Herd immunity came about because they realized the vaccine was toxic to some people and that while they couldn't get the shot, they could still be protected because everyone else could.
The argument for protecting the vulnerable has simply been co-opted by amoral drug cunts.
Polio was almost eradicated because the polio vaccine actually works.
Suppose that they didn't prevent you from getting polio, but did prevent you from being paralyzed by it. Would you say that it works, or not?
We don’t hear about “herd immunity” with these fake vaccines because they blatantly don’t work.
The reason polio is not present is because of herd immunity. Same for other diseases like measles, and that is why there are measles breakouts when the percentage of people not taking these vaccines reaches a certain point.
I believe the authorities have taken the success of the first vaccines and used it to push fake vaccines.
As skeptical as I am of the authorities and the accountability mechanisms, I don't think they would not get away with that. If it's a 'fake vaccine', it would not cause myocarditis in some people, would it? Placebos don't cause myocarditis.
If it reduced the severity of your symptoms I would call it a therapeutic and not a vaccine.
The covid vaccine was known almost immediately to NOT prevent infection (the only thing the initial double blind test actually claimed)
They then pivoted to “well maybe it reduces hospitalizations” - WITHOUT a double blind test to justify this claim.
The ClotShot was confirmed to NOT reduce transmission- easily found by testing the viral load via a PCR test.
What I mean by “fake vaccine” is not some placebo. It is some product that many well intended scientists thought might work. But because of the money involved and the failure of our government it was never stopped nor correctly tested.
If it reduced the severity of your symptoms I would call it a therapeutic and not a vaccine.
I'm hardly an expert on the terminology, but is paralysis a 'symptom' of polio or its devastating potential effect?
They then pivoted to “well maybe it reduces hospitalizations” - WITHOUT a double blind test to justify this claim.
Not maybe. Data in many countries do show this. It also makes sense, because the antibodies are a temporary effect, while the T-cells provide much more solid protection, even against variants as they continue to evolve. That is my understanding.
The ClotShot
If you go around calling it 'the clotshot', then even your legitimate points will reach only people who already agree with you.
It is some product that many well intended scientists thought might work. But because of the money involved and the failure of our government it was never stopped nor correctly tested.
Have you heard of the contacts between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer, which they refused to release? One wonders why.
But all it takes is one country to day: hey, we don't want healthy young people to die because of a vaccine that does not benefit them much, as they are our tax base. It's the old 'moon landing' argument: if the US faked the moon landing, surely the USSR would have pointed it out.
And there are competing vaccines. If the vaccines are really as devastating as some people here believe, surely the Chinese and Cubans and perhaps non-RNA Novavax would be spreading that information like wildfire. Companies would be rushing the develop a vaccine that isn't like that, and they'd make billions. Why are they leaving money on the table?
It was clear long ago from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own safety data that the ‘placebo’ was inducing death, of all things. Check this out as a reminder. So maybe the ‘placebo’ was, as I have suspected, empty LNPs and maybe they are doing damage.
There is lack of transparency as to what even constitutes a placebo any more.
There's been no in-depth investigation of it but Jessica Rose has suspected it for a long time and mentions it a lot when she's discussing other aspects of the clotshot.
It was clear long ago from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own safety data that the ‘placebo’ was inducing death, of all things. Check this out as a reminder.
Did you check your own link? The image shows fewer people dying in the placebo group.
Can our 'critical thinkers' here apply some of their 'critical thinking' not just to the MSM, but also to random sources online - even when they like what those random sources are saying?
You're not engaging with this on a sensible level, and I'm putting that kindly. Far more people died to the 'placebo' shot of the second dose than the first dose, 15 vs 3. To insist this is random you have to ignore this as well as the other inexplicable 'adverse reactions' which keep happening from placebo, mentioned here
Suppose that they didn't prevent you from getting polio, but did prevent you from being paralyzed by it. Would you say that it works, or not?
You're going to have to include a lot more variables before this question even begins to be answerable.
The major ones: what are the odds of getting polio? What are the odds of being paralyzed by polio? What are the odds of being paralyzed by the polio vaccine? What are the odds of dying from the polio vaccine? What are the odds of other types of negative vaccine side effects?
That you would ask such a simplistic question suggests that you haven't even thought about it very much.
The major ones: what are the odds of getting polio? What are the odds of being paralyzed by polio? What are the odds of being paralyzed by the polio vaccine? What are the odds of dying from the polio vaccine? What are the odds of other types of negative vaccine side effects?
As you say, the question is what the costs are vs. the benefits. In case of the polio vaccine, I am pretty confident in saying that the benefits outweigh the costs almost universally.
This is relevant for if you want to say if it is worthwhile to get it. But the question was whether it 'works'.
That you would ask such a simplistic question suggests that you haven't even thought about it very much.
I haven't spent any time thinking about what counts as a vaccine 'working'. I don't think it's a very productive question. I'm not a fan of sloganeering, like works, or safe, or effective, because I think it hides a lot of stuff. Safe by what metric? Oh, by the one you specifically created for this product to meet or fail?
