Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

[I Shrugged]

If vaccinations work, why do leagues make the un-vaxxed stay apart from the vaxxed?

[pp4me]

If vaccinations work, why do leagues make the un-vaxxed stay apart from the vaxxed?

Obviously you don't understand "the science".

But don't feel bad. I don't either.

[yankees60]

If vaccinations work, why do leagues make the un-vaxxed stay apart from the vaxxed?

Because it like the protection afforded by a raincoat and an umbrella.

They will offer good protection against a certain level of rain. But not against a deluge of rain.

[pp4me]

If vaccinations work, why do leagues make the un-vaxxed stay apart from the vaxxed?

Because it like the protection afforded by a raincoat and an umbrella.

They will offer good protection against a certain level of rain. But not against a deluge of rain.

Probably a good idea to keep wearing the masks forever then.

You never know when the deluge is going to come for you.

[yankees60]

Texas man who declined COVID-19 vaccine speaks out after undergoing double lung transplant


The Texan is hoping to inspire others to get the shot now.


https://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-man ... d=78321152

[yankees60]

https://www.billboard.com/amp/articles/ ... s-shortage


Concert Business Faces 'Massive Shortage' of Tour Bus Drivers



Another reason for drivers' departures from the industry: Most tours are requiring vaccines for their entire crews, and Rogan and others refuse to get the shots. "F--k no," he says, before launching into a rant about how he doesn't trust the government and, if vaccines are so easy to produce, why hasn't anybody cured cancer or AIDS? Rock LaRocca, another former driver who left the concert business for pandemic freight-hauling and refuses to come back, says half of his decision is due to vaccine hesitancy. He has asthma and a history of heart attacks and diabetes and "wants to see how it's going to work out in the next couple of years." For now, he’s able to live a more solitary life in his cab, wearing masks and gloves at truck stops and restaurants.


“Quite rightfully, everybody on tour is going to require everybody to be vaccinated,” says Steve Maples, vp of entertainment trucking for Rock-It Cargo, which specializes in moving tour freight. “That’s going to deter some people.”

[pp4me]

Saw a guy on Carl Tuckerson last night who was the inventor of mRNA vaccines.

He has serious questions about the side effects, especially in younger people who he says should not take it. He said he has no data to support that conclusion but that is basically the problem because the government isn't being transparent and not making the data available.

I know it's hard to believe that the government would ever suppress the evidence or even lie about such an important matter but his concerns seemed valid to me.

[Mountaineer]

The following was published in 1922:

[After explaining that the establishment of churches in Europe was largely irrelevant because the churches had long since ceased using the coercive power of government to enforce any religious doctrines or practices, the author continues...] "The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen-- that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established church; the government will really help it to persecute its heretics. Vaccination, in its hundred years of experiment, has been disputed almost as much as baptism in its approximate two thousand. But it seems quite natural to our politicians to enforce vaccination; and it would seem to them madness to enforce baptism.

I am not frightened of the word 'persecution' when it is attributed to the churches; nor is it in the least as a term of reproach that I attribute it to the men of science. It is a term of legal fact. If it means the imposition by the police of widely disputed theory, incapable of final proof-- then our priests are not now persecuting, but our doctors are. The imposition of such dogmas constitutes a State Church-- in an older and stronger sense than can be applied to any supernatural Church today."

from Eugenics and Other Evils, by G.K. Chesterton.

[murphy_p_t]

Couldve been written this week.

[murphy_p_t]

Have a look at the scoreboard

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/0 ... h-country/

[SomeDude]

Have a look at the scoreboard

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/0 ... h-country/

Those are probably just the ones they couldn't attribute to anything else, the exact opposite of covid.

My office fully went back to work this week. Lots of masks as its required if you didn't vax yourself. I think that's a good sign. Probably everyone who wanted to get vaxxed already has.

[Lonestar]

I know it's hard to believe that the government would ever suppress the evidence or even lie about such an important matter but his concerns seemed valid to me.

I'm having a difficult time trying to follow this. If the government is suppressing data, and the vaccine is "toxic", exactly which group of citizens is it trying to exterminate?

