Federal employees and everybody with over 98 coworkers.

had to see this coming, especially with a large companies.

at first it was a vax or mask up rule

but the lift on masks for vaxed employees only lasted a few weeks

so i assume it just shifts to vax or test weekly

>at first it was a vax or mask up rule
>
>but the lift on masks for vaxed employees only lasted a few
>weeks
>
>so i assume it just shifts to vax or test weekly
>
>

>at first it was a vax or mask up rule
>
>but the lift on masks for vaxed employees only lasted a few
>weeks
>
>so i assume it just shifts to vax or test weekly

Our school board votes this upcoming Monday and our HR is already surveying to find out who's vaxxed or not. After Joe's announcement and LAUSD going all in with vaccinations for students 12 and above it's safe to say we're going Vaxx or get tested regularly.

It will be interesting since our district tips close to the border of Orange County and a good number of staff/parents are kinda Anit-Vax/Trumpy people.

Because I'm a reasonable adult with access to information, understands why I don't have polio, isn't freaking out over the idea of Bill Gates implanting me with the mark of the beast, and who possesses enough critical thinking skills to understand that muh freedumb isn't being taken away by doing my small part in helping to build herd immunity for my children and others who can't vaccinate.

I was hesitate about getting it but I couldn’t risk losing my mother. especially considering, we still don’t know if covid took out my dad.

I couldn’t bear losing her…

not like that…

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

Which is fine. Especially since they do the testing.

I'd really like to hope that everyone at the job is already vaccinated, but who the fuck knows these days.

is it the “up the nose” swab or the cheek?

Especially anyone with kids....
Yes, I know about the whole autism anti vax movement...




"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

susceptible as adult with autoimmune diseases.

Yall are dumb.

Is mind blowing.

If you could, with intellectual honesty and veracity, make your exact statement with the exception of ommitting the word "as", then you'd have a point.

You'd be correct, and they'd be dumb.

But you can't.
And so they're not.

Which makes the dumb person in the room......


....you.

There are kids who are at risk. There are kids who have autoimmune issues. Kids who have inflammation issues, such as my youngest.

Kids with asthma, like my niece.

Or kids who live with high risk parents, etc.

Etc Etc




He also doesn't understand that the only risk here isn't death.


He doesn't understand risk. Or basic math.


Plenty of us have tried.


So yeah ignorant. Hard-headed. Dumb. Selfish. And a hypocrite, because of course this dude hasn't written off all modern medicine or anything.

Dude is just scared to get the shot and trying to sound like he's the tough one.


Oh, and he admires Busta Rhymes for his medical advice because he beat...checks notes....obesity....temporarily.


If you want a real laugh, click his soundlcoud link.

I'm dumb for actually responding to you.

Between family, friends, coworkers, your fellow third eye open dudes, etc.

100?


Which 2 are you okay with dropping dead?


98% survival rate is not a good number smart guy. If you had a 2% chance of dying doing anything else, you wouldn't do it.

Please google a calculator to help you work out the math.


Also...that number goes up a lot with various issues.


You love to talk about autoimmune like you just learned that word last week.

I have an autoimmune disease. I am in great shape. I drink plenty of water- always have. Never smoked. Exercise on the regular. I guarantee my diet is better than yours Mr Chick-fil-a. Etc Etc.

My disease is not my fault. It is genetic. And because of it, I have a low immune system.


There's all kinds of examples. Asthma. Etc.


You being too pussy to get vaccinated puts those people at greater risk because COVID is harder on them.


Also, death is not the only bad result here, smart guy.



>I'm dumb


True

I never heard of a disease with a 98% survival rate feverishly needing a vaccine and like a goofy neanderthal you run out and get it.

Vaccine companies we have no liability.

Goofy followers: Thats ok!!

Government officials: oh btw we are exempt.

Yall are dumb as a box of dildos

>Between family, friends, coworkers, your fellow third eye open dudes,
>etc.

>100?


>Which 2 are you okay with dropping dead?

that enough people with severe symptoms hitting the hospitals at the same time strains the healthcare system (see most of the country about a year ago or the states with the lowest vaccine rates now), and the vaccines do reduce the likelihood for severe illness.

catch the equivalent of Lyme Disease or Diabetes or some shit. permanent (as of now) debilitating conditions that make you unable to walk a flight of stairs and all kinds of other wild ass side effects.

and that's hitting something like 20% of cases?

psssh. i want no parts.

that 98% shit crazy.

folk acting like an ICU stay is light work. being in life long kidney failure and needing dialysis an shit when you went in totally healthy.

smmfh.

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

you cool with 6.6M dead? what about 158M worldwide dead? cuz ya know, this is a worldwide problem. people kill me with that 98% survival nonsense. you're talking about a LOT of dead people fam. not to mention the countless covid long haulers.

there is no standard English and since you hooked on as

How many languages do you speak fluently?

Do you even know what etymology is?!?!?!

You are a moron

A dim wit

A sycophant

A nimrod

A doofus

And you still ain't proved the dumb shit you said about children getting COVID.

Intelligence would say to me hmmm odd a pandemic has a virus that seems to skip children...

D!ckhe@d.

>there is no standard English

Please explain what this has to do with anything.

You don't seem to understand why that word is important, or why it's problematic in the context of you calling people dumb.

But by all means- continue this luttle tantrum😂


>and since you hooked on as
>
>How many languages do you speak fluently?

Non sequitur.

>Do you even know what etymology is?!?!?!

Yes. Another non-sequitur.

>You are a moron

This, and the rest of the list, is purely ad hominem.

>And you still ain't proved the dumb shit you said about
>children getting COVID.

What did say? Chapter and verse please.

>Intelligence would say to me hmmm odd a pandemic has a virus
>that seems to skip children...

"Intelligence" doesn't "say" anything about anything.

>D!ckhe@d.

I attacked the content of your words.
You threw a tantrum attacked my person.

The dickhead here is quite clearly and objectively you.

The definition of what qualifies as a vaccination was changed to allow approval of this one.
Traditionally, a vaccine is giving someone a protein, antigen, partial or whole pathogen. Injecting RNA into a human being doesn't historically fall under the definition of a vaccine. Verbiage was shifted in the federal register to approve it. This is experimental biological gene therapy immune modulatory injection. Injecting ppl with a synthetic sequence of nucleic acid has never been done on a large scale in human history. RNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers and autoimmune diseases from 6 to 12 months after the injection.

Also, if there is a treatment for a disease, the federal gov't cannot approve a vaccination. The NIH (who is involved in approving medications) cohold the patent to the vaccine with Moderna. There you have the gov't in bed with a private company, vending a product that they want to give to everyone. Conflict of interest. They don't want a therapy to work, because then they can't sell the vaccine.

But this just notes from a curious nigga trying to do a lil research.

why it's different is this...

In June, doctors filed a lawsuit against the Federal Gov't over the use of "experimental vaccines" on children under 16. Quoting this next part:

"Dr. Angelina Farella, pediatric medical director for "America's Frontline Doctors," stated, "We've never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action.

The Rotavirus vaccine was pulled for 15 cases of non-lethal side effects, and the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled for 25 deaths. But now, by the CDC's data, we see a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines, and they're still talking about giving this to our kids." She said children are statistically at zero risks for COVID-19.

The data shows that the recovery rate for COVID-19 patients under the age of 20 is 99.997 percent."

end quote

"The definition of what qualifies as a vaccination was changed to allow approval of this one.
Traditionally, a vaccine is giving someone a protein, antigen, partial or whole pathogen. Injecting RNA into a human being doesn't historically fall under the definition of a vaccine. Verbiage was shifted in the federal register to approve it. This is experimental biological gene therapy immune modulatory injection. Injecting ppl with a synthetic sequence of nucleic acid has never been done on a large scale in human history. RNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers and autoimmune diseases from 6 to 12 months after the injection.

Also, if there is a treatment for a disease, the federal gov't cannot approve a vaccination. The NIH (who is involved in approving medications) cohold the patent to the vaccine with Moderna. There you have the gov't in bed with a private company, vending a product that they want to give to everyone. Conflict of interest. They don't want a therapy to work, because then they can't sell the vaccine.

But this just notes from a curious nigga trying to do a lil research."

That you didn't actually cite the sources with links?

No snark intended here. But that sort of information demands sourcing, IMO. And when I saw where this is coming from- or at least some of who is pushing it- it makes me wonder why you didn't source it.

Within five seconds, I found this:

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-anti-vax-doctor-calls-140358687.html

She's a member of the group that brought the alabama lawsuit you mentioned. "America's Frontline Doctors" is a right-wing org with leadership that includes Tea Party, and a doctor who thinks cysts are caused by having sex with demons and witches.

Oh, and its founder was present for the capitol riots.

They're also known for pushing Ivermectin, and selling COVID treatments. Well, sort of; some people are goving them their money, but getting the actual product or service in return.

https://time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/

So we can add fraud to the mix.

I also found this:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-instagram-posts-spread-texas-lawmakers-false-claims-on-vaccine-testing/

The second article makes mention of how that data is misrepresented.

It also includes links to other articles fleshing out this point:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-tucker-carlson-misrepresents-vaccine-safety-reporting-data/

And here:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-viral-posts-misuse-vaers-data-to-make-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccines/

I haven't yet dug deep into the actual claims, which I will.

But it took less than five minutes to learn that the credibility of the people peddling the information you provided is highly dubious, at best. And I'd say that's being generous.

Sure, so far I've moay only shown that the messenger is problematic, though the links I posted do address at least some of the claims.

But I'd say a very small amount of digging makes it hard to objectively argue that these are reliable messengers.

2. For the issue raised in reply 22, I cited the Dr. I was quoting. That's how you found her... hell that's how *I* found it.
As for reply 20. I didn't share it because I'm having trouble finding the video. Could've been scrubbed from the web.

3. You posted ONE halfway relevant link concerning ANY of the points I raised. Lets just say you disregard ALL of the info in reply 22. I'm not seeing where your links dispute reply 20 unless your general distrust of the people involved is your sole dispute.

Your tactic here seems to be shame all info from a source based on OTHER bogus things they've said. I'm off that. Either directly challenge the specific points I've raised, or you're wasting BOTH of our time. If you can only challenge one of my points, that's fine, but be honest about that and don't pretend you're challenging EVERYTHING I've said. It's really ok not to be all knowing. I'm not pretending to be, and you don't have to either. This is why I described myself the way I did at the end of reply 20.

If there are relevant points somewhere in these articles, I'll leave it to you to highlight them... as I took the time to do in my replies. I'd rather you summarize whatever point you're trying to make and then just place the links after, because you're saying "I found THIS!" and then I read a whole article that lacks anything worth reading the whole thing for. Please pull the relevant parts and share them.

Actually, I'll make it easy.

Question 1: Have vaccines traditionally been a matter of giving someone a protein, antigen, partial or whole pathogen?

Question 2: Does injecting RNA into a human being historically fall under the definition of a vaccine?

Question 3: Was verbiage shifted in the federal register to approve it RNA injection as vaccine?

Question 4: Is this experimental biological gene therapy immune modulatory injection?

Question 5: Has injecting ppl with a synthetic sequence of nucleic acid ever been done on a large scale in human history?

