Covid 19 virus plus vaccine was meant to kill us.

[Corn Pop]

I don't think you could ever claim that Donald Trump was a "globalist." We always hear about how he bungled the response to the pandemic, and in the early stages, he did. But he also promoted the rapid development of a vaccine that saved millions of lives.

I don't know if the jab saved millions of lives. It's hard to know because some high risk people were not jab and took up hospital beds or died covid related, and other high risk people were jab and took up hospital beds or died covid related. So how could just say well the jab obviously just didn't work for those who did take it and those who did take it, look see the jab worked and saved there life.

98% of people jab or no jab got mild cold and flu like symptoms and were not high risk of getting seriously sicm. The jab would be for the higher at risk.

I have a question for you and if you can lead me to some evidence maybe I can be convinced to believe it did save lives. How do you know it saved lives?. How do you know a person who got jabed it was only the jab that saved them from hospital or death when they did get infected?

 

[Barbarian]

I have a question for you and if you can lead me to some evidence maybe I can be convinced to believe it did save lives. How do you know it saved lives?

Fully vaccinated people had COVID death rates 1/14 of the COVID death rates for unvaccinated people. And they had COVID death rates 1/3 of the COVID death rates for those with only one vaccination.

COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated ...

This report describes higher protection against COVID-19 infection and death among people who received an updated booster than people who received a monovalent booster.

www.cdc.gov

What rational person would go against odds like that? It is true, BTW, that vaccinated people were also less likely to get infected, even though the vaccine was formulated primarily to prevent severe infections.

How do you know it saved lives?

Vaccinated people had much lower death rates than unvaccinated people. Same way I know that driving sober is a lot safer than driving drunk.

How do you know a person who got jabed it was only the jab that saved them from hospital or death when they did get infected?

It is possible to drive drunk and get home safely. But the odds aren't in your favor. Casinos get rich on people who can't figure that out.

 

[Barbarian]

It was a global problem. The benefits outweighed the risks…

There are people who get injured by automobile seat belts. But it's pretty dumb to ride without being belted up.

 

[Corn Pop]

There are people who get injured by automobile seat belts. But it's pretty dumb to ride without being belted up.

Yea but seatbelts get properly tested first, they don't get pushed and rushed through as an experiment mandated on the people. And it's a bit different, it's not consuming some corps product inside there body. It's just a seatbelt.

 

[Corn Pop]

If the jab was all about keeping people more safe and protected then those who had it should have felt safe and protected in general and if they did get infected. But apparently the jab did not want to be around the unjab as they needed more confidence.

Well that's what the PM of the country I was living assumed at the time and said. The most safe and protected were somehow afraid of the least protected and most vulnerable so the most safe and protected got more rights in society than others as they needed more confidence that was used as a tool to try drive up jab rates.

 

[Barbarian]

Yea but seatbelts get properly tested first, they don't get pushed and rushed through as an experiment mandated on the people.

Did you really believe that they didn't test the vaccines? That was the whole point of Trump's "lightspeed" program. C'mon.

And it's a bit different, it's not consuming some corps product inside there body.

You seem to be confused about the vaccine. Can you show me (evidence required) that a particular vaccine was made of corpses?

It's just a seatbelt.

And like the COVID vaccines, it saves lives. As you now see, unvaccinated people died at a rate 14 times that of vaccinated people.

 

[Barbarian]

If the jab was all about keeping people more safe and protected then those who had it should have felt safe and protected in general and if they did get infected. But apparently the jab did not want to be around the unjab as they needed more confidence.

You've got that precisely backwards. It was taken by medical personnel who had exposure to the unvaccinated. Because they were exposed.

Well that's what the PM of the country I was living assumed at the time and said.

Was the PM an immunologist or a physician? Why would we give your PM more credibility than those fluffs making You Tube videos?

The most safe and protected were somehow afraid of the least protected and most vulnerable so the most safe and protected got more rights in society than others as they needed more confidence that was used as a tool to try drive up jab rates.

Could you rephrase that in English?