[pp4me]

I know it's hard to believe that the government would ever suppress the evidence or even lie about such an important matter but his concerns seemed valid to me.

I'm having a difficult time trying to follow this. If the government is suppressing data, and the vaccine is "toxic", exactly which group of citizens is it trying to exterminate?

I don't recall the inventor of mRNA vaccines saying anything about the government trying to exterminate anyone or even making any specific claims about negative effects. He was just saying the government isn't being transparent with the data. Which I said is absolutely no surprise to me.

Hope that makes it more clear.

[SomeDude]

I know it's hard to believe that the government would ever suppress the evidence or even lie about such an important matter but his concerns seemed valid to me.

I'm having a difficult time trying to follow this. If the government is suppressing data, and the vaccine is "toxic", exactly which group of citizens is it trying to exterminate?

I don't recall the inventor of mRNA vaccines saying anything about the government trying to exterminate anyone or even making any specific claims about negative effects. He was just saying the government isn't being transparent with the data. Which I said is absolutely no surprise to me.

Hope that makes it more clear.

"Not being transparent" is Qannon code for "mass extermination that is also imminent". That's how strawman arguments work pp.

I'll admit i don't know anyone who's died from the vaccines. They certainly don't appear to be a mass extermination weapon. I know several dozen who've gotten sick from them, but nothing serious. My wife has some relatives, cousins i think who's daughter's got them and are having trouble with their cycles. That sounds more serious to me.

[yankees60]

I'll admit i don't know anyone who's died from the vaccines. They certainly don't appear to be a mass extermination weapon. I know several dozen who've gotten sick from them, but nothing serious. My wife has some relatives, cousins i think who's daughter's got them and are having trouble with their cycles. That sounds more serious to me.

Correct me if any my following assertions are INCORRECT:

1. Unless anyone has been in total isolation from some time period starting around the latter part of 2019 to the present....everyone has been subject to some form of risk of catching the virus by being exposed to others. From my readings here..it seems that I have led by far the most isolated life (and that's not been even close to total isolation) with all else here being far more exposed to others. Therefore the assertion is that almost all people and all people in this forum have been at some risk.

2. Just within this forum we have had several testify that they themselves have contracted the virus and described to us how it affected them. On top of that several have testified to directly knowing people who have contracted it, some so badly that it ended up in death.

3. Only 65% have taken the vaccine? That leave a healthy part of society not having had the vaccine. I think I put a poll here regarding who'd taken the vaccine but, for some reason, no one but myself answered it. So I don't know how many have taken it. One line of thought says I should accept the 65 / 35 split based upon having no other specific knowledge. But since the 35 is highly populated by society's conservatives and this forum is overrepresented by conservatives then maybe the better assumption is that it could be more of a 50 / 50 or ever 35 / 65 split. But I'll leave it at the societal 65 /35 split.

4. I seem to remember having some testimonies of some adverse reactions to the vaccines (I had none).

I'm not sure how to interpret the quantity cited above "several dozen". Several means more than two but not many. I'll assume in this case "four". That is 48. Seems like a lot. But we'll accept it because there is was also the qualifying "but nothing serious".

5. Comparing #1 and #3...it seems that both in society and in this forum the ratio of "being exposed to the virus / taking the vaccine" is about 1.3. But comparing #2 to #4 it seems that the severity both in the world and just among this forum is far more severe from contracting the virus than from taking a vaccine that will prevent it.

Agreed there has been a major societal and government push with certain organizations passing their own mandates to get the vaccine.

Some people have total choice as to whether or not to get the vaccine. In other words they will not "suffer" by something being taken away from them or not being able to do something by not being vaccinated. They are completely free to weight the odds of contracting the virus and how severely it can impact their lives (up to taking their lives) versus the risks of some negative effects from taking the vaccine.

What am I missing to tilt the scale to NOT get the vaccine.

From the "facts" / assertions I've listed above it seems that the risk / reward ratio greatly points toward getting the vaccine.

[murphy_p_t]

We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers within the CDC. And those are being developed right now in order to get this out. So, we’re looking at 10x. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. 50,000. So, we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day, than certainly the viral illness, by far. It’s basically, in a sense, it’s propagandized bioterrorism by injection.”

