. Nobody will ever know the real numbers for vaccine effectiveness, actual death tolls in any given month/year from the scamdemic, or true effects (however small) of the vax itself.
Tbh the testing threshold should never have been that sensitive to start with, it was only that high so they could claim anyone within a 6 block radius of that one guy with the coof and got half a molecule of dead virus up their nostril might be classified as infected.
Of course, it's all meaningless fuzzy math. Doesn't make sense to change standards after the fact, while pretending that wasn't done and making the statistical comparisons that don't account for the modification. All by design.
That is assuming those were real cases of the wuflu. All the information around the Peking Pertussis is corrupted at birth, so the safest course is to ignore it all and not comply with rules made by amoral liars.
A little from column A and a lot from column B. There's a risk to the vaccine and a risk to getting Covid, and for certain age groups and people with underlying conditions the vaccine probably is less risky. For the young and healthy Covid is a lot less dangerous, so the vaccines are that much more risky in comparison. In the end people should be free to weigh the risks and act accordingly instead of letting the regressives control every aspect of their lives. My grad school is mandating vaccines, and I've reached the point where I plan to say whatever is necessary to get an exemption. I'd be far more open to it if they weren't trying to force it on us.
1, keep your god damn government-funded medical experimentation out of my body.
2, this is not a vaccine, it is an artificially induced genetic mutation. Vaccines use a weakened or dead form of the virus/bacteria being inoculated against. These are using another pathogen to introduce genetic MRNA material into the cells to produce an adaptation, one not fully understood or positively proven.
I already had the coof, so for me the benefit/reward is not worth even the "0.000001%" risk,. But at the end of the day, I don't believe the data because the CDC, WHO, MSM, Fauchi, etc. haven't been honest with me, so why trust them now?
If I look up cases vs. hospitalizations for my state I see that for young people the coof has a very low chance of serous effects (hospitalization or death) and for elderly it's a few %.
Therefore I imagine two curves % adverse effects from vaccine vs. % adverse effects from coof both vs. age. I don't know where the two lines intersect, but I suspect it's > age 70 (or people with other health issues like diabetes).
So no, I'm not getting an unproven vaccine. Leftists love regulations, except for their precious weed, and apparently, COVID vax. Maybe in 10 or 20 years once things are proven out, or there is a new use for the gene therapy vaccine that is of some other benefit that outweighs the risk for me. I'm saying this as someone who has been a pin cushion for travel vaccines after a scare that I was exposed to something while in China.
If vaccines truly were dangerous government wouldn't be able to hide it.
Wouldn't they? They've managed to blow up a flu to global doomsday pandemic levels and get away with it.
People who die with half a dozen comorbidities turn into COVID deaths and healthy people who croak after taking the vaccine are "unrelated and unexplainable".
They are still fearmongering with tales of hospital breakdowns. The same experts who have been caught lying again and again are still being heralded as saviors by politicians and the media.
Edit: Oh and where would people talk about that anyway? Facebook recently had a leak that they suppress vax criticism. Twitter just censored one of the people who pioneered the goddamn mRNA technology. And they all colluded to obfuscate the possible origin of the virus.
Amusingly around here the government even gave nurses more time for TikTok by limiting the number of ICU beds they're allowed to service.
That's also one of the reasons why our government actively increased ICU occupancy, by forcing hospitals to DECREASE the number of ICU beds ... during a pandemic. That's how "bad" things were: they had to decrease the number of ICU beds to get the numbers up for their scaremongering.
There has never been an mRNA vaccine approved by the FDA outside of EUA. Pharma has been trying to get these cash cows off the ground for decades, but they were repeatedly shut down. Why? What changed?
0.0001% is 1000 per billion or 1 per million. But the vax has only been around for what, a year or so? I'm afraid I'm going to need more time to prove there are no long term effects. I need to see where the two lines intersect with each other (coof & vax morbidity vs. age) so that I and my doctor can make informed decision.
Unfortunately the powers that be have poisoned the data, they have no credibility, and certainly don't have my best interest in mind. The only recourse is to wait 10+ years to see what happens, but even then, for COVID-19 specifically, nah I don't need it. Overall it was a mild illness.
They can't prove why this vaccine is any better at protecting me then my own immune system either and having people still wear masks after they get the vaccine which defeats the whole purpose of getting one
The 'vaccine' has killed more people in four months than ALL the vaccines did in the last 23 years, so I'd say it's provably dangerous...not to mention all the people that didn't die, but can't hear, have blood clots, bells palsy.
