How do Covid vaccines compare to the Flu vaccine... its not good.

Ever wonder how these vaccines compare to the flu shot?(read the entire article and ask yourself why this isnt discussed more?)
leohohmann.com... ths/

As a matter of comparison: There are 20 to 30 deaths reported every year to VAERS related to the flu shot. That’s with 195 million receiving flu shots. Compare that to the COVID shot, which resulted in 2,602 reported deaths through 77 million vaccinations.

That’s a stunningly high ratio of deaths to vaccinations, the highest for any vaccine in U.S. history, and yet no major media outlet has launched an investigation.

A typical new drug at about five deaths, unexplained deaths, we get a black-box warning, your listeners would see it on TV, saying it may cause death,” McCullough said. “And then at about 50 deaths it’s pulled off the market.

Deaths from Covid shots now equal to 20 years of recorded deaths following vaccines
vaccineimpact.com... -deaths-following-vaccines-since-2001/

But you want to trigger the left kabal, just try to tell someone a young healthy person shouldnt risk vaccine injury



Use yandex.com... to do searches for vaccine death or injury, it wont hide sites like Google

Get your "vaccine" ("medical device" in the form of a "synthetic, inorganic molecule") and live a normal, healthy life again!

And don't forget Rondo is good for plants, it has electrolites!

Joe would crush her in a debate/argument.

Joe says, "Healthy 21 year olds who exercise and eat well don't need the vaccine." Then she somehow leaps to the notion that Joe may be referring to this old lady as being the healthy 21 year old... Huh?

Then her 'proof' that Joe is wrong, is "One study shows that 20-49 year olds were responsible for more than 70% of the spread of Covid-19 last year. That has nothing to do with what he said.

I don't know why I watched 2 full minutes of that vid, or why I typed any of this, but I can't watch any more. She's a moron.

a reply to: [post=25877493]BrokenCircles[/post

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
Joe would crush her in a debate/argument.

Joe says, "Healthy 21 year olds who exercise and eat well don't need the vaccine." Then she somehow leaps to the notion that Joe may be referring to this old lady as being the healthy 21 year old... Huh?

Then her 'proof' that Joe is wrong, is "One study shows that 20-49 year olds were responsible for more than 70% of the spread of Covid-19 last year. That has nothing to do with what he said.

I don't know why I watched 2 full minutes of that vid, or why I typed any of this, but I can't watch any more. She's a moron.

Well the experts say the vaccine doesn't stop infecting others, so what is she talking about. Also Tucker was talking about kids and 20 to 49 year-olds are not kids, so why is she comparing the two.

Also, I think it is safe to assume 20 to 49 year-olds are most likely spreading it the most.... Well they are close to 50% of the population and the most active...lol no sh!t...

My son 21 had to get the vaccine for college, and HE ALREADY HAD COVID... Him and thousands of other students got it about the same time at his school and they all had low symptoms with zero issues, over it in a few days, so I agree with young and healthy don't bother especially for young women.

Saying this we know for older higher risk this can get serious quickly, so yes even if 2000 people have died to the vaccine they should still get it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
My son 21 had to get the vaccine for college,

No. He didn't. These injections are not FDA approved, they only have an EUA (emergency use authorization), and injectiuons that are not FDA approved can not be required by anyone.

The problem is, people are afraid, and unwilling to fight this garbage.

and HE ALREADY HAD COVID.

Exactly - tell me how that makes sense, even in a world where vaccines really are safe and effective.

Saying this we know for older higher risk this can get serious quickly, so yes even if 2000 people have died to the vaccine they should still get it.

Tell that to the ones that died - and their families.

a reply to: 111DPKING111
They have to call it a flu shot for the exemption from being sued.

How many think this is the plan?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Tell that to the ones that died - and their families.

Oh God...sounds so much like the "you want to kill grandma!" stupid statement...lol

It was just my opinion, but you tell me... you are old with preexisting conditions and COVID is basically either hardly nothing or you die or very well close to death, so what do you do? Close to 600,000 is a much bigger number than 2000, and are we even sure the 2000 is really true?

a reply to: Xtrozero

65 and up the vaccine makes.

Several people in the 50 to 60 bracket got it in my office, no hospital, just took a few vitamins. None of them were particularly healthy either.

The 2000(its 4000 now) deaths is passive reporting, the EU database is showing 2x as many deaths with half the vaccinations we have done. Their system is also passive, but if ours was as good, we would be showing 16,000 deaths. I wouldnt take them off the market, but personally I would stick with the alternatives - c19ivermectin.... WIth all the censoring, most people dont know there are good alternatives.
healthimpactnews.com...
healthimpactnews.com...
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: tanstaafl

"Tell that to the ones that died - and their families."

Oh God...sounds so much like the "you want to kill grandma!" stupid statement...lol

Ummm... no... and not lol...

If you can't tell the difference between people that actually died from the vaccines, and a vague accusation that you'll be responsible for murdering grandma because you didn't jab yourself with some experimental gene therapy - then, well, I guess one would just be wasting time trying to discuss something rationally with you.

It was just my opinion, but you tell me... you are old with preexisting conditions and COVID is basically either hardly nothing or you die or very well close to death, so what do you do? Close to 600,000 is a much bigger number than 2000, and are we even sure the 2000 is really true?

Yeah, well, we're probably a lot more sure that the 600,000 number isn't true, and the 2,000 number is likely much higher.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

65 and up the vaccine makes.

Several people in the 50 to 60 bracket got it in my office, no hospital, just took a few vitamins. None of them were particularly healthy either.

The 2000(its 4000 now) deaths is passive reporting, the EU database is showing 2x as many deaths with half the vaccinations we have done. Their system is also passive, but if ours was as good, we would be showing 16,000 deaths. I wouldnt take them off the market, but personally I would stick with the alternatives - c19ivermectin.... WIth all the censoring, most people dont know there are good alternatives.

Personally I think all the death numbers are out to lunch as they were once very strict to assign death for the right reason and now its all political so now people are labeled as a COVID or vaccine death with many other factors involved like a gun shot to the chest...lol

I know a number of people that COVID hit them hard and they were not that old or any serious preexisting conditions. In a few cases they really thought they were on the path to dying, but it slowly turned around for them, but the vast majority I know got hardly anything at all. When my wife and I got both vaccine shots, she is 52 and I'm 61, we had zero symptoms from it, not even a sore arm...It was the easiest one I ever got and I have had just about every one ever made flying in the AF for 28 years.

So I'm not sure why the vaccine would have up front deaths....

originally posted by: tanstaafl
If you can't tell the difference between people that actually died from the vaccines, and a vague accusation that you'll be responsible for murdering grandma because you didn't jab yourself with some experimental gene therapy - then, well, I guess one would just be wasting time trying to discuss something rationally with you.

I'm not the one making the vaccine into a bogyman as the science is pretty straight forward, as far as the "kill Grandma" part...Well first it was a joke and second it is also based on personal choice and in that case of not wearing a mask. or believing a mask is all that some so called experts say it is. So the response to not wearing a mask is "you want to kill grandma" as your response to me suggesting old and ill should take the vaccine as COVID will kill them with your snide remark "ask the ones who died"...lol Same attitude in both cases.

If there was any concerns with the vaccine one would think it would be towards women and their eggs, and not much more. To have quick deaths from it doesn't really make sense if the "experimental gene therapy" is the part you are worried about.

Yeah, well, we're probably a lot more sure that the 600,000 number isn't true, and the 2,000 number is likely much higher.

Well I think both numbers are out to lunch as they both have become political and I said in another post that if you had COVID or the vaccine while getting shot in the chest then you are most likely still counted...lol

But COVID is no joke for the old and ill... Its almost nothing for everyone else...

I guess the big question is why have people died from the vaccine and how?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm not the one making the vaccine into a bogyman as the science is pretty straight forward,

No, you're the one making the ludicrous claim that 'the science' is pretty straight forward, when it is, in fact, actually, extremely not.

as far as the "kill Grandma" part...Well first it was a joke and second it is also based on personal choice and in that case of not wearing a mask. or believing a mask is all that some so called experts say it is. So the response to not wearing a mask is "you want to kill grandma" as your response to me suggesting old and ill should take the vaccine as COVID will kill them with your snide remark "ask the ones who died"...lol Same attitude in both cases.

Not at all. The snide is all on your end. You are the one 'joked' about me wanting to kill grandma, and again, you are the one who made light of all of the people who have died from getting the gene therapy injection that hasn't had any long term safety studies (if you worship that kind of thing).

If there was any concerns with the vaccine one would think it would be towards women and their eggs,

There are huge concerns about that - and both female and male future fertility aspirations as well.

To have quick deaths from it doesn't really make sense if the "experimental gene therapy" is the part you are worried about.

You are mistaken. The quick deaths are the outliers. The real, true risk is the long term affects - that we know nothing of, but the concern is genuine and warranted from the evidence.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Not at all. The snide is all on your end. You are the one 'joked' about me wanting to kill grandma, and again, you are the one who made light of all of the people who have died from getting the gene therapy injection that hasn't had any long term safety studies (if you worship that kind of thing).

Relax... I really don't care if Grandma dies or 2000 people out of over 100 million vaccinated, but I do have concerns about 10,000 of Grandmas dying and 100,000s of people, so in the end it is a numbers game and we can say the vaccine is not as safe as others so everyone stop and 100,000s more die, or we can accept the extremely lower loss of life with the vaccine.

The real, true risk is the long term affects - that we know nothing of, but the concern is genuine and warranted from the evidence.

What evidence? We have no long term yet to produce evidence...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Relax... I really don't care if Grandma dies or 2000 people out of over 100 million vaccinated,

Yes, I knew that, but thanks for admitting it.

What evidence? We have no long term yet to produce evidence...

The evidence of what, precisely, the mRNA technology is capable of. Software for the body - software that can be programmed to do - what? I'll tell you what - anything they want, even though it will likely do it really badly and will have many yet to be determined side effects and unintended consequences, as always happens when men meddle in that which they should not.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Yes, I knew that, but t hanks for admitting it.

You are welcome...

The evidence of what, precisely, and mRNA injection is and does. Software for the body - software that can be programmed to do - what? I'll tell you what - anything they want, even though it will likely do it really badly and will have many yet to be determined side effects and unintended consequences, as always happens when men meddle in that which they should not.

You said look at the evidence of long term effects, and I said what evidence since no one has had it long term... This above is just assumptions...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You said look at the evidence of long term effects, and I said what evidence since no one has had it long term... This above is just assumptions...

No, it is you failing to understand what you are reading.

I didn't say the evidence of long term effects... I said the concern of potential long term effects (negative was implied) was valid due to the evidence - and then clarified that the evidence in questions was the nature of this new mRNA technology, as described by none other than one if its primary inventors and purveyors.