So you'll argue the hypothetical when it suits you, and then refuse to engage in the question and instead return to the concrete as if that's what I was getting at.
So fine. Are you now arguing that the mRNA jab has the same cost/benefit profile as the polio vaccine? Because there was no other reason to bring it up.
Polio was almost eradicated because the polio vaccine actually works.
We don’t hear about “herd immunity” with these fake vaccines because they blatantly don’t work.
I believe the authorities have taken the success of the first vaccines and used it to push fake vaccines. For profit/kickbacks/career advancement.
Herd immunity came about because they realized the vaccine was toxic to some people and that while they couldn't get the shot, they could still be protected because everyone else could.
The argument for protecting the vulnerable has simply been co-opted by amoral drug cunts.
Like most disease, sanitation did the heavy lifting.
Now, the number one cause of polio in most places is botched vaccination batches.
Suppose that they didn't prevent you from getting polio, but did prevent you from being paralyzed by it. Would you say that it works, or not?
The reason polio is not present is because of herd immunity. Same for other diseases like measles, and that is why there are measles breakouts when the percentage of people not taking these vaccines reaches a certain point.
As skeptical as I am of the authorities and the accountability mechanisms, I don't think they would not get away with that. If it's a 'fake vaccine', it would not cause myocarditis in some people, would it? Placebos don't cause myocarditis.
If it reduced the severity of your symptoms I would call it a therapeutic and not a vaccine.
The covid vaccine was known almost immediately to NOT prevent infection (the only thing the initial double blind test actually claimed)
They then pivoted to “well maybe it reduces hospitalizations” - WITHOUT a double blind test to justify this claim.
The ClotShot was confirmed to NOT reduce transmission- easily found by testing the viral load via a PCR test.
What I mean by “fake vaccine” is not some placebo. It is some product that many well intended scientists thought might work. But because of the money involved and the failure of our government it was never stopped nor correctly tested.
I'm hardly an expert on the terminology, but is paralysis a 'symptom' of polio or its devastating potential effect?
Not maybe. Data in many countries do show this. It also makes sense, because the antibodies are a temporary effect, while the T-cells provide much more solid protection, even against variants as they continue to evolve. That is my understanding.
If you go around calling it 'the clotshot', then even your legitimate points will reach only people who already agree with you.
Have you heard of the contacts between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer, which they refused to release? One wonders why.
But all it takes is one country to day: hey, we don't want healthy young people to die because of a vaccine that does not benefit them much, as they are our tax base. It's the old 'moon landing' argument: if the US faked the moon landing, surely the USSR would have pointed it out.
And there are competing vaccines. If the vaccines are really as devastating as some people here believe, surely the Chinese and Cubans and perhaps non-RNA Novavax would be spreading that information like wildfire. Companies would be rushing the develop a vaccine that isn't like that, and they'd make billions. Why are they leaving money on the table?
I tailor my terminology for the expected audience
About that...
There is lack of transparency as to what even constitutes a placebo any more.
So they were killing people just to scare people into taking their poison. Hanging is too good for them.
There's been no in-depth investigation of it but Jessica Rose has suspected it for a long time and mentions it a lot when she's discussing other aspects of the clotshot.
58% systemic reaction rate from placebo
89% hand-foot-mouth disease rate from placebo
It just doesn't make sense unless they've started raping the definition of 'placebo' just as hard as they did for 'vaccine'.
EDIT: found a post where she goes into more depth on her suspicions https://jessicar.substack.com/p/on-placebos-either-way-its-evidence
Did you check your own link? The image shows fewer people dying in the placebo group.
Can our 'critical thinkers' here apply some of their 'critical thinking' not just to the MSM, but also to random sources online - even when they like what those random sources are saying?
You're not engaging with this on a sensible level, and I'm putting that kindly. Far more people died to the 'placebo' shot of the second dose than the first dose, 15 vs 3. To insist this is random you have to ignore this as well as the other inexplicable 'adverse reactions' which keep happening from placebo, mentioned here
You're going to have to include a lot more variables before this question even begins to be answerable.
The major ones: what are the odds of getting polio? What are the odds of being paralyzed by polio? What are the odds of being paralyzed by the polio vaccine? What are the odds of dying from the polio vaccine? What are the odds of other types of negative vaccine side effects?
That you would ask such a simplistic question suggests that you haven't even thought about it very much.
As you say, the question is what the costs are vs. the benefits. In case of the polio vaccine, I am pretty confident in saying that the benefits outweigh the costs almost universally.
This is relevant for if you want to say if it is worthwhile to get it. But the question was whether it 'works'.
I haven't spent any time thinking about what counts as a vaccine 'working'. I don't think it's a very productive question. I'm not a fan of sloganeering, like works, or safe, or effective, because I think it hides a lot of stuff. Safe by what metric? Oh, by the one you specifically created for this product to meet or fail?
So you'll argue the hypothetical when it suits you, and then refuse to engage in the question and instead return to the concrete as if that's what I was getting at.
So fine. Are you now arguing that the mRNA jab has the same cost/benefit profile as the polio vaccine? Because there was no other reason to bring it up.