Imagine trying to defend pharmaceutical companies.
I don't get how "not every heart failure is the result of the vbaccine" is "defending the pharmaceutical companies.
now I get the feeling you probably urged someone else to take the mystery juice shot and trying not to feel guilty for possibly fucking up their, and your own, health.
Nope. What I said still holds true. Get the vaccine if you're old or fat, or have weird conditions. Amazing how right I was, eh?
It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been made a fool of.
This "vaccine" has had what is perhaps the absolute worst efficacy to date for any vaccine available on the market. This is even when you compare it to the damn strain it was designed for, provided you actually analyze the result of the vaccine and not the clearly, and blatantly, falsified trials that they used.
What you just told them to do, is inject themselves with a poison that will, at best, do nothing of benefit for them. At worst it has the potential to outright kill them, and failing that, drastically alter their life for the worse.
2 years ago, I would have tentatively agreed with your statement, and even said as much back then. Repeating that statement as if nothing has changed is not just idiotic, it is malicious incompetence at best. You are telling people to inject themselves with poison. Period.
The data is now extremely available, both in terms of how garbage these "vaccines" were at doing there job, and at how dangerous they are. The only data we don't have, is whether or not they end up being excessively carcinogenic, and that is because it was physically impossible to perform such tests.
It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been made a fool of.
Correct. But don't think that it is just the establishment that is fooling people. The problem is that no one will feel ashamed of being fooled by the establishment. Those who were fooled by random blog posts, on the other hand, will feel massive amounts of cognitive dissonance.
This "vaccine" has had what is perhaps the absolute worst efficacy to date for any vaccine available on the market.
Efficacy against what? Infection or death/servere disease?
What you just told them to do, is inject themselves with a poison that will, at best, do nothing of benefit for them. At worst it has the potential to outright kill them, and failing that, drastically alter their life for the worse.
At best, do nothing? Even in the worst-case scenario, it provides fair protection against death and hospitalization.
2 years ago, I would have tentatively agreed with your statement, and even said as much back then. Repeating that statement as if nothing has changed is not just idiotic, it is malicious incompetence at best. You are telling people to inject themselves with poison. Period.
You just keep repeating the word 'poison' as if that establishes it. I think my advice has held up rather well.
The data is now extremely available, both in terms of how garbage these "vaccines" were at doing there job, and at how dangerous they are. The only data we don't have, is whether or not they end up being excessively carcinogenic, and that is because it was physically impossible to perform such tests.
I suspect that "the data" is cherrypicked and spun data. Basically, because you mistrust the establishment (as I do), you are very vulnerable to being manipulated by people who assert that the establishment has done something wrong.
Because you're deflecting how the mainstream did for the last 2 years: "it may be super rare, but just because it's happening more often now, doesn't mean it didn't happen before!"
So? What do you want me to say? That any heart attack is DEFINITELY BECAUSE OF THE VACCINE?
As if it was just the young that had side effects from it, I was using that as an example, because if young people are having issues from it, old fucks will have it worse.
Very early on, it was clear that side-effects were worst in the young, and least bad in the old. So it becomes a perfect cost-benefit graph by age: benefits are greatest the older you are, and costs are lower the older you are. And if you're young, the benefits are very limited, and costs are highest.
But yes, you are right, if you're trying to get them killed faster that is.
If I tell a 80+, with something like a 10% fatality rate from Covid, that the vaccine is a good idea, I'm trying to kill him?
I'm sure 20-year-olds were always having heart attacks.
In very specific circumstances, not in broad strokes like seems to be happening now. I'm talking preexisting conditions or birth defects, mainlining caffeine for days on end, stuff like that. Not just "died suddenly," which is now the leading cause of death in some regions.
Something has obviously changed, and we all know what it is.
So what precisely has changed, qua numbers? I only see people attributring deaths to the vaccine without even knowing if the person in question had taken it.
I only see people attributring deaths to the vaccine without even knowing if the person in question had taken it.
Yup, sometimes that's certainly the case. Here's the thing though, this is the absolute wrong thread to make that argument, since there are no specific people in question; no one is making the argument here that X person or Y public figure died from the vaccine. Deaths are up overall...and - according to official numbers, whatever those are worth - 97.4% of Australians (16+) had at least one dose, 96% had two doses, even 72.4% had three doses.
So, statistically, almost all of these people dying are vaccinated. So even if someone in this thread did pick at one random dead Aussie and say "this dude here that died suddenly was vaccinated"...they'd almost certainly be correct.
So, yeah, the people dying are vaccinated. Causation, correlation, whatever, that can all be argued. But they are vaccinated.
Deaths are up overall...and - according to official numbers, whatever those are worth - 97.4% of Australians (16+) had at least one dose, 96% had two doses, even 72.4% had three doses.
Those are crazy percentages. Honestly, had to double-check, because that is abnormally high. Australia is kookystan.
So, yeah, the people dying are vaccinated. Causation, correlation, whatever, that can all be argued. But they are vaccinated.
Most likely, but only in this case. My point is that people generally do not care to discover whether or not it was actually their pet political issue that led to this, even in other instances. You saw it today when they tried to claim that the Diamond lady died because of the vaccine, when evidence from their Twitter account shows that she almost certainly was not.