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-10- ... ction.html

Very encouraging that there are whistleblowers

[yankees60]

We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers within the CDC. And those are being developed right now in order to get this out. So, we’re looking at 10x. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. 50,000. So, we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day, than certainly the viral illness, by far. It’s basically, in a sense, it’s propagandized bioterrorism by injection.”

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-10- ... ction.html

Very encouraging that there are whistleblowers

Unless you have information to counter this...

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

......it does not seem wise to put much credence into anything Naturalnews.com reports?

[flyingpylon]

Unless you have information to counter this...

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

......it does not seem wise to put much credence into anything Naturalnews.com reports?

What qualifies Wikipedia as a credible source?

how can it possibly be anything but credible.. it is crowd sourced, and easily and quickly debunks all other sources that disagree with the common narrative...

[SomeDude]

how can it possibly be anything but credible.. it is crowd sourced, and easily and quickly debunks all other sources that disagree with the common narrative...

I checked snopes and CNN and they both confirmed that Wikipedia is credible.

[stuper1]

I'll admit i don't know anyone who's died from the vaccines. They certainly don't appear to be a mass extermination weapon. I know several dozen who've gotten sick from them, but nothing serious. My wife has some relatives, cousins i think who's daughter's got them and are having trouble with their cycles. That sounds more serious to me.

Correct me if any my following assertions are INCORRECT:

1. Unless anyone has been in total isolation from some time period starting around the latter part of 2019 to the present....everyone has been subject to some form of risk of catching the virus by being exposed to others. From my readings here..it seems that I have led by far the most isolated life (and that's not been even close to total isolation) with all else here being far more exposed to others. Therefore the assertion is that almost all people and all people in this forum have been at some risk.

2. Just within this forum we have had several testify that they themselves have contracted the virus and described to us how it affected them. On top of that several have testified to directly knowing people who have contracted it, some so badly that it ended up in death.

3. Only 65% have taken the vaccine? That leave a healthy part of society not having had the vaccine. I think I put a poll here regarding who'd taken the vaccine but, for some reason, no one but myself answered it. So I don't know how many have taken it. One line of thought says I should accept the 65 / 35 split based upon having no other specific knowledge. But since the 35 is highly populated by society's conservatives and this forum is overrepresented by conservatives then maybe the better assumption is that it could be more of a 50 / 50 or ever 35 / 65 split. But I'll leave it at the societal 65 /35 split.

4. I seem to remember having some testimonies of some adverse reactions to the vaccines (I had none).

I'm not sure how to interpret the quantity cited above "several dozen". Several means more than two but not many. I'll assume in this case "four". That is 48. Seems like a lot. But we'll accept it because there is was also the qualifying "but nothing serious".

5. Comparing #1 and #3...it seems that both in society and in this forum the ratio of "being exposed to the virus / taking the vaccine" is about 1.3. But comparing #2 to #4 it seems that the severity both in the world and just among this forum is far more severe from contracting the virus than from taking a vaccine that will prevent it.

Agreed there has been a major societal and government push with certain organizations passing their own mandates to get the vaccine.

Some people have total choice as to whether or not to get the vaccine. In other words they will not "suffer" by something being taken away from them or not being able to do something by not being vaccinated. They are completely free to weight the odds of contracting the virus and how severely it can impact their lives (up to taking their lives) versus the risks of some negative effects from taking the vaccine.

What am I missing to tilt the scale to NOT get the vaccine.

From the "facts" / assertions I've listed above it seems that the risk / reward ratio greatly points toward getting the vaccine.

Uh ... what ... come again? I'm in my mid-50s and in good health. My risk of severe illness from Covid is virtually zero. My risk from an experimental, not-fully-tested vaccine is unknown. Why on earth would I want to take an unknown risk?

[SomeDude]

I'll admit i don't know anyone who's died from the vaccines. They certainly don't appear to be a mass extermination weapon. I know several dozen who've gotten sick from them, but nothing serious. My wife has some relatives, cousins i think who's daughter's got them and are having trouble with their cycles. That sounds more serious to me.