I personally don't know anybody who got sick with the Wu Flu since it started. Yet I know two people who got sick 1-2 weeks after taking the vaccine.
Not to mention all the news stories about young people who just happened to develop blood clots or mild cases of death after taking the vaccine.
Aside from anecdotes like that there are systems like VAERS that record adverse reactions. Where are we at now? Last I read they had more COVID vax deaths than all other vaccines combined since they started recording.
Some of the longterm effects that people are expecting are a bit out there, some more than a bit, but there are enough short term effects that I'd say yes, the vaccine is dangerous, at least for young to middle aged people who have next to nothing to worry about with COVID.
If all you can point to is a handful of cases of some serious side effect or complication, that's like 0.000001%, which isn't relevant at all.
As others have alluded to, it's insignificant so far. Vaccines are normally tested for a sufficient length of time to have a good picture of the long-term effects of the vaccine, something conspicuously lacking from this vaccine.
While I've had the vaccine myself (I'm recommended to get the 'flu vaccine annually anyway, and I'm extremely unlikely to fall pregnant) I completely understand somebody in a different situation making different choices here.
To answer your question, I'm more against the authoritarian and propaganda aspect of it myself. Even on top of that the censorship if discussion. Let the people be educated and balance risk themselves without coercion or false information.
Do I think they are risky on the short term? No. Long term, we just don't know. A lot of the risks I see decrease with age (potential reproductive issues for example) so maybe the risk curve is much less for an older person, because they are at lower risk for complications and higher risk for virus issues.
Stifling discussion and threatening everyone with loss of job, liberty, etc is not the way to go.
The vaccines havent been properly tested. Whether they are dangerous or not is irrelevant. The government should not be brainwashing people into paying to be guinea pigs.
By "the vaccines", do you mean the experimental gene therapy shots? If so, people have observably died as a direct result of the injection. Healthy athletic teens have developed heart problems, and everyone I know personally who got the vax reported not being able to function for at least a day because they got so sick. Reports are coming out that the spike protein itself is dangerous if it circulates within the blood stream, causing blood clots.
Every medical procedure has risks, but adverse reactions to the EGT shots will not be covered by most insurance as it is experimental, and the manufacturers are legally immune. If the companies and insurances won't stand behind it, then nobody in their right mind should get it.
Given this, Governments and employers sanctioning people who refuse the EGT shots are way out of line and need a hard legal reconning. I'm talking prison.
First of all, definitely not anti-vax in general; I grew up listening to my grandmother tell me about how she helped out during a smallpox outbreak in the 1920s (because of having cowpox as a girl), and my mother telling me about her bout with whooping cough ... not to mention that the area was lousy for rabies, and wildlife vaxxing was/is popular there. Though when I get the flu vaccine, it's usually the kind that goes up the nose, because fuck needles (though I got it in a shot last year combined with a long-overdue update of childhood stuff because whooping cough seems to pop up around here from time to time, plus there was that measles outbreak a few years ago.)
Not even against the idea of getting protection against this damn Chinese bioweapon, BUT! Yes, the stories of the blood clots are concerning, and does seem to be recognized as a problem with the AstraZeneca kind; I've also heard of issues with crones like myself getting their monthlies back, and I definitely don't want that, either. So I'm just waiting for things to straighten out, mostly, and see how the voluntary human test subjects do overall.
Interestingly enough, my doctor didn't say squatto about getting the wuflu shot, though he did make a point of bugging me about getting a mammogram and stuff, and I'm not exactly falling over myself trying to do that, either. He'll mention it again in six months, and I'll ignore it again in six months. I have more immediate chronic concerns to deal with.
Frankly, I don't agree with the vax licenses, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH DOG LICENSES, EITHER.
And as for travel, well, I remember when getting shots before you left - at least for certain countries - used to be expected and in some cases mandatory, and frankly, until recently, I hadn't assumed that this had actually changed.
Practically every response to this virus has been about gaining power over the general populace in a malicious manner. Why should I expect the vaccine to deviate from that pattern?
You are so concerned with the short term that you rarely think about the long term. The COVID vaccine is using technology that has never been used before and this specific version of that technology took less than a year to develop and get out the door. Just because it seems harmless now, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any potential long term effects. Let’s see how this vaccine could potentially impact fetal development in the womb, for example. Let’s see how our bodily systems react over time to the new protein created from the vaccine.
