Viruses / Vaccines 2

mrussel1 · October 2023

Fucking genius. All of you.

Evel K · October 2023

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

Merkin Baller said:

Evel K said:

Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.

“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”

Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?

Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk

Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.

You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.

Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.

1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number.
2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness
3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did.
4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.

Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

brianlux · October 2023

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!

That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.

But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life

A wise decision!

brianlux · October 2023

Evel K said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

Merkin Baller said:

Evel K said:

Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.

“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”

Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?

Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk

Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.

You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.

Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.

1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number.
2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness
3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did.
4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.

Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease.
But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.

mrussel1 · October 2023

Evel K said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

Merkin Baller said:

Evel K said:

Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.

“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”

Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?

Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk

Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.

You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.

Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.

1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number.
2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness
3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did.
4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.

Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

So to recap again, you think that remdesivir should have been created, tested, approved for general use, with enough manufactured for the millions with Covid by July 2020 for a disease that we didn't know existed until late March 2020. Got it. I guess I misunderstood your totally reasonable expectations.

Evel K · October 2023

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

So to recap again, you think that remdesivir should have been created, tested, approved for general use, with enough manufactured for the millions with Covid by July 2020 for a disease that we didn't know existed until late March 2020. Got it. I guess I misunderstood your totally reasonable expectations.

COVID-19 CO=Corona VI=Virus D=Disease and 19= 2019. Remdesivir was created in 2009. As I said, I'm learning as I go, the reason it was only available in hospitals is because it was IV only at that time. So to recap, you're coming at me with a passive-aggressive ridiculing tone and the most basic facts of your entire post are 100% point blank wrong.

static111 · October 2023

GlowGirl said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

bootlegger10 said:

mace1229 said:

So I've been trying to read more about blood clots and their relation to the vaccine and covid.

About a month ago I found myself out of breath just walking. Trying to avoid a $5,000 ER bill I didn't going to the ER right away and got in to see my primary doctor. My oxygen was low and he said I could have my wife drive me to the ER or he was calling 911. I never did find out exactly how many blood clots in my lungs they found, I just remember the ER doctor saying they found multiple pulmonary embolisms in each of several different parts of the lung that he proceeded to name off. Has to be at least 6 or 8, maybe more. I was later told I was lucky to be alive, I had no pain or any other symptoms, so the fact it got that bad before I came in, I was very lucky.

Still waiting on some test results, but so far they can't find a cause. Had my most recent check up Friday, and I asked about a covid link. He confirmed there is a link with post covid and getting a blood clot. But usually a few weeks or couple months later, not a full year like I had. He also said the vaccine clots are blown way out of proportion, they are one in a million, but unexplained clots after covid are much more common.

My coworker told me her doctor told her the link was getting covid after the vaccine, but I haven't read anything that supports that.

They ran some tests for blood disorders and certain times a cancer. If all those come back negative (like I hope), a post covid symptom seems like the most likely scenario. Haven't traveled far, haven't had surgery, no big injuries lately.

Anyone else know of people getting clots?

Glad you are okay! My brother (mid 40's) had issues with blood clots about 3 months ago or so. He was unvaccinated and doesn't know that he ever got Covid. The docs believe it was triggered due to sitting on a plane for 7 hours the day before and not standing up and walking around.

He went to urgent care and they basically to him if he was in his 20's it made sense to go to urgent care, but at his age he should have gone straight to the hospital with heart issues. I think 40's is still young(ish) for heart issues. They basically said we think you have blood clots, and there is no time to explain and you should get an ambulance to the hospital.

Holy crap...hope he's doing well.

Sitting for seven hours can lead to blood clots that would necessitate an emergency room trip for a middle-aged person? That's wild.

I've always read that on long flights you should get up and move around to avoid clots. I'm sure it's worse as you age,, but anyone can clot.

Yes. Moving around on long flights is a necessity. They say you should get up and walk every hour or two. I have never tried compression socks on a flight but they say that works as well to help prevent blood clots.

