Create account

replied 1369d
Where did you get that idea? The evidence shows the vaccine works perfectly fine for all the variants we know of so far.

Eradication is not the goal. So why mention it?
13 / 70
replied 1369d
The keys to unlock the golden gate of herd immunity towards Sars-CoV-2
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/the-keys-to-unlock-the-golden-gate-of-herd-immunity-towards-sars-cov-2
replied 1369d
Through all of these responses it's just a bit sad to see both the misunderstanding of information coupled with misinformation that misleads you about the data.
replied 1369d
Please tell where exactly is that misinformation. You are projecting psychologically
replied 1369d
No one disputes that there have been rare side effects, but that is true of all medicine. This is safer than many things people commonly consume. Birth control causes more blood clots.
replied 1369d
oh they do, bu sideffects are not rear, it means it's working :D
replied 1369d
The low side effect rate means it is working, and quite safe. Maybe you need to look more into medicine in general to get some context.
replied 1369d
If you put all of this data into context it shows that the vaccine is actually remarkably effective and safe.
replied 1369d
oh wow, you hate numbers i guess
replied 1369d
I am the one does appreciate numbers here. Its the numbers that show you are confused about this whole issue. Rates are 4he beat numbers to look at.
replied 1369d
;list=PLI28DU_o6d0MNc5F6wwdOZ_u-7j_9z8XI
replied 1369d
Pfzier/BioNTech BNT162b2
relative risk reduction = 95%;
absolute risk reduction = 0.7%
Moderna mRNA-1273
relative risk reduction = 94%;
absolute risk reduction = 1%
replied 1369d
Previous Covid Prevents Delta Infection Better Than Pfizer Shot
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot
replied 1369d
Previous Covid Prevents Delta Infection Better Than Pfizer Shot
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-covid-prevents-delta-infection-better-than-pfizer-shot
replied 1369d
Dr. Robert Malone
https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-robert-malone-mrna-vaccine-inventor-on-latest-covid-19-data-booster-shots-and-the-shattered-scientific-consensus_3979206.html
replied 1369d
vaccine reprograms innate immune responses
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-immune-responses.aspx
replied 1369d
Nobel Prize Winner Says “BS 19 Vaxxines Are an Unacceptable Mistake”
https://www.londontimes.live/health/nobel-prize-winner-says-bs-19-vaxxines-are-an-unacceptable-mistake/
replied 1369d
His opinion is his. He really doesn't matter. Those closer to the data in the field know better. Its the data that matters more than opinions.
replied 1369d
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1
replied 1369d
Sweden Bans Travelers From Israel, One of the Most Vacc
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/sweden-bans-travelers-from-israel-one-of-the-most-vaccinated-nations_3978811.html
replied 1369d
They are known to have a large population of anti-vaxxers in Israel. I do not think they are one of the most vaccinated. They vaccinated early is all.
replied 1369d
Gibraltar vaxxed 119%, did not work
replied 1369d
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
replied 1369d
Please learn the difference ARR vs RRR
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
replied 1369d
what is the goal? and what is your definition of "works perfectly fine"?
replied 1369d
Mostly to get people vaccinated to lessen the effect of infection. With that also to reduce the spread as much as we can. There is also hope of breakthroughs on resperatory illness.
replied 1369d
vaccines do not reduce spread, even manufacturers dont claim that
replied 1369d
Its not a physical barrier preventing the virus, but it does mean the virus is in people and able to spread for less time, which does reduce the spread. Not sure how you're confused.
replied 1369d
you are fantasizing, where is the data on reducing spread?
replied 1369d
In every bit of data on the infection rates. We can see how vaccinated populations get infected less, and are harmed less. There is no data showing otherwise.
replied 1369d
Maybe you are confused by the similarity in infection rates during lockdowns and vaccinated populations out of lockdown as the same. It shows the vaccination is comparable to lockdowns
replied 1369d
where can you see that data?
replied 1369d
In all places it is collected. John Hopkins website is the best place to seethe collected data.
replied 1369d
but you unable to find it?
replied 1368d
Oh, you need a link...
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
replied 1368d
yes, I need a link on vaccines reducing spread, this is not it.