I’m not willing to risk that for a disease that has an incredibly high survival rate, especially for those without debilitating conditions, and I have no obligation to be the beta tester of a vaccine for a non-homogeneous, hyper-consumerist society.
It's common in Poland to vaccinate newborns for common diseases like smallpox and I remember getting regular shots every now and then in school if some new disease poped up.
Difference was my parents had the option to opt out for whatever reason and they weren't threatened by the society for doing so.
If you receive threats and scorn for having the audacity to doubt and saying the word no then it should not suprise anyone if your apprehension grows.
Ok, that's too much for just going through all at once, so forgive me for doing this piecemeal. I normally hate the small quote + reply format but whatever, it works here.
They are definitely dangerous, like, objectively so, and that isn't even counting the fact that people ARE dying and having serious reactions to it.
Accurate, but only in the same vein that saying Covid is objectively dangerous is also technically true. The point of anyone having an opinion on it is about how dangerous it is and whether the reactions to that danger are reasonable.
See here's the thing - Vaccines are usually tested for YEARS, going through TONS AND TONS of trials before they are approved to be used on people. By the time that you and I can get them, they would be (mostly) safe for most people to get and the chance of having a serious reaction would be astronomically low. We would also know the likelihood of any long-term effects that might arise from them.
But these vaccines skipped all that. They have undergone almost no testing, and have been pushed to market WAY sooner than ANY OTHER VACCINE EVER.
I don't have a fully encyclopedic knowledge of all vaccines, so maybe there's a faster one, but yeah, this hit emergency use approval hella fast, and in some ways was definitely helped weasel through the process. Specifically in the almost blatantly willful obstruction of already known treatments to make sure the need for the vaccine was seen as great enough to allow shortcuts like emergency use approval.
But it has by no means skipped all of the testing, the testing has been short but far more intense than any vaccine before trialed, with far more tests carried out in a short period than any normal vaccine trial has come close to. And as of yet I've yet to see any evidence that suggests results tampering hiding the true number of adverse effects. Long term effects remains a valid concern, but frankly I don't necessarily trust longer trials of any other pharmaceutical we already use to accurately portray all possible long term risks, they'll only ever catch the most glaring issues. Engaging with medicine in any fashion is agreeing to things that are "very probably safe" not "definitely safe". And given the sheer volume of vaccinated people and the lack of any evidence of any individual cases of results tampering, it's getting very probable that the serious side effect rates are pretty close to those that are already reported.
If anyone suddenly drops fucking dead from a blood clot within 2 days of getting the shot despite not having any prior history of blood clots... well, the media and supposed medical "experts" insist that it had absolutely nothing to do with the shot.
Again I haven't actually seen any blatant coverups yet, so either they're getting better at hiding them or there just aren't as many, and on the other hand I have seen a good number of cases where someone died and it was blamed on the vaccine in the media. There was a healthy UK news guy in his 40s who died just recently and they haven't been shy about saying he had an adverse reaction to the vaccine and died of blood clots. On the other hand I also haven't seen any of the blatant inflation in the other direction like people dying in car accidents and getting it blamed on having the coof, so the risks that are reported for the vaccines are also very likely real rather than overblown to some degree like half the covid risk reports.
Not to mention that this "vaccine" isn't even really a vaccine at all. A vaccine, by definition, is an injection of a dead or extremely weak version of an illness that your body can easily fight off and develop an immunity to.
That I just have to disagree with, it doesn't have to be an attenuated virus to be a vaccine, it just have to provide immunity. A vaccine administered purely for that purpose and as long as it actually serves that purpose it is a vaccine.
These COVID shots don't work like that. In short, they modify your DNA in ways that we really don't even know the extent of yet.
Also a hard disagree, they haven't shown any signs of altering DNA, nor is it part of their intended way of working. They introduce new strings of RNA into your cells, that should eventually be destroyed by entropy your cells' normal recycling functions. DNA and RNA are related and kind of look the same chemically, but they're like comparing engine oil and gasoline. They all go into the same engine, but you can't just switch one for the other, and your gas tank doesn't actually fill up with oil when you top up the sump. DNA is forever, but RNA is just that week in Vegas, and what happened in Vegas should stay in Vegas.
