Are you getting the vaccine? - Absolute trashfire thread, please enter with caution

[Disheveled Human]

Get the jab bigot. Stop killing old people.
View attachment 2277377

Explain this chart in a scientific manor. If you can do so In a way using your own words where you do not sound like a retard I might listen.

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

Explain this chart in a scientific manor. If you can do so In a way using your own words where you do not sound like a retard I might listen.

OK.

The vaccine is supposed to work like this

• Injection into the shoulder
• Vaccine "tells" the muscle cells to create the spike protein (the spike protein is the dangly bit(s) outside the sphere of the virus)
• Immune response
• Infection is fought off
• Body learns how to recognize and fight off Covid
• Immunity spreads to the rest of the body, but the vaccine does not as it was fought off in the shoulder muscles

Here is an article where a doctor explains it.

Problem is, the vaccine doesn't seem to do that. Here's a bit more detail on what actually seems to be going on.

• The spike protein appears to be cytotoxic in and of itself. This means that the dangly bits damage your cells, even without the rest of the virus.
• The vaccine uses lipid nano-particles as a delivery mechanism for said spike protein. If you look at a person you know there is a skeleton inside them, even though you cannot actually see the skeleton. So you can use the presence of people as an indicator of the presence of skeletons. In the same way you can use the presence of the lipid nano-particle as an indicator for the presence of the spike protein, and where there is the spike protein there is more likely to be cellular damage caused by said spike protein.
• The next bullet points explain the graph
• The vaccine doesn't stay in the shoulder muscles. In the first couple of hours following vaccination it appears to enter the blood stream (Harvard research showing it appears in the blood plasma, backing up that part of the graph) and travel over the entire body (including crossing the blood brain barrier, according to the graph). Once again, it's supposed to remain in the muscle of the shoulder. It's not supposed to enter the bloodstream or any other part of the body.
• After a while the lipid nano-particles (and thus, the spike protein) gather at especially high quantities in the ovaries and bone marrow.

From this we can predict higher rates of diseases linked to bone marrow, issues in the blood, problems with women's reproduction, and neurological problems in the people who have had the vaccine.

We do appear to see problems with pregnancy, neurological problems, and problems in the blood occurring post-vaccination. I am unaware of any bone marrow problems, but those may take longer to manifest or we may luck out and they won't occur. We also have seen a huge spike in CDC VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reports when compared to previous years, and due to the stigma against calling the vaccine anything other than safe, it is likely the effects are being under-reported.

I don't think this proves danger with absolute certainty (and if I said it did, I wouldn't be acting very scientific), but it does appear to point to the likelihood that this vaccine is significantly more dangerous than vaccines normally are.

 

[Disheveled Human]

OK.

The vaccine is supposed to work like this

• Injection into the shoulder
• Vaccine "tells" the muscle cells to create the spike protein (the spike protein is the dangly bit(s) outside the sphere of the virus)
• Immune response
• Infection is fought off
• Body learns how to recognize and fight off Covid
• Immunity spreads to the rest of the body, but the vaccine does not as it was fought off in the shoulder muscles

Here is an article where a doctor explains it.

Problem is, the vaccine doesn't seem to do that. Here's a bit more detail on what actually seems to be going on.

• The spike protein appears to be cytotoxic in and of itself. This means that the dangly bits damage your cells, even without the rest of the virus.
• The vaccine uses lipid nano-particles as a delivery mechanism for said spike protein. If you look at a person you know there is a skeleton inside them, even though you cannot actually see the skeleton. So you can use the presence of people as an indicator of the presence of skeletons. In the same way you can use the presence of the lipid nano-particle as an indicator for the presence of the spike protein, and where there is the spike protein there is more likely to be cellular damage caused by said spike protein.
• The next bullet points explain the graph
• The vaccine doesn't stay in the shoulder muscles. In the first couple of hours following vaccination it appears to enter the blood stream (Harvard research showing it appears in the blood plasma, backing up that part of the graph) and travel over the entire body (including crossing the blood brain barrier, according to the graph). Once again, it's supposed to remain in the muscle of the shoulder. It's not supposed to enter the bloodstream or any other part of the body.
• After a while the lipid nano-particles (and thus, the spike protein) gather at especially high quantities in the ovaries and bone marrow.

