I cannot believe MY cognitive dissonance!

originally posted by: and14263
... You know, I’ve got colleagues in India who are telling me they are taking Ivermectin as we speak, and my friends still did not believe. But I can’t hold it against them because I too had my reasons for being tricked, conned, controlled.

For more details regarding ivermectin (my previous remark about it was a bit short and I did not specify that I was primarily talking about its supposed antiviral effect), you can check out my comment about it in another thread.

Which starts with the following link to the following publication:

The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19 - PubMed

Keyphrase from the abstract:

... Repurposing drugs for use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is an ideal strategy but is only feasible when product safety has been established and experiments of repurposed drugs are conducted at clinically relevant concentrations.

The in vitro study they are responding to (the in vitro study that started the ivermectin bandwagon), did not do that. They used concentrations that are much higher than can be realistically achieved in vivo (in human patients). The first minimal* antiviral effects show up in that study at concentrations that can only be achieved in vivo at more than 10 times the usual therapeutic dosages. Totally unfeasible, unrealistic, and not "clinically relevant". That in vitro study is utterly useless and does not indicate antiviral efficacy for the usual therapeutic dosages, it does the exact opposite (and the authors of that paper deliberately leave that out of their paper, even saying things that are deliberately misleading, giving the impression that their paper and study is "clinically relevant" and warrants further investigation and in vivo studies, when it doesn't, again, it does the exact opposite, it shows that further investigation and in vivo studies are useless for this drug in relation to Covid-19; and it casts doubt on any subsequent in vivo study+publication and their authors that claim a benefit, and that's the polite way of putting it. Cause those authors know exactly what they're doing to make their research and publications appear more valuable).

*: zinc + a zinc ionophore already has more of an antiviral effect at those levels, see graphs C-F in this study+paper. Warning that paper is entirely misleading, and not recommended reading if you don't know what signs to look for. In those graphs, to achieve a concentration of 1 micromolar requires one to take more than 10 times the usual or approved therapeutic dose in human patients, and that's still not the point where the line representing efficacy, only begins to have a minimal effect (you actually need more than 1 micromolar to go below 100% viral RNA in graphs C and D), showing that anything below that concentration, has no antiviral effect whatsoever (in graphs C and D; in graphs E and F it's about 1 micromolar where the line begins to go down, showing minimal antiviral effect at first, in graph E and F, the line starts dropping more significantly around 2 micromolar, which represents more than 20 times the approved or usual dosages in vivo, also totally unrealistic, unfeasible and not "clinically relevant", and still probably beaten by zinc + zinc ionophore).

a reply to: TheRealJoeBiden


I rarely say this, because I think it's way overused.

But that's the most bootlicking post I've ever read.

I said what I said.

Your first post, and THAT's where you went?

This screams government. Take that how you will.

Damn bro.
You got jabbed for $ to feed your family .
The cost of living has got men killing themselves to live.
I really hope you don’t get mad human disease and die my fellow man.

a reply to: and14263

originally posted by: sraven
covid is highly contagious. so much so that you must wear masks, social distance, lock down and more.

and it has been two years and we have found that masks, distance, and lock down do not work.

the population in the US is over 320 million and 65 million have been tested and diagnosed with corona.
lets see, 65/320=20%

so over a two year period, 80% of the population has not got covid.
how is that possible with a highly contagious virus that evades masks, distance, and lock down?

It is possible because most of you human and possess built in immunity.
getting the "jab" and not acquiring covid only means you are also immune to the vaccine.

Most of us are human ? Suggesting alien and/or robot?

a reply to: TheRealJoeBiden

Welcome aboard!

So what I see is a lot of people trying to do the right thing and a lot of people who aren't using any logic at all to cognitively digest all of, not only information but history in general.

Why didn't you guys make the TRIPS waiver happen to end this pandemic for good last year? Now we found ourselves in precisely the same # our experts explained years ago, with vaccines that don't prevent infections with the new variant. You'll find the whole drama unfolding with each WHO presser, over and over again, and those are the scientists with an objective perspective I can sign off on.