Question 6: Have RNA trials in mammals led to odd cancers and autoimmune diseases from 6 to 12 months after the injection?

Question 7: Is the NIH in bed with Moderna? Can the federal gov't approve a vaccine if there is treatment for a disease?

>Your tactic here seems to be shame all info from a source
>based on OTHER bogus things they've said.

No, that's not my "tactic".

That was my *post*.

*A* post.

In fact I pointed out myself that I hadn't gotten to the claims themselves, but did find things that undermine the credibility of the source.

I said this myself. I also said I'd get to the claims. And I will.

But no, I'm not devoting large portions of my Saturday to investigating those claims. My initial search lead me to what I found above- and I was quite clear that my post was all about the credibility of the source. Because that's what I found.

So stop acting like you caught me in some shady/dishonest "tactic".

If you're going to be "off" anything, it should be this performative grandstanding bullshit.

Thr TLDR version of this is easy:

Me: you didn't source your information. My search so far lead me to these sources, which have serious credibility issues.

You: OMG YOUR WHOLE TACTIC IS TO ATTACK THE SOURCES!

Lastly, none of this changes the fact that you didn't provide a source your information. Yes, information like that should be sourced- and when the sources found are as dubious as the ones I found, it makes the information highly questionable.

As I said before, I'll get to those claims, when I find them.

And one more thing:

I'm not "disregarding" your claims. I'm just not acceptimg them on face value, which is how many reasonable person should approach them, until/unless a credible source can be found to suppprt them.

This is especially true when the sources that can be found are as questionable as what I found above.

There's nothing remotely controversially about that.

>In fact I pointed out myself that I hadn't gotten to the
>claims themselves, but did find things that undermine the
>credibility of the source.
>
>I said this myself. I also said I'd get to the claims. And I
>will.
>
>But no, I'm not devoting large portions of my Saturday to
>investigating those claims.


Oh ok... so like I said above. I don't care how you feel about the people involved. Either prove the claims wrong or don't. If they're wrong, they're wrong and we'll all be better off knowing the truth.
You did say your reply was halfassed. My bad.

You made the claims. The burden to prove those claims is on you.

Yet, you didn't provide a shred of evidence to substantiate those claims.

You didn't cite an actual source. You provided an article swipe that named a person who said something.

In your response to me- which did cite multiple sources to substantiate my own claim that the people i could find that were at least associated to some of your claims have serious credibility issues.

Also: I didn't say my rey was "half assed". Please have more integrity and sincerity than this. It wasn't half-assed at all. It simply addressed the relevant information I'd to that point- and I was clear about was i was addressing.

Even now, after three posts on the subject, you haven't provided citations or sources of any kind to substantiate those claims. I provided sources to substantiate my claim that your sources are dubious.

The lawsuit filed by said dubious organization doesn't mean that the claims within that lawsuit are valid. It just means that they made a claim.

A search on the 12,000% death increase claim turns up a direct refutatuon, explaining how that information is being used out of context.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-12000/fact-check-vaers-data-does-not-prove-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-exceeded-12000-idUSL1N2P21DB

In your prior reply, you said something to the effect that yiu highlighted relevant parts of what you were reading.

The problem is, you're not providing the actual sources. It's not the burden of those reading your claims to verify them. It's on you to provide evidence.

reasons why people are hung up on this vaccination as opposed to other vaccinations. Those are just some of them. I've got no issue with you fact checking any of it. I told you I can't find the other source. Those were just the notes I took.



>Also: I didn't say my rey was "half assed". Please have more
>integrity and sincerity than this. It wasn't half-assed at
>all. It simply addressed the relevant information I'd to that
>point- and I was clear about was i was addressing.


"To that point" being the relevant term... which means you had more work to do. To me, that's halfassed. *shrug*

I'll wait until you're done.

You brought the claims forth.

Your main point of bringing them forth doesn't change this fact.

Why do you have such a problem with sourcing and substantiating the claims you introduced to the discussion?

The most half-assed thing in this post is you introducing a claim and not sourcing it, while also criticizing me for providong sources to support my claims of credibility issues with the people who brought the lawsuit.

That may be why people are hung up on the vaccine, but those reasons thus far appear to be fueled by bad faith actors leaning into blatant
misrepresentations.

Further, every article I've found on the lawsuit cites the lawsuit, but so far, it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere at all.

And no, im not reading an 80 page lawsuit.

Why are you resistent to substantiating the claims you introduced?

>You brought the claims forth.
>
>Your main point of bringing them forth doesn't change this
>fact.


I didn't even present them as claims. Just "notes from a curious nigga trying to do a lil research" but here I am defending them as claims because you're challenging them as such. That's my fault. So again, prove them wrong or don't if that's what you're here to do. You just aren't doing it. Thanks for the links tho.


>Why do you have such a problem with sourcing and
>substantiating the claims you introduced to the discussion?


Idk why you keep asking this. You found the 2nd source, and for the 3rd time, I can no longer find the 1st one. I shared the notes I took.



>That may be why people are hung up on the vaccine, but those
>reasons thus far appear to be fueled by bad faith actors
>leaning into blatant
>misrepresentations.



So then your work here is done, as that seems to be the only point you have. Your articles either aren't answering my questions or are proving my notes right.



>Why are you resistent to substantiating the claims you
>introduced?

For the 4th time, I can no longer find the 1st one. I shared the notes I took. You found the 2nd one. What else do you want? What is it about this that isn't registering to you?

1st: the concept isn't remotely new.

This article cites the journey of a researcher dating back to the 90's:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/

This one cites the history of mRNA vaccine research and trials:

https://speakingofresearch.com/2021/08/27/human-mrna-vaccine-trials-in-the-2010s-a-history-lesson-in-animal-research/

This is an article from 2018, citing progress that had, at that point, largely overcome hurdles of instability and inefficiency in vivo delivery of mRNA. It cites the promise of mRNA vaccines, up to and including use as a cancer vaccine.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

You ask about what historically constitutes a vaccine, and whether or not it's included RNA injection into humans.

Well, it's clearly happened prior to COVID.

You ask these questions, but haven't expressed any actual problem with them. It is a new technology, but by no means new in the sense that it hasn't undergone decades of research. It has.

Rather than ask multiple questions about the use of RNA, why not present an actual, researched problem with it?

With sources, of course.

>This article cites the journey of a researcher dating back to
>the 90's:
>
>https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/


That article actually confirms the fact that mRNA vaccines had never been done on a large scale prior to this. In fact, it calls these companies vaccines "experimental". This is why I'm asking you cite which part of these articles you think are relevant, because it kinda seems like you aren't reading them.


>This one cites the history of mRNA vaccine research and
>trials:
>
>https://speakingofresearch.com/2021/08/27/human-mrna-vaccine-trials-in-the-2010s-a-history-lesson-in-animal-research/



Speaking of sources, one of the only studies there that included human trials (the flu viruses joint) was funded by a Moderna Therapeutics venture, AND the human trials were cited as ONGOING. That's your issue tho. This particular convo wasn't about sources for me.
Most importantly tho, I asked if mRNA vaccines had been done in humans on a large scale before. Is it safe to say your answer is 'no'?


>This is an article from 2018, citing progress that had, at
>that point, largely overcome hurdles of instability and
>inefficiency in vivo delivery of mRNA. It cites the promise of
>mRNA vaccines, up to and including use as a cancer vaccine.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
>
>You ask about what historically constitutes a vaccine, and
>whether or not it's included RNA injection into humans.
>
>Well, it's clearly happened prior to COVID.



There's no way you read that article. You're claiming it says stuff it doesn't say.
In fact, very early in the article, it refers to " live attenuated and inactivated pathogens and subunit vaccines" as "CONVENTIONAL VACCINES" and this is in 2018 (This article just answered "yes" to question 1). It says the 90s trials were done in mice and rats. The article is literally talking about the POTENTIAL of mRNA vaccines... in 2018. But you're telling me mRNA vaccines were historically issued on a large scale TO HUMANS prior to covid? Lol.

If your goal is to prove my initial points right, you're doing a great job here. Which of the 7 questions have you answered with this reply? I pulled the answer to question #1 for you. Can you read your own articles well enough to find answers? Or are you just posting links, thinking you're accomplishing something by citing sources that don't prove your points?


>You ask these questions, but haven't expressed any actual
>problem with them.


You're losing the plot here. Problems are irrelevant, because the fact that the technology is new is enough to make it different from prior vaccines done on a large scale in most folks lifetime. Hell, your own links tell you that. He asked why people are so skeptical about this one as opposed to vaccines of the past. Your own links describe the method as experimental as late as 2018. I know you like to argue and pick fights, but sometimes you could avoid that by just keeping in mind why the conversation even started in the first place.

To humans.

Please cut and paste the quote for that.

This is another case where I was clear in what I was saying, and you blatantly repackage it another way, and argue against that.

The first line of my post explains that the concept isn't remotely new, and I posted sources to establish that fact.

>>This article cites the journey of a researcher dating back
>to
>>the 90's:
>>
>>https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/
>
>
>That article actually confirms the fact that mRNA vaccines had
>never been done on a large scale prior to this.

Show me where I said it did. Again: give me the exact quote.

And again: the point was establishing that this is not a new concept


In fact, it
>calls these companies vaccines "experimental". This is why I'm
>asking you cite which part of these articles you think are
>relevant, because it kinda seems like you aren't reading
>them.

The information in these links are relevant to establishing that this ia not a new concept, as stated in the firat line of my post.

>>This one cites the history of mRNA vaccine research and
>>trials:
>>
>>https://speakingofresearch.com/2021/08/27/human-mrna-vaccine-trials-in-the-2010s-a-history-lesson-in-animal-research/

>Speaking of sources, one of the only studies there that
>included human trials (the flu viruses joint) was funded by a
>Moderna Therapeutics venture, AND the human trials were cited
>as ONGOING.


That's your issue tho. This particular convo
>wasn't about sources for me.

Clearly. It was about you citing unsubstantiated claims. It was some "just saying what people are saying", which is absolutely useless.

>Most importantly tho, I asked if mRNA vaccines had been done
>in humans on a large scale before. Is it safe to say your
>answer is 'no'?

Yes. This is a wierd statement though, since in this same post you tried taking me to task for the fact that these don't state that they've been used on a large scale basis in humans, despite me never once saying or even implying that to be the case.

>>This is an article from 2018, citing progress that had, at
>>that point, largely overcome hurdles of instability and
>>inefficiency in vivo delivery of mRNA. It cites the promise
>of
>>mRNA vaccines, up to and including use as a cancer vaccine.
>>
>>https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
>>
>>You ask about what historically constitutes a vaccine, and
>>whether or not it's included RNA injection into humans.
>>
>>Well, it's clearly happened prior to COVID.
>
>
>
>There's no way you read that article.

False. But keep doing your lil grandstanding.

..You're claiming it says
>stuff it doesn't say.

Let's do this:

You tell me what I said it says. Quote exactly what I said about this one, and I'll reply directly to that claim.

>In fact, very early in the article, it refers to " live
>attenuated and inactivated pathogens and subunit vaccines" as
>"CONVENTIONAL VACCINES" and this is in 2018 (This article just
>answered "yes" to question 1). It says the 90s trials were
>done in mice and rats.

I'll address this after you quote what I said about the article.