 

[Corn Pop]

Did you really believe that they didn't test the vaccines? That was the whole point of Trump's "lightspeed" program. C'mon.

Correct me if im wrong but the FDA gave emergency use so that can authorize unapproved products?. Not sure how the 19 vac could have been be developed and tested in such a short amount of time for full approval.

Correct me if im wrong vacine development takes around 10-15 years of laboratory research and there is also like 4 phases before they are fully approved.

I'm not arguing if the jab was good or bad just if it is classed as a scientific experimental product because it was given emergency use through the FDA and seemed to be available quite quickly.

 

[Barbarian]

Correct me if im wrong but the FDA gave emergency use so that can authorize unapproved products?

The law permits emergency authorizations when people are dying who can be helped by a product that is tested and found effective, but not through the approval process.

Before COVID-19, most of us probably weren’t familiar with the term “emergency use authorization.” And two years into the pandemic, the meaning of this regulatory step is still a little foggy—even though it’s constantly mentioned in news reports about COVID-19 vaccines, tests, and treatments.

Put simply, an emergency use authorization (EUA) is a tool the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can use to expedite the availability of medical products, including drugs and vaccines, during a public health emergency. An EUA can only be granted when no adequate, approved, available alternatives exist, and when the known and potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. An EUA also only lasts as long as the public health emergency for which it was declared.

It is the job of the FDA to ensure medical products meet rigorous safety and efficacy standards, a process that can take years for what’s called “full approval.” Though that timeline is condensed when an EUA is granted, the FDA still upholds its strict standards.

Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has granted numerous EUAs related to COVID-19. So far, two vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, for ages 16 and up, and Moderna, for 18 and up) and one treatment (Gilead Science’s remdesivir) have gone on to receive full FDA approval.

So, does getting a vaccine or taking a drug that is under emergency use authorization mean it’s any less safe than one that has full FDA approval? And how does the process work? Below, we take a closer look at the details.
...
The FDA established its EUA program in 2004 in response to threats of bioterrorist attacks, including anthrax. Later, it was used for H1N1 (swine flu), Ebola, avian flu, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and other major public health threats. EUAs in these instances included tests, an anthrax vaccine, antiviral treatments, and personal protective equipment.
...
Amid the myriad paperwork/administrative differences between the two options (more detail below), there are two standout differences—and they have nothing to do with the scientific rigor of the trials.

1. For an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, for example, the FDA requires that at least half of the clinical trial participants be followed for at least two months after vaccination. For full FDA approval of a COVID-19 vaccine, participants are followed for at least six months.
2. The full approval requires more data about the vaccine-maker’s processes and facilities, including inspections of manufacturing plants.

Emergency Use Authorization Vs. Full FDA Approval: What’s the Difference?

A primer on the difference between an FDA 'full approval' and 'emergency use authorization.'

www.yalemedicine.org

I'm not arguing if the jab was good or bad just if it is classed as a scientific experimental product

As you see, it's not. There are individual authorizations for investigational treatments (I was a patient involved with one of those that turned out quite well) but you don't get authorizations for such things for large numbers of people.

 

[Tenchi]

Lots of foolish and dishonest people make videos. I prefer to read the data in the actual medical and scientific literature.

Uh huh.

Guess how I know you aren't a physician or a scientist. I hear this a lot "I saw it on You Tube; it has to be true!" No, actually, it doesn't.

Uh huh.

This isn't actually what I wrote. You've erected a Strawman, here, and your doing so suggests that you aren't a careful thinker. Or, at least, that you're a very biased thinker who will use bad reasoning to defend his biases.

But if you can show me checkable facts showing that vaccinated people died at even a large fraction of the rate that unvaccinated people were dying, I'd be happy to discuss them with you. What do you have?

See the videos I recommended. Or don't. Your unwillingness to accept data from the source I offered doesn't, however, make that source suspect or deficient.

You're being pretty slippery here, by the way, which doesn't recommend you as a careful thinker. Dr. John Campbell offers plenty of "checkable facts," providing links to the articles and research he discusses in his videos in the description of each video.

