Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 22:12:31 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 22:12:31 GMT
Your sense was correct!  If big pharma was a good neighbor the vax would be free to any and all that wanted it... But that's not how the world works That doesn’t necessarily deny the effectiveness of their products though The vax is quite obviously not preventing infection, and the data on whether it ameliorates the illness seems to me to be in the dispute of the fog of information war. Their organizational sociopathy is only relevant in so far as that they are knowingly making, distributing and influencing the corrupt politicians to finance that distribution of an ineffective chemical, and what is also unclear to me in that fog of information war is whether or not what they're distributing is dangerous. On balance, I believe (yes Bolie, I believe!) that it is. It's purpose is to lessen the potential of serious illness and death, which apparently it does. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 7, 2022 5:07:12 GMT
The vax is quite obviously not preventing infection, and the data on whether it ameliorates the illness seems to me to be in the dispute of the fog of information war. Their organizational sociopathy is only relevant in so far as that they are knowingly making, distributing and influencing the corrupt politicians to finance that distribution of an ineffective chemical, and what is also unclear to me in that fog of information war is whether or not what they're distributing is dangerous. On balance, I believe (yes Bolie, I believe!) that it is. It's purpose is to lessen the potential of serious illness and death, which apparently it does. First of all, it's not clear in this fog of information war if it's good even for that. Second of all, that's not what was promised at the outset. Why even call it a vaccine then? It's a prophylactic treatment. And if that's the new narrative, it raises the following questions (for just a start):
(1) Why bar the unvaccinated from stores or work or school if the vax'd are just as likely to transmit it?
(2) Why force a prophylactic treatment on the entire population for a disease that has far greater than a 99.7% survival rate among everyone except a few vulnerable groups?
(3) Why suppress the distribution of known, effective generic antivirals? Those are treatments as well, because that's all a "vaccine" that doesn't prevent infection is: a treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 7, 2022 8:49:45 GMT
This is the website that Dr. Malone identified in the JR interview as a decentralized, global network of physcians and scientists, 10's of thousands of members strong, who question the conventional vax narrative. He of course also mentioned the Great Barrington Declaration.
The Global Summit's recommendation is that healthy children and people who have recovered from covid-19 should be excluded from the vax mandates. Seems quite reasonable to me given what I've heard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 7, 2022 10:19:42 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 10:19:42 GMT
It's purpose is to lessen the potential of serious illness and death, which apparently it does. First of all, it's not clear in this fog of information war if it's good even for that. Second of all, that's not what was promised at the outset. Why even call it a vaccine then? It's a prophylactic treatment. And if that's the new narrative, it raises the following questions (for just a start): (1) Why bar the unvaccinated from stores or work or school if the vax'd are just as likely to transmit it?
(2) Why force a prophylactic treatment on the entire population for a disease that has far greater than a 99.7% survival rate among everyone except a few vulnerable groups? (3) Why suppress the distribution of known, effective generic antivirals? Those are treatments as well, because that's all a "vaccine" that doesn't prevent infection is: a treatment.
I don't know "why" things happen the way they do. But here we are. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Jan 7, 2022 14:32:14 GMT
It's purpose is to lessen the potential of serious illness and death, which apparently it does. First of all, it's not clear in this fog of information war if it's good even for that. Second of all, that's not what was promised at the outset. Why even call it a vaccine then? It's a prophylactic treatment. And if that's the new narrative, it raises the following questions (for just a start):
(1) Why bar the unvaccinated from stores or work or school if the vax'd are just as likely to transmit it?
(2) Why force a prophylactic treatment on the entire population for a disease that has far greater than a 99.7% survival rate among everyone except a few vulnerable groups?
(3) Why suppress the distribution of known, effective generic antivirals? Those are treatments as well, because that's all a "vaccine" that doesn't prevent infection is: a treatment.