>The article is literally talking about
>the POTENTIAL of mRNA vaccines... in 2018.

>But you're telling
>me mRNA vaccines were historically issued on a large scale TO
>HUMANS prior to covid? Lol.

Once again: quote me. Chapter and verse.

Please show me where I said this. It's very cringe to watch you be so smug over something that never happened. But it's pretty clewr that you're more interested in the performance aspect of this, than the actual discussion.

>Which


I pulled the answer to question #1 for you.
>Can you read your own articles well enough to find answers? Or
>are you just posting links, thinking you're accomplishing
>something by citing sources that don't prove your points?

In each exchange with you, I clearly stated my point, and cited relevant sources that made said point.

This is not up for debate. It's just a fact. That you keep arguing things you've only imagined I've said is your own problem.


>>You ask these questions, but haven't expressed any actual
>>problem with them.
>
>
>You're losing the plot here.

I'm not losing anythin

Problems are irrelevant, because
>the fact that the technology is new is enough to make it
>different from prior vaccines done on a large scale in most
>folks lifetime.

No, problems are actually completely relevant here. If the issue is juat that it's new technology, that's irrelevant.

The fact it's "different" is irrelevant.

What matters is whether or not it's successful in it's expressed goal as a vaccine, and whether or not there are significant problems with it.

>Hell, your own links tell you that. He asked
>why people are so skeptical about this one as opposed to
>vaccines of the past. Your own links describe the method as
>experimental as late as 2018.

Yes. That experimentation is a critical part of the process of bringing it "live", so to speak. And that's why each of these sources is relevant.

Because establishing that there is a long history of research leading up to this point is far more relevant to the issue of mRNA vaccines than your empty questions.

It's funny, you're trying to insult me here, saying shit like I didn't read, all because you're too locked into arguing against thimgs I haven't said.

You simultaneously acknowledge that I didn't reply in a way that adhered to your gish gallop of questions, and respond as though I somehow failed in an attempt to do just that.

You're too busy trying to grandstand to see it though.

>I know you like to argue and
>pick fights, but sometimes you could avoid that by just
>keeping in mind why the conversation even started in the first
>place.

Please. This is is just about the dumbest statement anyone's made in this post. This board is brimming with countless arguments and fights- and your name is common as anyone else in those exchanges.

Moreover, between the two of us, you're the one that keeps trying to make it a fight. You've taken several potshots, this one included, that have absolutely no place in the discussion other than to be antagonistic.

I know why the conversation started. That doesn't change what you posted, nor did it change your defensive ass response to me telling you the people behind those claims have credibility problems.

My bad. I see now that you're answering a question I didn't ask.
I've asked you to speak directly in response to the questions to make this conversation much easier and less time consuming. You refuse and call them "empty" and a "gish gallop" (so why are you still talking to me?). Cool, so I'll stop trying to get anywhere. Now we're just talking past one another for nothing.


>And again: the point was establishing that this is not a new
>concept


mRNA vaccines on a large scale is new.
That was my question. Now I'm answering it myself.

>Clearly. It was about you citing unsubstantiated claims. It
>was some "just saying what people are saying", which is
>absolutely useless.



Why even respond if what I said was useless? Protect your energy better my guy.


>You tell me what I said it says. Quote exactly what I said
>about this one, and I'll reply directly to that claim.


Let's not. What you said is still there. You can't even reply directly to my questions, so I'm not signing up for more merry-go-round nonsense.



>Moreover, between the two of us, you're the one that keeps
>trying to make it a fight.


Instead of saying "hey bro, you got source for that?" you begin your interaction with me by asking "did you not cite the source because the they're right wing and questionable?" See how your assumptions are already antagonistic from jump? Of course you don't. It's everyone else. You come on here for the purpose of trolling certain people. That ain't my style. Keep your projections and have fun in Case's next religious post.

both of you have obviously done on the subject.

I think for me...personally....I guess I put more value and faith in doctors pushing the limits of science in the name of saving lives because of my many many brushes with cancer and disease in my family. Whenever someone has been on their death bed, the first thing we want to know is "Is there ANYTHING you can do Dr.? Any trials, any experimental treatments?? ANYTHING??" so yeah...there's something out here killing millions of people VERY easily...so naturally many people are going to urge and push for the rapid implementation of proven "experimental" treatments...I just don't understand why THIS one all of a sudden is the one where folks are like "WHoooaaa....pump your brakes, I'm not cool with this." ...


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

I'm not one to bash anyone for whatever choice they make on this, because I genuinely understand the concerns on both sides.

what if you disingenuously said you understood "both sides" but the entire framework of your statement was actually some bullshit you made up?

what would be different about your actions in that case? Prove it. We can't accept claims without evidence, just like we can't accept claims about mRNA vaccines

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

seriously

if someone is absolutely known to be a liar, then you should definitely take their word on everything else

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and boogie is still the dumbest motherfucker to walk the planet.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Gene Therapy = intentionally altering one's DNA/genome in some way to treat disease (eg. gene editing being explored for conditions like hemophilia, leukemia, blindness, etc https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619)

The molecular bio behind how mRNA vaccination differ centers on a few things:

1. In eukaryotes (the domain humans belong to) our genomes/DNA are contained within the nuclei of our cells. Each nucleus is then surrounded by a pool of cellular machinery and goo called cytoplasm, which is itself surrounded by a membrane made of a mostly fat (aka lipid) bilayer and embedded proteins. This entire structure and its contents constitute what we call a cell;

2. The mRNA delivered by the covid vaccines is produced by scientists externally, not by our cells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#/media/File:MRNA-interaction.png <--- in this figure consider the vaccine mRNA the mRNA molecule outside the nucleus), so once introduced it ONLY HAS ACCESS TO OUR CYTOPLASM. It can never interfere or interact with our genomes/DNA or the machinery (eg DNA polymerases) specifically responsible for replicating and editing DNA - because these are located exclusively in the nuclei of our cells, not the cytoplasm;

3. A more accurate way to think of the vaccine mRNA is... like a self-destructing text message sent to your immune system (the "m" in mRNA is even shorthand for messenger RNA). Because, unlike DNA, RNA molecules have a super short half-life in vivo (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170712201054.htm) and are degraded and eliminated from our system soon after their production/use.

So all the mRNA vaccines do is help the self-destructing message enter our cells (via a fat/lipid nanoparticle) so it can quickly inform relevant cell machinery in our cytoplasm (eg. ribosomes) how to TKO this coronavirus (by producing dummy replicas of its achilles heel, the spike protein, which our immune system can now recognize and create targeted antibodies for - https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines). This is VERY different than use of viral vectors for gene therapy (which, for starters, leverages the machinery of *whole viruses* to infiltrate our cells and CORRECT mutated genetic material, just that scientists have adapted the virus so that it works for us rather than doing its usual infection thing). The mRNA vaccine is sending a self-destructing message ABOUT THE VIRUS (about a specific coronavirus protein) to our immune systems, where as gene therapy uses WHOLE VIRUS machinery to correct a genetic abnormality in the host.

Also - there might be discrepancies with the rest of what you wrote too but since there are no sources I won't fret too much. I do just want to point out that regulation of pharmaceuticals and biologics falls exclusively under the FDA tho. A lot of people lump NIH in there bc they fund so much of the research but that's incorrect.




>This is experimental biological gene therapy immune modulatory
>injection. Injecting ppl with a synthetic sequence of nucleic
>acid has never been done on a large scale in human history.
>RNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers and autoimmune
>diseases from 6 to 12 months after the injection.
>
>Also, if there is a treatment for a disease, the federal gov't
>cannot approve a vaccination. The NIH (who is involved in
>approving medications) cohold the patent to the vaccine with
>Moderna. There you have the gov't in bed with a private
>company, vending a product that they want to give to everyone.
>Conflict of interest. They don't want a therapy to work,
>because then they can't sell the vaccine.
>
>But this just notes from a curious nigga trying to do a lil
>research.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Please don't drag me into whatever okbeef you have with him lol

I've always found him cool to interact with on here

This was actually not the first place I've heard/seen the gene therapy thing, but this was the first time I've been able to comment back to the person repeating it

So that's my bad for insinuating he came up with the misinfo in the first place

I don't know where it started but it's surprisingly pervasive

why wouldn't they be cool to interact with?


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Good catch as well, because I didn't even include that in the question list later in the post.
Dude did say quite a word salad there. The only possible excuse I can think of for that, is that the main term was "immune modulatory injection" while "gene therapy" was an adjective? Such as "this is a cookout restaurant" would be saying this restaurant does things that a cookout does, but it's not a cookout and therefore lacks many elements of one? Lol. Like mRNA enters the cell, triggers a response but doesn't alter DNA. But GRANTED, this is a generous interpretation. He could be intentionally misleading people as well. From what I gathered, he was a scientist, so it's hard for me to imagine he didn't know better... plus white folks play word games alot in my experience (one of the pitfalls of communicating in English). Although this may be a controversial statement, I'm not too mad at him for saying it like that, because it forces people to look into it, ask questions, and/or just be discerning of the things going in their bodies. At the very least it can be said and corrected.

Anyway, again I appreciate the catch and the thoughtful response.
I also appreciate you giving me an out in reply 112, but I did share the info, so it's on me... although I'm not standing on any of this strongly at all, because I'm still researching it. You helped a lot.











>Gene Therapy = intentionally altering one's DNA/genome in
>some way to treat disease (eg. gene editing being explored for
>conditions like hemophilia, leukemia, blindness, etc
>https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619)
>
>The molecular bio behind how mRNA vaccination differ centers
>on a few things:
>
>1. In eukaryotes (the domain humans belong to) our genomes/DNA
>are contained within the nuclei of our cells. Each nucleus is
>then surrounded by a pool of cellular machinery and goo called
>cytoplasm, which is itself surrounded by a membrane made of a
>mostly fat (aka lipid) bilayer and embedded proteins. This
>entire structure and its contents constitute what we call a
>cell;
>
>2. The mRNA delivered by the covid vaccines is produced by
>scientists externally, not by our cells
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#/media/File:MRNA-interaction.png
><--- in this figure consider the vaccine mRNA the mRNA
>molecule outside the nucleus), so once introduced it ONLY HAS
>ACCESS TO OUR CYTOPLASM. It can never interfere or interact
>with our genomes/DNA or the machinery (eg DNA polymerases)
>specifically responsible for replicating and editing DNA -
>because these are located exclusively in the nuclei of our
>cells, not the cytoplasm;
>
>3. A more accurate way to think of the vaccine mRNA is... like
>a self-destructing text message sent to your immune system
>(the "m" in mRNA is even shorthand for messenger RNA).
>Because, unlike DNA, RNA molecules have a super short
>half-life in vivo
>(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170712201054.htm)
>and are degraded and eliminated from our system soon after
>their production/use.
>
>So all the mRNA vaccines do is help the self-destructing
>message enter our cells (via a fat/lipid nanoparticle) so it
>can quickly inform relevant cell machinery in our cytoplasm
>(eg. ribosomes) how to TKO this coronavirus (by producing
>dummy replicas of its achilles heel, the spike protein, which
>our immune system can now recognize and create targeted
>antibodies for -
>https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines).
>This is VERY different than use of viral vectors for gene
>therapy (which, for starters, leverages the machinery of
>*whole viruses* to infiltrate our cells and CORRECT mutated
>genetic material, just that scientists have adapted the virus
>so that it works for us rather than doing its usual infection
>thing). The mRNA vaccine is sending a self-destructing message
>ABOUT THE VIRUS (about a specific coronavirus protein) to our
>immune systems, where as gene therapy uses WHOLE VIRUS
>machinery to correct a genetic abnormality in the host.
>
>Also - there might be discrepancies with the rest of what you
>wrote too but since there are no sources I won't fret too
>much. I do just want to point out that regulation of
>pharmaceuticals and biologics falls exclusively under the FDA
>tho. A lot of people lump NIH in there bc they fund so much of
>the research but that's incorrect.

like, exceptionally bad

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

over the measles vaccine, that was completely made up

but a lot of people in the "wellness" community of grifters and snake oil sales have slapped together a worldview that they are actually the experts on everything

there are reasons for that and modern medicine has its flaws, but it's all just bullshit

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>there are reasons for that and modern medicine has its flaws,
>but it's all just bullshit


This might help to answer his question. Just furthering the discussion here. Everybody's view can add something.

which helps create the cracks that bullshit artists like yourself exploit



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspx


1. All workers who provide services or work in facilities described in subdivision (a) have their first dose of a one-dose regimen or their second dose of a two-dose regimen by September 30, 2021:



a. Health Care Facilities:
i. General Acute Care Hospitals
ii. Skilled Nursing Facilities (including Subacute Facilities)
iii. Intermediate Care Facilities
iv. Acute Psychiatric Hospitals
v. Adult Day Health Care Centers
vi. Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) and PACE Centers
vii. Ambulatory Surgery Centers
viii. Chemical Dependency Recovery Hospitals
ix. Clinics & Doctor Offices (including behavioral health, surgical)
x. Congregate Living Health Facilities
xi. Dialysis Centers
xii. Hospice Facilities
xiii. Pediatric Day Health and Respite Care Facilities
xiv. Residential Substance Use Treatment and Mental Health Treatment Facilities


Today is basically the last day you can get your first shot for a two dose vaccine and make it. I think the 13th would be the very last possible day by CDC guidelines

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

why the vast business community isnt fighting against these mandates?

2/3 of the country supports them (even in swing states)...businesses (who bear the burden of implementing/maintaining them) support them...but the press has to validate the consistently nihilistic 1/3 of the country and treat the issue like an evenly divided toss up to justify the horserace coverage.

its funny how repubs positioned themselves as champions of business and free enterprise when it came to the lockdowns...but now theyre all in on preventing businesses from instituting the safety measures that *they* want to institute in the best interest of their business.

also...why are dems not hammering *this* point home? republican governors...who drone on about 'dictatorship/fascism' on the left...are trampling over business agency/independence (especially small business) just to appeal to their ideological fringe base.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I believe maybe 1% of these folks are liars or idiots.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-12/san-diego-county-healthcare-workers-vaccine-exemptions-religion

SWIPE:
Brett McClain, Sharp’s chief operating officer, said that breakdown sounded familiar.

“I’d say 90-plus percent of our religious exemptions are citing Christian reasons around the stem cells,” McClain said. “The rest are along the lines of, ‘I’m in control of my body.’”

As long as their religion, and they religious edicts used to request the exemptions demonstrably comports with the observable, verifiable facts of reality.

I.e, if a person says their god forbids vaccines, the just meed to prove that their god actually exists, and prove that said god actually forbids said vaccine.

I also think the person should have to verify that they strictly adhere to *all* the tenets of their religion.

I think that should be the criteria for religious exemptions

If someone can meet that criteria, I'm all for it.

People are saying "My body is my temple" or they are saying "It's comes from aborted fetuses.'

There's no part of that that's actually faith.

And the people with actual faith still are going to be tested twice weekly - at least that's in place.

or submit to weekly testing by Oct. 15th.

job required for everyone to submit proof of vax by last week or face weekly testing. the stragglers found out about the deadline and weighed it out lol...most went ahead and took the plunge. bros dont wanna face that weekly swab.

>or submit to weekly testing by Oct. 15th.

they just shouldn't be allowed to leave their homes anymore and they will no longer participate in society

easy

personal choice

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It wont change the outcome. Only thing is you'll finally realize covid and all its mutations will be with us. We will have to learn to live with it. You will still be wearing a mask even if they do lock all the dirty unclean unvaxxed in their homes.

Of course we're still wearing masks, and of course we will be for a while. Nobody is disputing that. There's almost nothing in the world that's easier than wearing a mask. The only people who seem particularly bothered by masks are the people still pretending it's not a real disease.

And you're probably right that the virus will not be eradicated and will become endemic. For that, we can thank all these people who employed their personal freedom and stupidity to 'choose not to' get vaccinated.

But right now people are dying in large numbers, and that will continue to happen until we develop herd immunity. That herd immunity will either come by vaccination (no harm, no significant side effects or even plausible theoretical concern), or by widespread infection (hundreds of thousands more people dead). It's pretty fucking clueless and nihilistic to say 'it's here forever, just wear a mask and get over it.'

for mutations.

come on, you know you wanna take that mask off. Most vaxxed people do and the vaxxed are getting fed up with the unvaxxed.

I'm pro choice and against the mandate and very pro mask.

certainly wouldn't want to be lumped in with anti maskers since I've been lumped with anti vaxxers.

But you're playing a silly halfway game with this 'personal choice' business on vaccines. There are people out there who say it's their 'personal choice' whether to wear a mask. I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that those people are exploiting their freedom and needlessly putting others at risk.

People don't have the personal choice to drive drunk, even if they think they're fine. They shouldn't have the freedom to needlessly put others at risk in other ways either.

From everything I've heard, the mutation rate of sars-cov-2 is still very slow compared to other common respiratory viruses. But yes, it is still mutating. It's doing so because it's reproducing in so many people.

Those mutations are not just a US problem. They're caused by low vaccination rates worldwide, and worldwide vaccination rates will probably be low for years. I think that's part of your argument, and I agree with it.

However, the US is still lagging the rest of the industrialized world. So we're not doing our part in the global effort. Also, the US is still relatively isolated from the rest of the world and will remain so until international tourism recovers. So we can reach and maintain herd immunity in the US independent of how the infection rates are going elsewhere.

Yes, new mutations will come. And eventually we'll need boosters to handle them. Thank god for mRNA vaccination technology, which will allow us to fine tune a booster for every major variant we see. Just as long as people grow up and take their fucking shots.

It's not out of the question that we could permanently eradicate this disease. But even if we don't, the number of people who get vaccinated will directly determine the number of people who die.

people as if the pandemic is over, outdoor and indoor and I know a significant number of these people are not vaccinated.

Announcers saying how glad they are that things are back to "normal"

... that being outdoors substantially reduces transmission risk. Not necessarily to zero, but enough that it hopefully won't be a driver for major outbreaks.

The fact that we now know it's mostly aerosolized is good news and bad news. The bad news is that there's not much we can do about it indoors other than vaccination and masking (and the fact that it's aerosolized means the masks matter a lot more for those AROUND the masked person than for the masked person themselves, which a hell of a lot of people still refuse to understand). The good news is that if you're outdoors, with just a tiny bit of breeze, it'll dissipate almost immediately.

Sidenote: I saw a story the other day about how this new knowledge of its transmission (and the weight it gives to previously dismissed hypotheses about flu and cold viruses) implies that we should start thinking about the hygiene of shared air in the same way we think about the hygiene of municipal water supplies, that we should start regulating the air handling in public buildings the same way we regulate sewage and water supplies.

But yeah, outdoor events don't concern me as much as the reopening of schools and workplaces in regions with low vaccination rates. Thankfully the new OSHA mandate will blunt this a bit.

when they contract the virus because they are more infectious, due to the virus replicating more in their system which results in higher viral loads (i.e. copies of virus in the system).

This higher viral load is why unvacc'd people are more likely to transmit COVID to others (whether vacc'd or unvacc'd) and are more likely to become much sicker or die as a result of infection (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19057-5). But it also provides the breeding conditions for new COVID mutations because of the heightened level of replication. Some infectious disease experts explain better in this article: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/03/health/unvaccinated-variant-factories/index.html

Now what's interesting is they're starting to see that "breakthrough" delta variant covid in vacc'd people results in similar viral loads as delta variant in unvacc'd people (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-delta-variant-infections-carry-same-virus-load-unvaccinated/), which was not the case with previous variants. But this just further supports the case for getting vaccinated. Bc even with a similarly high viral load, vaccinated ppl are able to fight back the infection better (i.e. survive it and/or show little symptoms) and are less likely to transmit it (tho they still can, and to guess who? most likely the unvacc'd). But the delta variant was only able to develop into a more powerful coronavirus, worse for everybody, because so many people were still unvaccinated in the first place. .

So, in one sense you're right that COVID will likely always be a problem and that there will always be crazy ass variants - but the incubation of those crazy variants and the resulting deaths they cause will be borne disproportionately by the unvaccinated.


*note: there's prob also an environmentalist argument for why we should try and vaccinate against the virus v. rely on masks long-term too but I suppose that's slightly off-topic


>blame unvaxxed for mutations.
>

I'm pro mask. Put it on your face over your nose.

ones that survived BECAUSE they were vaccinated....
There are literally MILLIONS of proven cases of survival due to the vaccine.

reading is fundamental.

apply what I am saying in context to your question or are you frothing at the mouth with anger so much, you cannot remember what you asked me to begin with. smh


This is hilarious to me. Especially as someone who is fully vaccinated.

you do understand people can disagree with you. yall inhere echo chambering and beating each other off. have fun with that and always remember to REAAAADDDDDDD or at least recall your own question dear.

All that moving can't be good for them....


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

Masks work. Masks got all us healthcare workers who wore them properly and consistently out of the tough part of 2020 ALIVE and covid free


I explained why. No goal posts were moved by me.....you on the other hand. well its up there^^^^^^


That all yall do is name call, gaslight and deflect.

You can never go back. Leave folk alone. Worry about yourself

ETA
AND ALWAYS WEAR YOUR MASK lol

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

The vaxx does not reduce transmission, it reduces symptoms, syptoms vaxxed ppl can spread to others.

If an unvaxxed person wears a mask and social distances, they have the same odds of getting covid/variants as they did when there was no vaccine. Remember what we did then? We wore masks.


Yall seem to have lost all critical thinking skills in the lock down.

You wont get your life back. This is the new normal. Stop pretending to care about the unvaccinated. Leave ppl alone and vaxx and booster yourself as much as your tv tells you is necessary. No one will stop you.

Masks and Vaccines BOTH have the potential to allow for transmission. And they BOTH have the proven ability to minimize, reduce, prevent, etc. transmission.

I suspect (but I do not KNOW nor have I researched it yet) that wearing of masks is more likely to be less effective than a vaccine simply because of the multitude of low grade masks on the market, inability for people to follow simple instructions and wear a mask PROPERLY, the potential for transmission from the surface of the mask itself from mishandling.....

Here are my sources...which i'm sure you'll dismiss as untrustworthy...

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/new-data-on-covid-19-transmission-by-vaccinated-individuals

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-breakthrough-infection-transmission




"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

How are you so admantly wrong? I know! You're convinced everyone must get vaccinated.