And yes, that they blame it on 'climate change' makes me think it's more likely that they are hiding something. Not necessarily the vaccines, as the media was also strongly in favor of the lockdowns. So it has to be something that they're against. The fact that all the people who argued that lockdowns are bad for people's health, now claim that any heart failure cannot have anything to do with them, also makes me suspicious of them.
We live in an Empire of Lies. I have no way of verifying anything that people say. Just because the media propagates lies, does not mean that the anti-media people necessarily tell the truth, or that they even have the competence to distinguish truth from falsehood. And I'd rather say "I don't know" than claim stuff that may well prove false.
I'm sure 20-year-olds were always having heart attacks. Just because something is very uncommon, does not mean that it never happens.
I don't get how "not every heart failure is the result of the vbaccine" is "defending the pharmaceutical companies.
Nope. What I said still holds true. Get the vaccine if you're old or fat, or have weird conditions. Amazing how right I was, eh?
It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been made a fool of.
This "vaccine" has had what is perhaps the absolute worst efficacy to date for any vaccine available on the market. This is even when you compare it to the damn strain it was designed for, provided you actually analyze the result of the vaccine and not the clearly, and blatantly, falsified trials that they used.
What you just told them to do, is inject themselves with a poison that will, at best, do nothing of benefit for them. At worst it has the potential to outright kill them, and failing that, drastically alter their life for the worse.
2 years ago, I would have tentatively agreed with your statement, and even said as much back then. Repeating that statement as if nothing has changed is not just idiotic, it is malicious incompetence at best. You are telling people to inject themselves with poison. Period.
The data is now extremely available, both in terms of how garbage these "vaccines" were at doing there job, and at how dangerous they are. The only data we don't have, is whether or not they end up being excessively carcinogenic, and that is because it was physically impossible to perform such tests.
Correct. But don't think that it is just the establishment that is fooling people. The problem is that no one will feel ashamed of being fooled by the establishment. Those who were fooled by random blog posts, on the other hand, will feel massive amounts of cognitive dissonance.
Efficacy against what? Infection or death/servere disease?
At best, do nothing? Even in the worst-case scenario, it provides fair protection against death and hospitalization.
You just keep repeating the word 'poison' as if that establishes it. I think my advice has held up rather well.
I suspect that "the data" is cherrypicked and spun data. Basically, because you mistrust the establishment (as I do), you are very vulnerable to being manipulated by people who assert that the establishment has done something wrong.
So? What do you want me to say? That any heart attack is DEFINITELY BECAUSE OF THE VACCINE?
Very early on, it was clear that side-effects were worst in the young, and least bad in the old. So it becomes a perfect cost-benefit graph by age: benefits are greatest the older you are, and costs are lower the older you are. And if you're young, the benefits are very limited, and costs are highest.
If I tell a 80+, with something like a 10% fatality rate from Covid, that the vaccine is a good idea, I'm trying to kill him?
but you're not right at all. AT ALL
Show me.
In very specific circumstances, not in broad strokes like seems to be happening now. I'm talking preexisting conditions or birth defects, mainlining caffeine for days on end, stuff like that. Not just "died suddenly," which is now the leading cause of death in some regions.
Something has obviously changed, and we all know what it is.
So what precisely has changed, qua numbers? I only see people attributring deaths to the vaccine without even knowing if the person in question had taken it.
Please see this: https://mikecernovich.substack.com/p/died-suddenly-or-confirmation-bias
Yup, sometimes that's certainly the case. Here's the thing though, this is the absolute wrong thread to make that argument, since there are no specific people in question; no one is making the argument here that X person or Y public figure died from the vaccine. Deaths are up overall...and - according to official numbers, whatever those are worth - 97.4% of Australians (16+) had at least one dose, 96% had two doses, even 72.4% had three doses.
So, statistically, almost all of these people dying are vaccinated. So even if someone in this thread did pick at one random dead Aussie and say "this dude here that died suddenly was vaccinated"...they'd almost certainly be correct.
So, yeah, the people dying are vaccinated. Causation, correlation, whatever, that can all be argued. But they are vaccinated.
Those are crazy percentages. Honestly, had to double-check, because that is abnormally high. Australia is kookystan.
Most likely, but only in this case. My point is that people generally do not care to discover whether or not it was actually their pet political issue that led to this, even in other instances. You saw it today when they tried to claim that the Diamond lady died because of the vaccine, when evidence from their Twitter account shows that she almost certainly was not.
And yes, that they blame it on 'climate change' makes me think it's more likely that they are hiding something. Not necessarily the vaccines, as the media was also strongly in favor of the lockdowns. So it has to be something that they're against. The fact that all the people who argued that lockdowns are bad for people's health, now claim that any heart failure cannot have anything to do with them, also makes me suspicious of them.
We live in an Empire of Lies. I have no way of verifying anything that people say. Just because the media propagates lies, does not mean that the anti-media people necessarily tell the truth, or that they even have the competence to distinguish truth from falsehood. And I'd rather say "I don't know" than claim stuff that may well prove false.