Correct me if any my following assertions are INCORRECT:

1. Unless anyone has been in total isolation from some time period starting around the latter part of 2019 to the present....everyone has been subject to some form of risk of catching the virus by being exposed to others. From my readings here..it seems that I have led by far the most isolated life (and that's not been even close to total isolation) with all else here being far more exposed to others. Therefore the assertion is that almost all people and all people in this forum have been at some risk.

2. Just within this forum we have had several testify that they themselves have contracted the virus and described to us how it affected them. On top of that several have testified to directly knowing people who have contracted it, some so badly that it ended up in death.

3. Only 65% have taken the vaccine? That leave a healthy part of society not having had the vaccine. I think I put a poll here regarding who'd taken the vaccine but, for some reason, no one but myself answered it. So I don't know how many have taken it. One line of thought says I should accept the 65 / 35 split based upon having no other specific knowledge. But since the 35 is highly populated by society's conservatives and this forum is overrepresented by conservatives then maybe the better assumption is that it could be more of a 50 / 50 or ever 35 / 65 split. But I'll leave it at the societal 65 /35 split.

4. I seem to remember having some testimonies of some adverse reactions to the vaccines (I had none).

I'm not sure how to interpret the quantity cited above "several dozen". Several means more than two but not many. I'll assume in this case "four". That is 48. Seems like a lot. But we'll accept it because there is was also the qualifying "but nothing serious".

5. Comparing #1 and #3...it seems that both in society and in this forum the ratio of "being exposed to the virus / taking the vaccine" is about 1.3. But comparing #2 to #4 it seems that the severity both in the world and just among this forum is far more severe from contracting the virus than from taking a vaccine that will prevent it.

Agreed there has been a major societal and government push with certain organizations passing their own mandates to get the vaccine.

Some people have total choice as to whether or not to get the vaccine. In other words they will not "suffer" by something being taken away from them or not being able to do something by not being vaccinated. They are completely free to weight the odds of contracting the virus and how severely it can impact their lives (up to taking their lives) versus the risks of some negative effects from taking the vaccine.

What am I missing to tilt the scale to NOT get the vaccine.

From the "facts" / assertions I've listed above it seems that the risk / reward ratio greatly points toward getting the vaccine.

Uh ... what ... come again? I'm in my mid-50s and in good health. My risk of severe illness from Covid is virtually zero. My risk from an experimental, not-fully-tested vaccine is unknown. Why on earth would I want to take an unknown risk?

Religious Faith is all that comes to mind.

[murphy_p_t]

https://nonvenipacem.com/2021/07/10/boo ... -one-page/

"The FDA confirms that the 1st vaccine dose correlates with increased COVID-19 infections. “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs 287 in the placebo group.” This data comes from Pfizer itself. "


Also, I'm very glad to learn from this article that the experimental injections kill all the animals subjected.... No coronavirus injection succeeded in animal studies.

The summary article also gives overview of mechanisms of how the experimental injections are destructive to human health.

[yankees60]

I recently read in my local paper the rates for my county. I think it was low 40's for both shots and low 60s for at least one. I would not have thought my county would be far below the state average as it is even more liberal / Democratic than is the overall state.

Vinny

Capture.JPG (80.02 KiB) Viewed 4774 times

[Maddy]

Why on earth would I want to take an unknown risk?

Why indeed.

Those proclaiming to have done their own "risk-benefit analysis" are, scientifically speaking, full of shit. No one has the slightest idea what the longterm consequences of this injection are. Their "risk-benefit analysis" is, in reality, a blind leap of faith.

In fact, it's all but impossible to assess the risks and consequences of coronavirus infection itself given the complete lack of rigor--and outright manipulation of statistics--that has permeated, if not defined, the epidemiologic data to date.

Which simply goes to prove that the marketplace of ideas has no shortage of "greater fools." I just never thought I'd see this kind of non-logic (anti-logic?) spewed about this forum.

[murphy_p_t]

"Those proclaiming to have done their own "risk-benefit analysis" are, scientifically speaking, full of shit. No one has the slightest idea what the longterm consequences of this injection are. Your "risk-benefit analysis" is, in reality, a blind leap of faith."


Yes.

By definition, human test subjects don't have the information necessary to make an informed analysis.