Keep boxing these ppl in and see what happens.

I'm vaccinated, I mask and probably will for a long after they say I can take it off. BECAUSE IT WORKS. If ppl dont want to be vaccinated I'm fine with it as long as they mask.

even SUGGESTING vaccines in lieu of masks...yet; that's what you keep inexplicably jumping to....

The sensible approach is both.
Unfortunately there's an extreme lack of sensible people in the USA right now ∴ mandates are the order of the day.

Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your brain around??

There are plenty of laws and rules and mandates that people don't follow....that doesn't mean you just flat out don't make them. That's an illogical conclusion for any rational and intelligent person to come to.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

I'm not for making anyone do anything they don't want to do when it comes to injecting themselves with anything.

If they don't want to mask. They're unreasonable. I'm vaxxed and I mask. Everyone else has to mask. I'm for mask mandates.

I am not for making people vaccinate when we've never had forced vaccinations. There are exemptions and now some aren't even being honored where they have been honored in the past.

Tying mandates to peoples employment is coercion. Rejecting religious exemptions is coercion. If the people don't want to vaccinate and they don't want to mask, they will likely die.

Look we aren't getting out of this.

Why cant yall really just admit you want everyone to get vaccinated so we can have some normalcy. Why is that hard? you're here going back and forth with me bc you're tired.


Me too. I'm tired too. I didn't have the opportunity to work from home like my husband who keeps the same talking points as you. Do You know how many patients I have to tell over and over they can still get covid and transmit it even if they are vaccinated. The proudly profess their vaxx status when I ask if they've had symptoms in the past 10 days. It makes my head explode the vaxxed who dangle their mask and show their nose. My unvaxxed patients show up with saran wrap on their hair, gloves, double masked and plastic lunch lady apron and say they haven't been outside. I HAVE SEEN IT ALL. I'm fucking tired. I've seen frightened people, angry people, deniers and anti maskers in a hospital setting. We are understaffed, over worked (I have no idea where all my coworkers went its hospital wide in every hospital) and still surging.

Even through all this I say people have the right to choose.

seclusion.....
This society hasn't been normal since 45's first day in office...so normalcy has BEEN out the window IMO....

I haven't enjoyed the death of my family, friends and loved ones....so from that regard you're right...I definitely want to go back to the days when people weren't dropping dead from a virus. And the most expedient path to THAT level of "normalcy" is for people to get vaccinated and continue to wear masks.

People haven't lost their right to choose. They can choose NOT to get vaccinated.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

I am an introvert as well so aside from the gym I haven't missed a thing and we built a home gym in the pandemic.

I have not seen most of my family and friends since 2019 indoors or all at the same time and we certainly don't embrace even though we are vaccinated. If I lost my Mom (who isnt vaccinated) or my Dad (who is vaccinated) or any siblings or extended family I'd probably react and feel as you do.

Perhaps I should consider the reasons some go so hard for the vaccine in another light. I'm sorry. I haven't experienced any losses of family or friends. I consider myself blessed but in my blessing I've ignored the pain others must be feeling.

I guess I'm the one who is inconsiderate telling you to mind your business and leave people alone when you've endured losing loved ones. I apologize.

.

I don’t see Minaj saying this anytime soon.

>The vaxx does not reduce transmission, it reduces symptoms,
>syptoms vaxxed ppl can spread to others.
>

>If an unvaxxed person wears a mask and social distances, they
>have the same odds of getting covid/variants as they did when
>there was no vaccine. Remember what we did then? We wore
>masks.
>

There's longitudinal surveillance data now to calculate the odds and relative risk you're alluding to.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

^This is the CDC MMWR from just a few days ago, and they make a point to highlight that it accounts for how much more powerful/transmissable the delta variant is even among the fully vaccinated. And STILL, full vaccination results in ~5X lower risk of infection compared to people who are not vaccinated.

If someone isn't infected, then they can't transmit. So yes, vaccination confers significant protection against transmission. It still happens, and is more likely as the virus mutates to become stronger, but it's rare. And the people most at risk of contracting, regardless of whether it's from a vacc'd or unvacc'd person, are the unvacc'd.

And here's data from King County, WA (they also maintain a dashboard specifically comparing Relative Risk between unvacc'd and vacc'd):

https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/vaccination-outcomes.aspx

^Fully vaccinated people are 7X less likely to test positive for infection.

>You wont get your life back. This is the new normal. Stop
>pretending to care about the unvaccinated. Leave ppl alone and
>vaxx and booster yourself as much as your tv tells you is
>necessary. No one will stop you.

Of course, things will never go back to how they were. You're right, we are in a new normal. But the more people that get vaccinated, the more we can make this new normal resemble the old normal to the best of our ability. This difference is a matter of life and death for some people.

>If an unvaxxed person ------>wears a mask and social distances<---- they
>have the same odds of getting covid/variants as they did
----->when there was no vaccine.<------
Remember what we did then? We wore
>masks.

Stop misquoting me to fit your narrative.

what I said is true. if the unvaxxed social distance and mask they wont get it.

the deniers and anti maskers are the ppl getting it, clogging the hospitals and dying.

People who CANNOT get the vaccine for health issues aren't contracting covid BECAUSE THEY ARE MASKING AND SOCIAL DISTANCING.


Yall pro vax folk are weird as fuck and cant read or comprehend. Its worrisome. I faintly remember someone in another post saying they "tuned out" after getting their vax.

the rightwing nut job crazy deniers are feeling boxed in, they will buck up and something awful will happen if the rhetoric continues. Just let them die. They are dying. I Thought that's what yall wanted. and miss me with the bull about these right wing ppl in red states dying and you care bc you dont. Yall hate them as much as they hate you. maybe this will help the Dems hold their seats with all the red being dead. Stop just stop. you dont care about Po white trash with dont tread on me flags flying from their pick ups in Alabama.

than vaccination, why do vaccinated people account for such small percentages of current cases and mortalities?

Shouldn't we be seeing equal proportions of vacc'd and unvacc'd in those numbers, or even a smaller percentage of unvacc'd in those numbers, if what you're saying is true?


>
>Stop misquoting me to fit your narrative.
>
>what I said is true. if the unvaxxed social distance and mask
>they wont get it.

No, it's not true.

>
>the deniers and anti maskers are the ppl getting it, clogging
>the hospitals and dying.
>

Most data suggests that the majority of those people are also unvacc'd

>People who CANNOT get the vaccine for health issues aren't
>contracting covid BECAUSE THEY ARE MASKING AND SOCIAL
>DISTANCING.
>

Or, perhaps the people around them love them and got vaccinated to reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to them.

>
>Yall pro vax folk are wired as fuck and cant read or
>comprehend. Its worrisome. I faintly remember someone in
>another post saying they "tuned out" after getting their vax.
>
>
>the rightwing nut job crazy deniers are feeling boxed in, they
>will buck up and something awful will happen if the rhetoric
>continues. Just let them die. They are dying. I Thought that's
>what yall wanted.
>

I don't want anybody to die

than vaxx with out mask and social distance


How is this escaping you?


>
>the deniers and anti maskers are the ppl getting it, clogging
>the hospitals and dying.
>

Most data suggests that the majority of those people are also unvacc'd <<----------

^^^^^if you are a denier and anti mask .....the likelihood of you being vaxxed is nil.


again reading comprehension is fundamental.

mutation is the name of the game. The less transmission, the MORE effective the vaccines are.

So if vaxxers are 7x less likely to transmit, vaxxing should be the way to go in ADDITION to masking and social distancing.

*If unvaxxers who are being irresponsible continue the politicizing of masking and vaxxing, it's highly likely that eventually the virus mutates and becomes even deadlier.

This will reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine and force scientist to adjust on the fly which means until they figure it out, more of us die.

*Key note: Those that are reluctant to get vaccinated but are still out here fighting the good fight with masking, social distancing, good hygiene, etc, I'm not mad at that. Ultimately, wearing the mask is to protect others so they are doing their part. Even if I don't understand why they think 179 million vaxxed Americans are going to start having mass medical issues. Because if that's the case, we're doomed either way.

THIS IS ALL IM SAYING BUT APPARENTLY PPL CANNOT READ


*Key note: Those that are reluctant to get vaccinated but are still out here fighting the good fight with masking, social distancing, good hygiene, etc, I'm not mad at that. Ultimately, wearing the mask is to protect others so they are doing their part. Even if I don't understand why they think 179 million vaxxed Americans are going to start having mass medical issues. Because if that's the case, we're doomed either way.

>*Key note: Those that are reluctant to get vaccinated but are
>still out here fighting the good fight with masking, social
>distancing, good hygiene, etc, I'm not mad at that.
>Ultimately, wearing the mask is to protect others so they are
>doing their part. Even if I don't understand why they think
>179 million vaxxed Americans are going to start having mass
>medical issues. Because if that's the case, we're doomed
>either way.

Fuck them and their super special reasoning.

And you think those assholes are going to wear masks?? GTFOH.

The fucking SOUTH and some of the MIDWEST are BANNING MASKS.

glove double masks

why are mad? you can just keep getting boosters. the vaccine protects you.

Even if THEY are doing their part, those that don't care to protect others still make them vulnerable. And that vulnerability at 7x more than vaxxed people also contributes to them spreading the virus and it's mutations.

I'm vaxxed and masked and some a-hole comes in spewing non-sense about 'freedoms and tyranny' and sprays a nice vat of covid aerosols in my space, I'm more resistant to it.

Our unvaxxed brethren in the same scenario are more likely to contract and become the reason for a mutation.

Simply put, they are incubators for the idiots and it's not a good look at this point. Even if I do respect their choice and am not mad at their efforts...it's the less intelligent move.

is not subject to the mandate?

>is not subject to the mandate?
Checks and balances.

seems like some bullshit to me. just like pledging allegiance to a flag
when you don't even know what any of that shit truly means. it's
psychotic.

And corporations will mandate for them? Sounds a bit like...


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

>And corporations will mandate for them? Sounds a bit
>like...
>
>
>"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism
>because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito
>Mussolini
>
>
Biden ordered it for everyone of the branch of government he has aithorty over. That leaves 9 Supreme Court justices, 538 congressmen and senators, and the staff of those 547 people as being the only ones not covered by it. And they can’t be covered by it because of separation of powers. It’s not fascism, it’s separation of powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kizzmekia_Corbett

millenial committed to health equity (https://www.instagram.com/p/COiEcUmLKAL/) designed it from scratch would dramatically improve my trust.

I'm surprised it doesn't for more people (well, for non-right wingers anyway).

Given the training and certifications she would have had to complete/maintain to even be a millenial progressive scientist involved in Human Subjects Research all these years, there are prob few people more aware of the ugly history and distrust between the scientific community and vulnerable populations. Imho, it's highly unlikely somebody with her background and passion for disparities/inequities is on some Elizabeth Holmes-level corrupt genocidal shit.