Plus on top of all of that, you should always be suspicious of anything that the government and media unanimously agree that you MUST do or believe. If they tell you that you have no choice, that you MUST get the shot or you are automatically a horrible person and that all of society should shun you... you should probably question WHY they're being so pushy.
100% agree. But there's more than one answer to that question. In my mind it's just as likely a form of general obedience conditioning and shit testing for anyone with institutional power who still actually cares about personal liberty to weed them out, than it is a conspiracy to hide the dangers of the vaccine itself. That and a healthy dose of lining the pockets of their favourite pharmaceutical lobbyists.
Also, even if you ARE gullible enough to get the shot... surprise! It doesn't protect you from COVID! By their own admission, the vaccine does NOT prevent you from catching nor transmitting COVID-19 - ALL IT DOES is MAYBE, POSSIBLY reduce the severity of the symptoms.
That's definitely one of the lies they're pushing so they can keep using the coof scare for a bit longer. The vaccines seemingly do a pretty good job of reducing transmission or getting symptoms at all, not just reducing hospitalisation. Not better than naturally acquired immunity, but they've been lying about how well that generally works too.
Other places still are reporting though, Switzerland has reported cases up to 14th May so far. And I like them as a source because as a country it's been generally more skeptical of the covid vaccines than most, Swissmedic's not an easily tampered with third world trash agency, the population's generally more conservative, and at least from the outside they tend to keep quiet more about globalist bullshit than other Western countries. They do have an indirect financial interest in the Moderna vaccine though, so it's not perfect but I'll take it.
Anyway, Switzerland is reporting 130 breakthrough infections out of ~1,100,000 vaccinated individuals tracked in the last 5 months. They've mostly been only comprehensively vaccinating the elderly and high risk so far, and almost all of those who got still infected were aged 80+ or severely immunocompromised for other reasons. Those aren't numbers that say the vaccine doesn't work, those are numbers that say ~130 people in 1.1 million old and critically frail people have an immune system that sucks. Most of their 80+ demographic is vaccinated now, so that's less than 130 old codgers catching covid out of almost the whole population, which isn't bad at all. There's more teasing numbers to do before laying that firmly at the feet of vaccination, given we're leaving flu season and the covid had already swept through the elderly pretty well before the vaccines rolled out the rate should be dropping anyway, but it dropping that low isn't exactly a bad sign.
There's no mechanism to integrate mRNA into the genome of the human body.
Actually, there is. The human genome is awash with retrotransposons that encode reverse transcriptase. Here is a preprint that convicinngly shows that SARS-Cov-2 RNA can be integrated into the human genome through reverse transcription via LINE-1 retrotransposons, and subsequently transcribed:
So you're pointing to the fact that mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades... and ignoring the fact that they have never been approved by the FDA in all that time. Curious, that.
You said there is no mechanism. I pointed out that there is one. Note that you didn't say that there was a mechanism but there is no evidence it occurs, and now you're backtracking.
The lack of evidence you're referring to is because people like you assume it's not possible so don't bother looking, rather than people who have looked and not found it.
Any time you play with evolution there's a potential for it to backfire.
Respiratory viruses such as rhinovirus, influenza, and coronavirus are NOTORIOUS for rapid mutation, but also generally have a miniscule impact on healthy young and and middle age people. Occasionally you get a strain like spanish flu, and those tend to extinguish themselves for being suboptimal compared to less devastating strains.
Frankly, I just don't see the value in mounting a response to respiratory viruses in general. I think for the energy and wealth we spend every year trying to deal with flu, we could be doing other things and only a few more old and immunocompromised would die every year from it.
The second we knew that 19 wasn't another spanish flu, we should have stopped trying to combat it and just made sure that surge capacity was available. Which we did and ultimately didn't use.
You're thinking on too small of a scale. I'm talking about the ecosystem of viruses in circulation.
If you don't understand how immunization puts evolutionary pressure on viruses then frankly we can't have a conversation because you don't have the foundational understanding to follow what I'm saying.
We certainly shouldn't use them as often as we do.
As I see it, doses of antibiotics should be as tightly controlled as radiotherapy. Nobody should be ALLOWED to take antibiotics home. Nobody should be trusted with them outside of a controlled environment where dosage plans are strictly enforced.
The way society demands instant relief for everything, leading to inappropriate and excessive antibiotic prescribing, is criminal.
