Most people in the USA are choosing to get the COVID vaccine?

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
A lot of people have been vaccinated now. Seems to me, this gives rise to quite a lot of evidence that wasn't available several months ago. So people who had views based on concerns about vaccine safety six or so months ago, can now revise their views based on current data.

Amongst the current empirical evidence seems to be that there have been a small number of serious adverse events after vaccinations, and at the same time, the death rate from COVID-19 has gone down very significantly in those countries where a large portion of the population have taken advantage of access to vaccines.

If some people see this as evidence to support vaccination being a reasonable choice, I don't think they should be called crazy, or hoodwinked, or uninformed, etc - that would be rude. However you personally assess the available evidence, and your personal feelings about vaccination in general or about these specific vaccines, it is a reasonable response to the available evidence to consider getting vaccinated.


Is your point that if intelligent people are mostly doing it, it would be smart to follow the less intelligent ones who are doing the opposite? Interesting version of anti-intellectualism.

I'm in favour of supporting people to have good health status, so as to be more resilient wrt all sorts of hazards.
More than 0.1% of the US population has died of COVID-19 in the last year or so, and I assume that not everyone has yet been exposed.
Not all of them thought they were vulnerable due to compromised health status.

I am in favour of addressing other serious health issues too. However, it is deflection to use them as a reason to not address COVID-19.

There are people vulnerable to baseless conspiracy theories and immune to evidence on both 'left' and 'right'. Funny that you lump together the 'CIA propaganda' and 'left-wing b.s.', as though they would be aligned.


It is not helpful to treat obesity as an individual choice-based condition. There is plenty of evidence that there are multiple factors contributing to health status, and not all of them are straightforwardly under personal control. People don't generally make a deliberate choice to have poor vit-D status, either.
What about the sudden shift by the WHO about the time the vaccines were widely rolling out and Biden was inaugurated to reduce the cycles in the PCR tests from 45 to 30? That most definitely reduced the number of cases. My bet it was more impactful than the vaccines.
 

Nemo

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
2,163
A lot of people have been vaccinated now. Seems to me, this gives rise to quite a lot of evidence that wasn't available several months ago. So people who had views based on concerns about vaccine safety six or so months ago, can now revise their views based on current data.

Amongst the current empirical evidence seems to be that there have been a small number of serious adverse events after vaccinations, and at the same time, the death rate from COVID-19 has gone down very significantly in those countries where a large portion of the population have taken advantage of access to vaccines.

If some people see this as evidence to support vaccination being a reasonable choice, I don't think they should be called crazy, or hoodwinked, or uninformed, etc - that would be rude. However you personally assess the available evidence, and your personal feelings about vaccination in general or about these specific vaccines, it is a reasonable response to the available evidence to consider getting vaccinated.


Is your point that if intelligent people are mostly doing it, it would be smart to follow the less intelligent ones who are doing the opposite? Interesting version of anti-intellectualism.

I'm in favour of supporting people to have good health status, so as to be more resilient wrt all sorts of hazards.
More than 0.1% of the US population has died of COVID-19 in the last year or so, and I assume that not everyone has yet been exposed.
Not all of them thought they were vulnerable due to compromised health status.

I am in favour of addressing other serious health issues too. However, it is deflection to use them as a reason to not address COVID-19.

There are people vulnerable to baseless conspiracy theories and immune to evidence on both 'left' and 'right'. Funny that you lump together the 'CIA propaganda' and 'left-wing b.s.', as though they would be aligned.


It is not helpful to treat obesity as an individual choice-based condition. There is plenty of evidence that there are multiple factors contributing to health status, and not all of them are straightforwardly under personal control. People don't generally make a deliberate choice to have poor vit-D status, either.

Tara, I'm sorry, honey, but you are insane.

You are a zombie and I don't want to be anywhere near you EVER. Even your posts feel dangerous, like they might blind me.

This video describes you well:


View: https://rumble.com/vfwv7z-nurse-warns-stay-away-from-vaxxed-people.html
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I am in favour of addressing other serious health issues too. However, it is deflection to use them as a reason to not address COVID-19.

Clearly, you aren't in favor of addressing them.... at least relative to the risk they present.

COVID is associated (not causal) in only 2 Million deaths in 2020. Cancer, meanwhile, was causal in 10 Million. There should have been at least 5x as much coverage of the Cancer Pandemic (since it's a Pandemic, by definition) as there was on COVID. And about 9x as much coverage on the Heart Disease Pandemic, considering is caused 18 Million deaths. And since there is a Cancer and Heart Disease Pandemic EVERY year, over the last decade, you have 100 Million Cancer Deaths and 170 Million or so Heart Disease Deaths,

By these facts, COVID coverage should have been limited to 2.5% or less of Health News Coverage, relative to the risk it presents.

I would restate it, saying COVID is a deflection from those 28 Million deaths. Along with a cover story for other issues in the world, like giant mega corps destroying small businesses, and governments running mass scale medical experiments on their citizens.

There is simply no way to spin that 2 Million is a bigger number than 10 Million or 17 Million or 100 Million or 170 Million. Not if you understand basic math.

You're the one who is constantly deflecting, ignoring facts, numbers, and studies, and never backing up your assertions with anything.
 

mostlylurking

Member
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,078
Location
Texas
Is your point that if intelligent people are mostly doing it, it would be smart to follow the less intelligent ones who are doing the opposite? Interesting version of anti-intellectualism.
I have noticed that a lot of the people that I know who have high I.Q.s have gotten the injection. I believe that for some reason these people have lost their ability to think critically. Maybe they were always deficient when it came to critical thinking and I didn't notice when we went through high school together. Or, perhaps these high functioning brains have been damaged over the years due to a sub-optimal diet, leaving these people more vulnerable when having to make a decision for themselves.

High I.Q. does not protect you from horrible decisions if you are deficient in common sense.

It is absolutely necessary to do your own research and not rely on your physician to make the decision for you regarding this injection. Like Danny Roddy said, "Don't outsource your healthcare".
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
It strikes me as odd that some people are more frightened of someone who might get vaccinated, or that might refer to readily available obvious sources of information, than of infection with COVID-19. But I guess fear is like that - we don't always feel most fear for the things that are most dangerous.

COVID is a deflection from those 28 Million deaths
I'm not stopping you or anyone starting a thread for any of the other causes of mortality.
They are not all so infectious, or new, so there is that.

"Don't outsource your healthcare"
I agree with this.
I think it's generally good if people to do what they can to be learn, think about and take care of their own health, and I aim to do the same. That includes attending to the evidence, such as the effects of COVID-19 vaccinations. As far as I can see, on current data these appear to indicate a reduction in illness and mortality. It might sometimes include getting opinions from medical professionals, too.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I'm not stopping you or anyone starting a thread for any of the other causes of mortality.
They are not all so infectious, or new, so there is that.

And there's zero proof that COVID is infectious or new, either. "Newly Discovered Virus" doesn't mean "New Virus."

Here's a thread showing that several samples from prior to December 2019 tested Positive for COVID, some of them as early as March 2019-


Maybe it was decades or centuries earlier. Who knows?
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
"Newly Discovered Virus" doesn't mean "New Virus."
I'll rephrase: "newly identified". Could have been circulating in smaller numbers in human population for a little while before discovery. I'd be surprised if it were decades or more.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I'll rephrase: "newly identified". Could have been circulating in smaller numbers in human population for a little while before discovery. I'd be surprised if it were decades or more.

Why would you be "surprised?" No one knows how many unidentified viruses are out there. Could be hundreds of thousands, could be millions, billions, or trillions upon trillions.

If you meet a new person, do you assume that person was born just days before?

If you pick up a grain of sand on the beach, do you assume it washed ashore that day?

The late, great Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, is on record stating that the HIV virus is older than The United States of America.

Do you really think the COVID virus showed up in countries right as they started testing for it?
 

mostlylurking

Member
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,078
Location
Texas
...the effects of COVID-19 vaccinations. As far as I can see, on current data these appear to indicate a reduction in illness and mortality. It might sometimes include getting opinions from medical professionals, too.
If you are coming up with that conclusion you have not adequately researched the evidence.