Vaccine literally useless:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
replied 1368d
At least they explain their method so you can point to the obvious flaws I already highlighted before. They do not consider the conditions related to the spread.
replied 1368d
All they are showing is that places with high vaccination rates, that have also listen social restrictions, have the expected increase in infection rates.
replied 1368d
They ignore the influence of lockdowns and social restrictions in the data, and the comparability of those restrictions with vaccine efficacy. Their method is flawed.
replied 1368d
Look into any scientific endeavour and you will see argument and disagreement. You then try to use that to support your own conclusions which are not supported even by your link.
replied 1368d
This shows the vaccine is of anything slightly less effective than total lockdowns. Not that the vaccines are ineffective. Do you have anything that supports your conclusions?
replied 1369d
The initial requirement for a vaccine before we had one was 50% effectiveness. We lucked out at got 95ish% effectiveness rates. We had been working on this type of vaccine for decades.
replied 1369d
replied 1369d
you are mixing up ARR and RRR again, effectiveness and efficiency are different
replied 1369d
I know they are different, and am not confusing them. Please explain how you think I am confusing them.
replied 1369d
effectiveness (ARR) is 0.7% so how should this work?
replied 1369d
No, it's about 95%. I think you are confusing these terms.
replied 1369d
Nothing about the vaccines are 0.7% in anything. Your numbers sound like they came from a dishonest source.
replied 1369d
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
replied 1369d
Your trying to argue the semantics of efficacy vs effectiveness. That is intellectually dishonest to pretend I was claiming one vs the other, and your number is not in that link.
replied 1368d
replied 1368d
Vaccine literally useless:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
replied 1368d
Okay, now please read your links. They debunk your claims. Your links are arguments for continuing other protections on top of vaccination. They also debunk your ARR vs RRR falicy.
replied 1368d
Just because the Pfizer vaccine needs a booster after a while due to dropping effectiveness doesn't mean it was never effective. Needing a booster is fine. Lots of vaccines do.
replied 1368d
no? so what does it mean about effectiveness, if you need a booster?
2
4,096
replied 1368d
Nothing really, it just means that there may be a need for a booster. Why is that significant in your opinion? What makes you think your even qualified to judge this stuff?
replied 1340d
it means it's not a Vaccine, it does not create lasting immunity,
It is a experimental ineffective gene therapy
replied 1340d
replied 1340d
Oh wow, now people want to redefine the word vaccine to not count mRNA vaccines? It's funny that anyone could try to claim they are not vaccines.
replied 1340d
nope, other way around, definition changed 2020, including mrna
replied 1340d
Looks more like a correction. They have had more than one type of vaccine being used for decades now. mRNA is just one of many types of vaccine. It's just one new type or vaccine.
replied 1340d
NEW type? MRNA gene therapy never been used
what is this about? https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-asks-federal-judge-to-grant-it
replied 1339d
Yes, a new type of vaccine to go with the other types. Your wrong to claim there has only been one type before.
As for the link it's just a lawyer and a frivolous suit.
replied 1339d
That's my argument, its NEW, without long term safety studies.
FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year 2076 to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data.
Again, WHY?
replied 1339d
I'll give you a hint: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/more-people-died-in-the-key-clinical?r=76kom&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=
replied 1339d
It has been studied since the early 90's at the latest, possible the 80's. New is a relative term. Vaccine side effects are not that long term.
Livine123
replied 1175d
Hello, if you are looking for best writing source where you can get essay related help then visit <a href="https://essayreviewsbro.com/custom-essay-meister-review/">essay meister</a>
replied 1339d
I wonder why don't you give links to those studies that don't exist :)
replied 1339d
It would require more effort than I am willing to put in. I. Too busy to spoon feed you an education. Especially when this is such readily available information.
replied 1339d
Especially when you obviously side step real information to find conspiracy sources and "alternative news" instead of real sources.
replied 1339d
what real information?
replied 1340d
The fact is they train your immune system to recognise Covid, the same as all other vaccines there have ever been. mRNA is just safer and more effective, and easier to make.
replied 1340d
Nope, covid gene therapies makes your own cells to produce trillions obsolete spike proteins.
No vaccine ever worked like that. There are no long term safety studies, none.
replied 1340d
There are a lot of long term safety studies since 5he 90's on mRNA vaccines. Teaching your body to be immune is what makes a vaccine. How it does that varies with different vaccines.
replied 1340d
replied 1340d
1
replied 1339d
Correcting the website does not mean the definition changed.
replied 1339d
provide your source for definition or stay silent
replied 1339d
I don't think I can link a podcast that is behind a paywall. I instead listen to real experts on these issues instead of propaganda sites like Project Veritas.
replied 1339d
so you have nothing?
replied 1339d
I have the word of legitimate experts instead of misinformation from Project Veritas.
replied 1339d
The Sam Harris podcast is a great resource to hear from actual experts.
replied 1339d
The Mindacape podcast is another great resource to hear from real experts.
replied 1339d
Who are the experts? Sam Harris? :D
replied 1338d
Sam Harris is an expert on neuroscience and meditation, not virology and immune response. He hosts the podcast and talks to relevant experts like Zeynep Tufekci on misinformation.
replied 1338d
Nicholas Christakis is another good expert on the issue he interviewed. Sean Carroll is an cosmologist who also talks to various experts on many issues.
replied 1338d
Sean and Sam are both far batter at judging the expertise of these people, and it's worth listening to the experts they spoke with. It's better than random people claiming expertise.
replied 1340d
you could change definition of obesety or poverty and they are instantly gone :)
replied 1340d
Immune RESPONSE, is not real IMMUNITY
Only natural exposure gives you actual immunity by definition
replied 1340d
CDC recently had to change the definition of a vaccine on their site
Covid vaccines don't use the virus itself like other vaccines do. It doesn't target the virus directly
1
replied 1339d
Immune response is how immunity works. It's better to be vaccinated than risk the disease. Also it is a lie that the definition changed. Your repeating a lie.
replied 1339d
Hey Sam, you had your 3rd jab yet? and in 3 months time are you ready for jab 4?
3
replied 1339d
Adverse reactions and chances of them occurring go up dramatically with each additional shot
1
5,000
replied 1339d
As of last Friday just in United States there's been 7,326 deaths from the vaccines and they say that is a small portion because most don't get reported
2
5,000
replied 1339d
If you want to read the details of every reported incident here you go
https://t.co/WozeagV8SO?amp=1
replied 1338d
In reality booster shots are half does and less likely to cause side effects. The 7,300 death count is grossly inflated. More likely that it is under 100.
replied 1338d
I got my booster shot 5 months after my second shot. There seems to be no call far a fourth booster shot. If they find it's best to get a booster I will.
replied 1338d
So how many months has it been since you had your first booster aka 3rd jab?
replied 1338d
2 weeks.
replied 1338d
If its been 5 months since your 3rd jab then you have no immunity, hurry and book a 4th jab asap.
As it stands you are no different from the unvaxxed.
replied 1338d
Where did you get the absurd idea you have no immunity after 5 months? Do you think that is why they are suggesting the booster shot?
replied 1338d
booster after the immunity from the initial dose(s) naturally starts to wane. The booster is designed to help people maintain their level of immunity for longer.
replied 1338d
Exactly. Not what you claimed at all.
replied 1338d
Few months your jab wanes if not topped up.
Top ups every few months for life on a 99% survival rate,without knowing the long term effects...only a fool would follow these rules.
1
replied 1338d
It never completely wanes. Delta varients is a reason to boost immunity.