The other inconvenient fact is that no new antibiotics for community use have been developed since the 1970s and there isn't really anything revolutionary in the pipeline.
So there is very likely nothing coming to save us once our 50+ year old tricks stop working.
The amount of North Americans who are dependent on sleeping pills is unfathomable.
There's clear guidance that sedative use for any more than a few days/few weeks more or less irrevocably harms the natural sleep-wake cycle and makes people permanently dependent on pills to sleep in any form, even with tolerance building and diminishing returns.
Most patients don't give a shit. They only can about getting to sleep tonight ASAP and don't see anything wrong with requiring a pill every night for decades, other than occasionally coming back demanding "something stronger" when it evitably stops working.
I'm more familiar with what happened with glyphosate resistance.
Farmers get clever and think they can go for a 100% kill and then a year or two later the shit stops working because there's no reservoir of non-immunity.
I've been polite and tried to avoid going straight to the Logan's Run argument, but you haven't let up. Frankly, viruses that single out the old and infirm are a good thing. Your perception of the cost being marginal ignores the significant cost the elderly and infirm take on the economy and society by merely existing.
I'm against the vax for reasons relating to freedom - and due to this not being a real pandemic like smallpox, even if there are fairly serious consequences for some as a result - but nobody knows what the long-term effects are.
How do you know it's safe? This is a vaccine being pushed under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), it's bypassing the standard length of studies. I don't know if they are dangerous, but I'm wary of your type of attitude that flippantly claims to know that they are safe given the facts.
Who are you anyway? Due to an influx of users over time, this place unfortunately already has its share of unethical authoritarian fucks; they just don't realize it until the optics are personally unswallowable. Anyway, you're not the appropriate gatekeeper.
Right before they stopped counting (why would someone stop counting?), 60% of all new cases in a month were "Breakthrough," meaning they were happening in "fully vaccinated" individuals. Not only is it not completely safe, it may as well be worthless after seeing that statistic.
Not only stopped counting, but magically changed the threshold for testing who has the WuFlu. Nobody will ever know the real numbers for vaccine effectiveness, actual death tolls in any given month/year from the scamdemic, or true effects (however small) of the vax itself.
Tbh the testing threshold should never have been that sensitive to start with, it was only that high so they could claim anyone within a 6 block radius of that one guy with the coof and got half a molecule of dead virus up their nostril might be classified as infected.
Of course, it's all meaningless fuzzy math. Doesn't make sense to change standards after the fact, while pretending that wasn't done and making the statistical comparisons that don't account for the modification. All by design.
That is assuming those were real cases of the wuflu. All the information around the Peking Pertussis is corrupted at birth, so the safest course is to ignore it all and not comply with rules made by amoral liars.
A little from column A and a lot from column B. There's a risk to the vaccine and a risk to getting Covid, and for certain age groups and people with underlying conditions the vaccine probably is less risky. For the young and healthy Covid is a lot less dangerous, so the vaccines are that much more risky in comparison. In the end people should be free to weigh the risks and act accordingly instead of letting the regressives control every aspect of their lives. My grad school is mandating vaccines, and I've reached the point where I plan to say whatever is necessary to get an exemption. I'd be far more open to it if they weren't trying to force it on us.
1, keep your god damn government-funded medical experimentation out of my body.
2, this is not a vaccine, it is an artificially induced genetic mutation. Vaccines use a weakened or dead form of the virus/bacteria being inoculated against. These are using another pathogen to introduce genetic MRNA material into the cells to produce an adaptation, one not fully understood or positively proven.
I already had the coof, so for me the benefit/reward is not worth even the "0.000001%" risk,. But at the end of the day, I don't believe the data because the CDC, WHO, MSM, Fauchi, etc. haven't been honest with me, so why trust them now?
If I look up cases vs. hospitalizations for my state I see that for young people the coof has a very low chance of serous effects (hospitalization or death) and for elderly it's a few %.
Therefore I imagine two curves % adverse effects from vaccine vs. % adverse effects from coof both vs. age. I don't know where the two lines intersect, but I suspect it's > age 70 (or people with other health issues like diabetes).
So no, I'm not getting an unproven vaccine. Leftists love regulations, except for their precious weed, and apparently, COVID vax. Maybe in 10 or 20 years once things are proven out, or there is a new use for the gene therapy vaccine that is of some other benefit that outweighs the risk for me. I'm saying this as someone who has been a pin cushion for travel vaccines after a scare that I was exposed to something while in China.