Unfortunately, this virus is so politicized that the historic aspect of her involvement isn't celebrated to the extent it should be. But from her bio, we can see Kizzmekia's entire career had been building up to this moment. Pardon me while I stan for sis:


-Just after undergrad, Corbett works at NIH on respiratory synctitial virus pathogenesis (relevant!) and innovative vaccine development (relevant!) from 2006-2009

-During her PhD dissertation defense in 2014 on human antibody responses (relevant!) to Dengue, Corbett gets a random suggestion that she should tackle coronaviruses: https://twitter.com/CameronLabUNC/status/1418524282506907648/photo/1

-By fall 2014, she returns to NIH as a post-doc research fellow/viral immunologist and dedicates her early career to coronaviruses (eg. SARS, MERS, etc due to past outbreaks), focusing on their pathogenesis (relevant!) as well as development of novel coronavirus vaccines (super fucking relevant!).


Cut to 2020: As one could have predicted, human civilization experiences yet another coronavirus outbreak after the 2 last decade. But this time, Corbett's not only been studying respiratory virus pathogenesis, coronavirus pathogenesis, human antibody responses, and vaccine innovation for like 15 years, but she's now positioned herself as the leader of a high visibility research group at a high visibility institution (which, as a millenial Black woman in that area of science, would have already been some unicorn shit) able to meet this high visibility moment and almost single-handedly advance vaccinology by like a century:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJD0YHRj_kb/

I mean, damn! Can we give this brilliant sis some props please? I feel like Kizzmekia's story is such vindication for the fresh eyes and ideas of not only younger generations but underrepresented racial and gender groups as well. To advance the way she did, at her age, and especially in that particular area of science? She would have had to have gone way beyond just "doing everything right" and been no less than a fucking rock star. So, I'm ready to change the narrative about these mRNA vaccines from one of distrust to one of fucking BLACK EXCELLENCE. An okplayery progressive black millenial just made a Nobel Prize calibre scientific contribution (and mind you NO BLACK PERSON HAS EVER WON A NOBEL PRIZE FOR PHYSIOLOGY/MEDICINE) that will likely save billions of lives. That's cool af! And by getting the vaccine, we can not only do our part for personal and public safety, but showing support for Kizzmekia and Black professionals like her everywhere trying to blast past old ass gatekeepers and be great. The development, effectiveness, and innovation of these COVID mRNA vaccines is probably the most globally impactful achievement by a Black millenial to date, and hardly enough people are talking about it. Let's change that!

nm

Disappointing but not unexpected.


I choose to see the brilliance in Kizzmekia's work and hope to see more Black professionals with bright ideas elevated like she was.

when he saw the result he said otherwise. “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

I'm not an antivaxxer. I'm pro choice. the long term effect of the vaxx remain to be seen.

I'm fully vaxxed and about to schedule my flu shot. As I do every year.

I'm no respecter of persons when it comes to people based on race. People make mistakes and plenty of black folk have fucked over other black folk. Science can always end up bad over time. No one knows the long term effects. I'd rather live to see the long term than be taken out by covid. If others don't, its their choice to take it or not take it.

If the vaxx works why u worried about the unvaxxed? just get your booster.

I normally prefer to let problems in someone's actual track record/actions sour me before I turn up the criticism, but why not hate right out the gate based on what other people have done? Seems reasonable.

For someone so supportive of "choice" tho, I must say you're awfully committed to undermining the hard science and data supporting vaccine effectiveness. Even bringing your arguments down here, in response to a post completely unrelated to our back-and-forth above.

You're a vaxxed anti-vaxxer and it's ok, lol. I'm just glad you're vaccinated. That said, you're educating me a whole lot bc while I know a few vaxxed deniers, who I suspect would have chosen not to vaxx if not for their jobs (like you they're also allied health careworkers), they are def not as militant with their ideology as you are.

So seeing how you reason is helping me understand what they too might be thinking... along with possible intervention points. lol :)

edit: before you come for me again, let me just say I'm not saying you too are a denier, and you're pro-mask which the anti- individuals I know are not. But all of you vocalize doubt about the vaccines, so that's the similarity.

>If the vaxx works why u worried about the unvaxxed? just get
>your booster.

The problem is that unvaxxed are ALSO typically anti-mask.


So we have to worry about the unvaxxed. Because, if literally nothing else, they are filling up ICUs.


If your argument is to also add a mask mandate, I'm on board.


And I agree, fully vaxxed were way too quick to drop the mask- especially when the Biden admin said it. Huuuuugggeee mistake.


Mask mandates aren't coming back. These stupid motherfuckers are shutting down school board meetings, etc over masking unvaxxed kids.


So, yes...tie the vaxx to their job. They won't mask up, so make them vax up.

Simple as that.


And yes, Vaccines are mandated all the time. To go to school. To join the military. To work in the healthcare system I work in. To travel to certain areas.


Your pro-choice rhetoric is bullshit. As I said, the same folks won't choose to wear a mask.

And their choice to neither mask nor get the vax- if nothing else- is killing healthcare systems.


So their "choice" to not mask and not get vaxxed = full healthcare systems unable to give other care.

Fuck that choice.

Not to mention the the virus evolving, etc.


So yes, everyone should mask up for a long while.


But everyone should also get vaxxed. If someone doesn't understand the mRNA technology and is scared, is there not the J & J option?


See...choice. They can choose which one to get.


Or I suppose they can choose to quit their job.


Or, we can accept we live in a society and this idea of ultimate freedom of choice is naive horse shit.

You can't choose to drive drunk, you legally have to wear your seatbelt, etc.


Your pro mask argument is sensible. The rest just sounds like anti-vaccine hysteria mixed with Libertarian bullshit.

We are in unprecedented times and need to use every tool that we have.

ive been fully vaccinated and i think a couple months back they said we were at like 80%

i know two coworkers that have been saying they will quit if they make them get the vaccine, one of them is very important to our success.

seemed like he was making a fake vaccine card this morning until the other coworker told him they can check it lol

city wide we are near 75% fully vaccinated for eligible people

>ive been fully vaccinated and i think a couple months back
>they said we were at like 80%
>
>i know two coworkers that have been saying they will quit if
>they make them get the vaccine, one of them is very important
>to our success.
>
>seemed like he was making a fake vaccine card this morning
>until the other coworker told him they can check it lol
>
>city wide we are near 75% fully vaccinated for eligible
>people

I'm worried that people are gassed up and willing to die on this hill. AKA I think some folks will for real quit if they get a mandate put on them.

A bunch of 'law and order' people have fallen in love with 'freedom' and don't want to follow any 'laws' that don't suite their whims and feelings that they get injected into them by their tunnel-vision online travels.

And the Great Resignation propaganda has a bunch of earthlings feeling really froggy about leaving their gigs a few months of rainy day funds and, in many cases, some untested idea of how they can make money in some other way.

>i know two coworkers that have been saying they will quit if
>they make them get the vaccine, one of them is very important
>to our success.

I'd love to hear the next job interview when they ask "Why are you switching job?" "I quit my last job because I didn't follow the legal rules because I know better than the 180 million people who got vaccinated and had no ill effects."

The interviews will think "This guy is a TEAM PLAYER!!!"

We had someone in our group who wasn't going to get it, but guess what - they got it.

See I think this lie here is why there is such a big pushback against the vaxx....

NO ill effects? VAERS has over 5k deaths reported this year and tens of thousands of adverse events. The rest of the world? Cmon...this is not NO ILL EFFECTS and 100% completely safe.

It should be an easy point to give some leeway and understanding....how hard is it to say "I know you may be concerned about safety since this one is much less safe than other vaccines, but the technology will continue to improve and death rate is still a tiny fraction of ppl who got vaxxed, look at the other data and pls reconsider?"

"I know you may be concerned about safety since this one is much less safe than other vaccines, but the technology will continue to improve and death rate is still a tiny fraction of ppl who got vaxxed, look at the other data and pls reconsider?"

do you have numbers on how much safer other vaccines are compared to this one?

Theres like 5-10 deaths a month for 30 years running, now theres thousands.

THAT MUST BE BULLSHTI THOUGH

>NO ill effects? VAERS has over 5k deaths reported this year
>and tens of thousands of adverse events. The rest of the
>world? Cmon...this is not NO ILL EFFECTS and 100% completely
>safe.
5,000 PROVEN deaths? orNot proven bu credible and under investigation?"

or Jsut 5,000 non-verified liars submitting data.

Here's what the CDC says about it:
" Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through September 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,653 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths "


So we know that 1 in 500 Americans has died of COVID, which is .02%.

So VAERS reported 0.0020% death rate (unverified and most likely BULLSHIT.)

So you think it's reasonable and that people need more time to determine the risks??

.02% chance of dying without vaccine and .002% of dying from the vaccine?? Do you understand numbers and risk? (I'll give you some very small percentage of the vaccinated die from COVID still.)

>
>It should be an easy point to give some leeway and
>understanding....how hard is it to say "I know you may be
>concerned about safety since this one is much less safe than
>other vaccines, but the technology will continue to improve
>and death rate is still a tiny fraction of ppl who got vaxxed,
>look at the other data and pls reconsider?"

First: Fuck these people, their fears ARE unreasonable. And they don't seem to have a fear of catching COVID. Do we just let them stay in status until they produce more variants, jam our hospitals, and die suffering??? (There may be some actual people with actual medical conditions that actually shouldn't take the vaccine - but it's no one you know.)

Every disease and every treatment have risks - the risk from the vaccines is incredibly stupefying low and the risk once catching the disease is tens to hundreds of times higher.

Death rates from APRIN USE are much higher than from vaccine administration.

They probably have some large percentage who don't believe that masks help - like senator Rand Paul.

And what "technology improvements" are you talking about/ Does that just lead to their fear of "it was developed too quickly?"

Stop coddling these folks. It's been nearly 10 months since the first vaccines were administered and even FOX NEWS can't find a poster person to show how harmful they are.(They aren't harmful.)

>>NO ill effects? VAERS has over 5k deaths reported this
>year
>>and tens of thousands of adverse events. The rest of the
>>world? Cmon...this is not NO ILL EFFECTS and 100%
>completely
>>safe.
>5,000 PROVEN deaths? orNot proven bu credible and under
>investigation?"
>
>or Jsut 5,000 non-verified liars submitting data.

This is where ya'll are disingenuous as shit. Ya'll CARE about ppl dying but if they die from a vaxx they are just liars. There are VAERS equivalents in UK, EU, etc and theres thousands dead there too...


More vaccine deaths in 6 months than the last 30 years combined....ya its definitely a more risky vaxx than previous ones, that shouldnt even be debatable.

Not to mentions the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people with thrombosis, myocarditis, etc...?





>
>Here's what the CDC says about it:
>" Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More
>than 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered
>in the United States from December 14, 2020, through September
>13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,653 reports of
>death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
>FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after
>COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether
>the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS
>following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily
>mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of
>available clinical information, including death certificates,
>autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal
>link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a
>plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19
>Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood
>clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths "
>
>
>So we know that 1 in 500 Americans has died of COVID, which is
>.02%.
>
>So VAERS reported 0.0020% death rate (unverified and most
>likely BULLSHIT.)
>
>So you think it's reasonable and that people need more time to
>determine the risks??

Yes, I have no problem with people waiting it out a bit. If they are worried, especially with underlying conditions, absolutely yes.


>.02% chance of dying without vaccine and .002% of dying from
>the vaccine?? Do you understand numbers and risk? (I'll give
>you some very small percentage of the vaccinated die from
>COVID still.)