This isn't about science, Joe. It's about capitalism, corruption, and a somewhat neocolonial repetition of history at play. You can hear a needle pin fall every time our multi-cultural self-perception crashes with something reeking of national-socialist tendencies, which is melting away at the social construct from the other end of this laser-focus on mere national vaccination quotas, as if this MO wasn't entirely counterproductive if you really wanted to fight a global pandemic ASAP.
Great point there, couldn't agree more; people should slap their representatives with their history-books!

a reply to: TheRealJoeBiden

I am going to try and be as respectful and normal as possible in this thread. I expect the replies to be the same

I will try to to the same. I will repeat, however, that this is in expectation of an honest, respectful discussion on both sides... delve into the mud and it will be foolhardy to expect me to remain all clean and shiny myself.

I have no statement on Dr. Malone. Not really interested in one person's opinion on this subject, even someone who was integral in the development of mRNA technology... which I agree has worked very well in and of itself, and is not exactly "new" except in the sense of commercialization.

I see a lot things on here about the big pharma conspiracies. BUT what you all seem to over look is why aren't you angry at big pharma themselves for not making the vaccine free or cost covering or the patent given to governments so they can produce it themselves.

I am angry at those who promoted (or at least did not try to oppose) the vaccine. However, just as being angry with the pharmaceuticals themselves should not prohibit anger at the politicians who condone and abet their actions, neither should anger at the politicians prohibit anger at the pharmaceuticals. There is enough blame to go around.

I believe Trump in this case is deluded. He relied on bad information at the beginning of this fiasco (aka Dr. Anthony Fauci) and was then thrust into a fight for his political life that culminated with a stolen election and his removal from office. Since then, he has continued to promote the vaccines, but the difference is that he has not supported mandates. So while I do assign him some blame, my primary political blame is toward those who still support mandates for an EUA-only novel vaccine.

It is not my fault nor my intention that they are mostly Democrat leaders. That would be the fault of the Democrat leaders themselves.

Vaccines work and have done so all through out history.

The general does not justify the specific.

Yes, as a rule, vaccines have been wonderful for pubic health. I was vaccinated when young, I had all of my children vaccinated when they were young, and I have even requested vaccinations in the past when they were needed. And yet, I feel you are somehow, based on your statement, assigning me the label of "anti-vax" in an attempt to falsely condemn my arguments.

Just because 20 vaccines worked well in the past, it does not follow that a newly-developed vaccine will therefore work as well. My objection is that this specific vaccine uses a spike protein that appears to cause health issues in too many people, and that this specific vaccine also is being pushed onto the American public as a legal necessity to engage in society. That, sir, is an abomination to what the public perceives a vaccine to be. It is bad enough that it has some serious health concerns... if that is true, then people can educate themselves and avoid said complications; if it is not free, evidence can be imparted to the public through public education to allay those concerns.

However, no such public information is forthcoming. Instead, we have courts allowing pharmaceuticals to withhold product data for longer than most of us will be alive, demands that vaccine mandates be enacted based only on obviously false claims ("If you take the vaccine, you will not take COVID-19"), and appeals to emotion. Actual evidence that might support a concern about the vaccines is not being officially addressed; it is being swept under the rug.

As for masks and other measures. Masks work in reducing the spread, they aren't a miracle cure, they will help reduce the spread, things like Masks, isolation, social distancing and good hygiene practices will slow the spread. The problem is with those measures EVERYBODY has to be on board for them to work if only 50% of the population does it's only going to help 50% of the time.

Actually, no. If everyone did wear a mask or social distance, then perhaps one could say the measures would be sufficient to substantially affect the spread, but the relationship is not linear. A 50% compliance level would likely have close to a 0% success ration, especially with the high transmission rate. Compliance would need to be well over 90% for the transmission to be significantly reduced.

Now, consider that a great many people cannot afford to purchase enough disposable masks to be used properly; some people (like myself) are simply not able to wear the masks; one cannot always control how close others get to them in areas which were designed and built to previous standards; isolation is something most people wish to avoid (punishment for those already in prison consists of "isolation"); too much isolation can, has, and will result in increased mental issues and suicidal trends. Therefore, it is nigh impossible to actually effect mandates that will approach levels which can significantly affect viral transmission rates. It is easily possible, likely even, to increase misery among the population by trying to do so.

As for Mandates, I think a lot of people don't understand mandates. mandates are actually there to protect your rights.

That is an oxymoron.

By definition, a mandate (or a law) is a restriction on exercise of freedom. There has never been a law passed or a mandate issued that increased freedom; such a thing cannot exist. Therefore, since rights are based on freedom of the individual, a mandate to protect rights is impossible.

