Vaccine vs. Mask

[bpj]

Look at the bright side, if there are fertility issues it would mean less Libs being born.....

Ha! Maybe balance out the excess deaths from right wingers who historically were fine with vaccines until the the COVID vaccines became politicized.

Attached image is from this empirical research paper. The authors are professors at Yale University. https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w30512.pdf.

Guess we'll see!

I'm sure they didn't receive any of that Covid-cash at Yale...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... ?gnt-cfr=1

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Look at the bright side, if there are fertility issues it would mean less Libs being born.....

Ha! Maybe balance out the excess deaths from right wingers who historically were fine with vaccines until the the COVID vaccines became politicized.

Attached image is from this empirical research paper. The authors are professors at Yale University. https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w30512.pdf.

I think you need to educate yourself on what a vaccine really is. What our government was "pushing" to help with the Covid-Cold was certainly not a vaccine. Just like the flu shot is not a flu vaccine....it doesn't make you immune.

Real vaccines would include polio. You get the shot ONCE, you don't get the illness.
-pretty simple-

Not, if you get these chemicals shot into your body......over and over again, you MAY not get the illness AS BAD. You will still get it if exposed, and will still spread the illness, but it MAY help.

It's the same argument as Obama's "jobs saved" numbers.
-How do you prove a negative-

How can they for certainty prove that the Covid shot gave you any protection?
If you got Covid after you had the SHOTS how can they prove it made it easier?

They can prove the vaccines for Polio worked....it's gone!

[auroraave]

Look at the bright side, if there are fertility issues it would mean less Libs being born.....

Ha! Maybe balance out the excess deaths from right wingers who historically were fine with vaccines until the the COVID vaccines became politicized.

Attached image is from this empirical research paper. The authors are professors at Yale University. https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w30512.pdf.

I think you need to educate yourself on what a vaccine really is. What our government was "pushing" to help with the Covid-Cold was certainly not a vaccine. Just like the flu shot is not a flu vaccine....it doesn't make you immune.

Real vaccines would include polio. You get the shot ONCE, you don't get the illness.
-pretty simple-

Not, if you get these chemicals shot into your body......over and over again, you MAY not get the illness AS BAD. You will still get it if exposed, and will still spread the illness, but it MAY help.

It's the same argument as Obama's "jobs saved" numbers.
-How do you prove a negative-

How can they for certainty prove that the Covid shot gave you any protection?
If you got Covid after you had the SHOTS how can they prove it made it easier?

They can prove the vaccines for Polio worked....it's gone!

This times 1000. First of all - it is known for a fact the jab is NOT a vaccine - it is an MRNA which is NOT the same thing. When you get a vax - you don't get the illness - period. End of discussion. There may be extreme outliers, but that is what a vax does. Remember as the info was coming out and people were doubting the efficacy of the jab the CDC was conveniently 'redefining" what a vax was to accommodate the jab and to cover their asses - which is sketchy AF.

Second - how can anyone prove the jab provided any protection? Using basic logic - you would have to be the test subject AND what would you be able to test your results against? Everyone is wired differently and has a different health situation - so how could you possiblty prove it made any difference? You would have to get the exact same strain TWICE to test the results against each other - which is impossible because once you get one strain you can not get it again because you have developed the natural anti body protection against it. I've never understood how you could prove it made any difference based just on that common sense concept.

Can any of the smart people explain it to me? How would you test it to prove it made a difference? Logic says you can't. Oh, sorry, logic and critical thinking arenlt allowed, right?

Ultimately, I think they all knew it was not a vaccine, but they sold it as such, and as doubt crept as new data emerged they conveniently changed the narrative from :it'll prevent infection" to 'it HELPS protect the most vulnerable" and those are two TOTALLY different things. It's like how we went from "oh my god, global warming" to "climate change" - they just changed the marketing strategy when the first one failed. It is 100% branding and narrative building and the entities selling you this utter nonsense to you are the same ones profiting from it - people need to wake the fuck up about this stuff. This is and always has been about making money. Same with war and going green and all the silly bullshit these people are selling you - it is about money.

Something to consider: there were two entities pushing these chemicals on the masses:
1. Politicians - who were/are making millions in donations from the "vax" producing entities.
2. The ad-driven US mass/social media - whose LARGEST source of income is PHARMACEUTICAL AD DOLLARS. - Big pharma is the single largest advertiser in the US.

Does anyone think those two entities are going to do/say anything against their largest sources of income? C'mon, man. It's about money.

Still unsure?

When independant entities spoke out against the jabs and questioned it all - and rightfully so - who went out of thier way to silence them?
1. Politicians.
2. US Mass/social media.

The same entities that have the most to lose/gain. Pretty simple math when you ignore all the noise.