Wouldn't they? They've managed to blow up a flu to global doomsday pandemic levels and get away with it.
People who die with half a dozen comorbidities turn into COVID deaths and healthy people who croak after taking the vaccine are "unrelated and unexplainable".
They are still fearmongering with tales of hospital breakdowns. The same experts who have been caught lying again and again are still being heralded as saviors by politicians and the media.
Edit: Oh and where would people talk about that anyway? Facebook recently had a leak that they suppress vax criticism. Twitter just censored one of the people who pioneered the goddamn mRNA technology. And they all colluded to obfuscate the possible origin of the virus.
And yet the staff always has time for a team TikTok dance.
Amusingly around here the government even gave nurses more time for TikTok by limiting the number of ICU beds they're allowed to service.
That's also one of the reasons why our government actively increased ICU occupancy, by forcing hospitals to DECREASE the number of ICU beds ... during a pandemic. That's how "bad" things were: they had to decrease the number of ICU beds to get the numbers up for their scaremongering.
There has never been an mRNA vaccine approved by the FDA outside of EUA. Pharma has been trying to get these cash cows off the ground for decades, but they were repeatedly shut down. Why? What changed?
0.0001% is 1000 per billion or 1 per million. But the vax has only been around for what, a year or so? I'm afraid I'm going to need more time to prove there are no long term effects. I need to see where the two lines intersect with each other (coof & vax morbidity vs. age) so that I and my doctor can make informed decision.
Unfortunately the powers that be have poisoned the data, they have no credibility, and certainly don't have my best interest in mind. The only recourse is to wait 10+ years to see what happens, but even then, for COVID-19 specifically, nah I don't need it. Overall it was a mild illness.
They can't prove why this vaccine is any better at protecting me then my own immune system either and having people still wear masks after they get the vaccine which defeats the whole purpose of getting one
The 'vaccine' has killed more people in four months than ALL the vaccines did in the last 23 years, so I'd say it's provably dangerous...not to mention all the people that didn't die, but can't hear, have blood clots, bells palsy.
It's a lottery, an untested experimental lottery.
Or people who weren't entered into VAERS, or who were, and they haven't followed up on the case yet because of the massive backlog.
I personally don't know anybody who got sick with the Wu Flu since it started. Yet I know two people who got sick 1-2 weeks after taking the vaccine.
Not to mention all the news stories about young people who just happened to develop blood clots or mild cases of death after taking the vaccine.
Aside from anecdotes like that there are systems like VAERS that record adverse reactions. Where are we at now? Last I read they had more COVID vax deaths than all other vaccines combined since they started recording.
Some of the longterm effects that people are expecting are a bit out there, some more than a bit, but there are enough short term effects that I'd say yes, the vaccine is dangerous, at least for young to middle aged people who have next to nothing to worry about with COVID.
As others have alluded to, it's insignificant so far. Vaccines are normally tested for a sufficient length of time to have a good picture of the long-term effects of the vaccine, something conspicuously lacking from this vaccine.
While I've had the vaccine myself (I'm recommended to get the 'flu vaccine annually anyway, and I'm extremely unlikely to fall pregnant) I completely understand somebody in a different situation making different choices here.
To answer your question, I'm more against the authoritarian and propaganda aspect of it myself. Even on top of that the censorship if discussion. Let the people be educated and balance risk themselves without coercion or false information.
Do I think they are risky on the short term? No. Long term, we just don't know. A lot of the risks I see decrease with age (potential reproductive issues for example) so maybe the risk curve is much less for an older person, because they are at lower risk for complications and higher risk for virus issues.
Stifling discussion and threatening everyone with loss of job, liberty, etc is not the way to go.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the vaccines will induce ADE.
The vaccines havent been properly tested. Whether they are dangerous or not is irrelevant. The government should not be brainwashing people into paying to be guinea pigs.
They're free here on Poland for literally everyone.
Of course it's only as free as everything "free from the government".
By "the vaccines", do you mean the experimental gene therapy shots? If so, people have observably died as a direct result of the injection. Healthy athletic teens have developed heart problems, and everyone I know personally who got the vax reported not being able to function for at least a day because they got so sick. Reports are coming out that the spike protein itself is dangerous if it circulates within the blood stream, causing blood clots.
