Sounds like you'r quoting Peter Hotez? You know, the "dirty dozen" who -- *gasp* -- made $36 million last year?
As compared to ~$40 Billion *each* for Pfizer and Moderna?
The same "dirty dozen" who are linked to "right wing extremists" who thought Trump won the election? (according to Hotez)? The same sources who are getting influence from (I'm not kidding, he really published this in Nature) "Russia" (more collusion, no doubt. These leftist vermin have NO imagination).
1. Vaccines doses have been administered in the hundreds of millions world wide. The only answer those against the vaccine for COvID has is that some day everyone vaccinated will drop dead.
No, adverse events short of death make a pretty good case too. Which is why Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and one other Scandahoovian country cut back or banned the jabs for men 18-30.
The latest is the insane theory that vaccination causes AIDS. However, it does not, there is no plethora of new septicemias or unexplained and opportunistic infections. With the numbers they quote, by now opportunistic infections should be rife in all ICUs world wide — they are not. What they fail to understand is that AIDS was identified with the new surge of things like Kaposis Sarcoma and PCP PNA — we are not seeing this by any stretch. So it is diversion and fallacy
Is it *the* AIDS, or *an* AIDS -- explanations differ between ADE, original antigenic sin, dropoff of antibody effectiveness (see the New England Journal of Medicine article on that upthread), or whatever.
BTW, what is this "super cold" which is catching in Great Britain? You know, after the flu in the US dropped to 1300 cases or whatever, last year?
2. They never speak to the fact that if we accept the 99.8% survivable rate, that this really means is that there is a 1/500 mortality rate — would they get on an airplane with those odds? However even using the most inflated numbers they quote as per percentage of dosages administered — it is infinitesimal as compared to the vaccine injuries (again, even the number they like to trumpet).
Top. Kek.
It's not a 1/500 mortality rate for the entire human race. It's a 1/500 mortality rate for those who catch the coof.
And at that, it's not equally distributed by age or underlying health conditions.
Which means, there really isn't a crisis demanding the jab anyway: your premise has been knocked out from under you.
Now, about those medical error rates and resultant fatalities in the US...200,000 a year or so, and have been going on for a lot longer than COVID. It might save more lives in the long run if you were to focus on those?
3. The fact to the matter is that Breitbart reports that the spikes are in the most unvaccinated areas. Most of my colleagues and myself have not seen any critically ill in the vaccinated.
The truth is seeping out past the Fauci-friendly censorship, so now the pro-jabbers have to cherry-pick and spin.
Or do you not trust the Harvard Prof upthread about no correlation between jab rates and infection? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
4. They simply fail to understand the fundamental logic question they want is to blow by — which is that correlation and causation are two different things. Best example of the day is that Colin Powell died of CoVID and was fully vaccinated. What they fail to mention or intentionally sweep under the rug is that Powell also had multiple myeloma, a hematological CA that reduces immune response.
Powell died of "Colin Cancer." But the jabs are being reported more and more as chewing up the immune response.
5. I would love to see any one of the coterie of acolytes for these posters actually demonstrate their clinical experience, their medical training or their basic understanding of biology. They are only able to cut and paste from their favorites (The cardiologist turned epidemiologist, the alien believing FP, and the one who charges $750 to hear her opinions) — but if you question the sources, it is tantamount to blasephmy — but as the saying goes — if you dont know what you stand for, you will fall for everything. The lack of basic understanding of elementary biological principles shine through glaringly in the posts of those who will believe clinically impossible things, but post them anyway.
I got some nice "believing clinical impossibilities" right here.
6. What is most perplexing to me is the insistence of a decade of evidence. We used to be Americans who believed in American ingenuity. We put men and women in space and on the moon in response to challenges. We created the trinity test at the Manhattan Project in a compressed time frame in response to a grave threat. However, this group insists that Americans should be tethered to an artificial timeline to satisfy their fears. Every post is made stating the vaccinated will get their comeuppance quite soon. And yet it does not happen.
The difference is that the Manhattan project was begun after a letter from Einstein, talking about (implicitly) what the Nazis might do with the technology. The scientists at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and elsewhere were not getting rich off of it. Unlike the $40 billion for Pfizer and Moderna.
The fact is simply this — one side presents increasingly bizarre statements (graphene, magnetism, parasite eggs, radio markers, 5G issues) that are laughable on the the face. They present rumor and innuendo which is half way around the world before truth and observation puts on its running shoes. They reject the notion that Americans can and will create amazing things based on our heritage, but want to hand tie our best of the best as pharmacy shills, Faucilytes, and right here on this forum, denigrating and insulting name calling (Froctors, assholes, why even bagster fresh off his vacation called me a pussy this evening — calling others mongoloid and subhuman — how this is allowed is beyond me).
Some things are bizarre, some aren't. There are several researchers in different countries apparently verifying the graphene; using different instrumental modalities from each other.l For the parasite eggs, you need a chain-of-custody of the samples; and if the samples are genuine (you know, just like mail in ballots?), then those who endlessly tout the jabs, are the ones who have to explain things. Not everyone who opposes the jabs is required to give credit to every accusation made against the jabs: but for every credible or substantiated claim made, the vax-pushers have to defend both the jabs and their extremist stance.