[D-train]

I can't believe I don't know this but does the regular Flu vax prevent infection? I have NEVER had a flu vax and likely never will.

[auroraave]

I can't believe I don't know this but does the regular Flu vax prevent infection? I have NEVER had a flu vax and likely never will.

It prevents infection by the strain it is designed to protect against. it gives you a small dose of the flu which your body can fight off relative easy - thus giving you the natural antibodies to fight that strain - theoretically once you have the antibodies you can never be infected by that strain. Strains, like any other living organism, then must mutate for survivability. Most people don't understand that a virus's intent is not to kill, but to transmit - thus it is not in the viruses best interest to kill you - most aren't lethal at all.

That is NOT what an MRNA does (messenger ribonucleic acid - literally your fucking DNA)- it has a spike protein thast can manipulate you on a genetic level and that seems pretty fucking dangerous to me - 10000000% more so when you consider these are in the infancy stage and have not at all been thoroughly vetted for long term effects. You cannot have long term data on something two years old. That is why so many were cautious. Instead the narrative was "don't think about it, just get jabbed now, worry about the long term side effects later!" Fuck that.

There is a huge difference between working in concert with your immune system - and focusing on genetics. When I saw MRNA I was like -whoa, hold on. Doesn't mean they can't/won't figure it out, but this is literally being a test subject.

What is really disturbing is there is research emerging suggesting all the jabs and boosters are literally forcing new variants to emerge. And right in concert with that I have noticed a whole new wave of ads for new/more covid products - great for big pharma - great for ad-driven media - and it is fucking frightening. I'm shocked people aren't doing the math on this. Yeah, there are good products coming out for legit needs - but this is NOT one of them. people don't need this shit - they are being brainwashed into thinking they do.

One last thing - I don't have cable or network tv - onlty streaming - so whenever I DO see a game or something on those entities I am SHOCKED that is is ad after ad after ad after ad for pharmaceuticals. It is absolutely out of control. NEVER used to be like this. Take note next time you are watching anything on ad-driven TV. The influence is horrifying.

Again, once you tune out the noise, seems pretty obvious what is happening.

[D-train]

[ddraig]

Look what happens when you question, "settled Science." Galileo anyone?

[gil]

I can't believe I don't know this but does the regular Flu vax prevent infection? I have NEVER had a flu vax and likely never will.

I did a flu shot one year when a friend who is an MD told me it was going to be a really bad year.

But in general, my understanding is that no vaccine is 100% effective. "A real vaccine is 100% effective" is an oversimplification, to the point of being untrue.

The polio vaccines are among the best, but not 100% if you only get one dose. That (plus the fact that almost everyone has been vaccinated against polio) is the reason the disease has largely disappeared. "Herd immunity."

Measles vaccine is pretty good, and we probably would have fewer cases if all the left-wing woo-woo new age type anti-vaxxers would have stopped believing crap about it.

The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective, even against the strains it is designed to protect against. As was pointed out above, if there is a new strain, then the flu vaccine is useless. From the CDC:

Unfortunately, some people can become infected with a flu virus that the vaccine is designed to protect against, despite getting vaccinated. Protection provided by flu vaccination can vary widely, based in part on health and age factors of the person getting vaccinated. In general, a flu vaccine works best among healthy younger adults and older children.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm

[Sibelius Hindemith]

Good article...

https://www.science.org/content/article ... often-fail

They're questioning what was once received wisdom: that the vaccine fails when manufacturers, working months ahead of flu season, incorrectly guess which strains will end up spreading. And they're learning instead that the vaccine may falter even when the right strains were used to make it, perhaps because of how it is produced or quirks of individual immune systems. "It's much more complicated than we thought," Osterholm says. "I know less about influenza today than I did 10 years ago."

[douche]

Ultimately, I think they all knew it was not a vaccine, but they sold it as such, and as doubt crept as new data emerged they conveniently changed the narrative from :it'll prevent infection" to 'it HELPS protect the most vulnerable" and those are two TOTALLY different things. It's like how we went from "oh my god, global warming" to "climate change" - they just changed the marketing strategy when the first one failed. It is 100% branding and narrative building and the entities selling you this utter nonsense to you are the same ones profiting from it - people need to wake the fuck up about this stuff. This is and always has been about making money. Same with war and going green and all the silly bullshit these people are selling you - it is about money.

Something to consider: there were two entities pushing these chemicals on the masses:
1. Politicians - who were/are making millions in donations from the "vax" producing entities.
2. The ad-driven US mass/social media - whose LARGEST source of income is PHARMACEUTICAL AD DOLLARS. - Big pharma is the single largest advertiser in the US.

Does anyone think those two entities are going to do/say anything against their largest sources of income? C'mon, man. It's about money.

100%