From this we can predict higher rates of diseases linked to bone marrow, issues in the blood, problems with women's reproduction, and neurological problems in the people who have had the vaccine.

We do appear to see problems with pregnancy, neurological problems, and problems in the blood occurring post-vaccination. I am unaware of any bone marrow problems, but those may take longer to manifest or we may luck out and they won't occur. We also have seen a huge spike in CDC VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reports when compared to previous years, and due to the stigma against calling the vaccine anything other than safe, it is likely the effects are being under-reported.

I don't think this proves danger with absolute certainty (and if I said it did, I wouldn't be acting very scientific), but it does appear to point to the likelihood that this vaccine is significantly more dangerous than vaccines normally are.

So When do all the healthcare workers who received mRNA shots drop dead? Can we Mad Max it soon?

Also I would be interested in who these doctors are do they work for Pfizer and Moderna? Anyone can say anything about a newish treatment but unless they were part of the creation process about the product why would I take their word for it. The fact of the matter is Pharmaceutical companies are very secretive about the drugs and treatments they manufacture so why would all this be as open source as you make it, These vaccines have been in testing on humans for probably longer then a year and nothing catastrophic has occurred furthermore no bio-pharma company makes money off of faulty products especially ones that are first administered to healthcare workers, arguably the hardest to source and train in society. Basically not enough people are getting hurt, killed or maimed from these vaccines for governments worldwide to pull them.

Here is a data printout of vaccines vs adverse effects in Canada.

Lets just round this up in favor of the vaccine being dangerous airing on the side of caution and call it 30m Vaccines administered and 10k adverse events. Lets even go further and call all adverse events lethal. Even though its reported only 109 deaths total and of that its not necessarily clear if it was the vaccine that killed them, lets assume so for arguments sake.

Now lets contrast this with covid cases and deaths.

1.4 million cases of covid. Boasting 26k deaths.

Lets say the government here is stupid and is off by 5 times, It is still statistically safer to avoid covid when compared to the vaccine.

Spoiler: Source Links

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

Spoiler: Source Links

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

Sorry for the double post but its a cross post I made in the Wuhan Megathread, In which I pulled data of vaccine deaths vs Covid-19 death rates in my country, I take the Vaccine deaths and mark them up by 10,000% and its still safer then contracting Covid-19 and the people in the thread still disagree somehow. These are Chi-coms, I am convinced at this point because the margin of error I give them is so gross in their favor and they still can't forfeit the argument.

 

[Kornula]

Just let people who want the vaccine get it overall it will be helping your cause. Arguing against it is stupid because it does not effect you and things will open faster its a win win. The only reason why anyone would want to argue about it is because they want to feel smarter then the general populace warning them about a potential danger that is clearly not there. Unless you are the type who believe the shot is contagious and it can spread from people who got it. If that is the case you should just check into an asylum.

The only reason I keep arguing against the vaccine is to make sure it never becomes mandatory. Plus, they already have some insane rules that people are pushing that restrict my personal freedoms.

No I am just applying common sense to a complicated situation. Hey maybe you are 100% right about it, when we find out more and I am proven a dumb sheep you can ream me out as much as you want. Until then I am not gonna act like I know more about things than I do. Personally I expect booster doses in 2022 and things should be mostly open people will still be dying of covid I expect this to continue for at least another year because history tends to repeat itself.

You have been proven wrong on every single take of Covid - and you continue to ignore and dismiss every single bit of evidence thrown your way.

 

[Disheveled Human]

You have been proven wrong on every single take of Covid - and you continue to ignore and dismiss every single bit of evidence thrown your way.