And my statements concerning the virus and "vaccines" in this thread weren't contending with the statement you've made in the quotation above but pointing to the now very obvious fact that the "vaccines" have been enormously injurious (and lethal) to a very large - and growing - number of people.

 

[Barbarian]

This isn't actually what I wrote. You've erected a Strawman, here

You're telling me to watch videos instead of reading the scientific and medical data. I don't care what some person put up on You Tube. If it can't be verified by actual data, it's just bilge. You're being pretty slippery here, by the way, which doesn't recommend you as a careful thinker.

Your unwillingness to accept data from the source I offered doesn't, however, make that source suspect or deficient.

You didn't offer data. But if you have links to the actual scientific papers, by all means provide them. Videos, not so much.

And my statements concerning the virus and "vaccines" in this thread weren't contending with the statement you've made in the quotation above but pointing to the now very obvious fact that the "vaccines" have been enormously injurious (and lethal) to a very large - and growing - number of people.

And here, you've assumed what you proposed to prove. You're definitely not being a very careful thinker here.

Here's some real data from the real world:
Fully vaccinated people had COVID death rates 1/14 of the COVID death rates for unvaccinated people. And they had COVID death rates 1/3 of the COVID death rates for those with only one vaccination.

This report describes higher protection against COVID-19 infection and death among people who received an updated booster than people who received a monovalent booster.

www.cdc.gov

"But just watch the video!" No thanks. If it can't stand up by itself, a video won't save it.

 

[Tenchi]

You're telling me to watch videos instead of reading the scientific and medical data.

No, this is just another Strawman of what I've said. You can't seem to help thinking in these fallacious ways, eh?

I don't care what some person put up on You Tube.

So? The "some person" I've recommended is a nationally and internationally recognized medical expert. If you don't want to consider what he's got to say, then don't. But whether or not you care about his videos is totally irrelevant to the veracity and expertise of the content of his videos.

If it can't be verified by actual data, it's just bilge. You're being pretty slippery here, by the way, which doesn't recommend you as a careful thinker.

Uh huh. I don't think you really understand what I meant by "slippery." The more you write, though, the clearer what I meant will become to everyone else.

You didn't offer data.

??? No, I didn't. But I did recommend an expert who does. Are you afraid to engage with the insights and understanding of this medical expert? Maybe it's easier to throw your weight around among those who don't possess such credentials, eh?

But if you have links to the actual scientific papers, by all means provide them. Videos, not so much.

I don't care about the means by which you prefer to consider the data regarding Covid19 vaccine harm. As I said, your preference is irrelevant to the veracity and expertise of the medical expert who's made many videos on the subject. If you don't want to watch the videos, then don't. It's no skin off my nose. Your unwillingness to watch them makes no difference whatever to the truth expressed in them.

And here, you've assumed what you proposed to prove. You're definitely not being a very careful thinker here.

Uh huh. I've not actually done what you say in the quotation above. You've just issued here another Strawman and in so doing demonstrate again that you aren't clear on what a "careful thinker" is.

 

[Barbarian]

You're telling me to watch videos instead of reading the scientific and medical data.

So? The "some person" I've recommended is a nationally and internationally recognized medical expert.

Then link me to his papers in a scientific or medical journal. Or does he only publish on You Tube? (edit: no medical journal articles because he's not a physician or an epidemiologist or an immunologist. He's an education nurse. Which is not to say that nurses aren't professionals. They just aren't experts in the medicine of immunology or infectious disease.

Uh huh. I don't think you really understand what I meant by "slippery."

I think we all got it.
You didn't offer data.

No, I didn't.

We all know why.

But I did recommend an expert who does.

Oh good. Link us to that. Checkable journal articles or other scientific literature. Seeing as he's not a physician, you might check in nursing journals.

Are you afraid to engage with the insights and understanding of this medical expert?

So far, none have been offered. We all noticed. But if you have links to the actual scientific papers, by all means provide them. Videos, not so much. It's easier to throw out videos among those who don't possess much in the way of credentials, but it's a bit harder when someone has some knowledge of the issue, um?

If you don't want to watch the videos, then don't.

You're welcome to present some evidence, instead of videos. What do you have?

And my statements concerning the virus and "vaccines" in this thread weren't contending with the statement you've made in the quotation above but pointing to the now very obvious fact that the "vaccines" have been enormously injurious (and lethal) to a very large - and growing - number of people.

And here, you've assumed what you proposed to prove. You're definitely not being a very careful thinker here.

Uh huh. I've not actually done what you say in the quotation above.

See above. It's still on the thread.

Here's some real data from the real world:

Conclusion:
Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33985964/

Covid-19: Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant,
CDC data show
Owen Dyer
Unvaccinated Americans have died at 11 times the rate of those fully vaccinated since the delta variant
became the dominant strain, indicate surveillance data gathered over the summer by the US Centers for
Disease Control. Vaccinated people were 10 times less likely to be admitted to hospital and five times less likely to be infected than unvaccinated people, found one study that tracked adults across 13 states and cities.
https://infomed.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/bmj.n2282.full_.pdf

There's a lot more of that. Would you like to see more? Not many You Tube videos by nurses like John Campbell, though.

Oh, and I'm not a physician either. But I have completed graduate work in immunology and microbiology.

 

[Barbarian]

Campbell is a man of many interests, it seems....

 

[Corn Pop]

Oh, and I'm not a physician either. But I have completed graduate work in immunology and microbiology.

I'm wondering why the millions who got infected with covid and recovered were encouraged and told to get the jab even after they had already been infected?. Even to the point of no jab no job, or no jab no entering a venue?.

I thought the jab was about helping someone get less sick before they got infected to give them some sort of protection if they did get infected, but if they already got infected and recovered what more potent vaccine is there than that?.

 

[follower]

it's not every day that Governments collude together to murder their citizens.

Name one day they don't ?

 

[follower]

but if they already got infected and recovered what more potent vaccine is there than that?.

Well, not always, but usually,, ascorbic acid ,,.. historically could have elilminated polio problems and many others, but forbidden due to not profitable enough and heals too many.,

 

[Corn Pop]

Well, not always, but usually,, ascorbic acid ,,.. historically could have elilminated polio problems and many others, but forbidden due to not profitable enough and heals too many.,

I usually only put forth questions as im not qualified in the field of microbiology or infectious diseases so I don't want to make a statement. Im just interested to know the science behind it.

Did those who had already been infected with covid really needed a jab when it come out and the reason behind why some were forced to take it, like no jab no job.

I thought the covid jab was supposed to protect people before and if they got infected, so if they did get infected they have some form of protection that could help them get less sick because of the jab. Yet if someone had already been infected with the virus and then fully recovered, what need would there have been for them to get the jab for the virus when it become available?.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm wondering why the millions who got infected with covid and recovered were encouraged and told to get the jab even after they had already been infected?. Even to the point of no jab no job, or no jab no entering a venue?.

Because it's possible to get infected a second time, and because the virus mutates, evolving different strains for which the newer vaccines are effective.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, not always, but usually,, ascorbic acid ,,.. historically could have elilminated polio problems and many others, but forbidden due to not profitable enough and heals too many.,

Vitamin C deficiency can increase one's risk of polio disease.

https://rupress.org/jem/article-abstract/65/1/127/53047/VITAMIN-C-THERAPY-AND-PROPHYLAXIS-IN-EXPERIMENTAL?redirectedFrom=fulltext

However, the experience of the world during the 50s showed that countries where there was widespread vitamin C deficiency had lower rates of paralytic polio than did the United States.

The key to avoiding paralytic polio is to be exposed to the virus at a very young age. Other nations, where hygiene was not as good as the U.S. had kids being exposed to the virus much earlier, when it caused a mild illness than then conferred lifelong immunity. In those nations, the exposure to the virus at a young age was a bigger factor than the widespread vitamin C deficiencies.