Here is a video for your consideration: world-renown German-Thai-American microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi warns that the COVID hysteria is based on lies and that the COVID “vaccines” are set to cause a global catastrophe and a decimation of the human population.

Another excellent video here: COVID Shot Killing Large Numbers, Warns Top COVID Doc Peter McCullough - The New American

In addition, here is a link to a compilation (with multiple links to evidence): "Statements in this site are substantiated with facts that will stand in a court of law. Informed Consent requires a flow of information. Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents." No Jab For Me

If after watching the videos and evaluating the evidence at the link above you still think it is a good idea to allow someone to inject you with a mystery concoction, then by all means, suit yourself.
 
Last edited:
OP
Mito

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
If after watching the videos and evaluating the evidence at the link above you still think it is a good idea to allow someone to inject you with a mystery concoction, then by all means, suit yourself.
“The mRNA jab delivers a synthetic, inorganic molecule (medical device) that programs your cells to synthesize pathogens in the form of the spike protein that your immune system will constantly have to fight off for the rest of your life, according to experts such as Molecular Biologist & Immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill. She explains. Fauci confirms. Dr. Lee Merritt reconfirms.”

Are you aware of any follow up studies with people that received the mRNA vaccine actually producing these spike proteins indefinitely? My understanding is that this is a theoretical possibility that has been shown in some experiments to be a possibility. Haidut mentioned in one of the Danny Roddy podcasts that Nobel award winning virologist Luc Montagnier estimated this could happen in up to 10 to 15% of people that get the mRNA vaccine. Others (No, Really, mRNA Vaccines Are Not Going To Affect Your DNA — Deplatform Disease) argue it will not happen in humans. Do we know who is right yet? Any human evidence?
 

mostlylurking

Member
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,078
Location
Texas
“The mRNA jab delivers a synthetic, inorganic molecule (medical device) that programs your cells to synthesize pathogens in the form of the spike protein that your immune system will constantly have to fight off for the rest of your life, according to experts such as Molecular Biologist & Immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill. She explains. Fauci confirms. Dr. Lee Merritt reconfirms.”

Are you aware of any follow up studies with people that received the mRNA vaccine actually producing these spike proteins indefinitely? My understanding is that this is a theoretical possibility that has been shown in some experiments to be a possibility. Haidut mentioned in one of the Danny Roddy podcasts that Nobel award winning virologist Luc Montagnier estimated this could happen in up to 10 to 15% of people that get the mRNA vaccine. Others (No, Really, mRNA Vaccines Are Not Going To Affect Your DNA — Deplatform Disease) argue it will not happen in humans. Do we know who is right yet? Any human evidence?
The medical industrial complex is busily running that test right now; physicians are recruiting volunteers for the study as fast as they can! The results should be determined in less than 18 months.

I read the article at your link (well, some of it) and Edward Nirenberg sure has convinced himself, that's for sure, and he declares at the end that he will roll up his sleeve for the mRNA "vaccine". Great. I'm still not going to do it. Just look at the animal studies for the SARS and MERS mRNA studies. Ask yourself why they skipped doing the animal studies this time.
 
Last edited:

Nemo

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
2,163
Clearly, you aren't in favor of addressing them.... at least relative to the risk they present.

COVID is associated (not causal) in only 2 Million deaths in 2020. Cancer, meanwhile, was causal in 10 Million. There should have been at least 5x as much coverage of the Cancer Pandemic (since it's a Pandemic, by definition) as there was on COVID. And about 9x as much coverage on the Heart Disease Pandemic, considering is caused 18 Million deaths. And since there is a Cancer and Heart Disease Pandemic EVERY year, over the last decade, you have 100 Million Cancer Deaths and 170 Million or so Heart Disease Deaths,

By these facts, COVID coverage should have been limited to 2.5% or less of Health News Coverage, relative to the risk it presents.

I would restate it, saying COVID is a deflection from those 28 Million deaths. Along with a cover story for other issues in the world, like giant mega corps destroying small businesses, and governments running mass scale medical experiments on their citizens.

There is simply no way to spin that 2 Million is a bigger number than 10 Million or 17 Million or 100 Million or 170 Million. Not if you understand basic math.

You're the one who is constantly deflecting, ignoring facts, numbers, and studies, and never backing up your assertions with anything.

I am convinced tara is a paid propaganda troll who was deployed to these forums because we were praising CO2.

No one is really that dumb.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
because we were praising CO2.
Huh?
CO2 is wonderful, essential for life, crucial to many physiological processes for humans and other species, etc, etc. Perhaps you haven't read my posts on the subject.

It may even be relevant in some part of discussion of treatment or mitigation of COVID-19 illness, but I don't know enough to comment on that.
 

Austin Resch

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
101
I'm in favour of supporting people to have good health status, so as to be more resilient wrt all sorts of hazards.
More than 0.1% of the US population has died of COVID-19 in the last year or so, and I assume that not everyone has yet been exposed.
Not all of them thought they were vulnerable due to compromised health status.

I am in favour of addressing other serious health issues too. However, it is deflection to use them as a reason to not address COVID-19.


It is not helpful to treat obesity as an individual choice-based condition. There is plenty of evidence that there are multiple factors contributing to health status, and not all of them are straightforwardly under personal control. People don't generally make a deliberate choice to have poor vit-D status, either.
I am having difficulty in understanding the rational to your position.

While you acknowledge that you are in favor of addressing serious health issues, I would imagine that would include the cardiometabolic (heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, etc.) spectrum disorders? You elaborate that there is evidence to suggest health status is reliant on numerous factors, which seems paradoxical since subscribing to the vaccine and lockdown narrative often result in individuals thinking they have done enough, and prevents them from the opportunity to undertake other lifestyle behaviors which actually would have drastically beneficial outcomes, are low risk and inexpensive.

The are over 50 trials on the effectiveness of ivermectin (IVM) on covid, and many more studies/trials historically which are substantially more significant than a 6month of very arbitrary results, at best, for the vaccine. in fact, there was a noble prize granted for the success of IVM in 2015. In Australia, for example, around 60% of prescriptions are for "off-labe;" usage, so it is in fact very common for things to be prescribed for reasons other than the 1-2 intended purposes. I am inclined to think that a medication/drug would actually very good if it can be used for multiple reasons, has years of safety data, and the trials for it were not performed by the pharma company selling it (massive conflict of interest)?

Even if the vaccine is as good as you believe it is, what would be the rationale for all media outlets suppressing the use of IVM for early and late stage covid, even though there is significantly more favourable data available for it? It just doesn't seem to add up, especially from a cost perspective. IVMs formulation is not patentable, and so would be incredibly inexpensive to produce at large scale, store, distribute, etc., in fact its already in just about every pharmacy, incredibly accessible... what would be the logic in discouraging its usage, while as you mentioned so many people were allowed to die since according to you the vaccines work so well and so the only solution was to patiently wait for 1yr for the FDAs Emergency Use Authorization to allow the phase 4 trial into the public? Seems like a whole lot more could of been achieved in that 1yr period if finances were allocated to other things instead of billions for vaccines marketing and trials?
 

J.R.K

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
1,836
I am having difficulty in understanding the rational to your position.

While you acknowledge that you are in favor of addressing serious health issues, I would imagine that would include the cardiometabolic (heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, etc.) spectrum disorders? You elaborate that there is evidence to suggest health status is reliant on numerous factors, which seems paradoxical since subscribing to the vaccine and lockdown narrative often result in individuals thinking they have done enough, and prevents them from the opportunity to undertake other lifestyle behaviors which actually would have drastically beneficial outcomes, are low risk and inexpensive.

The are over 50 trials on the effectiveness of ivermectin (IVM) on covid, and many more studies/trials historically which are substantially more significant than a 6month of very arbitrary results, at best, for the vaccine. in fact, there was a noble prize granted for the success of IVM in 2015. In Australia, for example, around 60% of prescriptions are for "off-labe;" usage, so it is in fact very common for things to be prescribed for reasons other than the 1-2 intended purposes. I am inclined to think that a medication/drug would actually very good if it can be used for multiple reasons, has years of safety data, and the trials for it were not performed by the pharma company selling it (massive conflict of interest)?

Even if the vaccine is as good as you believe it is, what would be the rationale for all media outlets suppressing the use of IVM for early and late stage covid, even though there is significantly more favourable data available for it? It just doesn't seem to add up, especially from a cost perspective. IVMs formulation is not patentable, and so would be incredibly inexpensive to produce at large scale, store, distribute, etc., in fact its already in just about every pharmacy, incredibly accessible... what would be the logic in discouraging its usage, while as you mentioned so many people were allowed to die since according to you the vaccines work so well and so the only solution was to patiently wait for 1yr for the FDAs Emergency Use Authorization to allow the phase 4 trial into the public? Seems like a whole lot more could of been achieved in that 1yr period if finances were allocated to other things instead of billions for vaccines marketing and trials?
All very good questions and observations @Austin Resch. Queries that I would like to know the answers to.
Pardon my lack of knowledge on this but what is Ivermectin’s method of action on COVID-19, is it anti viral, or is it an anti inflammatory that allows the the cytokine storm to subside and allow the bodies immune system to deal with the infected cells, and the viral load?
Any light on this would be much appreciated.
 
OP
Mito

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
Pardon my lack of knowledge on this but what is Ivermectin’s method of action on COVID-19, is it anti viral, or is it an anti inflammatory that allows the the cytokine storm to subside and allow the bodies immune system to deal with the infected cells, and the viral load?
Any light on this would be much appreciated.
 

J.R.K

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
1,836
Thank you Mito this is very helpful.
If I am understanding this correctly if you use glycine or collagen you can achieve very similar results, verifying @haidut’s blog post that glycine is effective in preventing all viral infection in that it prevents the virus from forming a capscid thus when it breaks out of the cell it is very quickly recognized by the T cells and quickly dispatched. But in the event one were to come down with COVID-19 Ivermectin would enhance or provide support to this effect thereby quieting the cytokine storm and allowing the immune system to take over and do its job.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,648
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
Amongst the current empirical evidence seems to be that there have been a small number of serious adverse events after vaccinations, and at the same time, the death rate from COVID-19 has gone down very significantly in those countries where a large portion of the population have taken advantage of access to vaccines.
That would happen even if there is no COVID-19 virus, and the vaccine doubles mortality in people who take it. This is because the test used to diagnose covid produces mostly false positives, and because people who have been vaccinated are assumed not to have the virus.
 

Austin Resch

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
101
A lot of people have been vaccinated now. Seems to me, this gives rise to quite a lot of evidence that wasn't available several months ago. So people who had views based on concerns about vaccine safety six or so months ago, can now revise their views based on current data.

Amongst the current empirical evidence seems to be that there have been a small number of serious adverse events after vaccinations, and at the same time, the death rate from COVID-19 has gone down very significantly in those countries where a large portion of the population have taken advantage of access to vaccines.
1619885338797.png


I am again curious as to how you came to the conclusion that increased vaccination has produced any significant decrease in death rate?

In most countries that have adopted mass deployment of the experimental gene therapy injection, they have simultaneously changed the guidelines for the PCR diagnostic test. Before vaccination, they were performed at upwards of 35-40Ct (producing an artificial high rate of false positives, around 90-97% false), whereas after jab rollout it is being performed at ~28Ct, inevitably leading to a significant drop in reported cases and deaths, independently of vaccination status.

Even in areas where the drastic change (not covered by the media) in diagnostic test methodology has not yet been largely implemented, these areas are seeing the opposite of what you are claiming, as can be seen in the image above.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
In most countries that have adopted mass deployment of the experimental gene therapy injection, they have simultaneously changed the guidelines for the PCR diagnostic test. Before vaccination, they were performed at upwards of 35-40Ct (producing an artificial high rate of false positives, around 90-97% false), whereas after jab rollout it is being performed at ~28Ct, inevitably leading to a significant drop in reported cases and deaths, independently of vaccination status.

Between CT 38 and CT 28 you have the factor 1,024. So the tests were about thousand times more sensitive before.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom