Greatest cope of all time goes to dilbert cuck. We weren't just guessing. The russia hoax ended when the impeachment hoax began which ended when covid began (all 3 seriously within 36 hours direct relay to the next). Doesn't take a genius to know the third one is a hoax and to not take the vaxx. [720x1201 - 123KB]

[–] [deleted] • 10 pts

My decision to not take the vax was simple: its efficacy was not demonstrated to my satisfaction, and the fact that vaccine companies and anyone in the chain were given immunity from liability is a huge moral hazard. Pair that with the record-breaking speed with which it was developed (lota of corners being cut) and the experimental nature of the mrna technology, not taking the drug right away was a no-brainer. At that point I already 'survived' covid for over a year. I could wait another three, six, twelve or more months until more data was available.

It would take a lot to convince me to take the drug under such circumstances and they didn't even come close. The only way one would take it under such circumstances would be if they weren't thinking for themselves but outsourced the decision to the scientists or government officials. That's exactly what Scott did. Trust the science, lol.

link

[–] • 3 pts

(edited )

One more analysis that is VERY on point. Your analysis allows for verification and does not dismiss all the previous science.

In my case, I MUST admin, that I am not weighing heavily towards becoming an antivaxxer. If you look at the behaviour of the professional class and recognize that they are ONLY human and that all humans suffer from the kind of myopic self congratulatory world view on display currently, we can can not only project that analytical stick into the future but into the past as well.

How much of our our previous understanding of vaxxinations are actually true vs how much of what we know is actually just a cover up story for a set of issues going on at a layer below us?

For example, I have read that polio was caused by heavy metals used in pesticides at the beginning of the pesticide revolution and that polio did not go away as a result of the polio vaccine but the end of the use of heavy metals in pesticides. Over the last 50 years we went from like 2 vaccine shots for babies to now something like 20 or so? I don't even know what to believe any more as a result, although, I can imagine systems of verfication that would allow us to catalogue degrees of truth about each claim (including the polio claims).

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 3 pts

[–] • 2 pts

I have a legal background and I'd never heard of a company being given immunity like this, which told me they already knew their product was unsafe.

Fun fact: Vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for any of their vaccines in the modern day, mostly because all of them are pushed onto young children, which confers the same zero liability status as the EUA does.

And while real vaccines aren't as deadly as the poison gene therapy, they're still fucking terrible and kill and maim tons of people. The taxpayer is on the hook for all those injuries and deaths in the Vaccine Settlement Court. The companies that manufacture them never pay a dime.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

(edited )

Fun fact: Vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for any of their vaccines in the modern day, mostly because all of them are pushed onto young children, which confers the same zero liability status as the EUA does.

And just to rephrase this for the benefit of others: This is the reason why Pfizer is pushing the vax on kids so hard, and why the FDA-approved Comirnaty is nowhere to be seen: Until Comirnaty is approved for kids, it's not covered under the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and they would be liable for vaccine injury. The 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act kicks in as soon as Comirnaty is approved for kids, granting legal immunity for the vaccine regardless of who receives it. Pfizer knows just how harmful the vax is. They don't dare give Comirnaty out until they are granted legal immunity.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all those injuries and deaths in the Vaccine Settlement Court.

And those thinking they'll get compensation from the vaccine court are delusional. The stats are something like only 2% of those who file claims with the court receive any compensation. They'll say the injury was not from vaccine, that people do get myocarditis and pericarditis, it's just something that happens, and how do you prove to their satisfaction that the vax was the cause?

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 1 pt

Even funner fact: They lose their liability protection in the case of fraud or gross negligence. It'd be pretty easy to prove fraud against all the mRNA poison these days. Unfortunately, no one in the jewdicial system will allow it.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I have a legal background and I'd never heard of a company being given immunity like this

This had happened many times before with vaccines specifically. They are all just as suspect as these new gene therapy shots.

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

I think the lack of accountability for any adverse affects is a red flag like anyone else here does.

However, there is a crucial piece that seems to be missing in everyone’s synopsis around here.

At the time this all began, the drug companies were told/asked by Trump to speed up production of the vax. Obviously, the government removed a lot of hurdles in terms of regulations to facilitate “operation warp speed” otherwise it couldn’t have happened so quickly. But part of that deal was that the drug companies would only agree to it provided that they wouldn’t be held liable. Can you blame them really? Think about it. They’re being told to disregard a host of otherwise normal safety protocols in order to facilitate a faster time to market, so of course they know that disregarding those protocols carries an an added amount of liability..so of course they would require that liability to be removed…it makes good business sense to do so.

That said, I’m not a fan of big pharma nor am I vaxxed myself. I don’t trust this thing for the same reasons you all don’t. But I also don’t think we can just gloss over some of these things or make certain assumptions, ie “they knew from the beginning that the vax is dangerous”…

I think it’s highly possible that they didn’t know if it was going to be dangerous or not..because the only way to really know would be years of testing…which they were being told not to do…what incentive would they have to bypass normal testing protocols if they would also be held liable for potential ill effects of bypassing those protocols?

I don’t like it anymore than you. But Trump ascertained that this was something that the pharmas would have to be given if they were going to do what Trump asked of them.

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

fucking kikes man

pilpul to eternity

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Plus it's not even a vaccine, it's a DNA altering (despite that they claim it only affects RNA, it actually causes reverse transcription into DNA) gene therapy.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

it actually causes reverse transcription into DNA

I've seen studies that found reverse transcription of genes from the virus, but none that attributed the cause to vaccines. I'm sure it happens, I just think it's extremely rare, though it's hard to be certain how rare reverse transcription is or how harmful it is when it happens.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Most of the people who would conduct studies are complicit in the poison gene therapy, so inevitably there will be few or no studies showing evidence of reverse transcription by the vaccine. But by the nature of how the mRNA gene therapy works it's likely to cause reverse transcription, probably in most cases, which means that people who take the poison are potentially going to have their cells generating toxic spike proteins for life if that happens to them. Maybe it doesn't happen in all cases, but if they're taking 5, 10, 20 boosters, eventually it will and then they're even more fucked.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

My decision to not take the vax was simple: its efficacy was not demonstrated to my satisfaction

Which should vary based on the risk it counters. If you have a 0.00001% chance of dying of some disease, it's going to be hard to justify any drug, no matter how safe.

Don't forget all the suppression of non-"vaccine" approaches like hydroxychloroquine. That was a big flag that they were guiding everyone to the vaxx.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

(edited )

Which should vary based on the risk it counters. If you have a 0.00001% chance of dying of some disease, it's going to be hard to justify any drug, no matter how safe.

Funny you should mention that number, roughly 1 in 10 million. Tetanus vaccines is one example that has been brought to my attention recently. Tetanus has 30 cases per year in the United States:

https://www.cdc.gov/tetanus/images/tetanus-chart-1947-2018.png

US population is about 300 million, so dividing 30 by that number gives us 0.00001% as the chance of being infected (not even dying). And the chance of ME getting infected is much less since I don't work on a farm or in construction where I might come in contact with rust.

And yet, when I went to my doctor for a checkup, what's the thing he asked? DiD yOu GeT yOuR tEtAnUs BoOsTeR???

Fucking clown world.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

And to answer my next question, "how much is that tetanus number reduced by the tetanus vaccine?", .

parent
link

(post is archived)

You can claim this sub in /s/subrequest