I just drink enough to make sure my blood is good and thin.

Halifax2TheMax · October 2023

Evel K said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

So to recap again, you think that remdesivir should have been created, tested, approved for general use, with enough manufactured for the millions with Covid by July 2020 for a disease that we didn't know existed until late March 2020. Got it. I guess I misunderstood your totally reasonable expectations.

COVID-19 CO=Corona VI=Virus D=Disease and 19= 2019. Remdesivir was created in 2009. As I said, I'm learning as I go, the reason it was only available in hospitals is because it was IV only at that time. So to recap, you're coming at me with a passive-aggressive ridiculing tone and the most basic facts of your entire post are 100% point blank wrong.

Nice cherry pick. Why not post a link to the actual articles that state much more than your screen grab?

Evel K · October 2023

brianlux said:

show previous quotes

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

Merkin Baller said:

Evel K said:

Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.

“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”

Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?

Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk

Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.

You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.

Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.

1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number.
2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness
3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did.
4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.

Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease.
But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.

Two shots no boosters. Am I considered vaccinated? Probably not. It's not a crusade or a need to be right, I just think about it quite a bit and that's my reason for joining the discussion. I see how the 1% hypothetical comes off as fear mongering and anti-vax but that's what was weighing on my mind. I also have a 15 year old son who had two shots and when I read about the rare instances of myocarditis it scared the hell out of me.

mrussel1 · October 2023

Evel K said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

mrussel1 said:

Evel K said:

Merkin Baller said:

Evel K said:

Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.

“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”

Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?

Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk

Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.

You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.

Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.

1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number.
2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness
3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did.
4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.

Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".

I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.

I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease.
But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.

Two shots no boosters. Am I considered vaccinated? Probably not. It's not a crusade or a need to be right, I just think about it quite a bit and that's my reason for joining the discussion. I see how the 1% hypothetical comes off as fear mongering and anti-vax but that's what was weighing on my mind. I also have a 15 year old son who had two shots and when I read about the rare instances of myocarditis it scared the hell out of me.

Annoying

bootlegger10 · November 2023

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12703875/scientists-warned-phenylephrine-ineffective-feel-vindicated.html

When money is to be made….

mrussel1 · November 2023

Had Covid lat week. It was very light overall, just fatigue and a cough.

static111 · November 2023

mrussel1 said:

Had Covid lat week. It was very light overall, just fatigue and a cough.

Good thing you didn't get the vaccine! You wouldn't be alive to get covid!

mrussel1 · November 2023

static111 said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Had Covid lat week. It was very light overall, just fatigue and a cough.

Good thing you didn't get the vaccine! You wouldn't be alive to get covid!

Yeah I really a dodged a bullet!

mickeyrat · November 2023

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

Had Covid lat week. It was very light overall, just fatigue and a cough.

Good thing you didn't get the vaccine! You wouldn't be alive to get covid!

Yeah I really a dodged a bullet!

I hope you're masked up while here.

mrussel1 · November 2023

mickeyrat said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

Had Covid lat week. It was very light overall, just fatigue and a cough.

Good thing you didn't get the vaccine! You wouldn't be alive to get covid!

Yeah I really a dodged a bullet!

I hope you're masked up while here.

I'm wearing gloves as I type. Don't worry.

HughFreakingDillon · November 2023

I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.

mrussel1 · November 2023

HughFreakingDillon said:

I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.

Real men mainline it in one shot.

static111 · November 2023

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

HughFreakingDillon said:

I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.

Real men mainline it in one shot.

I always go full suppository...fastest gateway to my brain

brianlux · November 2023

HughFreakingDillon said:

I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

HughFreakingDillon said:

I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.

Real men mainline it in one shot.

static111 said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.

Real men mainline it in one shot.

I always go full suppository...fastest gateway to my brain

All right you three, knock it off. You made me spit up my beverage, fart, and ... oh, use your freakin' imagination on that last one!

Viruses / Vaccines 2

Comments

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories