Vaccine

Dr. Malone shares dire warning: mRNA vaccines are being injected into our food supply…

Moo, moo, moo!!!!

1673611590313.png
 
dad4 said:
The weaker your argument, the longer your post.

In one sentence you claim it works, it does not work, and we don’t know whether it works.

At most one third of that sentence is true. You can’t be atheist, Catholic, and agnostic all at once.
Click to expand...
1673626710592.png
 
dad4 said:
Natural v/s vaccine immunity was only an argument pushed by the anti vax folks. We pro-vax folks were kind of confused that people were arguing that they wanted to get covid, so that they would become immune, so that they wouldn’t get covid.
Click to expand...
I was pro-vax but anti-mandate. The pro-vax, pro-mandate folks were pushing vaccines and vaccine mandates whether someone had COVID or not and supporting the idea that the vaccine could give better protection than getting the virus. That was misinformation - and authoritarian, @espola.

You are both confused because you have refused to use basic rational reasoning and lack a healthy curiosity to question claims that support your fears. Well, that's why you are confused @dad4. @espola is confused because he's @espola.

espola said:
From the article he cited but apparently didn't comprehend --

<<
If you are willing to risk hospitalization, death, or prolonged illness (currently termed Long COVID), then naturally acquired immunity will be more robust in protecting you from a second episode. It will not be as protective from the outcomes of that second infection. This is a real-world example of the tradeoff between “an abundance of caution” and rolling the viral dice that may or may not be loaded by your underlying frailty as measured by risk factors or your access to care.
>>
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension, you say @espola? Consistent with your standard approach, you avoid addressing an argument where you were incorrect - in this case, vaccines don't confer better immunity than getting COVID. Instead, you address a completely different argument without the finesse to make it look like you are addressing the original argument. Even Karine Jean-Pierre would shake her head in disdain at your attempts.

Reading comprehension part II. Vaccine mandates are about protecting others. Based on the excerpt above, which one is better at protecting others? The one that protects you more from another episode or the one that gives the person that gets the infection a second time a slightly better chance at avoiding a severe outcome? Warning, it may require rational thought that leads you to a different conclusion than the one you jumped to without rational thought.

Separately, I have a comment about the reporting of these studies. Any reporting of %'s without a thorough breakdown by age group makes the reporting marginally useful - at best. It's a different disease with different outcomes depending on the age group. The other thing I need to see now is co-morbidities. The COVID Experience has shown me I have been too lazy in blindly trusting experts and our government. The open dialogue that I imagined existed here in the US has been shattered by the documented suppression of dissent and facts that don't support the narrative of those in power. Power without transparency always leads to where we are now regarding the COVID Experience. It will require healthy skepticism and unyielding support of transparency to overcome the damage.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
I was pro-vax but anti-mandate. The pro-vax, pro-mandate folks were pushing vaccines and vaccine mandates whether someone had COVID or not and supporting the idea that the vaccine could give better protection than getting the virus. That was misinformation - and authoritarian, @espola.

You are both confused because you have refused to use basic rational reasoning and lack a healthy curiosity to question claims that support your fears. Well, that's why you are confused @dad4. @espola is confused because he's @espola.


Reading comprehension, you say @espola? Consistent with your standard approach, you avoid addressing an argument where you were incorrect - in this case, vaccines don't confer better immunity than getting COVID. Instead, you address a completely different argument without the finesse to make it look like you are addressing the original argument. Even Karine Jean-Pierre would shake her head in disdain at your attempts.

Reading comprehension part II. Vaccine mandates are about protecting others. Based on the excerpt above, which one is better at protecting others? The one that protects you more from another episode or the one that gives the person that gets the infection a second time a slightly better chance at avoiding a severe outcome? Warning, it may require rational thought that leads you to a different conclusion than the one you jumped to without rational thought.

Separately, I have a comment about the reporting of these studies. Any reporting of %'s without a thorough breakdown by age group makes the reporting marginally useful - at best. It's a different disease with different outcomes depending on the age group. The other thing I need to see now is co-morbidities. The COVID Experience has shown me I have been too lazy in blindly trusting experts and our government. The open dialogue that I imagined existed here in the US has been shattered by the documented suppression of dissent and facts that don't support the narrative of those in power. Power without transparency always leads to where we are now regarding the COVID Experience. It will require healthy skepticism and unyielding support of transparency to overcome the damage.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that you would call me authoritarian since I share you pro-vax anti-mandate viewpoint.
 
crush said:
www.foxnews.com

CDC identifies possible 'safety concern' for certain people receiving COVID vaccines

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified a "safety signal" in the Bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and is investigating whether the shot creates an increased stroke risk for people 65 and older.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...


READ THIS.....THE " EURO " Covid/Sars-19 Vaccine Excuse " Playbook "...!!!

WHO-EURO-2022-3471-43230-60590-eng.pdf

Just remember ...the mRNA Death rate is NOW in the exponential stage...!!!!!!

1673649067333.png

We are at/past the two year mark. January 2021 - January 2023.... and only getting worse.


1673648771132.png

Go have YOUR Heart Checked !!!!!

Especially if You got the Jab....
 
Desert Hound said:
To bad the CDC didn't do long term studies before approving the vax.

It is another example why it is unethical at a min to mandate these vaxxes.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Pfizer's bivalent COVID shot may be linked to stroke risk

U.S. drugmaker Pfizer Inc and German partner BioNTech's updated COVID-19 shot could be linked to a type of brain stroke in older adults, the CDC and FDA reported.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
It's what happens when entities do garbage in, garbage out data. Public heath bobbleheads have certainly botched this. Last month trickle reporting on embolisms and myocarditis in young men. Now we quietly report on thrombotic events in seniors - the population at most risk and the ones that deserve better healthcare in the face of covid. Pfizer bivalents suck, now what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top