And when you get to rates as promised of 90% vac’d, why lock the unvac’d out? We’ve never done that in society before. |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 7, 2022 19:03:03 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2022 19:03:03 GMT
The vax is quite obviously not preventing infection, and the data on whether it ameliorates the illness seems to me to be in the dispute of the fog of information war. Their organizational sociopathy is only relevant in so far as that they are knowingly making, distributing and influencing the corrupt politicians to finance that distribution of an ineffective chemical, and what is also unclear to me in that fog of information war is whether or not what they're distributing is dangerous. On balance, I believe (yes Bolie, I believe!) that it is. It's purpose is to lessen the potential of serious illness and death, which apparently it does. Unless it kills you first!  It really is completely nuts when you think about the average, non health compromised person taking the jab, when most have a 99+ percent chance of recovering from Covid, willingly subjecting themselves to the potential risks inherent to the vax. And even IF someone is compromised, they are still rolling the dice....will the vax they are taking to prevent dying from Covid (should they potentially contract it) make them sick or kill them...? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 7, 2022 19:43:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 19:43:29 GMT
It's purpose is to lessen the potential of serious illness and death, which apparently it does. Unless it kills you first!  It really is completely nuts when you think about the average, non health compromised person taking the jab, when most have a 99+ percent chance of recovering from Covid, willingly subjecting themselves to the potential risks inherent to the vax. And even IF someone is compromised, they are still rolling the dice....will the vax they are taking to prevent dying from Covid (should they potentially contract it) make them sick or kill them...? Everything depends on your inputs/axioms. If you accept that the medical establishment can accurately count things and run a drug study, then it's not "completely nuts", because your chance of dying from the vaccine is lower than your chance of dying of covid, even if you're pretty healthy. You obviously don't accept that. Fine, I don't care to argue about it at the moment. My only only point is that much of the debate/disagreement depends on what you trust for your inputs/data. (Edited to be less dumb.  |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 7, 2022 20:02:37 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2022 20:02:37 GMT
Unless it kills you first! It really is completely nuts when you think about the average, non health compromised person taking the jab, when most have a 99+ percent chance of recovering from Covid, willingly subjecting themselves to the potential risks inherent to the vax. And even IF someone is compromised, they are still rolling the dice....will the vax they are taking to prevent dying from Covid (should they potentially contract it) make them sick or kill them...? One reason the "debates" on this forum can get kind of silly sometimes is that everything depends on your inputs/axioms, but we rarely address that. If you accept that the medical establishment can accurately count things and run a drug study, then it's not "completely nuts", because your chance of dying from the vaccine is lower than your chance of dying of covid, even if you're pretty healthy. You obviously don't accept that. Fine, I don't care to argue about it at the moment. My only only point is that the entire debate/disagreement depends on what you trust for your inputs/data. Yes, agreed. From where I sit, there is more than enough evidence to suggest the vaccines are more dangerous than potentially getting Covid. Clearly I trust different sources than you do. In my estimation, the sources that you are trusting have been proven to be untrustworthy....CDC...WHO...Fauci....Big Pharma....Biden...just to name a few. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 7, 2022 20:47:00 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 20:47:00 GMT
One reason the "debates" on this forum can get kind of silly sometimes is that everything depends on your inputs/axioms, but we rarely address that. If you accept that the medical establishment can accurately count things and run a drug study, then it's not "completely nuts", because your chance of dying from the vaccine is lower than your chance of dying of covid, even if you're pretty healthy. You obviously don't accept that. Fine, I don't care to argue about it at the moment. My only only point is that the entire debate/disagreement depends on what you trust for your inputs/data.Yes, agreed. From where I sit, there is more than enough evidence to suggest the vaccines are more dangerous than potentially getting Covid. Clearly I trust different sources than you do. In my estimation, the sources that you are trusting have been proven to be untrustworthy....CDC...WHO...Fauci....Big Pharma....Biden...just to name a few. How dare you accuse me of trusting Biden. Never have I been so insulted. |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 7, 2022 20:55:40 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 7, 2022 20:55:40 GMT
Yes, agreed. From where I sit, there is more than enough evidence to suggest the vaccines are more dangerous than potentially getting Covid. Clearly I trust different sources than you do. In my estimation, the sources that you are trusting have been proven to be untrustworthy....CDC...WHO...Fauci....Big Pharma....Biden...just to name a few. How dare you accuse me of trusting Biden. Never have I been so insulted. You don't? |
|