Every medical procedure has risks, but adverse reactions to the EGT shots will not be covered by most insurance as it is experimental, and the manufacturers are legally immune. If the companies and insurances won't stand behind it, then nobody in their right mind should get it.
Given this, Governments and employers sanctioning people who refuse the EGT shots are way out of line and need a hard legal reconning. I'm talking prison.
I felt literally nothing. I didn't even feel the jab, at all.
According to the MSM, that means it's not working
First of all, definitely not anti-vax in general; I grew up listening to my grandmother tell me about how she helped out during a smallpox outbreak in the 1920s (because of having cowpox as a girl), and my mother telling me about her bout with whooping cough ... not to mention that the area was lousy for rabies, and wildlife vaxxing was/is popular there. Though when I get the flu vaccine, it's usually the kind that goes up the nose, because fuck needles (though I got it in a shot last year combined with a long-overdue update of childhood stuff because whooping cough seems to pop up around here from time to time, plus there was that measles outbreak a few years ago.)
Not even against the idea of getting protection against this damn Chinese bioweapon, BUT! Yes, the stories of the blood clots are concerning, and does seem to be recognized as a problem with the AstraZeneca kind; I've also heard of issues with crones like myself getting their monthlies back, and I definitely don't want that, either. So I'm just waiting for things to straighten out, mostly, and see how the voluntary human test subjects do overall.
Interestingly enough, my doctor didn't say squatto about getting the wuflu shot, though he did make a point of bugging me about getting a mammogram and stuff, and I'm not exactly falling over myself trying to do that, either. He'll mention it again in six months, and I'll ignore it again in six months. I have more immediate chronic concerns to deal with.
Frankly, I don't agree with the vax licenses, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH DOG LICENSES, EITHER.
And as for travel, well, I remember when getting shots before you left - at least for certain countries - used to be expected and in some cases mandatory, and frankly, until recently, I hadn't assumed that this had actually changed.
Practically every response to this virus has been about gaining power over the general populace in a malicious manner. Why should I expect the vaccine to deviate from that pattern?
According to the Australian Department of Health approximately 5 per million suffer from serious blood clots after taking the vaccine, or 0.0005%. Which isn't massive, but it's more of a risk than would be necessary if the government didn't keep letting international travellers into the country and out of quarantine with the disease. Vaccinate just the people wanting to travel to Australia from infected countries and you don't need to vaccinate the other twenty million.
You are so concerned with the short term that you rarely think about the long term. The COVID vaccine is using technology that has never been used before and this specific version of that technology took less than a year to develop and get out the door. Just because it seems harmless now, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any potential long term effects. Let’s see how this vaccine could potentially impact fetal development in the womb, for example. Let’s see how our bodily systems react over time to the new protein created from the vaccine. I’m not willing to risk that for a disease that has an incredibly high survival rate, especially for those without debilitating conditions, and I have no obligation to be the beta tester of a vaccine for a non-homogeneous, hyper-consumerist society.
I got the jab.
Everyone does.
It's common in Poland to vaccinate newborns for common diseases like smallpox and I remember getting regular shots every now and then in school if some new disease poped up.
Difference was my parents had the option to opt out for whatever reason and they weren't threatened by the society for doing so.
If you receive threats and scorn for having the audacity to doubt and saying the word no then it should not suprise anyone if your apprehension grows.
We do.
RNA not DNA.
Ok, that's too much for just going through all at once, so forgive me for doing this piecemeal. I normally hate the small quote + reply format but whatever, it works here.
Accurate, but only in the same vein that saying Covid is objectively dangerous is also technically true. The point of anyone having an opinion on it is about how dangerous it is and whether the reactions to that danger are reasonable.
I don't have a fully encyclopedic knowledge of all vaccines, so maybe there's a faster one, but yeah, this hit emergency use approval hella fast, and in some ways was definitely helped weasel through the process. Specifically in the almost blatantly willful obstruction of already known treatments to make sure the need for the vaccine was seen as great enough to allow shortcuts like emergency use approval.
But it has by no means skipped all of the testing, the testing has been short but far more intense than any vaccine before trialed, with far more tests carried out in a short period than any normal vaccine trial has come close to. And as of yet I've yet to see any evidence that suggests results tampering hiding the true number of adverse effects. Long term effects remains a valid concern, but frankly I don't necessarily trust longer trials of any other pharmaceutical we already use to accurately portray all possible long term risks, they'll only ever catch the most glaring issues. Engaging with medicine in any fashion is agreeing to things that are "very probably safe" not "definitely safe". And given the sheer volume of vaccinated people and the lack of any evidence of any individual cases of results tampering, it's getting very probable that the serious side effect rates are pretty close to those that are already reported.
Again I haven't actually seen any blatant coverups yet, so either they're getting better at hiding them or there just aren't as many, and on the other hand I have seen a good number of cases where someone died and it was blamed on the vaccine in the media. There was a healthy UK news guy in his 40s who died just recently and they haven't been shy about saying he had an adverse reaction to the vaccine and died of blood clots. On the other hand I also haven't seen any of the blatant inflation in the other direction like people dying in car accidents and getting it blamed on having the coof, so the risks that are reported for the vaccines are also very likely real rather than overblown to some degree like half the covid risk reports.
That I just have to disagree with, it doesn't have to be an attenuated virus to be a vaccine, it just have to provide immunity. A vaccine administered purely for that purpose and as long as it actually serves that purpose it is a vaccine.
Also a hard disagree, they haven't shown any signs of altering DNA, nor is it part of their intended way of working. They introduce new strings of RNA into your cells, that should eventually be destroyed by entropy your cells' normal recycling functions. DNA and RNA are related and kind of look the same chemically, but they're like comparing engine oil and gasoline. They all go into the same engine, but you can't just switch one for the other, and your gas tank doesn't actually fill up with oil when you top up the sump. DNA is forever, but RNA is just that week in Vegas, and what happened in Vegas should stay in Vegas.
100% agree. But there's more than one answer to that question. In my mind it's just as likely a form of general obedience conditioning and shit testing for anyone with institutional power who still actually cares about personal liberty to weed them out, than it is a conspiracy to hide the dangers of the vaccine itself. That and a healthy dose of lining the pockets of their favourite pharmaceutical lobbyists.
That's definitely one of the lies they're pushing so they can keep using the coof scare for a bit longer. The vaccines seemingly do a pretty good job of reducing transmission or getting symptoms at all, not just reducing hospitalisation. Not better than naturally acquired immunity, but they've been lying about how well that generally works too.
The CDC literally stopped reporting breakthrough cases. We have no idea if the injections prevent infection or transmission.
Other places still are reporting though, Switzerland has reported cases up to 14th May so far. And I like them as a source because as a country it's been generally more skeptical of the covid vaccines than most, Swissmedic's not an easily tampered with third world trash agency, the population's generally more conservative, and at least from the outside they tend to keep quiet more about globalist bullshit than other Western countries. They do have an indirect financial interest in the Moderna vaccine though, so it's not perfect but I'll take it.
Anyway, Switzerland is reporting 130 breakthrough infections out of ~1,100,000 vaccinated individuals tracked in the last 5 months. They've mostly been only comprehensively vaccinating the elderly and high risk so far, and almost all of those who got still infected were aged 80+ or severely immunocompromised for other reasons. Those aren't numbers that say the vaccine doesn't work, those are numbers that say ~130 people in 1.1 million old and critically frail people have an immune system that sucks. Most of their 80+ demographic is vaccinated now, so that's less than 130 old codgers catching covid out of almost the whole population, which isn't bad at all. There's more teasing numbers to do before laying that firmly at the feet of vaccination, given we're leaving flu season and the covid had already swept through the elderly pretty well before the vaccines rolled out the rate should be dropping anyway, but it dropping that low isn't exactly a bad sign.
Actually, there is. The human genome is awash with retrotransposons that encode reverse transcriptase. Here is a preprint that convicinngly shows that SARS-Cov-2 RNA can be integrated into the human genome through reverse transcription via LINE-1 retrotransposons, and subsequently transcribed:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
There is no direct evidence the mRNA vaccines integrate by similar mechanisms, but it is clearly a distinct possiblity.
So you're pointing to the fact that mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades... and ignoring the fact that they have never been approved by the FDA in all that time. Curious, that.
You said there is no mechanism. I pointed out that there is one. Note that you didn't say that there was a mechanism but there is no evidence it occurs, and now you're backtracking.
The lack of evidence you're referring to is because people like you assume it's not possible so don't bother looking, rather than people who have looked and not found it.