Posted on 08/30/2021 10:46:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the beginning of the COVID pandemic, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson has been focused on following the facts no matter where they lead. More often than not, the facts have led him in a different direction from those emanating from the World Health Organization or from Anthony Fauci. What's important to remember about Berenson, though, is that, while his conclusions may differ from those being pushed on the American people, he never deviates from the facts. That's why Twitter just kicked him off.
Because Berenson's conclusions did not support mask mandates and lockdowns, the tech tyrants hate him. He's routinely been locked out of Twitter, and, last year, Amazon tried to shut down his self-published works about the virus.
Now Twitter has banned him permanently for pointing out the obvious about the vaccines: they're not real vaccines that provide permanent protection against an illness. (I liken them to space-age flu shots.)
Berenson has known for a while that he was going to get the ax, which is why, when he's appeared on Tucker Carlson's show (as he has regularly since the pandemic began), he's been urging people to visit his Substack account.
On Saturday, Berenson put up a short post at Substack entitled "Goodbye Twitter: I am officially suspended." The eye-catching thing on the post is the "entirely accurate" tweet that got him suspended — and he's right that it is entirely accurate:
Here's Berenson making the same point on Tucker Carlson's show a week and a half ago:
What was a little more interesting to me was a throwaway line Berenson dropped into his accompanying comments (emphasis mine):
This was the tweet that did it. Entirely accurate. I can't wait to hear what a jury will make of this.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Truth is not tolerated by the Ministry of Propaganda.
Why would this go to a jury?
But, it’s not.
He does not understand what a Vaccine is, apparently.
This is a vaccine. I’m not sure what he means by ‘space age flu shot’, unless he is also saying he doesn’t believe the flu shot each year is a vaccine.
A vaccine offers protection against the specific virus it is built for, for a time period dependent on how that virus interacts.
A virus that has a lot of mutations will eventually provide a form that isn’t well-targeted by a specific vaccine; then we tweak the vaccine, like we do the flu each year, as the various flu strains become predominant.
Some diseases really don’t mutate, so their vaccines work for a long time. Others mutate slowly. Things like cold viruses mutate quickly — it’s why we don’t create cold vaccines, because the cold rarely causes much trouble, and we’d need a half-dozen vaccines a year to cover all the currently active colds.
He also overstated the side effects of the vaccines we are currently using, which might in itself have gotten him in trouble.
CDC and White House don’t require it for their people, the companies that make it don’t require it. Wonder why?
As he mentions every time he’s on Tucker, this was expected and he was surprised it didn’t come sooner.
what you said—imo is BALONEY
Winston Churchill was a very insightful man.
The fact that he was completely politically incorrect not only by the standards of his day, but by today’s standards as well endears him to me even more.
definition of vaccine changed...why? because the jab is not a vaccine
RE: A vaccine offers protection against the specific virus it is built for, for a time period dependent on how that virus interacts.
I had the polio and the small pox vaccine. Also had the Hepatitis B vaccine. Never had to be revaccinated. I was never told that the Polio or small pox vaccines have a time period that expires.
So, this Coronavirus vaccine, is not the kind of vaccine that I understand it to be traditionally. we need a different term for it — a temporary prophylaxis if you will.
More like the flu “shot” perhaps?
Tell us, so that we might understand, what do you call a scientific community that alters the definition of a vaccine to fit with the newest developed treatment?
...what do you call a scientific community that alters the definition of a vaccine to fit with the newest developed treatment?
—
Orwellian?
Corrupt.
I do not recall the annual flu shot ever being called a flu “vaccine” until we were talking about COVID-19 vaccines.Miriam Webster’s online dictionary added an additional definition to include the mRNA shot for COVID-19
Everything You Need To Know About Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 Vaccine
3/1/2021, 4:21:50 PM · 15 of 15
CharlesWayneCT to SeekAndFind
If I can, I’ll probably try to get the 1st Pfizer shot, because it has been tested and confirmed to block the infection itself, and to prevent transmission.
The J&J sets you up to handle the virus better, so you can still get it, and still transmit it to others.
So, assuming my insurance covers both, I’ll eventually do both. By July, we will be swimming in more vaccine doses than we know what to do with. We’ll have 210 million people-doses of the 3 vaccines, at current production speeds, by June 30th, and there are only 230 million people over age 16.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies
Everything You Need To Know About Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 Vaccine
3/1/2021, 11:55:52 AM · 13 of 15
CharlesWayneCT to SeekAndFind
This will likely be my first version of vaccine to take, because it should end up being widely available (100 million doses by June 30th, with the increase in Pfizer and Moderna supplies, and the possible “one-dosing” of Pfizer, will provide more vaccines by the end of june than we have people over the age of 16 to take it, and some won’t.
I’ll probably circle back and get the Pfizer vaccine when it no longer has a waitlist, probably when it is one-shot. This J&J will protect me from getting sick enough to require hospitalization, and Pfizer will prevent me from catching and spreading COVID at all.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
I ended up getting Pfizer because it became available for my cohort near the end of March.
I would still think about getting a J&J shot, because it works differently, and therefore would give a different coverage.
But first, I’ll be getting the booster, probably when it first becomes available to general use, assuming it is still free.
Pfizer has shown to be effective at blocking infection, and also preventing transmission even if you get the virus.
And it is still highly effective — if you have received both doses, you are more likely to die from a dog attack than from COVID. Heck, you are more likely to die from being stabbed with a sharp object, than to be hospitalized with COVID.
And there are no vaccines for dog attacks or pointy objects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.