Yep you got me even though I posted hard government data. I am a fucking Idiot and should rely on twitter posts and youtube doctors for my info.

 

[mindlessobserver]

It's amazing to me how much shit the Johnson and Johnson vaccine got. It's the one Vaccine out of the bunch that used the old Vaccine Technology of an inactive virus. Everything else was an emergency authorization to use the population as test subjects for mRNA cell hijacking. The stability of the J&J shot also meant you only needed it once.

By all accounts this one should have been the go too. Yet for some reason it was subject industrial sabotage, and shrill shrieking of how dangerous it was in the media. The media shrieking was what convinced me to get it. Negligible side effects on my end. I've also not caught the coof so far either despite being maskless since I got the jab.

 

[Disheveled Human]

It's amazing to me how much shit the Johnson and Johnson vaccine got. It's the one Vaccine out of the bunch that used the old Vaccine Technology of an inactive virus. Everything else was an emergency authorization to use the population as test subjects for mRNA cell hijacking. The stability of the J&J shot also meant you only needed it once.

By all accounts this one should have been the go too. Yet for some reason it was subject industrial sabotage, and shrill shrieking of how dangerous it was in the media. The media shrieking was what convinced me to get it. Negligible side effects on my end. I've also not caught the coof so far either despite being maskless since I got the jab.

Honestly who the fuck knows. All I know is Pfizer was first out the gate and given to health care workers so I trust that. Lots of misinformation and lobbying going on as of late. That being said if you do not want the vaccine thats ok but please try not to catch the chink vascular disease, it seems like a poor life decision.

 

[Pocket Dragoon]

My entire body feels hot and itchy and I'm sweating all the time now.

I scratched the swelling on my arm and a piece of rotten flesh dropped off. What the hell's happening to me?

Is your sweat spicy, and smells south of cheese?

You're likely dead, and just don't know it yet.

 

[Lichen Bark]

It's amazing to me how much shit the Johnson and Johnson vaccine got. It's the one Vaccine out of the bunch that used the old Vaccine Technology of an inactive virus. Everything else was an emergency authorization to use the population as test subjects for mRNA cell hijacking. The stability of the J&J shot also meant you only needed it once.

By all accounts this one should have been the go too. Yet for some reason it was subject industrial sabotage, and shrill shrieking of how dangerous it was in the media. The media shrieking was what convinced me to get it. Negligible side effects on my end. I've also not caught the coof so far either despite being maskless since I got the jab.

J and J is a viral vector vaccine, so it's essentially the same. The virus hijacks your cells, then gives the cells the mRNA instructions. They have been used in the past, but they aren't like Hep B shots or the MMR vaccine. (Hep B is a subunit type i think, but the MMR is a weakened virus) The main ones used here in the states for COVID are not "weakened COVID" traditional types.

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

So When do all the healthcare workers who received mRNA shots drop dead? Can we Mad Max it soon?

Also I would be interested in who these doctors are do they work for Pfizer and Moderna? Anyone can say anything about a newish treatment but unless they were part of the creation process about the product why would I take their word for it. The fact of the matter is Pharmaceutical companies are very secretive about the drugs and treatments they manufacture so why would all this be as open source as you make it, These vaccines have been in testing on humans for probably longer then a year and nothing catastrophic has occurred furthermore no bio-pharma company makes money of faulty products especially ones that are first administered to healthcare workers, arguably the hardest to source and train in society.

I can say with a high degree of confidence that it is highly unlikely, effectively a 0% chance, that all vaccinated healthcare workers drop dead from the vaccine. Cancel your Mad Max plans, and try to respond to my actual argument next time.

Only taking the word of people involved in the creation process of the vaccine doesn't pan out. The human body is far more complex than the vaccine and nobody on the planet was involved in the "design process", yet we take the word of doctors and scientists on the Krebs cycle and the molecular structure of ATP. Science is a process of discovery not a process of "I made this here's how it works here's how risky it is now now take my word as gospel and disregard everyone else", hence why people who never designed a single quantum particle can still figure out wave function collapse, and why forensic scientists can assemble what happened at a crime scene even though they didn't commit the crime and the criminals who did are likely to be "very secretive" about how they did it.
Scientists uninvolved with creating medications will often perform research on said medications, and that is preferable because then they don't have any conflict of interest. Why is it when the science is performed on the covid vaccine, the pool of scientists that can be trusted shrinks to those that have a conflict of interest? This is not to say they are a wholly bad source or we shouldn't listen to them, but it doesn't make sense for them to be the only acceptable source.
Why should you accept the word of scientists who didn't personally work on the vaccine? Because they are likely to have useful information and if published in a peer reviewed journal it's likely to be free from bias. I can still tell you a house is blue even if I wasn't the one that painted it.

Modern vaccines are extremely safe, and so for the Covid vaccine to be significantly more dangerous than modern vaccines it doesn't need to be instantly fatal/world-ending catastrophic. Regardless, why pick "a little over a year" as the cutoff point for you to decide it is safe? Vaccine trials usually last 10 years, why not pick 10 years? Or if we wanted to be a bit more lenient why not 8 or 5? It seems arbitrary.

The assertion that "no bio-pharma company makes money off of faulty products especially ones that are first administered to healthcare workers, arguably the hardest to source and train in society" appears to be the best argument you have made here, so let me try to understand it better.
I believe you are saying that the incentive structures that exist in the market for bio-pharma products (including medicines such as vaccines) is such that were they to release a defective product (dangerous, ineffective, or some combination) they would not make money because nobody would buy it, they would get a crack down from government regulators like the FDA, lawsuits, and so on. They know and understand this and so they are incentivized against releasing defective products. In addition to this, healthcare workers are highly valuable due to the difficulty involved in finding candidates and educating them to an acceptable level, so there is an additional incentive to avoid administering a defective product to them as damage coming upon them would be both a tragedy and a waste of resources, and this is something bio-pharma companies care about. This goes even moreso during a pandemic. The covid vaccine has both of these incentives together, creating an incentive structure that would push a bio-pharma company away from releasing a defective product and significantly decrease the probability of such an event from occurring.
My argument against that is that the incentive structure you lay out depends on people having good information on the danger and effectiveness of the product. Vaccines usually take around 10 years to come to market. The Covid vaccine was developed in much less time. The information that would exist after 10 years of clinical trials and studies doesn't exist. Without that information people and government regulators cannot make an informed decision on the vaccine, and so we cannot use the market to measure it's safety and effectiveness.
If we can get clear knowledge about a drug in a year why do pharma companies spend 10 years performing clinical trials? How can we know the long term effects of a drug without a long term study? I see how the argument works after 10-15 years, but not 1 or 2.
Also, the idea that bio-pharma companies don't release faulty drugs (dangerous, ineffective, or some combination) is demonstrably false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
As for an incentive structure that does explain their behavior, I can only hypothesize. From what I can see it appears to be a mixture of short-term monetary gains and confirmation bias.

Here is a data printout of vaccines vs adverse effects in Canada.
View attachment 2278151
Lets just round this up in favor of the vaccine being dangerous airing on the side of caution and call it 30m Vaccines administered and 10k adverse events. Lets even go further and call all adverse events lethal. Even though its reported only 109 deaths total and of that its not necessarily clear if it was the vaccine that killed them, lets assume so for arguments sake.
View attachment 2278152

Now lets contrast this with covid cases and deaths.
View attachment 2278153
1.4 million cases of covid. Boasting 26k deaths.
View attachment 2278154

Lets say the government here is stupid and is off by 5 times, It is still statistically safer to avoid covid when compared to the vaccine.