Flu shots are normal and they are 10 to 100 times less deadly.
replied 1338d
Gibraltar 118.2% vaccinated cancels Xmas, waiting to see your mental gymnastics explaining that. Don't fall on your face again :)
replied 1338d
https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-releases/rise-in-active-covid-19-cases-public-urged-to-be-cautious-and-reduce-mixing-8452021-7433
replied 1337d
The article explains it rather well itself. Also you can't have more than 100% of people vaccinated.
They didn't cancel Xmas. It says right they cancelled government employee parties.
replied 1338d
99.97 if you are under 70 years old. Average 4 comorbidities per death. 0 deaths if treated early.
replied 1338d
Your numbers are wrong. We have actual numbers to go by.
replied 1337d
replied 1337d
There is your problem. You get your numbers from memes. Thanks for showing why you are so ill informed.
replied 1337d
Stockholm University not a meme, try harder
replied 1338d
A COVID-19 booster is given when a person has completed their vaccine series, and protection against the virus has decreased over time.
replied 1338d
Yes, it has decreased over one. No one is saying you have no immunity after 5 months. It may wane a bit, but you still have immunity. Delta is rather virulent though.
replied 1338d
Also it can give eternal immunity from covid, when you are dead
1
5,000
replied 1337d
Colin Powell style.
replied 1337d
Those not immunised for Covid are far more likely to end up dead.

Nothing you can link will change the fact of billions of doses with hardly any side effects.
replied 1337d
Nothing beats natural immunity, those that have had covid and recovered , their immunity lasts way longer than any jab or booster. Those that have had 3 jabs will suffer side effects.
1
replied 1337d
CDC unable to show single case
replied 1337d
Funny, because they have shown many cases of people who had Covid, getting it again.

Immunity is immunity no matter if it is from the vaccine, or beating the virus.
replied 1337d
heard about false pcr positive?
replied 1337d
Yes, and I know it is irrelevant. Doctors also know about that and follow up with another test after to confirm.
replied 1336d
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results
replied 1334d
Actually that's not the definition but it's a description or characteristic of it. Insanity is much more broad than just that.
You have a point though
1
replied 1331d
It's a different test. Not the same thing.
replied 1331d
replied 1331d
They have the cheap test anyone can easily take. They have another to confirm after. It should be pretty simple to understand.
replied 1330d
oh so there is a "cheap test" and "another test", got it, very science at it again :D
do you see those doctors in a room right now?
2
2,000
replied 1337d
Vaccinated <60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
replied 1337d
Vaccinated <60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
replied 1337d
No truth to this article. Might as well link to FOX News.
replied 1337d
"hardly any" is that a number?
replied 1337d
Somewhere around 1 in 350,000 would get a strong reaction, and then only a tiny fraction of those were lethal when not treated.
replied 1337d
sooooomewheeeeere over the rainbow
replied 1338d
wtf are you for real?
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/booster-shots-and-third-doses-for-covid19-vaccines-what-you-need-to-know
replied 1338d
Yes, nice link. Now my question still stands. Did you even read r link?
replied 1339d
Reality: in the most vaccinated nations majority of the hospitalizations are vaccinated people.

FUCK YOU, DEGENERATE STATIST SCUM.
replied 1338d
That is only because most people are vaccinated. The fact that they survive while the unvaccinated die highlights the problem of not being vaccinated.

Your example doesn't help you.
replied 1338d
Vaccination doesn't prevent infection. It never has. It helps your body minimise the harm of infection. This of course also reduces the spread, but not all of it.
replied 1338d
2
10,000
replied 1337d
That is cute. Well the data shows it is not a concern.
replied 1339d
not a vaccine, mRNA injection is experimental gene therapy
replied 1339d
Immune response only causes immunity when it's causes your body to respond to a SPECIFIC virus.
Immunity means your body fights a particular virus. A response can kill you done wrong
replied 1338d
That is an oversimplified way of looking at what immunity is. It's more complicated than you realise. Your body is trained to eliminate harmful immune responses, even mRNA made ones.
replied 1338d
While your body can get it wrong sometimes and cause an autoimmune response, if you believe in your bodies natural ability then you realise that your body stops bad immune responses.
replied 1339d
If vaccine works then yes, not the case with covid gene therapies
Provide your source for definition then
replied 1339d
The vaccine does work, and works better than a lot of older well used vaccines. I'm not the one making wild claims that needs to back them up. Your trying to put yourself above science
replied 1339d
where's the definition? nothing? :)
replied 1339d
You already posted the real definition. You are just falling for the myth that it is a new definition. In reality it is the same definition we always had.
replied 1339d
Why do you think they changed the definition? Did you even read them? Covid vax are first that don't target the virus. That's why only last 3 months
Trigger immune response GENERALLY
1
replied 1339d
So it's telling your body to go on defense with or without any threat present.
No tiny amount of the virus to your system to teach it to fight THAT virus
Body fighting NOTHING
replied 1338d
They didn't actually change the definition. At most some websites corrected their wrong definition. What you show as the old definition was only a definition of one type of vaccine.
replied 1338d
The mRNA vaccine type is more effective at teaching your body how to build immunity. It is also safer than old traditional vaccines. It's also easier to produce and make other vaccines
replied 1340d
What studies? List them here, thank you
replied 1339d
Why should I go look them up for you? The fact is mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades. Look it up yourself, you have Google.
replied 1368d
Moderns stays more effective for longer. Sure, we know this. You are putting a strange twist on these things.
replied 1368d
longer than what? wehere are the numbers?
replied 1368d
Longer than Pfizer, the other mRNA vaccine. The only real difference between the two being the lipid envelope.
replied 1369d
Thats what I mean, 95% claimed is RRR, you dont understand the difference
So what is your honest source for ARR?
replied 1369d
RRR and ARR are absolutely irrelevant. Its dishonest to even try to pretend I was confusing anything.
replied 1369d
It was approved finally because of the pandemic, and it's effectiveness. So people have low side effect rates, and are protected from a virus with high transmission rates.


About Privacy Terms Stats