I undestand that 0.02% chance of dying is LOW AF. Mandating a vaxx with a lower rate isnt an apples to apples comparison.


>
>>
>>It should be an easy point to give some leeway and
>>understanding....how hard is it to say "I know you may be
>>concerned about safety since this one is much less safe than
>>other vaccines, but the technology will continue to improve
>>and death rate is still a tiny fraction of ppl who got
>vaxxed,
>>look at the other data and pls reconsider?"
>
>First: Fuck these people, their fears ARE unreasonable. And
>they don't seem to have a fear of catching COVID. Do we just
>let them stay in status until they produce more variants, jam
>our hospitals, and die suffering??? (There may be some actual
>people with actual medical conditions that actually shouldn't
>take the vaccine - but it's no one you know.)

Or maybe I have multiple fam members with blood clot / heart conditions and they CANT TAKE THE VACCINE or are scared shitless of it? I dont really do anecdotes though but since you wanna push that horseshit ...


>
>Every disease and every treatment have risks - the risk from
>the vaccines is incredibly stupefying low and the risk once
>catching the disease is tens to hundreds of times higher.
>
>Death rates from APRIN USE are much higher than from vaccine
>administration.
>
>They probably have some large percentage who don't believe
>that masks help - like senator Rand Paul.
>
>And what "technology improvements" are you talking about/ Does
>that just lead to their fear of "it was developed too
>quickly?"


Yall are the ones tauting the mRNA tech and how they been working on it and perfecting it long before COVID. Maybe they actually perfect it down the line and are able to address some of its shortcomings or side effects? Is that really too much to ask for?

>Stop coddling these folks. It's been nearly 10 months since
>the first vaccines were administered and even FOX NEWS can't
>find a poster person to show how harmful they are.(They aren't
>harmful.)
>

My problem with all this reasoning is simple....The virus has a 0.02% death rate (per you), which is apparently enough to shut down the world and mandate masks/vaccines/etc....

But as soon as somebody dies from the vaccines ya'll be like "o they old, they obese, thats a lie"

Theres hundreds of examples of funny stats and lies with COVID death numbers that ya'll dont care about, but vaccine deaths are just swept under the rug.

I think its inconsistent and hypocritical, and it fully washes away the whole "I care about other ppl dying" narrative ya'll pushing. The more ya'll type the more it seems ya'll dont care about others, you are just scared.

1)More than 650,00 Americans have died since 202. FOCUS ON THTA NUMBER and not just the percentage.

2)PROVE that there have been thousands of deaths from the vaccine. Self-reporting tools are not acceptable as proof.

And WHATEVER you find then compare it with the numbers of ACTUAL DEATHS reported from COVID.

The benefits of the vaccine so far outweigh the risks by THOUSANDS of times.

And yes, if you have an ACTUAL disease or condition that means you can't take the vaccine THEN MAKING EVEYRONE TAKE IT GREATLY BEEFITS YOU TOO.

>I think its inconsistent and hypocritical, and it fully washes away the whole "I care about other ppl dying" narrative ya'll pushing. The more ya'll type the more it seems ya'll dont care about others, you are just scared.

That's about the bitch-est move I've ever seen. You sound like Tucker Carlson, or Sarah Palin. You are what happens when rubber meets glue.

I get it - you can't judge risk - and you're reasoning is twisted and stupid.

Let me repeat: If you have an actual medical reason that prevents you from taking the vaccine then you can just get tested instead.

And if there is no reason other than you think you are special and that the vaccine is actually killing people at a high rate - you just have to prove it - or shut the fuck and admit that YOU are scared.

Not taking the vaccine is being scared, telling people to take it when you are already vaccinated is not scared.

I see both you and CT saying that the vaxx will help my people who can't take it. Fair. I appreciate your acknowledgement and flexibility.

Unfortunately the state they live in, their employers, their childrens schools, or even their friends seem to care about that at all - they are getting yelled at to get vaxxed even if they could die from it.

So appreciate ya'll but that's not really how this is going out there in the real world...

>This is where ya'll are disingenuous as shit. Ya'll CARE
>about ppl dying but if they die from a vaxx they are just
>liars. There are VAERS equivalents in UK, EU, etc and theres
>thousands dead there too...

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this- and it shows that you're the one being disingenuous. The issue that is consistently echoed about VAERS is that those are unverified reports.

In fact, the VAERS website makes this crystal clear:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

They go as far as saying, "Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors."

And they go into a fair amount of detail about this. Hell, this is the opening statement on their own site:

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established."

So no, nobody is saying that if they die from being vaccinated, they're just liars. It's that the data source that is, as far as I can tell, the most often cited for this, is by it's own admission wrought with serious limitations, which makes this particular data point questionable.

So the issue, yet again, is sourcing. And you're being egregiously disingenuous by saying that people are saying that anyone who dies from a vaccine is just a liar. That's not happening.

If you want a better response to that data, provide a better source.

>More vaccine deaths in 6 months than the last 30 years
>combined....ya its definitely a more risky vaxx than previous
>ones, that shouldnt even be debatable.

Do you have a better data source than VAERS?

>I undestand that 0.02% chance of dying is LOW AF.

Do you think death is the only issue here?

Because it's not.

Further, that's pretty high in the context of a full blown, global pandemic.

>Or maybe I have multiple fam members with blood clot / heart
>conditions and they CANT TAKE THE VACCINE

If that's the case, then why are you so angry with the mandate?

Because vaccines are an integral element of developing heard immunity. The data shows that unvaccinated people are quite clearly at a significantly higher rate of infection, severity of infection, and death.

Which means the loved ones you speak of are precisely why herd immunity is vital. You yell CANT TAKE THE VACCINE as though ANYBODY who is pro vaxx and passionately anti-anti vax thinking are also saying that those who cannot get vaccinated should get it too.

You have this point exactly backward.

or are scared
>shitless of it? I dont really do anecdotes though but since
>you wanna push that horseshit ...

You're talking about people who are scared shitless, and your big data point is from a source that very clearly and meticulously explains, on their own website, that there are significant limits to what their data can objectively convey- up to and including causality.

Your entire argument rests on anecdotes.

>Yall are the ones tauting the mRNA tech and how they been
>working on it and perfecting it long before COVID. Maybe they
>actually perfect it down the line and are able to address some
>of its shortcomings or side effects? Is that really too much
>to ask for?

YES., YES IT IS, given the incredibly bad reasons you've cited.

In fact... at least one is already FDA approved.

>My problem with all this reasoning is simple....The virus has
>a 0.02% death rate (per you), which is apparently enough to
>shut down the world and mandate masks/vaccines/etc....
>
>But as soon as somebody dies from the vaccines ya'll be like
>"o they old, they obese, thats a lie"

NO, as addressed above. Not only is your data badly sourced, you're grossly misrepresenting the reason most people dispute the vaccinated death reports- which is the badly sourced data you're using.

I would reply point by point but since theres 1 thing you keep harping on...

What source would you like me to use if VAERS is the ONLY US source for vaccine adverse events??

LOL the fact that it's a shitty source is an indictment on the CDC and their own reporting system, not ME.

The only other point to make here is that there is 0 long term study of effects and AEs, so you really have no clue either way...

>I would reply point by point but since theres 1 thing you
>keep harping on...

No, I made other points as well. Specifically and significantly, I addressed your assertions that we think people who die of the vaccine are liars, your rant about people who cannot get vaccinated,

>What source would you like me to use if VAERS is the ONLY US
>source for vaccine adverse events??

It's not really my job to do your research for you.

But if the only information you can find to support yout position is one where causation cannot be verified, then you have nothing.

>LOL the fact that it's a shitty source is an indictment on the
>CDC and their own reporting system, not ME.

Sorry, but if your primary issue is based on a specific data point that cannot be verified, and your are made aware of this priblem, and you still choose to proceed as though your claims are backed by accurate data, it's absolutely on you.

You're demonstrating that you're willing to believe something dor which no good evidence actually exists, and worse, in the face of good evidence to the contrary.

In other words, you place more stock in a largely baseless belief than you are facts.

>The only other point to make here is that there is 0 long term
>study of effects and AEs, so you really have no clue either
>way...

Yes, there's a certain amount of calculated risk here- with decades of science behind it.

But over the short term? There is clear and demonstrable evidence that unvaccinated people run a significantly greater risk of infection, severity of infection, and death, all while relying on anecdotal evidence that does not verify causation- which is a massive problem.

The only other source would be the vaccine manufacturers themselves, but the access to their data is limited at best.

Heres some of the stuff we can find -

https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
https://justtheinserts.com/

Just for the approved Pfizer jab we got basically 100% AEs, although all minor (soreness, fever, headache, etc). However we now know about substantial numbers of TEENS and young adults getting pericarditis and myocarditis, as they say themselves -

"6.2 Postmarketing Experience
he following adverse reactions have been identified during postmarketing use of COMIRNATY, including
under Emergency Use Authorization. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of
uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to
vaccine exposure.
Cardiac Disorders: myocarditis, pericarditis
Gastrointestinal Disorders: diarrhea, vomiting
Immune System Disorders: severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions
(e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema)
Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders: pain in extremity (arm)"


They admit clearly there is insufficient data for pregnant women (they were excluded from trials) -

"8.1 Pregnancy
There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to COMIRNATY
during pregnancy. Women who are vaccinated with COMIRNATY during pregnancy are encouraged to enroll
in the registry by visiting https://mothertobaby.org/ongoing-study/covid19-vaccines/."


Ya'll are ready to vaccinate your kids but they are not deemed safe yet -

"8.4 Pediatric Use
Safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals 16 through 17 years of age is based on safety and
effectiveness data in this age group and in adults .
The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals younger than 16 years of age have not been
established."


We also don't know its effects on fertility -

"13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
COMIRNATY has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of
male fertility. In a developmental toxicity study in rats with COMIRNATY there were no vaccine-related
effects on female fertility ."



We can keep going on and on but I don't got the time to do your research for you.

Yes, I agree, VAERS ain't the best source, but that's by design. We only got VAERS and the pharma co's themselves. You trust Big Pharma?

Earlier you said that the vaccine would help my people w heart disease and blood clots, and that you have no problems with them getting exemptions to the vaccine.

What about kids? What about a healthy woman of 30 who wants to get pregnant and is concerned? What about her healthy husband who also is concerned? Are you flexible with them or is it fuck them too, like ya'll said about so many other people?


Meanwhile the CDC just published a study that children's BMI doubled in the last 2 years - "Among a cohort of 432,302 persons aged 2–19 years, the rate of body mass index (BMI) increase approximately doubled during the pandemic compared to a prepandemic period. Persons with prepandemic overweight or obesity and younger school-aged children experienced the largest increases."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037a3.htm?s_cid=mm7037a3_w

Seems we are doing a great job with peoples health these days

Lots of yadda yadda where you produce NOTHING.

There have been bloodclot deaths reported, at least 56 for AstraZeneca in the UK. And possibly dozens of myocarditis deaths.

But the reason you can't find much data isn't because of a conspiracy with BIG PHARMA, and I guess the BABY-EATING LIBERALS, is because there is none.

There may be a very low rate of actual risk , but you give ANY POSSIBLE risk from the vaccine about 1000000x more weight than you give the actual risk of catching COVID.

Public health policy is based on comparative risks, and your arguments are only based on fever dreams and speculation.

180 MILLION Americans got the vaccine and your saying that more people died form it (probably, but you can't tell because of reasons) than died on 9/11.

Hey, I could be wrong and the vaccine is killing people and harming them - but I see no evidence of it. Must be a great conspiracy to supress all that data worldwide.

I didn't say none of that, so I won't even respond to you. You in RJCC territory.

Only person having sensible convos here is ColdTruth

We are in the middle of a pandemic of a virus that is extremely contagious with a high mortality rate- especially for certain groups.

With long-term effects unknown.

It is also straining the healthcare system, putting even non-covid patients at risk.



There is all kinds of verifiable scientific facts surrounding the risk/downside of COVID.


OR


There is self-reported and anecdotal data of possible side effects of a vaccine- and even then, at a much, much, much lower rate than the verified down side of COVID.



You seem to want to focus on the poorly verified/unverified, much much much smaller downside of the vaccine.


Makes no sense.


You even referenced more minor side effects (feeling like shit for a day or so), when the flu vaccine can absolutely do that too.


If you are exclusively only concerned about those who cannot take the vaccine for a medical reason, it has been lost in your posts.

>I didn't say none of that, so I won't even respond to you.
>You in RJCC territory.
>
>Only person having sensible convos here is ColdTruth

Your mind is stuck in some sort of loop, fed by fear of the unknown and gassed up with ant-vaxx propaganda.

Just remember ALMOST ALL the BULLSHIT said about the Covid vaccine was a copy/paste from made-up anti-vax shit against the HPV vaccine.

And all the 'personal choice' bullshit was used by the tobacco industry, the car industry, and yes, the lunch counter owners who didn't want nonwhites in their business and said it was their personal belief.

Maybe HUNDREDS of people have been hurt by the vaccine worldwide, and nearly 4.5 million have died from the disease.

JUDGE THE MANDATE BASED ON RISK.

And if you lack data about the risks then there's a strong possibility that it's NOT risky.

From the vaccine....


And since it will be the only source for information on self-reported super powers, we can then use it to prove that the vaccines give super powers.

When someone calls us on it, we can say

"Its not our fault this is the only source!"

Thus we can prove that vaccines give super powers.


We can then put it on our detractors to prove that vaccines don't give super powers.

>The only other source would be the vaccine manufacturers
>themselves, but the access to their data is limited at best.
>
>Heres some of the stuff we can find -
>
>https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
>https://justtheinserts.com/
>
>Just for the approved Pfizer jab we got basically 100% AEs,
>although all minor (soreness, fever, headache, etc). However
>we now know about substantial numbers of TEENS and young
>adults getting pericarditis and myocarditis, as they say
>themselves -
>
>"6.2 Postmarketing Experience
>he following adverse reactions have been identified during
>postmarketing use of COMIRNATY, including
>under Emergency Use Authorization. Because these reactions are
>reported voluntarily from a population of
>uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate
>their frequency or establish a causal relationship to
>vaccine exposure.
>Cardiac Disorders: myocarditis, pericarditis
>Gastrointestinal Disorders: diarrhea, vomiting
>Immune System Disorders: severe allergic reactions, including
>anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions
>(e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema)
>Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders: pain in
>extremity (arm)

What are those substantial numbers? I may hav3 missed it, but i don't see that.

>They admit clearly there is insufficient data for pregnant
>women (they were excluded from trials) -
>
>"8.1 Pregnancy
>There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy
>outcomes in women exposed to COMIRNATY
>during pregnancy. Women who are vaccinated with COMIRNATY
>during pregnancy are encouraged to enroll
>in the registry by visiting
>https://mothertobaby.org/ongoing-study/covid19-vaccines/."

And?

>Ya'll are ready to vaccinate your kids but they are not deemed
>safe yet -

Who is "ya'll"?

It's well known that the vaccine hasn't yet been approved for kids under 12.


>"8.4 Pediatric Use
>Safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals 16
>through 17 years of age is based on safety and
>effectiveness data in this age group and in adults >Adverse Reactions (6) and Clinical Studies (14.1)].
>The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals
>younger than 16 years of age have not been
>established."

Yes. I've already acknowledged that we have no data on long term effects. I've also pointed out that we've already seen significant positive outcomes in the short term in combatting the virus.

Moreover, pharmaceuticals and vaccines all have known side effects, and generally these impact people in very small numbers. We're all reasonably aware of this.

This very thread has establishedlished that the benefits of the vaccine dramatically outweighs the comparatively minimal known downsides

>We also don't know its effects on fertility -
>
>"13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
>COMIRNATY has not been evaluated for the potential to cause
>carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of
>male fertility. In a developmental toxicity study in rats with
>COMIRNATY there were no vaccine-related
>effects on female fertility >(8.1)]."
>
>
>
>We can keep going on and on but I don't got the time to do
>your research for you.

Unlike you, I didn't ask you to do my research or point me to another source for my own claims.

Further, I've already acknowledged that we do not have data for long term effects.

>Yes, I agree, VAERS ain't the best source, but that's by
>design. We only got VAERS and the pharma co's themselves. You
>trust Big Pharma?

Who is Big Pharma? Further, that's an overly broad question. It's not that simple. I know that I've had success with great consistency with various pharmaceuticals for myself and my family over the year.

Vacccines are included in this.

I trust that long term, reliable consistency. This doesn't mean that I think that I can't some day find myself or a relative as one of those exceptions.

Further, you seem to mistrust all the positive data, while leaning heavy in support of far less- and less accurate-data.


>Earlier you said that the vaccine would help my people w heart
>disease and blood clots, and that you have no problems with
>them getting exemptions to the vaccine.
>
>What about kids?

What about them? There is currently no vaccine for kids under 12. Nobody is demanding they get vaccinated. There is

What about a healthy woman of 30 who wants
>to get pregnant and is concerned? What about her healthy
>husband who also is concerned? Are you flexible with them or
>is it fuck them too, like ya'll said about so many other
>people?

You seem to have this really odd and unfounded perception that I don't recognize valid and reasonable exemptions. No, religious beliefs don't qualify

Kids under 12 can't even get the vaccine.

Kids over 12 can and should get it. Im not going to do any research whatsoever on pregnant women, because pregnant women or women who want to get pregnant should consult their doctor for sound medical advice.

So-called healthy adults and pwrents of teenagers with cincerns should also consult their doctor to see if they have any existing conditions that would prevent them from getting vaccinated.

And no, merely having concerns isn't a good reason to not get vaccinated.

This is because those concerns are relatively simple to address for most people. Moreover, as you're doing, those concerns, when actually parsed out, don't amount to much. It's simply blowing potential downsides grossly out of proportion in order to demonize a vaccine that is clearly demonstrated to work with a massive net positive benefit.

This isn't to say that concerns aren't valid, but that the actual data behind the concerns is minimal, relative to their benefits.

>Meanwhile the CDC just published a study that children's BMI
>doubled in the last 2 years - "Among a cohort of 432,302
>persons aged 2–19 years, the rate of body mass index (BMI)
>increase approximately doubled during the pandemic compared to
>a prepandemic period. Persons with prepandemic overweight or
>obesity and younger school-aged children experienced the
>largest increases."
>
>https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037a3.htm?s_cid=mm7037a3_w
>
>Seems we are doing a great job with peoples health these days

Jesus christ. Stay on topic here.

>You seem to have this really odd and unfounded perception that
>I don't recognize valid and reasonable exemptions. No,
>religious beliefs don't qualify
>
>Kids under 12 can't even get the vaccine.
>
>Kids over 12 can and should get it. Im not going to do any
>research whatsoever on pregnant women, because pregnant women
>or women who want to get pregnant should consult their doctor
>for sound medical advice.
>
>So-called healthy adults and pwrents of teenagers with
>cincerns should also consult their doctor to see if they have
>any existing conditions that would prevent them from getting
>vaccinated.
>
>And no, merely having concerns isn't a good reason to not get
>vaccinated.
>
>This is because those concerns are relatively simple to
>address for most people. Moreover, as you're doing, those
>concerns, when actually parsed out, don't amount to much. It's
>simply blowing potential downsides grossly out of proportion
>in order to demonize a vaccine that is clearly demonstrated to
>work with a massive net positive benefit.
>
>This isn't to say that concerns aren't valid, but that the
>actual data behind the concerns is minimal, relative to their
>benefits.


A) I said "kids", not "kids under 12." Interesting setting of the goal posts.

B) 30 year old healthy woman is concerned, you say simple to address. So lets address it...what do you say to her? What should she do?

From FDA panel yesterday - https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1438910319116627968/photo/1

0.0004% death rate from COVID, no research/data available about vaccine for her. How do you simply address that?


Again I'd answer point for point but I don't got the time so thats what I got for you now.

>A) I said "kids", not "kids under 12." Interesting setting of
>the goal posts.

WHAT? This is ridiculous.

With due respect, you're either obtuse, or trolling.

You said "kids" as a blanket group.

I pointed out that there are very clear and distinct groups of kids where your comments are concerned. That's just a cold hard fact.

I'd say it's odd that you'd want to confine "kids" to a blanket, catchall group, but it follows with the rest of your posts.

I didn't set any goalposts. I pointed out basic facts and addressed each one separately.

>B) 30 year old healthy woman is concerned, you say simple to
>address. So lets address it...what do you say to her? What
>should she do?

About WHAT?

You want me to address the hypothetical concerns of a hypothetical person?

But then, I've already addressed that: I said she- and others with concerns- should go see their doctor. Nobody is, and body should, be coming to your or me on this issue.

And yes, they should go to an actual doctor. With an active license.

Granted, there are some antivax quacks out there, even in the medical field.

>From FDA panel yesterday -
>https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1438910319116627968/photo/1
>
>0.0004% death rate from COVID, no research/data available
>about vaccine for her. How do you simply address that?

Do you understand that death is for from the only problem with COVOD? That's a serious question. Because it's not. Not even close.

Also, do you have a better aource for that number? Because a few replies bow, someone points out that that wasn't an official FDA stat, but a submitted slide from a member of the public, who "spoke during the public comment part of the meeting. The speaker mentioned some app that a nurse who works with him used to come up with that risk number."

With due respect, this is fourth hand information, at best. Im not disputing the number, because I cannot find another source for it so far. So I'm dissmissing it until I find a credible source.

But what I will say is that CDC has a chart that states thay people from 30-39 have a death rate 4x greater than people 18-29.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

Moreover, women tend to contract COVID more than men, though men die at a higher rate:

https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/12/e003097

Here's an article discussing it:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778793

Again, death is hardly the only problem here. And of women contract it more, that means they're more likely to transmit it.

So that healthy woman who gets COVID and doesn't die?

She can transmit it to the child under 12. Or her 70 year old grandparent. Or, yes, the people in your own life, about which you are so deeply concerned.

All of which is why herd immunity is important. But keep on searching for all the stats that, in a vaccum, make COVID look like no big deal, and the vaccine the devil itself. You had several posts, and nothing you've brought so far puts so much as a dent in the fact that the downsides of the vaccine pale in comparison to the benefits.

Let' see how many of these cucks don't show up that week who were lying that they were vaccinated LOL