Thank you for proving my point.
31 Reasons To Reject The Jab
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Everything you said is literally backwards. Death by covid was removed to death with covid to scare people. This is who really got sick. The jab largely does not factor in. Although my guess is people who choose this unhealthy life are "vaccinated". They still wear a cloth face covering Walmart.
Unfortunately you are (deliberately?) omitting to factor in the levels of harm any given vaccine or other medical treatment causes. So if you vax your 71,000,000 million people how many 1000s are you harming and / or killing? Unless you know with any level of rigour those numbers, you can't make an informed decision on the merits of the vaccine or treatment. Your "good day at the office" could well be a terrible day if you've inadvertently caused immense harm among the vaxxed population. In addition to this we might also consider what alternatives there are to the vaccines in preventing a given pathogen. For example simply giving people good doses of Vit D3 and possible vit K2 along with it you might be able to prevent a high number of flu cases with far less adverse side effects along the way and as this boosts and supports the immune system you'd also be preventing numerous other pathgens from manifesting into serious conditions.
The question of "high risk" or otherwise "vulnerable" or "immune compromised" people is an interesting one however simple human morals surely dictate that it is inherently wrong for us to protect such people in those categories if at the same time we are harming other people who are not in those categories. Protecting one person whilst harming another is a patently stupid philosophy and approach. Equally, when we think of the utterly appalling and catastrophic approach of lockdowns that was taken during the pandemic, it's plainly clear that you should isolate the vulnerable, not those that are healthy and have good immune systems. This has been the medical tradition for eons. You isolate the sick people, not the healthy people.
In respect of the flu vaccines we have been discussing, the vaccines do not provide benefit for very long for otherwise people would not need repeated jabs. In fact the protective benefits of the traditional flu shots last but a few weeks as stated here:
The above chart shows that the effectiveness of the shots are low from the outset and drop to nothing in short measure. We have to also consider that the choice of what specific strains the manufacturers choose to cover in their trivalent and quadrivalent shots are decided very early on (to allow time for vaccine manufacture and distribution ready for the "flu season") and it's educated guess work they have to do which is often wide of the mark. So for any of these shots to be effective you first have to hope that the "scientists" have predicted the correct strains of flu that are likely to be prevalent that specific season and then as per the above, the effectiveness of the shot will wane pretty quickly anyway.
There's also another factor here which always amazes me why no-one ever highlights it which is this. If you deliberately make your body and immune system expend vital resources and do significant "work" by subjecting it to some form of inactivated or otherwise doctored virus/pathogen (as in a flu shot) then AT THAT SPECIFIC point your system is more vulnerable than it otherwise would be. i.e Your body is already fighting a pathogen and expending resources which is what the vaccine is designed to do, to stimulate that response. In that period you're going to be more vulnerable to any pathogen that is circulating. The same would be true of any illness. If you are already suffering from say Shingles or a Winter vomiting tummy bug then your body is already weak, expending many resources to try and heal itself, and thus during that period it is far more vulnerable to something like Flu coming along on top of those ailments. Hence all those people who take the Flu shots are for a short while, likely more vulnerable than otherwise. That period might be 1 week, maybe 2 weeks. People often testify that they feel "off" after jabs and thats clearly because their bodies have been forced to undertake work and use resources by the vaccine stimulating that response. That makes the vaxxed comminity more susceptible to pathogens during that 1-2 week period and that in turn means they may well catch and spread more bugs/germs/ viruses to others around them. In fact I would go so far as to say that vaxxed people should have to isolate for at least 1 week after having the shots to protect the wider community.
This is iterated further by a PNAS study which found that:
"In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons."
Worth just letting that sink in. It's saying that vaxxed people are 6 times more likely to shed virus than unvaccinated people !!! So the vaxxed community should really be made to isolate if we want to protect wider society.
You are conflating issues with this statement which is wrong to do. A perfectly healthy care worker is of no risk to an immunocompromised patient. They can't pass flu onto such patients if they don't have flu themselves. Whether they are vaccinated against flu is of no consequence whatsoever because being vaccinated does not guarantee that the vaccine recipient can't get flu. In fact as we have seen and discussed, you have to vaccinate 71 people to prevent one case of flu, so what you are horribly suggesting is that it's ok for the 70 vaccinees who got little to no benefit from the shots to be caring for immunoesuppressed patients !! Let's say it again The vaccine status of the health worker is a complete red herring and indeed a horribly dangerous status to determine the safety of immunosuppressed patients by. What matters 100% is that the healthworker DOES NOT HAVE FLU or any other given pathogen such as Covid. In this respect then the "status" that is needed is one that tells us that the healthworker does not have Flu or Covid and that therefore is determined by a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC TEST of some kind. Unfortunately during the pandemic we did not have a reliable test to determine who had Covid and who did not. The PCR tests many of us took were horribly flawed and oftem inaccurate. We need proper tests that are 99.9% reliable. Those tests are what should be used to determine whether a given healthworker should go anywhere near an immunocompromised person. Their vaccination status is meaningless in this respect.
We saw during the pandemic that the Covid shots in no ways prevents people from getting Covid nor prevents them from transmitting Covid to others (which wasn't even tested as part of the Moderna vaccine trial). At best the vaccines lessen the severity of Covid for the vaccinee. In th eUK the Governments own weekly Vaccine Surveillance Reports showed very clearly that the hospitals were full of vaccinated people. They showed that the vaccinated people were the lion's share of Covid Cases, Hospitalisations and Deaths during the periods I tracked them. I still have copies of those reports somewhere.
It's patently not ok for therefore for a vaccinated healthworker that HAS Covid or indeed Flu to be looking after immunocompromised patients That much should be obvious. So let's completely debunk this notion that healthworkers need to be vaccinated for everything. It's irrelevant and the attempts by the medical industries and governments of some countries to force healthworkers to take shots or lose their jobs was utterly wicked and wrong on all levels. We should have learned the truth of this from the previous Swine Flu "pandemic) of 2009/2010 where numerous healthcare staff we heavily bullied and cajoled into taking the Pandemrix vaccine which was later withdrawn from use in the EU due to it being dangerous and causing cases of Narcolespy and other side effects. Brain damaged victims got some compensation, the manufacturers GSK acknowledged the problem and the EU withdrew the vaccine. See here:
Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
Children who reacted badly to vaccine now suffer from debilitating sleep disorder narcolepsy.
www.ibtimes.co.uk
"It was subsequently revealed that the vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause narcolepsy and cataplexy in about one in 16,000 people, and many more are expected to come forward with the symptoms.
Across Europe, more than 800 children are so far known to have been made ill by the vaccine."
"The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, and some patients and their families have already been awarded compensation. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, and some patients and their families have already been awarded compensation"
"Pandemrix has now been withdrawn from use in the European Union"
This brings us neatly back to your "not a bad day at the office" statement. If you vaccinated 71,000,000 people and 1 or more in 16,000 of those got narcolepsy or cataplexy as a result then that's about 4,500 people. How is that a "good day at the office"? In the end it's all a game of numbers and the true numbers in terms of harms generated are more and more difficult to come by as many cases of serious adverse reactions are not investigated or cataloged or just ignored. This is why vaccination should NEVER be mandated by governments. It's a personal risk assessment to be made by every individual based on their personal circumstances, needs and health status.
But at what cost to the rest of the cells in the human body and to the immune system? Can you quantify that so I could make an informed decision?
You could consider Grapefruit Seed Extract instead. Natural and very effective against yeast infections, Candida and the like I believe.
Last edited:
Iconoblast
New member
Goodness, you have time on your hands! It’ll take me all day to digest that. Are you interested in my response, or just grandstanding? For the second time, I’m not trying to deceive anyone. Why would I care if you got vaccinated? do what’s right for you. I took the Pfizer then the Moderna bivalent. On the advice of my doctor, nothing since. (I did take a flu shot last week.)
Placebo and intent to treat cause side effects when addressed by the scientific method, so of course vaccines inevitably will. Probably a lot more. I already conceded that multiple times. It should be assumed, not argued, by all, if there’s any intellectual foundation here.
Placebo and intent to treat cause side effects when addressed by the scientific method, so of course vaccines inevitably will. Probably a lot more. I already conceded that multiple times. It should be assumed, not argued, by all, if there’s any intellectual foundation here.
Takes very little time in truth because I have all the data, all the studies, research at my fingertips from having studied it all over the years. I guess that's little different from many of the Open Theists here who have all the Bible quotes for just about any argument already at their fingertips.
Very happy for you to respond and no I'm not at all grandstanding, I'm just thorough in my approach and I think it's important that the information is out there so people can make informed decisions.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Trust the science! The science wouldn't lie to you! The science wouldn't hide facts from you!
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Finally Released: Confirms 'High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death' | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Drabik
As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, a COVID-19 vaccination study is back in the news.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Are there studies that demonstrate that the covid shots were effective in most people and therefore saved more lives that it took?Trust the science! The science wouldn't lie to you! The science wouldn't hide facts from you!
View attachment 13218Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Finally Released: Confirms 'High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death' | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Drabik
As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, a COVID-19 vaccination study is back in the news.
Answer: Yes!
An Imperial College London study estimated that COVID-19 vaccines prevented nearly 20 million deaths worldwide in 2021 alone. These figures accounted for both direct prevention of severe disease and reduced transmission. Researchers also noted that equitable distribution could have saved an additional 600,000 lives【7】【8】
A National Institutes of Health-supported analysis found that vaccines prevented approximately 140,000 deaths in the United States by May 2021. This was based on modeling vaccine uptake rates across states during the early months of availability【9】
Another report from the USC Schaeffer Center highlighted that vaccines saved 2.4 million lives across 141 countries in 2021, further emphasizing the significant health and economic benefits of vaccination【7】
[7]: A USC Schaeffer Center report detailing the global impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, including lives saved and the benefits of equitable vaccine distribution.
[8]: A study from Imperial College London estimating that vaccines prevented nearly 20 million deaths worldwide in 2021 and emphasizing the role of equitable vaccine distribution in saving even more lives.
[9] refers to a study supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that analyzed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in the U.S. It found that vaccines prevented approximately 140,000 deaths by May 2021. This conclusion was drawn from modeling state-level vaccination rates and their effects on COVID-19 death rates during the early rollout period.
Last edited: