Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


Recommended Posts

Does no one else think it's insane this gene therapy is being pushed so hard?  Feels creepy.  It's never been done before (mRNA vaccine) but researched for at least a decade.  But now it's good?  34 deaths out of 222k cases is what I'm tracking for the military (5).  If I do the very rough math as an 11F, getting COVID is about the same mortality risk as flying 100 fighter hours. (1 is public, but your safety office has the same data if you're interested for your MWS)

No one has any idea what the risk is of the mRNA gene therapy.  I mean if I drink alcohol or smoke cigars I know there is a risk with that and alcohol and tobacco have been around along enough that people have been able to figure that out.  Same with riding a motorcycle or flying jets.  Those stats exist.

I remember when I was in high school the human genome was finally sequenced and academics thought it was going to be a boon for medicine.  And here we are 20 years or so later and we really don't know how it works.  BUT we can manipulate it a little and get a first order effect.  Progress.  In the 20th century radium powered glow in the dark watches and then factory workers died of cancer.

I'm not saying that this is that.  But I am saying that no one knows that it isn't that.  Like if it takes a year off your life should you take it?  Five years?  Ten?  What's the metric?  If my odds of dying of COVID are 1:1000 and I think I'll live to 80 I should take it if (statistically) I think it's going to take leas than a month off my life.  That's like zero biological long term impact.  I hope that's the case btw for everyone who's gotten it.

As far as the transmission aspect.  A study in the Lancet (2) set the reduction in risk from getting COVID from .8% with the Pfizer shots (worst) to 1.3% Astra Zenica (best).  This doesn't address the mortality, just the transmission.  But those numbers are terrible.

My main issue is that there is no long term data set on mRNA gene therapy.  There will be in 10 or 20 years but there isn't now.  And this isn't something I am willing to bet my personal health on.  And this is for a disease that has a 99.9X survival rate for me?  Something that studies have shown that if you've had it, the vaccine provides no statistically relevant benefit (Pfizer study - still tracking down link but reference 3 for now, same conclusion).  A disease that natural immunity provides longer and 6-7x more immunity than the vaccine (Israel study - 3)

The drug companies are making BILLIONS and good for them, but the for sure have their lobbyists and what is in Pfizer's best interest is not NECESSARILY in my best interest.  If this is so safe, why are they IMMUNE from liability under federal law?  Now that it's "FDA approved" do you really think that will change? (6)

I like to read a lot and from what I've read about risk (Nassim Taleb anyone?  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") getting these shots seems to be a lot like investing in something with a very small probable very large return (not dying from COVID) but can absolutely blow up (you dying much younger).

Why are medical doctors and PHDs being silenced on social media?  Is it for public health?  Would we want to hear all professional opinions of people who spend their whole lives studying these subjects?

It's been a frustrating year for the whole world and thankfully I live in America and not Australia where COVID has transformed them into a totalitarian society. (4)

Edit citations:

1) https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2590198220300257?token=A38F0B29502CBFB9FB55366BD133C2D495D38BF73BBD6E103104738607EDBB02A07B7A51F4E964E1876F08236B6184CB&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20210827015944

2) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3cXbFe41uZYKqjESlarmBUoabpw3_w0xT54jRLmnBIRRE9NjrRESextSQ

3) https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/310963

4)

https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/rules/greater-sydney

5)

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus-DOD-Response/
 

6)https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

Edited by billy pilgrim
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


 

On 8/23/2021 at 9:51 PM, hockeydork said:

Fair enough, I'll bounce the ball back at ya:

1. Sure. But the Manhattan project was relatively small scale with a justifiable motive. To be able to annihilate the Japanese  because they were trying to annihilate us. What is the motive here of the pro vax people? Private corporations want to sell bogus vaccines (at the expense of a bunch of other corporations who have lost money over this shit show) to make money and all of the worlds governments are all "in on it"? I agree any government is capable of royally fing up and feeding horse shit to its own people. (WMD in Iraq??) But you're talking about such a massive scale here...is it possible? Sure. Likely? Not really. We make decisions based on likelihood. Could an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow and send us all to our doom? Yeaup. But are you gunna go spend every penny in your bank account on a wild night of hookers and blow because there's a .00001 percent chance you'll die  of an asteroid tomorrow?

2. Agree, the healthy you are better off you're gunna be. Not everybody gets great health tho. Some people are older, some have asthma, etc. If you are totally healthy, maybe you don't really need the shot. Cool, I get it man. Getting the shot isn't just about helping yourself, its about helping someone else who may not be able to defend against the virus. Maybe that doesn't work for you and that is fine, but why on earth would you join a branch of the armed forces?

3. Yea that's fair, I agree. But you cannot whine than when something like a cruiseline (PRIVATE company) says get a shot or no boat trip. Go start your own cruise line with no rules if you don't like it. You're anti-socialism right? If there is a demand...deliver the supply! This whole vax issue gets hairy with public school districts. Best solution IMO is to leave it up to each district to vote on it IMO, majority wins. 

4. No it's good too question, you have my backing there.  Also you don't want to be ridiculed and said you should't be made fun of for not getting a shot, but you also said you don't care about Pfizer employees feelings. Two way street than.  But this isn't about feelings. You're accusing Pfizer, Moderna and JJ employees of intentionally defrauding the American (and the world) public with a bogus shot. That's a mighty big claim. Agreed, the government has shown how bad it can be at tasks (I hear you on the Afghanistan pull out...utter disaster, and there is indisputable outrage from both sides of the aisle). But the government didn't make the shots, capitalism and the private sector did. So you don't trust the federal government, whose job it is to (even if they suck at it) to regulate private industry so stuff doesn't get out of hand...but private industry to you is entirely corrupted, a bunch of money making elitist CEOs with no morals trying to jam an necessary shot in your arm? So what is your solution? Who is it we should all be trusting instead? 

You don't feel like you need the shot so why should the an employer/cruise lines/the military be able to restrict you? I hear you, that does suck. But I also feel like I can do 90 mph more safely than half the people on the road can do 65 mph. I felt I coulda gotten my PPL at 20 hours, but the FAA made me pay to get 40. I feel fine ingesting lead paint flakes, but lead paint has been banned. 

I just don't get exactly what your problem or solution is. What policy do you actually want changed? Has anyone dragged you out of your  civilian house and jabbed you in the arm yet, like they would've in China? So the military (Federal Goverment) wants you to get it a shot and you're afraid it might harm you? What about when they shove you into Taiwan cuz some dick politician in China decide he wanted to unnecessarily invade and get a bunch of people killed for no reason...a stupid covid shot is gunna be the least of your worries, no?

 

1. I did not claim the Manhattan Project's end goal to be similar to the end goal now, however I was using its compartmentalized information control as an example of how a big entity like a corporation can do evil things while its workers are none the wiser expect for the few who have the full picture. The federal government lied about WMDs and got the U.S. along with allied nations to illegally invade a sovereign state, depose their leader, kill their people, and have ours killed, then dicked around for years getting IED'd for what? The IC to fund ISIS to take it over again? Not off topic, using this WMD example as how yes it is completely possible to not only get a corporation on board to do evil things, but the most powerful nation on the planet, if compartmentalized information is used.

2. Morals are different between people and my morals place my consent to my body's biological autonomy above the will of others. It's not that I don't care about those sick people, but my body comes first. If other peoples morals are different and they want to get "vaccinated" to "protect" others, then go ahead. This is the U.S.A. after-all, and we're about freedom right? I, along with millions of other patriots, should not be prohibited from serving in the armed forces of this nation because of a decision to not have a medical procedure done. It's not a uniform, it cannot be taken off once our service is complete. Our armed forces are supposed to support and defend the values of this nation claims to uphold.

3. I'm not anti-socialism at all. That term gets used around incorrectly as many see the political spectrum as a straight horizontal line with socialism being one step right of communism, which is incorrect. The argument that a private entity should be able to do what they want is wrong. Our nation cannot uphold its values with monopolies like it saw back in the day, not with neo-monopolies now where corporations/businesses act in lockstep to cooperatively prohibit a certain class of people from accessing accommodations. That is discrimination for a medical reason, which has been illegal for a long time. It's also unrealistic to expect (and condone such treatment) that an individual must build their own x,y,z to participate in society when they are being completely shut out of society because of their differing political opinions, who they voted for, or a medical procedure.

4. When I say I don't care about their feelings I do not mean that with malice. I mean I am neutral; I'm not going to hold back my words in the hopes that it does not maybe cause someone's feelings to be hurt. Yes I do not trust the federal government and neither should you. The founding fathers knew this too. For instance now, the FDA "approved" this Corminaty (spelling?) without the public commentary period they're supposed to have with drug approvals, AND... ding ding ding... the clinical TRIALS are still going to be happening until spring 2023. I don't care how they spin it, this drug is not going to be considered approved by the courts. The FDA is going to soon be in a world of pain legally speaking, and I don't think their approved opioid pills will help their pain (metaphorically speaking!) Look at all the drugs the FDA has approved in the past they later yanked, to include vaccines like Gardasil and that was a few years ago. It's hard to even differentiate between private and public sector anymore though, with a commissioner for the FDA now on the Pfizer board of directors for instance.

My solution is for the various states to reassert their U.S. Constitution's 10th amendment right and reign in the tyranny to keep this union together by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws/mandates/"approvals". Our founding fathers knew this, and used it too. See Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 for some great reading! Remove the lobbying, there MUST be public hearings prior to approval, bring ethics to medicine. Lofty goals I know... but with the states starting to stand up (see Montana prohibiting employers from mandating inoculation), I'm hopeful. I love this nation, I do not love the tyranny.

I would also enjoy driving 90 if I could. Other than actually using a several trillion dollar infrastructure bill for actual infrastructure uses like to make a supercool U.S. autobahn nationwide (huge right of ways, long sight distance, lighting, reflective paint) I don't know what we could do about the speed. hah!

No one has dragged us out yet, but friend... Australia this last week has seized 24,000 children and placed them into a detention facility to forcibly inoculate them. This isn't China, this isn't Iran. This is a western civilization built nation that speaks our same language and has a shared culture. Arguably, Australia is our nation's best ally, and they're doing THAT kind of evil. The only difference is, they gave up their guns in the 1990s buybacks.... Don't think this kind of tyranny is that far off from us. It's only a pen-stroke and a few yes men at the top away....

If we're sent to a military operation, yes I'm going. That's different than a forcible medical procedure that can have life-long effects long after I take the uniform off. We signed up to defend, not be lab rats. In no good conscience could one actually think that. I think I addressed everything you asked? I enjoyed your responses! 

BuildYourOwnGovernment.jpg

Edited by dogfish78
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

We’ll, for one, it’s not “gene therapy”. I’m sorry you wrote so many words that are now moot because you started off with a completely bunk assumption. 

Okay what definition are you using?  Transmits mRNA into your cell (like mRNA viruses do? Because it 100% does)  Alter the host DNA sequence? (The COVID shots shouldn't do this from what I understand - but the whole DNA transcription process is so complex... viral DNA ended up in our human genome - 1).  I'm just saying that I don't have your level of confidence that we as a species have this all completely figured out yet.  So let's not bog on semantics.

And you just leave it at that and don't want to talk about any of the other points?  It's a lazy rebuttal.

I'm curious because I want to know, I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this.  And unfortunately I am just getting a single narrative.
 

edit - citation:

1) https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/

 

Edited by billy pilgrim
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

We’ll, for one, it’s not “gene therapy”. I’m sorry you wrote so many words that are now moot because you started off with a completely bunk assumption. 

Let's consider it is not gene therapy, why would that make his entire argument moot? I disagree.

I know it is at least a genetic editing drug (or a therapy drug depending on the context, but I'm not sure). It edits your genes to produce a response. I think the therapy word comes from how the mRNA technology was originally intended to be a "therapy" for cancer treatment, but ended up failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, billy pilgrim said:

Does no one else think it's insane this gene therapy is being pushed so hard?  Feels creepy.  It's never been done before (mRNA vaccine) but researched for at least a decade.  But now it's good?  34 deaths out of 222k cases is what I'm tracking for the military.  If I do the very rough math as an 11F, getting COVID is about the same mortality risk as flying 100 fighter hours.

No one has any idea what the risk is of the mRNA gene therapy.  I mean if I drink alcohol or smoke cigars I know there is a risk with that and alcohol and tobacco have been around along enough that people have been able to figure that out.  Same with riding a motorcycle or flying jets.  Those stats exist.

I remember when I was in high school the human genome was finally sequenced and academics thought it was going to be a boon for medicine.  And here we are 20 years or so later and we really don't know how it works.  BUT we can manipulate it a little and get a first order effect.  Progress.  In the 20th century radium powered glow in the dark watches and then factory workers died of cancer.

I'm not saying that this is that.  But I am saying that no one knows that it isn't that.  Like if it takes a year off your life should you take it?  Five years?  Ten?  What's the metric?  If my odds of dying of COVID are 1:1000 and I think I'll live to 80 I should take it if (statistically) I think it's going to take leas than a month off my life.  That's like zero biological long term impact.  I hope that's the case btw for everyone who's gotten it.

As far as the transmission aspect.  A study in the Lancet set the reduction in risk from getting COVID from .8% with the Pfizer shots (worst) to 1.3% Astra Zenica (best).  This doesn't address the mortality, just the transmission.  But those numbers are terrible.

My main issue is that there is no long term data set on mRNA gene therapy.  There will be in 10 or 20 years but there isn't now.  And this isn't something I am willing to bet my personal health on.  And this is for a disease that has a 99.9X survival rate for me?  Something that studies have shown that if you've had it, the vaccine provides no statistically relevant benefit (Pfizer study).  A disease that natural immunity provides longer and 6-7x more immunity than the vaccine (Israel study).

The drug companies are making BILLIONS and good for them, but the for sure have their lobbyists and what is in Pfizer's best interest is not NECESSARILY in my best interest.  If this is so safe, why are they IMMUNE from liability under federal law?  Now that it's "FDA approved" do you really think that will change?

I like to read a lot and from what I've read about risk (Nassim Taleb anyone?  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") getting these shots seems to be a lot like investing in something with a very small probable very large return (not dying from COVID) but can absolutely blow up (you dying much younger).

Why are medical doctors and PHDs being silenced on social media?  Is it for public health?  Would we want to hear all professional opinions of people who spend their whole lives studying these subjects?

It's been a frustrating year for the whole world and thankfully I live in America and not Australia where COVID has transformed them into a totalitarian society.

Took the words out of my keyboard @billy pilgrim God bless you. This is EXACTLY the information we are trying to even SPEAK about without being silenced. We're told we're "anti-science"..... we make a living flying highly sophisticated/engineered metal tubes through the AIR 😑 I think we are some of the most FAITHFUL in how science that led to that ability. Real science. No not "scientism". No not the kind of science where the Sackler family funds a study to have the study find that taking more opioids is good for you. The scientific method is what I'm talking about. The critics know this, but they know how effective using language is in their war, because they cannot win on ideas, but they can win when they change what words they use to describe their ideas.

Edited by dogfish78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, billy pilgrim said:

Okay what definition are you using?  Transmits mRNA into your cell (like mRNA viruses do? Because it 100% does)  Alter the host DNA sequence? (The COVID shots shouldn't do this from what I understand - but the whole DNA transcription process is so complex... viral DNA ended up in our human genome).  I'm just saying that I don't have your level of confidence that we as a species have this all completely figured out yet.  So let's not bog on semantics.

And you just leave it at that and don't want to talk about any of the other points?  It's a lazy rebuttal.

I'm curious because I want to know, I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this.  And unfortunately I am just getting a single narrative.

Fair ‘nuff. Here’s a well written & easy to digest article:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy

For the vaccines to alter a person's genes, Offit explains, the mRNA instructions would have to enter the cell's control center, the nucleus. The nucleus is walled off from the rest of the cell by its own membrane. To get past that membrane, the mRNA would have to have an enzyme called a nuclear access signal, Offit says, "which it doesn't have."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@hockeydork For instance, here's a drug prescribed to pregnant women back in the day that was FDA approved and ending up messing up a LOOOOT of children. This skepticism led to its removal. We have to return to this level of skepticism. As @billy pilgrim mentioned, this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No physician can look you in the eye and tell you these mRNA covid drugs won't cause long-term problems or reproductive issues; and if a physician does do just that they are full of sh*t and Pfizer money!. Has there been a study yet on children born after this stuff yet?? No, I mean a real study. One where the control group isn't vaccinated themselves (which is what Pfizer did.....). Normally yes we could probably trust the FDA/CDC with a healthy dose of skepticism in the mix as we research and read the data ourselves and listen to dissenting physicians and others. The problem is, ALL of those safety/checks & balance procedures got thrown out the window during Operation Warp Speed. (BIG screw up by Trump). So we have to be immensely critical, but they want to silence dissenting opinion which only emboldens us against them. Tyrants never learn.

Frances O. Kelsey had more balls than the FDA/CDC/DOD brass have combined today.

2FAFBEBA-BAA4-4E38-9970-E287C9598F41.jpeg

Edited by dogfish78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Darth said:

Everyone knows someone who knows someone.......

While yes we should look to scientific evidence over anecdote in a perfect world, what can we expect skeptical people to do when they're silenced on the media, threatened to lose their jobs and medical practice licenses, and so on? We cannot discount our intuition and anecdotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/23/2021 at 10:17 PM, Pooter said:

Yes you are reading it entirely wrong.  It is now fully approved for people 16 and older, and still under emergency use authorization for ages 12-15.  There are multiple other cases for which the emergency use authorization still applies like administering a third dose for immunocompromised people. The emergency use auth doesn't magically disappear entirely because there are still untested age and vulnerability demographics.

But I'm sure you understand the FDA legalese better than.. the FDA, whose front page of their website literally says it was fully approved, today.  They also go on to say:

The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product"

 

But of course we already know that this isn't good enough for you.  Because nothing will ever be.  Yesterday it was "I'm waiting on full FDA approval" and tomorrow it'll be "Well the FDA is probably funded by george soros so who can trust them."  

The gene editing drug is still in clinical trials until spring 2023 despite "approval". Pfizer messed up and gave the control group was given the drug during the study. Not much of a control group eh? A former FDA commissioner sits on Pfizer's board. A board member of Thompson-Reuters (who runs the Reuters media agency, which routinely reports no qualms about the Pfizer drug) sits on the Pfizer board of directors. At some point, one has to come to terms with Occam's razor prevails here. The public commentary period prior to previous FDA drug approvals was revoked for this drug. The usual safeguards and testing requirements for drugs were revoked for manufacturing this genetic editing drug under Operation Warp Speed (big Trump failure here). I, along with hundreds of millions of people, are incredibly skeptical of this drug and of the corrupt/unethical government/corporations (what's the difference anymore?) that are pushing it. I urge you to watch this recent approximate 10 minute C-SPAN video of a physician speaking about Ivermectin, how cheap it is, and how wildly effective it is against covid AND as a prophylaxis along with decades of proven safe human research.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4930160/user-clip-dr-pierre-kory-senate-hearing-ivermectin-100-cure-covid-19

Edited by dogfish78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Fair ‘nuff. Here’s a well written & easy to digest article:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy

For the vaccines to alter a person's genes, Offit explains, the mRNA instructions would have to enter the cell's control center, the nucleus. The nucleus is walled off from the rest of the cell by its own membrane. To get past that membrane, the mRNA would have to have an enzyme called a nuclear access signal, Offit says, "which it doesn't have."

Yeah, I agree some of what he has to say but not his conclusions.  The issue I see is that these enzymes that he's talking about aren't in the vaccine but they could very well be present in your cells - your cell made them etc...  see link below how mRNA can interact with your genome.

Maybe it's a very small probability that something gets messed up in those processes - and it hopefully won't because nature is redundant* and awesome.  But it is also an extremely complex process and not well understood.

Now multiply that (unknown now) small probability by thousands(?) of cells in your body affected by billions of people who take this and bad things are going to happen.  Maybe not to you, maybe not right now, but there is not zero risk.  That is a ridiculous conclusion.

The question is are the personal gains worth the risk?  Are the community gains worth the risk?  I don't know.

Who gets to make that choice?  You? The government?  Your employer?

Cheers.

*on a species level - which some of the time sucks for the individual.

edit for citation, clarification:

https://www.quora.com/Can-messenger-RNA-ever-enter-the-nucleus?share=1

 

 

Edited by billy pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

 No not the kind of science where the Sackler family funds a study to have the study find that taking more opioids is good for you. 

Now here, I am onboard. Having known good people who have succumbed to this by getting hooked on pain killers after accidents.

Let me ask you this tho...what is the point of the government? In an over simplified view...is it not to TRY (key word) to make decisions for the good of the whole? We KNOW cigarettes are bad. They serve no secondary purpose like other hot button items (a.k.a guns to keep an over reaching government in check...I'm pro gun btw). Would you endorse the federal government banning these? I want a Yes or no. Ban them, your restricting the rights of citizens to enjoy a smoke= people picketing that the government has over stepped its boundaries. Don't ban them, you're letting the corporations/elitist CEOs you speak of bend over a bunch of people with a harmful product that they tried to sell as not harmful for years, and is highly addictive to people who try it.

I get your talking points. But you have to acknowledge, the government is damned if they do damned if they don't. Let's say the shot was a rush job/not properly approved, and people end up with side effects? Americans will be in the streets, picketing that the government (current administration) screwed its own people and sold them out to the corporations. 

Let's say the government takes its sweet ass time with the shot. A bunch of extra people die, COVID get's worse, mutates again, more shutdowns, overloaded hospitals.  Americans picketing in the street again how they got screwed, government is incompetent and can't get anything done.  

You could take the stance that Americans should be allowed to do what ever actions they want to themselves, so long as it does not impact others. Ok,you're body, you don't want the shot. But than any nurse/DR should have the right to refuse you treatment, their body, they don't want to be exposed to COVID virus any more than you want to be exposed to the shot. Also my insurance premiums shouldn't be higher for driving a car with an LS3, but they sure are. I get a friendly reminder every 6 months. Yours should be higher for no shot, own it and stop off loading the costs onto someone else. If you get COVID, for you it shouldn't be a big deal...just stay home and sleep it off. There nothing "wrong" with your stance. But in this world...you gotta put your money where your mouth is, or w.e your saying doesn't mean shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, billy pilgrim said:

Yeah, I agree some of what he has to say but not his conclusions.  The issue I see is that these enzymes that he's talking about aren't in the vaccine but they could very well be present in your cells - your cell made them etc...  see link below how mRNA can interact with your genome.

Maybe it's a very small probability that something gets messed up in those processes - and it hopefully won't because nature is redundant* and awesome.  But it is also an extremely complex process and not well understood.

Now multiply that (unknown now) small probability by thousands(?) of cells in your body affected by billions of people who take this and bad things are going to happen.  Maybe not to you, maybe not right now, but there is not zero risk.  That is a ridiculous conclusion.

The question is are the personal gains worth the risk?  Are the community gains worth the risk?  I don't know.

Who gets to make that choice?  You? The government?  Your employer?

Cheers.

*on a species level - which some of the time sucks for the individual.

edit for citation, clarification:

https://www.quora.com/Can-messenger-RNA-ever-enter-the-nucleus?share=1

 

 

Agree that it’s not a zero risk & that there are sticky questions that arise. Put yourself on the side of the employer for a moment though. Let’s say you run a cruise line. Is a COVID outbreak on board one of your ships not a major threat to your continued existence as a company? Shouldn’t you be able to do everything in your power to avoid that outcome? There’s also plenty of legal precedent that says an employer can require vaccination. I don’t think there’s much chance that those resisting employer mandates get their way here. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

The federal government lied about WMDs and got the U.S. along with allied nations to illegally invade a sovereign state, depose their leader, kill their people, and have ours killed, then dicked around for years getting IED'd for what? The IC to fund ISIS to take it over again? 

So as an aspiring military aviator....am I better off bailing and trying to make a difference some other way? Make a bunch of money lugging a 767 through the sky, than donate it to fosters kids or something? Is flying that F-15 jut a nasty bamboozle nowadays? This isn't like a gotcha question btw man. It's dead ass. I have talent, watching what's happend in the middle east has for sure turned most people I know away from the military. They just have no faith. I have faith in the people who make up the hammer (the military), but seeing both right and left fail miserably lately, the military can be the best in the world but it doesn't matter if a bunch of drunken fools are the ones swinging it. 

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

The argument that a private entity should be able to do what they want is wrong. O

It's not wrong, it's a product of the universe and an unavoidable paradox. A private entity is a group of people who want to do something a certain way.  It is hard to say "people need to be free to do whatever they want"....but a private entity..which is just "people"....can't. Imperfect world unfortunately, 

 

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

Yes I do not trust the federal government and neither should you. The founding fathers knew this too.

 

Okay, this is almost worth its own thread. I personally am a fan of a much larger state militia/national guard model rather than a large active duty force. I think it produces a much more rounded decision maker, since their paycheck isn't solely determined by "war/preparing for war". It also engages more everyday citizens with the military. IMO most people I know don't know or really care about Afghanistan, what were doing, etc. Just want to mow the lawn, scroll through their feed and light the grill. 

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

Remove the lobbying, there MUST be public hearings prior to approval, bring ethics to medicine. Lofty goals I know... but with the states starting to stand up (see Montana prohibiting employers from mandating inoculation), I'm hopeful. I love this nation, I do not love the tyranny.

I do not think lobbying has any place in government. I would argue it is the root cause of our governments continued inability to function efficiently, to the point where a strong central state like China is going to be able to out hustle us very soon, even if it costs their own people in the long term. 

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

I would also enjoy driving 90 if I could. Other than actually using a several trillion dollar infrastructure bill for actual infrastructure uses like to make a supercool U.S. autobahn nationwide (huge right of ways, long sight distance, lighting, reflective paint) I don't know what we could do about the speed. hah!

Let's build it. 

 

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

 The only difference is, they gave up their guns in the 1990s buybacks.... Don't think this kind of tyranny is that far off from us. It's only a pen-stroke and a few yes men at the top away....

Concur. Giving up guns is a short term gain (less shootings/homicide) but a VERY large long term loss. The American citizen should ALWAYS have a way to resist the government. If the government over steps enough and enough people revolt, the people will always maintain power. This only works however with a population that remains educated. A bunch of ignorant people with guns can be quite counterproductive. Also....imagine if the Chinese invaded us tomorrow...the amount of resistance the every day citizen could generate even if our military was defeated would be a real thorn...

 

2 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

If we're sent to a military operation, yes I'm going. That's different than a forcible medical procedure that can have life-long effects long after I take the uniform off. We signed up to defend, not be lab rats. In no good conscience could one actually think that. I think I addressed everything you asked? I enjoyed your responses! 

 

And I appreciate that. Back at ya, its sound stupid/corny, but not enough Americans engage with other people who may not think like them. IMO that is what is driving our struggles. It isn't left/right. There shouldn't be a left/right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

@hockeydork For instance, here's a drug prescribed to pregnant women back in the day that was FDA approved and ending up messing up a LOOOOT of children. This skepticism led to its removal. We have to return to this level of skepticism. As @billy pilgrim mentioned, this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No physician can look you in the eye and tell you these mRNA covid drugs won't cause long-term problems or reproductive issues; and if a physician does do just that they are full of sh*t and Pfizer money!. Has there been a study yet on children born after this stuff yet?? No, I mean a real study. One where the control group isn't vaccinated themselves (which is what Pfizer did.....). Normally yes we could probably trust the FDA/CDC with a healthy dose of skepticism in the mix as we research and read the data ourselves and listen to dissenting physicians and others. The problem is, ALL of those safety/checks & balance procedures got thrown out the window during Operation Warp Speed. (BIG screw up by Trump). So we have to be immensely critical, but they want to silence dissenting opinion which only emboldens us against them. Tyrants never learn.

Frances O. Kelsey had more balls than the FDA/CDC/DOD brass have combined today.

Posting an image with text in it that directly refutes the information in a paragraph you just wrote is a new level of stupidity...and for you to reach new levels is not an easy feat.

Kelsey was FDA "brass".  The Thalidomide saga is a resounding success story for the organization and by extension all governmental health services in this country.  The FDA is often derided for being too slow and conservative when deciding on approval of new technologies, but the benefit of their glacial pace is avoiding circumstances like the Thalidomide debacle, which they did. 

A LOOOOT of children were messed up by Thalidomide in Europe.  The U.S. was largely spared because of the FDA.  A small number of children were impacted in the U.S. by unregulated clinical trials of the drug, and following that, more restrictions were put on clinical testing to require FDA oversight so that it could be avoided in the future. 

Thalidomide was eventually approved by the FDA for treatment of serious ailments in adults that can consent to its use with full knowledge of its side effects.  It was not approved when it caused widespread harm to unsuspecting mothers and their children.

Your anecdote can only serve as evidence for why you should have great faith in something that has made it through the FDA approval process.  The exact opposite of the point you thought you were making.  Brilliantly stupid. 

To be clear: this occurs in every one of your posts.  If you put half as much energy into a good-faith effort at educating yourself as you apparently do trawling the dark corners of the internet consuming nonsense conspiracy theories that a toddler would roll their eyes at, you'd have discovered the universal cure for cancer (which is likely to be mRNA based).

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Posting an image with text in it that directly refutes the information in a paragraph you just wrote is a new level of stupidity...and for you to reach new levels is not an easy feat.

Kelsey was FDA "brass".  The Thalidomide saga is a resounding success story for the organization and by extension all governmental health services in this country.  The FDA is often derided for being too slow and conservative when deciding on approval of new technologies, but the benefit of their glacial pace is avoiding circumstances like the Thalidomide debacle, which they did. 

A LOOOOT of children were messed up by Thalidomide in Europe.  The U.S. was largely spared because of the FDA.  A small number of children were impacted in the U.S. by unregulated clinical trials of the drug, and following that, more restrictions were put on clinical testing to require FDA oversight so that it could be avoided in the future. 

Thalidomide was eventually approved by the FDA for treatment of serious ailments in adults that can consent to its use with full knowledge of its side effects.  It was not approved when it caused widespread harm to unsuspecting mothers and their children.

Your anecdote can only serve as evidence for why you should have great faith in something that has made it through the FDA approval process.  The exact opposite of the point you thought you were making.  Brilliantly stupid. 

To be clear: this occurs in every one of your posts.  If you put half as much energy into a good-faith effort at educating yourself as you apparently do trawling the dark corners of the internet consuming nonsense conspiracy theories that a toddler would roll their eyes at, you'd have discovered the universal cure for cancer (which is likely to be mRNA based).

You can't even read, but you're calling me stupid? Did you have a Pfizer blood clot in the brain when you wrote that? The point of my post was to show how things operated then as it should be with the covid drug approvals today, with skepticism coming from the FDA brass for starters; which is the exact opposite of what's happened with how the FDA has handled the covid genetic editing drug now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

You can't even read, but you're calling me stupid? Did you have a Pfizer blood clot in the brain when you wrote that? The point of my post was to show how things operated then as it should be with the covid drug approvals today, with skepticism coming from the FDA brass for starters; which is the exact opposite of what's happened with how the FDA has handled the covid genetic editing drug now.

Can I read?  Debatable, but I'd like to think "yes".

Can I read something authored by you specifically?  Well again, debatable.  But if yes, I have a hard limit of no more than two sentences as each word kills off enough brain cells that I'm not willing to compromise myself beyond than that.

So let's examine the first two sentences of your post:

21 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

For instance, here's a drug prescribed to pregnant women back in the day that was FDA approved and ending up messing up a LOOOOT of children.  This skepticism led to its removal.

Three claims made, three claims false.  Batting 1000.  No doubt lifted without thought from some cess-pool corner of the internet and regurgitated here. 

1. Thalidomide was not FDA approved.

2. Thalidomide did not impact a LOOOOT (sorry my blood clot slipped a bit) of children in the U.S. thanks to the conservative FDA process.

3. Thalidomide was not removed due to skepticism.  It didn't have to be thanks to the same conservative FDA approval process that blocked its approval then, and approved Pfizer's vaccine now.  Elsewhere Thalidomide was being purchased over-the-counter like Aspirin without any skepticism whatsoever.

A resounding success story that only lends credence to anything that has made it through the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Can I read?  Debatable, but I'd like to think "yes".

Can I read something authored by you specifically?  Well again, debatable.  But if yes, I have a hard limit of no more than two sentences as each word kills off enough brain cells that I'm not willing to compromise myself beyond than that.

So let's examine the first two sentences of your post:

Three claims made, three claims false.  Batting 1000.  No doubt lifted without thought from some cess-pool corner of the internet and regurgitated here. 

1. Thalidomide was not FDA approved.

2. Thalidomide did not impact a LOOOOT (sorry my blood clot slipped a bit) of children in the U.S. thanks to the conservative FDA process.

3. Thalidomide was not removed due to skepticism.  It didn't have to be thanks to the same conservative FDA approval process that blocked its approval then, and approved Pfizer's vaccine now.  Elsewhere Thalidomide was being purchased over-the-counter like Aspirin without any skepticism whatsoever.

A resounding success story that only lends credence to anything that has made it through the process.

My mistake writing Thalidomide was FDA approved at the time Frances Kelsey intervened. It was due to Kelsey's skepticism and balls as an FDA official to stand up to corporate pressure to prevent Thalidomide being approved at the time. Since there was no FDA process at the time, Thalidomide did impact thousands of people sadly. Kelsey's work led to the FDA becoming a better entity. Irregardless of these statements, my point still stands that what intended to convey in the previous posts was that the FDA of today should have the same balls and skepticism/professionalism it had back in the day; but it doesn't. Their bureaucrats work hand in hand with the corporations as our politicians do. It's sickening and we the people have to put a stop to it. As I've wrote before on this site, I don't want to make enemies and name-call unless provoked. I don't wish to be your enemy, only a fellow patriot to you. I'm sick of our collective military service going to waste for a federal government that increasingly falls deeper into nonsense and overtly doesn't care about us.

"Clap for that, you stupid bastards." - quote of Joseph Biden on camera in 2016 speaking to service-members. Note: I do not know the website I linked, I only link it due to it having an embedded twitter video of the incident.

https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2020/09/video-emerges-of-joe-biden-calling-u-s-troops-stupid-bastards-during-speech-biden-campaign-responds/

The Holy and Apostolic Fact-Checkers claim Joe did it "in jest" and it was a "joke". Really? Who believes these fact-checkers anymore? Anyway, @Mark1 again, I think you and I both want the truth and real science to make our nation better. I love this nation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related to the discussion (source: CDC)

Current hospitalization rate:

0-4: 0.0018%
5-17: 0.0011%
18-49: 0.0062%

Of those hospitalized, 91.8% of adults, and 53.5% of children, have at least one underlying medical condition. 

Of those hospitalized, here’s how many die:

0-4: 0.8%
5-17: 0.6%
18-49: 2.5%

So to wrap it up by the data, if I get COVID, I have a 98.994% of not needing to be hospitalized. If I am unlucky enough to be that bad off, I then have a 97.5% of being discharged from the hospital alive. My children are even better off statistically. No anecdotal stories here, just what the data shows.

So again, totally support everyone to make their own decision based on their situation, but those of you with this self-perception of intellectual and moral superiority simply are ignoring the data when you attack another person’s rational decision to not get the vaccine. This is in no way defending those who are foregoing the vaccine even when very unhealthy, old, etc. or because they believe in microchips or whatever else conspiracy theorist are selling. And it also in no way minimizes the reality that their are healthy/young people who get very sick or die, but unemotionally, the data shows they are still outliers.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, brabus said:

Related to the discussion (source: CDC)

Current hospitalization rate:

0-4: 0.0018%
5-17: 0.0011%
18-49: 0.0062%

Of those hospitalized, 91.8% of adults, and 53.5% of children, have at least one underlying medical condition. 

Of those hospitalized, here’s how many die:

0-4: 0.8%
5-17: 0.6%
18-49: 2.5%

So to wrap it up by the data, if I get COVID, I have a 98.994% of not needing to be hospitalized. If I am unlucky enough to be that bad off, I then have a 97.5% of being discharged from the hospital alive. My children are even better off statistically. No anecdotal stories here, just what the data shows.

So again, totally support everyone to make their own decision based on their situation, but those of you with this self-perception of intellectual and moral superiority simply are ignoring the data when you attack another person’s rational decision to not get the vaccine. This is in no way defending those who are foregoing the vaccine even when very unhealthy, old, etc. or because they believe in microchips or whatever else conspiracy theorist are selling. And it also in no way minimizes the reality that their are healthy/young people who get very sick or die, but unemotionally, the data shows they are still outliers.

 

Now do the odds of getting hospitalized or dying from the vaccine. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Now do the odds of getting hospitalized or dying from the vaccine. 

Not saying the short term data is worse for the vaccine, nor do the above numbers break down vaccine status (there are vaccinated people amongst that data). But when you look at the data above, the vaccine becomes statistically unnecessary for a large portion of the population. Additionally, studies show natural immunity is far more effective than the vaccine (e.g. keep your natural immune system strong vs. interfering with synthetic drugs). Those, combined with no long term data on the vaccine (the currently unmeasured, potential danger of the vaccine), is what makes it a rational decision for many to pause on the vaccine…for now anyways.  

Edited by brabus
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...