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.
Efficacy against what? Infection or death/servere disease?
Oh. You're one of those people. That was never the fucking claim, they lied about everything, and even the "protects against hospitalization/death" argument is falling apart. I love that language, too; "hospitalization and death," when they trot that out they're admitting it doesn't vaccinate at all.
Even in the worst-case scenario, it provides fair protection against death and hospitalization.
Hahahahaha. I hadn't even gotten there when I wrote my earlier thing, that's great. Again, I don't even believe that; vaccinated people are being hospitalized at at least near the same rate, and it's been rising. There's often already more vaccinated people hospitalized than non-vaxxed although, yes, not per capita...yet, in most places. I suspect we will see a full reversal at some point, though, where even taking into account the number of people vaxxed versus unvaxxed, more vaxxed people will be hospitalized and dying. If it's not already happened; we know how screwy their counting is. For example, if you get your fourth booserino and keel over with the needle literally in your arm, you're unvaxxed, since it hasn't been two weeks yet.
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.
The establishment is always doing something wrong, and we've already seen them do wrong about so many things surrounding the vaccine (data, mandates, studies, claims), I'd be absolutely shocked if they weren't also doing wrong with the vaccine itself.
Oh. You're one of those people. That was never the fucking claim, they lied about everything, and even the "protects against hospitalization/death" argument is falling apart. I love that language, too; "hospitalization and death," when they trot that out they're admitting it doesn't vaccinate at all.
Is it that rare? Our government spent the latter half of 2021 saying that people should get vaccinated because even after protection against infection wears off, it still provides very good protection against hospitalization and death. Which seemed to be true for delta.
Regardless of semantic discussions of what is or isn't a vaccine.
Again, I don't even believe that; vaccinated people are being hospitalized at at least near the same rate, and it's been rising. There's often already more vaccinated people hospitalized than non-vaxxed although, yes, not per capita...yet, in most places.
Why is it rising though? If it has no effect at all on hos/death, which is what some people claim but which you have only suggested might be the case, you'd have seen the same thing in late 2021. But all the statistics I reviewed showed otherwise. Of course, they could in theory be fraudulent, but I doubt it. It's the spin on the numbers where the lies can hide, or what numbers they provide, rather than the numbers themselves.
Now, what is the per capita hospitalization that you would expect from vaccinated vs. not, considering that most people who did not take the vaccine are young and healthy, and most will have gotten superior natural immunity anyway? The irony is that if only 60+ people had been vaccinated, you'd see that nearly all deaths would come from the vaccinated camp.
For example, if you get your fourth booserino and keel over with the needle literally in your arm, you're unvaxxed, since it hasn't been two weeks yet.
The information I reviewed, back when I gave the slightest damn about Covid, broke things down by 0 to 3 doses.
The establishment is always doing something wrong
Something? Many things. The question is: what things, because the mere fact of doing many things wrong, does not establish that any given thing is wrong. Just because the establishment lies, doesn't mean that say the Moon Landing was faked.
and we've already seen them do wrong about so many things surrounding the vaccine (data, mandates, studies, claims), I'd be absolutely shocked if they weren't also doing wrong with the vaccine itself.
I can almost guarantee you that they are. But it's probably not "the vaccine is poison", but more relatively mild shenanigans. That is to be expected.
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?
Even the 80+ group NEVER had a 10% Fatality Rate from covid. At worst, it was 1% based on the IFR, along with hospitals being financially incentivized to report every death as covid, but the press breathlessly reported the CFR so that retards like you would exaggerate the threat and defend the clotshots.
So? What do you want me to say? That any heart attack is DEFINITELY BECAUSE OF THE VACCINE?
Of course not, don't be obtuse. We're talking averages. The rise in heart attacks in the young is due to the vaccine. That seems pretty dang clear cut.
Very early on, it was clear that side-effects were worst in the young, and least bad in the old.
According to who? The same people who lied to us about literally everything? Also, very early on we were told repeatedly that there were no side effects. And that it stopped transmission. And that it stopped symptoms and you wouldn't be hospitalized. And that it stopped variants. And so on.
I don't get how you can act like this is normal, when they've changed what the "vaccine" is supposed to do so many times. It's extreme gaslighting.
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.
That may be true if the vaccine worked. It doesn't.
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?
No, but it's probably terrible advice. For one thing, it's not 10% across the board, that still disproportionately affects the fat or otherwise unhealthy. Secondly, the vaccine doesn't even seem to work, and in fact lowers immune response after some time. So if that person is willing to go on a subscription service where they die if they stop taking it...maybe? Maybe it's right for them. Personally I'd still stay pureblood and roll the dice, even if I was ninety years old.
Of course not, don't be obtuse. We're talking averages. The rise in heart attacks in the young is due to the vaccine. That seems pretty dang clear cut.
Is it? Only a short while back, the same sort of people were absolutely sure that the lockdown had absolutely devastating impacts on people's (mental) health. Because you can't go out, you can't go to the gym, you're stressed, you're depressed.
Now, all of a sudden, the lockdown had zero effect on heart health, and all of it has to be because of the vaccine, because that is the new Mirror Current Thing.
Theoretically, it's not even impossible. But that has to be demonstrated, and not just asserted. "The vaccine is the cause of these heart attacks because I don't like it" is not much of an argument.
According to who? The same people who lied to us about literally everything?
What reason is there to lie about this? This came at the same time they were attempting to persuade young people to get the vaccine. If they were going to lie, they'd invert the numbers: because with the asserted vaccine efficacy, those number of side-effects would still be well worth it for older people who are more at risk of the virus.
So I have to believe that they released information that was damaging to their own case, because... they just love lying?
No, they lie when it suits their interests.
Also, very early on we were told repeatedly that there were no side effects.
We were?
That would be very stupid of them, and not just because there did turn out to be side-effects. You can't assert a negative like that.
And that it stopped transmission.
What I take issue with is that they pushed experimental mRNA vaccines on people, with the excuse that they can be developed 'faster' - even though traditional vaccines were developed just as fast - and because they can be adjusted very quickly as new variants emerged... and they weren't.
I don't get how you can act like this is normal, when they've changed what the "vaccine" is supposed to do so many times. It's extreme gaslighting.
The question for me is not if they are bad people. Of course they are. That goes without saying. But that doesn't many any specific claim true or false.
It may be that an increase in heart attacks is due to the vaccine. But that is an empirical claim. It is not proven by "well, they lied about this and that in the past". I'm not sure we'll ever know. If they are, I expect them to try to cover it up. And if they're not, I don't think I'll believe the evidence they present for their claims.
That may be true if the vaccine worked. It doesn't.
It does work to reduce hospitalization and death. I'm not deep enough in the rabbit hole to believe that it does literally nothing except cause side-effects.
Secondly, the vaccine doesn't even seem to work, and in fact lowers immune response after some time. So if that person is willing to go on a subscription service where they die if they stop taking it...maybe? Maybe it's right for them. Personally I'd still stay pureblood and roll the dice, even if I was ninety years old.
I'd be first in line if I were 90. And I think objectively, that is the correct course of action. It's such a shame that people allow ideology to overrule something like that. You can see the issue when parents are enthusiastic about getting their 16-year-olds the vaccine, but then retain your own blind spots.
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.
Oh. You're one of those people. That was never the fucking claim, they lied about everything, and even the "protects against hospitalization/death" argument is falling apart. I love that language, too; "hospitalization and death," when they trot that out they're admitting it doesn't vaccinate at all.
Hahahahaha. I hadn't even gotten there when I wrote my earlier thing, that's great. Again, I don't even believe that; vaccinated people are being hospitalized at at least near the same rate, and it's been rising. There's often already more vaccinated people hospitalized than non-vaxxed although, yes, not per capita...yet, in most places. I suspect we will see a full reversal at some point, though, where even taking into account the number of people vaxxed versus unvaxxed, more vaxxed people will be hospitalized and dying. If it's not already happened; we know how screwy their counting is. For example, if you get your fourth booserino and keel over with the needle literally in your arm, you're unvaxxed, since it hasn't been two weeks yet.
The establishment is always doing something wrong, and we've already seen them do wrong about so many things surrounding the vaccine (data, mandates, studies, claims), I'd be absolutely shocked if they weren't also doing wrong with the vaccine itself.
Is it that rare? Our government spent the latter half of 2021 saying that people should get vaccinated because even after protection against infection wears off, it still provides very good protection against hospitalization and death. Which seemed to be true for delta.
Regardless of semantic discussions of what is or isn't a vaccine.
Why is it rising though? If it has no effect at all on hos/death, which is what some people claim but which you have only suggested might be the case, you'd have seen the same thing in late 2021. But all the statistics I reviewed showed otherwise. Of course, they could in theory be fraudulent, but I doubt it. It's the spin on the numbers where the lies can hide, or what numbers they provide, rather than the numbers themselves.
Now, what is the per capita hospitalization that you would expect from vaccinated vs. not, considering that most people who did not take the vaccine are young and healthy, and most will have gotten superior natural immunity anyway? The irony is that if only 60+ people had been vaccinated, you'd see that nearly all deaths would come from the vaccinated camp.
The information I reviewed, back when I gave the slightest damn about Covid, broke things down by 0 to 3 doses.
Something? Many things. The question is: what things, because the mere fact of doing many things wrong, does not establish that any given thing is wrong. Just because the establishment lies, doesn't mean that say the Moon Landing was faked.
I can almost guarantee you that they are. But it's probably not "the vaccine is poison", but more relatively mild shenanigans. That is to be expected.
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?
Even the 80+ group NEVER had a 10% Fatality Rate from covid. At worst, it was 1% based on the IFR, along with hospitals being financially incentivized to report every death as covid, but the press breathlessly reported the CFR so that retards like you would exaggerate the threat and defend the clotshots.
Of course not, don't be obtuse. We're talking averages. The rise in heart attacks in the young is due to the vaccine. That seems pretty dang clear cut.
According to who? The same people who lied to us about literally everything? Also, very early on we were told repeatedly that there were no side effects. And that it stopped transmission. And that it stopped symptoms and you wouldn't be hospitalized. And that it stopped variants. And so on.
I don't get how you can act like this is normal, when they've changed what the "vaccine" is supposed to do so many times. It's extreme gaslighting.
That may be true if the vaccine worked. It doesn't.
No, but it's probably terrible advice. For one thing, it's not 10% across the board, that still disproportionately affects the fat or otherwise unhealthy. Secondly, the vaccine doesn't even seem to work, and in fact lowers immune response after some time. So if that person is willing to go on a subscription service where they die if they stop taking it...maybe? Maybe it's right for them. Personally I'd still stay pureblood and roll the dice, even if I was ninety years old.
Is it? Only a short while back, the same sort of people were absolutely sure that the lockdown had absolutely devastating impacts on people's (mental) health. Because you can't go out, you can't go to the gym, you're stressed, you're depressed.
Now, all of a sudden, the lockdown had zero effect on heart health, and all of it has to be because of the vaccine, because that is the new Mirror Current Thing.
Theoretically, it's not even impossible. But that has to be demonstrated, and not just asserted. "The vaccine is the cause of these heart attacks because I don't like it" is not much of an argument.
What reason is there to lie about this? This came at the same time they were attempting to persuade young people to get the vaccine. If they were going to lie, they'd invert the numbers: because with the asserted vaccine efficacy, those number of side-effects would still be well worth it for older people who are more at risk of the virus.
So I have to believe that they released information that was damaging to their own case, because... they just love lying?
No, they lie when it suits their interests.
We were?
That would be very stupid of them, and not just because there did turn out to be side-effects. You can't assert a negative like that.
What I take issue with is that they pushed experimental mRNA vaccines on people, with the excuse that they can be developed 'faster' - even though traditional vaccines were developed just as fast - and because they can be adjusted very quickly as new variants emerged... and they weren't.
The question for me is not if they are bad people. Of course they are. That goes without saying. But that doesn't many any specific claim true or false.
It may be that an increase in heart attacks is due to the vaccine. But that is an empirical claim. It is not proven by "well, they lied about this and that in the past". I'm not sure we'll ever know. If they are, I expect them to try to cover it up. And if they're not, I don't think I'll believe the evidence they present for their claims.
It does work to reduce hospitalization and death. I'm not deep enough in the rabbit hole to believe that it does literally nothing except cause side-effects.
I'd be first in line if I were 90. And I think objectively, that is the correct course of action. It's such a shame that people allow ideology to overrule something like that. You can see the issue when parents are enthusiastic about getting their 16-year-olds the vaccine, but then retain your own blind spots.
but you're not right at all. AT ALL
Show me.