Spoiler: Source Links

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

Spoiler: Source Links

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

Sorry for the double post but its a cross post I made in the Wuhan Megathread, In which I pulled data of vaccine deaths vs Covid-19 death rates in my country, I take the Vaccine deaths and multiply them by 10,000% and its still safer and the people in the thread still disagree somehow. These are Chi-coms, I am convinced at this point because the margin of error I give them is so gross in their favor and they still can't forfeit the argument.

This one is simple. I agree that in terms of death rate the vaccine is preferable to getting covid, especially if you have one or more risk factors. But we also have Ivermectin which is safer than the Covid vaccine, cheaper because it's out of patent, we have actual long-term data on it's safety, and it has proven effective in Mexico, Peru, Slovakia, Zimbabwe, India, Argentina, under the BIRD systemic review, and in a lot of research.

 

[Disheveled Human]

This one is simple. I agree that in terms of death rate the vaccine is preferable to getting covid, especially if you have one or more risk factors. But we also have Ivermectin which is safer than the Covid vaccine, cheaper because it's out of patent, we have actual long-term data on it's safety, and it has proven effective in Mexico, Peru, Slovakia, Zimbabwe, India, Argentina, under the BIRD systemic review, and in a lot of research.

So why is the government not halting the vaccine program and just administering Ivermectin to people. Drug seems easy enough to manufacture and is less invasive than a vaccine? Are they fucking retards or are they maybe more in the know about things then what you scrounged up online from your favorite e-doctors? Personally I do not understand why people on Kiwi Farms and their expert sources head the pandemic response.

 

[RussianBlonde]

Yep you got me even though I posted hard government data. I am a fucking Idiot and should rely on twitter posts and youtube doctors for my info.

You pretty much lost with "government data"

But you're Canadian, nobody expects much of you.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

You pretty much lost with "government data"

Apparently Government Data > Peer-reviewed data.
Trust the Science and Lick the Boots.

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

So why is the government not halting the vaccine program and just administering Ivermectin to people. Drug seems easy enough to manufacture and is less invasive than a vaccine? Are they fucking retards or are they maybe more in the know about things then what you scrounged up online from your favorite e-doctors? Personally I do not understand why people on Kiwi Farms and their expert sources head the pandemic response.

• Ivermectin is out of patent, so bio-pharma companies cannot make as much money off of it as they can new vaccines. They are optimizing cash flow, not effective Covid response.
• The new vaccines can only get emergency approval if there is no alternative, so if Ivermectin were to have proven effective the new vaccines wouldn't have gotten accelerated approval and pharma companies would not be making as much money.
• Trump was one of the first people to recommend Ivermectin and so the idea that it is effective has been poisoned because of how strong TDS is.
• People who say Ivermectin works are removed from platforms like YouTube, so it's more difficult to get the word out and people who encounter the rule go "oh well there must be a good reason" and stop investigating.
• People are so deep into saying Ivermectin doesn't work they can't back out now.

Rather than just assume that they have a good reason, I have read the articles and watched the videos that try to explain why Ivermectin doesn't work, and none of them reference a body of research as large and convincing as the one I posted (or a body of research at all, really). I don't think they are retarded, I just think it is an unfortunate set of circumstances and incentives that lead us to this point. If they really are "more in the know" then they aren't sharing this vital information that is so much better than all of the research. If they are basing their decision off of good information rather than perverse incentives and confirmation bias, I want to see the information so that I can base my decisions off of it.
And even if it was pure retardation (which, once again, I don't think it is), I'm well past the point where I think a government will do pants-on-head retarded things.

But because you care so much about government data, here's some government data on Ivermectin which is from a peer reviewed paper.

 

[Disheveled Human]

• Ivermectin is out of patent, so bio-pharma companies cannot make as much money off of it as they can new vaccines. They are optimizing cash flow, not effective Covid response.
• The new vaccines can only get emergency approval if there is no alternative, so if Ivermectin were to have proven effective the new vaccines wouldn't have gotten accelerated approval and pharma companies would not be making as much money.
• Trump was one of the first people to recommend Ivermectin and so the idea that it is effective has been poisoned because of how strong TDS is.
• People who say Ivermectin works are removed from platforms like YouTube, so it's more difficult to get the word out and people who encounter the rule go "oh well there must be a good reason" and stop investigating.
• People are so deep into saying Ivermectin doesn't work they can't back out now.

Rather than just assume that they have a good reason, I have read the articles and watched the videos that try to explain why Ivermectin doesn't work, and none of them reference a body of research as large and convincing as the one I posted (or a body of research at all, really). I don't think they are retarded, I just think it is an unfortunate set of circumstances and incentives that lead us to this point. If they really are "more in the know" then they aren't sharing this vital information that is so much better than all of the research. If they are basing their decision off of good information rather than perverse incentives and confirmation bias, I want to see the information so that I can base my decisions off of it.
And even if it was pure retardation (which, once again, I don't think it is), I'm well past the point where I think a government will do pants-on-head retarded things.

But because you care so much about government data, here's some government data on Ivermectin which is from a peer reviewed paper.View attachment 2279564

The problem with treatments is they do a good job at keeping you alive which is great but that is just slapping a band-aid on the problem. It is pretty clear that the strategy we are going with is a vaccine based eradication of the disease just like how smallpox and polio were conquered. It may not pan out but its the direction the world is going.

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

The problem with treatments is they do a good job at keeping you alive which is great but that is just slapping a band-aid on the problem. It is pretty clear that the strategy we are going with is a vaccine based eradication of the disease just like how smallpox and polio were conquered. It may not pan out but its the direction the world is going.

When you say "slapping a band-aid on the problem" do you mean that a treatment is necessarily post-hoc, it does not prevent the disease?

 

[Disheveled Human]

When you say "slapping a band-aid on the problem" do you mean that a treatment is necessarily post-hoc, it does not prevent the disease?

I mean you or anyone should always keep an eye out for alternatives, you should write your health officials and ask them about Ivermectin and its usefulness, sometimes they will get back to you and explain why it is or is not a viable solution to the problem. You seem like a smart guy who can copy paste data off of the internet with a reasonable level of comprehension of the subject matter maybe get into the health field and directly make a change for the future.

 

[Toolbox]

I mean you or anyone should always keep an eye out for alternatives, you should write your health officials and ask them about Ivermectin and its usefulness, sometimes they will get back to you and explain why it is or is not a viable solution to the problem. You seem like a smart guy who can copy paste data off of the internet with a reasonable level of comprehension of the subject matter maybe get into the health field and directly make a change for the future.

So, a drug that's existed long enough to know it's effects pretty well and what it can do, and it's patent has expired so practically anyone can produce it, is less viable than a 'vaccine' that has been mass tested for less than a year, and has already shown to have many side effects that are pretty bad and that's just within the first few months, yet everyone in the medical community is running defense for it because hail da sience(tm).

 

[Disheveled Human]

So, a drug that's existed long enough to know it's effects pretty well and what it can do, and it's patent has expired so practically anyone can produce it, is less viable than a 'vaccine' that has been mass tested for less than a year, and has already shown to have many side effects that are pretty bad and that's just within the first few months, yet everyone in the medical community is running defense for it because hail da sience(tm).

What do you think would happen if you asked your doctor or pharmacist about taking Ivermectin for Covid-19? Pretty sure they would give you a funny look like you were some kind of retard who reads twitter posts about "da sience(tm)".

 

[Toolbox]

What do you think would happen if you asked your doctor or pharmacist about taking Ivermectin for Covid-19? Pretty sure they would give you a funny look like you were some kind of retard who reads twitter posts about "da sience(tm)".

Because twitter posts are the only place that has confirmed alternative meds that already existed on the market and have been shown to work against similar diseases?