I believe it is you who does not understand mandates.

What would you prefer. a Mandate or a Law.

Neither. Both are a violation of freedom and restriction of rights. The difference is that a law must be passed by a majority (sometimes supermajority) of legislators elected directly by the people in order to pass laws as needed. A mandate is issued by a single authority figure (usually an executive instead of a legislator), removing the power of the people to effectively oppose it. Laws are also subject to Constitutional review, whereas mandates fall into a "special circumstances" category where their (supposedly) temporary nature sometimes prevents judicial review. Laws enacted by a variety of legislators tend to allow for those who the law would oppress, while mandates enacted by an individual are notorious for not doing so.

I think a lot of what you see, as the OP has admitted to in the past, is bias. You seem to have developed this narrative which, though obviously false, still colors your perception of the issues. I hope someday you, like the OP, will see clearer.

TheRedneck

You are rare actually, you came out of your own issue on your own.

I am rare on my own, I wont take the vaccine and I wont ask for an exemption I actually work in a genetics lab with GMO scientist so they know this stuff. I am in their face all the time showing them evidence of how they are wrong, these supposedly smart scientist INSIST there is indeed an FDA approved vaccine that I can go down and get right now, no matter how I say it to them it doesnt matter

And when I say I am in their face, Ive called people fascist, told them their liars etc etc like to their face or via email its a government lab USDA

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is not what I said, so re-read my post. Right now 43 companies around the world are working with mRNA in one fashion or another dealing with vaccines, there are 100 more that can with 55 in India alone. This means there are 10,000s of people working with mRNA trying to make good drugs outside of the whole blue suit money people side of it all, so are they all bad?

How is that not your premise? There are only a handful of companies who are producing completed mRNA vaccines, a few others, as you say, who produce the components of those vaccines, and sure, probably some others who have the capability to produce components. But all of them operate under a single CEO. A worker in these companies has no more ability to successfully oppose their company than a guy working on a Ford assembly line had to oppose the introduction of the Edsel in 1958. A worker in a plant either does what the CEO wants done, or they find work elsewhere.

The CEOs of the various companies determine what products will be made and how much, not the workers. Therefore your reference to "10,000s of people working with mRNA" as a reason to believe that money is not the reason the vaccines are being pushed, but the reason they are being opposed, is in itself fallacious.

In your post above you are suggesting profit means bad drugs

That was not what I said. Drugs period make money for pharmaceuticals, be they "good" or "bad." The more drugs a pharmaceutical sells, the more money they make.

I'm saying they would make the best drugs possible because it would mean more profit.

That is certainly not a true statement. It may be true that "good" drugs are likely to sell more doses, and that "good" drugs may sell more than "bad" drugs, but being "good" or "bad" is not what generates profit. Sales generate profit, and sales are based on customer impression much more than objective fact.

A vaccine that doesn't work is not long term profit, you agree?

No, I do not.

There are only so many people on the planet with any given disease at any time. A drug which cures that disease will sell only as many doses as there are cases and no more. A drug which is required to treat those cases once a month, without curing them, will potentially sell as many doses as there are cases each month.

10,000 of people are not in their profession just to make ineffective drugs hoping to get some kind of profit run on them.

No, they are in their profession hoping to make enough money to meet their bills and put food on their table. These are neither saints nor demons working for the pharmaceuticals; you need to remove that notion from your consciousness. They are people working every day to make a living, doing their job as their boss demands, just like everyone else on the planet.

If you think differently, you are living in a fantasy.

Yet again it is same talking points from those videos said on the net and here over and over to ad nauseam, so they get the hits and people believe them no matter what. A good while ago I did some research on some of these people and their credentials didn't plan out to say the least.

There are talking points, and there are facts. Both are only similar in that they do not change.

For example, the fact is that those videos are not making enormous profits for their owners as you claimed. The talking point is that they are.

They are not pushing their crap on BitChute as a public service....

I pay zero attention to Bitchute. I consider anything they post as highly suspicious unless and until backed up by more reputable services. Your mistake is making the assumption I pay attention to Bitchute, because obviously if I have reservations about a vaccine you happen to believe is safe, I must have gotten that idea from Bitchute.

That is precisely the kind of cognitive dissonance that the Op is speaking of.

And of course, I am not going to go back over the same tired, false allegation you started your post with.

TheRedneck

a reply to: and14263
Very normal reaction I believe.
Just about 10 percent of the people are not like you. For some reason ar another they gather information first from google,
then from duckduckgo then from a lot of aternative websites ... They gather information from all sides .... pro and contra ... And they form their own opinion. Not afraid of changing their meaning when they gather new info ... Say, the problem is like a football. Some see just a small part of the football, others see bigger parts, but few are capable of hovering around the football (the problem) ... and see the whole picture ...
Don't ask me which category I think I belong to. That's irrelevant to me.

a reply to: and14263

Hard to believe you weren't aware of adverse effects or ulterior motives of our world gov being an ATS'er.

I highly recommend you get:

1) D-Dimer test - this will tell you if you have any ongoing blood clots. They may be micro-clots so they will evade many scans.

2) Immune system test - I don't know the specific name of it but I'll link a video.

----

4 videos/links below:

1:

2: My Jaw Dropped After I Tested Someone's Immune System After Second Jab

3:

4: ADE article

a reply to: zandra

"Feeling in his chest/heart.." that prompted him to go to the doctor should not be a normal reaction to (what is supposed to be, but is not) a vaccine.

More recent video from Mike Yeadon (Former VP of Pfizer)

Mike Yeadon

originally posted by: TheRedneck
How is that not your premise? There are only a handful of companies who are producing completed mRNA vaccines, a few others, as you say, who produce the components of those vaccines, and sure, probably some others who have the capability to produce components. But all of them operate under a single CEO. A worker in these companies has no more ability to successfully oppose their company than a guy working on a Ford assembly line had to oppose the introduction of the Edsel in 1958. A worker in a plant either does what the CEO wants done, or they find work elsewhere.

I disagree with your point...

Was it Ford's premise to produce unworkable cars to make money?? I work in a company with a CEO, shocking I know. We make drones and we bust are butts to make the best drones we can otherwise the competition will eat us up, I'm pretty sure most other companies try and do the same.

They may have had bad drugs in the past and there is even a recent case I wrote about where the drug they were pushing did little, but would devastate Medicare due to the cost without any real benefits, so ya I understand your point, BUT the vaccines work, mRNA works. Maybe not at the level our current Goverment suggests and that is concerning since it helps to create distrust as we see, but when you look at the data they do work and are safer than a typical vaccine in the past.

BUT your premise to suggest 7 or so CEOs got together to fake out the world is just not reality as they are all working in competition with each other and that alone drives their desires to be on top.

The CEOs of the various companies determine what products will be made and how much, not the workers. Therefore your reference to "10,000s of people working with mRNA" as a reason to believe that money is not the reason the vaccines are being pushed, but the reason they are being opposed, is in itself fallacious.

We are not talking about workers on an assembly line, we are talking scientist and doctors working their life long profession to make good drugs. I also did not suggest money was not a motivator, but said it doesn't mean bad drug too. The main reason vaccines are being pushed has a lot more to do with political control than anything else. Governor DeSantis believes in the vaccine, BUT fights the political control that is being used. mRNA is not the bad guy here...

That was not what I said. Drugs period make money for pharmaceuticals, be they "good" or "bad." The more drugs a pharmaceutical sells, the more money they make.

OK we can agree with that, as good as big pharma is they also have a bad streak, we agree, BUT does the vaccine work in your eyes or not?

Sales generate profit, and sales are based on customer impression much more than objective fact.

If Biden came our early last year and said 85% of the old and high risk are vaccinated and that means we have accomplished our goal. The vaccine will be available to everyone else on a choice bases only, we would not be having this conversation and the vaccines would have been seen as a good thing by all.

No, they are in their profession hoping to make enough money to meet their bills and put food on their table. These are neither saints nor demons working for the pharmaceuticals; you need to remove that notion from your consciousness. They are people working every day to make a living, doing their job as their boss demands, just like everyone else on the planet.

Its people who care about what they do, as do you and I, and maybe even on a higher level than you and I. So Boeing is my parent company and I'm high enough to see all the internal dialog about the 737-MAX fiasco. That incident alone has changed Boeing a good deal as in they screwed up and didn't listen to a few people and it cost them dearly. They didn't try to do it, but it happened.

There are talking points, and there are facts. Both are only similar in that they do not change. For example, the fact is that those videos are not making enormous profits for their owners as you claimed. The talking point is that they are.

The videos bring them into the limelight, get asked on talk shows, builds up enormous audience and perceived reputation, so there is money to be made there.

The biggest problem with the videos is they inflate the facts, or just outright make up crazy sh!t and it is all mixed together. There are a few good people out there that I have created posts about, but many used here are just ATS crazy level crap. I remember one last year that many here were using as their proof that the protein goes right into the brain and when I followed the evidence the people claiming this it turned out to be from just one early on animal test where they injected rats with like 100,000 times the dose our vaccines are and directly into the blood stream. Add on top rat brain barriers are a lot different than humans. When I pointed out the actual study people were using to say we are all screwed it was 100% ignored. So far every time I have followed the evidence it turns out to be total crap.

Your mistake is making the assumption I pay attention to Bitchute, because obviously if I have reservations about a vaccine you happen to believe is safe, I must have gotten that idea from Bitchute.

That is precisely the kind of cognitive dissonance that the Op is speaking of.

And of course, I am not going to go back over the same tired, false allegation you started your post with.

TheRedneck

My allegations were general and not directed at you in the lease, so why suggest they were. You were the one to engage first on my post that didn't name anyone with statement like.

Have you been drinking?

That is the single most absurd argument I have heard to date, and let me tell you, i have heard some real doozies on here! The unlikely likelihood that some guy is making $10 off a video is more incentive than a group of pharmaceutical CEOs making literally billions from pushing a product whether it works or not, and then more by making it a regular consumable instead of a one-time purchase?

I take it back... even 'shine can't lead to that kind of delusion!

And now it is some personal attack directly towards you...lol

The data shows the vaccines have helped a great deal, AND the data shows sever reactions are rare...What more do you want here. I'm in another thread where an ATS poster saying 1011 studies say the vaccines are dangerous etc. I looked at just the first study and it was about 45 people getting VITT out of 150 million shots. I was accused of cherry picking data and all I did was to start looking at these studies and they say actually the opposite of that OP. We can rinse a repeat this exchange over and over here on ATS.

I looked at your very first study you linked to and it supported my point that the number of illnesses from the vaccine has been minimal. 45 out of 150 million shots is minimal. Their actual words in the study, you know the one you suggest proves great danger

"VITT appears to be a very rare side-effect of vaccination"

This is your study, that you linked too... End of story...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Was it Ford's premise to produce unworkable cars to make money??

They produced cars to make money. The Edsel was a flop, and an expensive one for Ford. However, that was not my point: my point was that the person working on an assembly line, one of those "10,000s of workers," had absolutely zero input on the Edsel. The decision to make the Edsel was conceived of by a corporate officer; the name was selected by a corporate officer; the design was conceived of, developed under the scrutiny of, and approved by corporate officers... not by workers.

I work in a company with a CEO, shocking I know. We make drones and we bust are butts to make the best drones we can otherwise the competition will eat us up, I'm pretty sure most other companies try and do the same.

So you personally spec the parts that go into the drones? You personally developed the drones? You personally approved the manufacture of the drones?

Or do you assist with construction of the drones as directed by your corporate office?

Pharmaceutical workers are the same way. They perform tasks they were hired to do, tasks which do not involve corporate decisions on which vaccine to produce and how much.

We are not talking about workers on an assembly line, we are talking scientist and doctors working their life long profession to make good drugs.

Again, under corporate scrutiny, but I will admit scientists (not doctors; medical researchers perhaps) who work for pharmaceuticals have some input into what will constitute the drug corporate has said they want to produce.

However, that is still a small fraction of the employee base of a pharmaceutical company. Most of the workers are either line workers who mix ingredients and operate equipment or general office overhead. The idea that behind Pfizer's walls lie a vast laboratory full of scientists who each rival Albert Einstein, busily scurrying around in white lab coats while they spout high-tech gibberish and create medical miracles is nothing more than a romantic fiction. They are people, usually (granted) good, knowledgeable people, who are doing their best to develop the best product they can within corporate guidelines.

But, to return to the original goal posts you established, they are not going to make obscene profits regardless of how great a job they do. I would wager, few own appreciable stock in Pfizer. That honor is reserved for the very few corporate elites (CEOs, etc) and investors who own/run Pfizer.

I also did not suggest money was not a motivator, but said it doesn't mean bad drug too.

You keep trying to insinuate that is my position. IT IS NOT!

mRNA is not the bad guy here...

No, the protein that this specific mRNA vaccine targets seems to be the problem. I have already stated that the mRNA technology seems to be working well. But there is more to a vaccine than the type of technology being used to develop it.

The spike protein seems to be the cause of the clotting issues and inflammation issues. So it really doesn't matter whether it is introduced via mRNA, via direct isolation/injection, or via some voo-doo witch doctor mumbling weird unintelligible chants in a backwater bayou somewhere.

OK we can agree with that, as good as big pharma is they also have a bad streak, we agree, BUT does the vaccine work in your eyes or not?

Good.

But in my eyes, the vaccine does not work. The very definition of what constitutes a "vaccine" has been changed to barely allow this one to be called a vaccine in the first place. As more time goes by, more people who have been vaccinated are also hospitalized and even die from the disease they have been "vaccinated" against. At the same time, there are increasing reports of previously healthy individuals suddenly experiencing widespread health issues coinciding exactly with vaccination.

Based on that alone, no, I do not consider this vaccine a "success." I do consider it a "success" when it comes to generating sales and profits, however.

If Biden came our early last year and said 85% of the old and high risk are vaccinated and that means we have accomplished our goal. The vaccine will be available to everyone else on a choice bases only, we would not be having this conversation and the vaccines would have been seen as a good thing by all.

it might be true that my veracity wouldn't be quite as high, but my position on the vaccine has never been based on mRNA or propaganda or any of that fluff you can't seem to understand I don't care about. For me, it is about two simple questions: Will taking this vaccine cause me harm, and will this vaccine prevent contracting/spreading of a disease that I consider deadly? That's all that I care about, and the attempted mandates do not change any of that. At most, they increase the intensity of my opposition. My personal experiences answer the first two questions with "yes" and "no," respectively, and that's the wrong answers.

Incidentally, i do not support removing the vaccines' availability. I don't like telling others what they must and must not do.

The videos bring them into the limelight, get asked on talk shows, builds up enormous audience and perceived reputation, so there is money to be made there.

So you are now claiming that YouTube, Twitter, etc., are not implementing policies that remove videos that question the vaccine's efficacy/safety?

Excuse me, but that is common knowledge. Eyes wide shut?

The biggest problem with the videos is they inflate the facts, or just outright make up crazy sh!t and it is all mixed together.

Almost as bad as a reporter commenting on the "mostly peaceful protest" while buildings burn to the ground in the backdrop.

My point is that this is by no means limited to one "side" of the discussion.

Your problem, and the OP's problem before he realized his mistakes, is that you seem to ascribe unimpeachable truth to whatever the present official narrative says, while looking for any excuse to tear down a differing viewpoint. That is disingenuous, and actually causes me to discount your arguments.

For example, you have not yet acknowledged the fact that some people who have taken the vaccine have had adverse reactions. When you can bear to do such, perhaps we can have a more serious discussion.

My allegations were general and not directed at you in the lease, so why suggest they were. You were the one to engage first on my post that didn't name anyone with statement like.

Oh, please. Spare me.

I engaged your post initially based on your post. You then replied to my post, including insinuations that do not apply to me. Why reply to me directly if you are making a public announcement?

That tactic is getting old. I know what you were trying to do; been seeing it happen for years now. You wanted any readers to believe I was a Bitchute fan so my reputation could be tied to their barely-believable-at-best nonsense stories. Nope.

Feel free to claim I also am a Q-anon fan next. It's a false allegation as well.

The data shows the vaccines have helped a great deal, AND the data shows sever reactions are rare...What more do you want here.

How about studies that can be trusted?

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

This is where I exist also. I took the first two because I saw the writing on the wall at my workplace. I willingly did it because I was still able to choose Moderna over Pfizer at the time and I thought you would not have any option other than pfizer when the hammer finally fell. It was a little bit of a way for me to control what little I could of what I saw would be an uncontrollable situation down the line.

My first shot gave me covid arm within 6 days. I was told to get my second shot in the other arm and it shouldn't happen. Had covid arm pop up again in under 24 hours. Chest pains after the second shot for a couple of weeks. Also no way in hell am I doing a booster. Not happening.

As it turns out I came up for a promotion at work and I needed to show vaccinated status to accept it. Had I not, they are still not requiring old employees to be vaxxed yet. So I likely wouldn't have needed to do it in the end, but then I wouldn't have had my paperwork ready for my new title. Bittersweet.

I don't tell anyone IRL my vaccination status and will most of the time deny having had it if pressed. I do not want people to think I was as gullible as I feel now for doing it regardless of why I did it at the time.

We are like the red headed step children. Neither party wants us so we just watch from the sidelines.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

They produced cars to make money. The Edsel was a flop, and an expensive one for Ford. However, that was not my point: my point was that the person working on an assembly line, one of those "10,000s of workers," had absolutely zero input on the Edsel. The decision to make the Edsel was conceived of by a corporate officer; the name was selected by a corporate officer; the design was conceived of, developed under the scrutiny of, and approved by corporate officers... not by workers.

I think your comparisons are off. Those engineering drugs would be more inline with the engineers working at Ford improving their cars 1000 different direction, not line workers.

So you personally spec the parts that go into the drones? You personally developed the drones? You personally approved the manufacture of the drones? Or do you assist with construction of the drones as directed by your corporate office?

I have a lot of approval levels and sway. A CEO would also be very bad one if they made decisions in a box without their team. We are also talking about companies in other countries and not just 1 or 2 in the states and that just takes a lot away from your point that they might be working together.

The spike protein seems to be the cause of the clotting issues and inflammation issues. So it really doesn't matter whether it is introduced via mRNA, via direct isolation/injection, or via some voo-doo witch doctor mumbling weird unintelligible chants in a backwater bayou somewhere.

Yes there are rare cases of clotting, but it seems the majority is from the viral vector type shots and not mRNA. The one study I posted was 45 in England and all pretty much viral vector and with younger women. The the cases of Myocarditis have been also rare, but more mRNA based in younger men, and the cases have been mild as we saw with the 275 cases in Israel.

But in my eyes, the vaccine does not work. The very definition of what constitutes a "vaccine" has been changed to barely allow this one to be called a vaccine in the first place. As more time goes by, more people who have been vaccinated are also hospitalized and even die from the disease they have been "vaccinated" against. At the same time, there are increasing reports of previously healthy individuals suddenly experiencing widespread health issues coinciding exactly with vaccination.

Based on that alone, no, I do not consider this vaccine a "success." I do consider it a "success" when it comes to generating sales and profits, however.

It all depends on what you see as working when we are talking an RNA based vaccine compared to a DNA based one. If 80% of people in the hospitals are unvacced that means it is working at the level to keep people from getting so serious they need hospital care. We also do not know how bad it would have been with your aunts if they were not vaccinated too. We tend to see just what is in front of us and not try to think about what if they were not vacced, how much worst might it had been for them even with monoclonal antibody treatments. We tend to want 100% to say success and that is not really the case in just about anything.

: Will taking this vaccine cause me harm, and will this vaccine prevent contracting/spreading of a disease that I consider deadly? That's all that I care about, and the attempted mandates do not change any of that. At most, they increase the intensity of my opposition. My personal experiences answer the first two questions with "yes" and "no," respectively, and that's the wrong answers.

You know 87 mg aspirin kills like 4000 people in America every year, do you say the same thing for every drug? If there is a chance of harm I'm not taking it? Deadly is a variable based on your health. COVID has been deadly to many, and nothing to many. Its a roll the dice event I guess.

So you are now claiming that YouTube, Twitter, etc., are not implementing policies that remove videos that question the vaccine's efficacy/safety?

Excuse me, but that is common knowledge. Eyes wide shut?

Did I say that? There is a ton of money to be made as I suggested and I didn't use the words YouTube Twitter etc either, so don't say I did.

Almost as bad as a reporter commenting on the "mostly peaceful protest" while buildings burn to the ground in the backdrop.

Ya, so I agree, and have said if the left, administration, liberal congress etc didn't do all this people in general would not have issues with the vaccines.

My point is that this is by no means limited to one "side" of the discussion.

Thought we were talking about vaccines and not everything...lol I'm not a liberal and they are 10 times worst. They are the main reason these so called experts are coming out of the woodwork, like Dr. Malone.

Your problem, and the OP's problem before he realized his mistakes, is that you seem to ascribe unimpeachable truth to whatever the present official narrative says, while looking for any excuse to tear down a differing viewpoint. That is disingenuous, and actually causes me to discount your arguments.

For example, you have not yet acknowledged the fact that some people who have taken the vaccine have had adverse reactions. When you can bear to do such, perhaps we can have a more serious discussion.

I have many times you just do not care to read or listen. I have also said about 100 times that I do not think everyone should get it or needs it. I think I'm well grounded in how I view both the vaccine and virus. I'm 61 and healthy, but I felt I would use some help and got the vaccine, but I do not plan on getting a booster unless some really bad one comes long to justify it.

Feel free to claim I also am a Q-anon fan next. It's a false allegation as well.

Why do you treat me like some libertard? lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think your comparisons are off.

I think we have completely left the original point of contention. So let me remind you what that was:

The claim was made that the pharmaceuticals are pushing mandatory vaccines and continual boosters for profit. You claimed that they were not because such a scheme would have to actively involve "10,000s of people," and then that a drug that was ineffective was not profitable to the pharmaceutical making it. You then claimed that if there was any serious money to be made, it was being made by those who opposed the vaccine.

That is what I responded to. So far you have not made any serious arguments to support your position. I counterclaimed that those "10,000s of people" need not be involved because the CEOs set the agenda for their company and only a select few companies are involved. I further claimed that a drug is profitable to a manufacturer based not on its effectiveness, but on its sales... not necessarily the same thing. And finally, I claimed that there was no similar financial incentive for those opposing the vaccine to speak out, since speaking out invariably leads to either public ridicule or outright censorship.

Now you're bringing up fringe arguments that serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue.

I have been a CEO and owner of a small C-Corp. No one... and I mean NO ONE... told me what direction my company was going to take. I may have listened to others' opinions, but the decisions were mine and mine alone. I would fire an employee on the spot for even thinking they were somehow supposed to be in my position. That does not fly. Don't believe me? Walk into your CEO's office and tell him how he is going to design one of those drones. Then, after registering for unemployment, come back and let us all know how that worked out for you.

Most larger companies, including the large pharmaceuticals, provide the top corporate officers with bonuses as a large part of their compensation. Those bonuses are based on profit and can easily run into the millions of dollars per year. No one is going to stake that much money on what someone with no financial risk is telling them. So I don't care who you think you are... as long as you are an employee of a company, you will do what the owner/CEO wishes done. When you begin to do things the owner/CEO does not want to be done, you will no longer be employed. Period.

Yes there are rare cases of clotting, but it seems the majority is from the viral vector type shots and not mRNA. The one study I posted was 45 in England and all pretty much viral vector and with younger women. The the cases of Myocarditis have been also rare, but more mRNA based in younger men, and the cases have been mild as we saw with the 275 cases in Israel.

You're still not getting it. I am not arguing that mRNA technology does not work. It does. if anything, my main concern over the vaccines prove that the mRNA process works as designed.

Please get that through your head: I am not claiming problems with the mRNA process!

My concern is that the target protein, the spike protein on the virus, seems to be responsible in and of itself for the health issues reported with both the virus and to a lesser extent, the vaccine. That has nothing to do with the mRNA process. The same protein could be included in a standard injection and cause the exact same issues.

There seems to be a problem with the innate immune system developing antibodies to this virus. That explains why some people get so ill from it, and why the inflammation resulting from severe infections becomes so problematic (both with the heart and with the lungs after other symptoms have waned). Normally, antibodies are formed at random in our immune system. The body then filters out antibodies which can attack one's own cells, leaving those which may be useful. When an antibody matches with a target protein successfully, it sends out signals that cause more antibodies to form. This way, the body can respond to a myriad of infections, both known and unknown.

Inflammation is a mechanism by which the body clears dead tissue and virus particles after the infection is beaten. In this particular virus, it seems the inflammation triggers, then cascades... likely because the body has not successfully cleared all of the infection due to a lack of antibodies. When that happens, it is called a "cytokine storm."

Therefore, such a problem must exist with this virus, since the cytokine storm is one of the major side effects. The next most common is cardiac inflammation, which differs from the after-effect of pneumonia only in location.

So my point where the vaccine is concerned is that even with the proteins available, antibodies are slow to form and slow to increase. It takes a lot of antibodies attaching to proteins to trigger a full immune response, and the vaccine cannot provide that number of proteins. The immune response is then attenuated, providing not full immunity but instead slight immunity which is then claimed to minimize the effects of the disease.

But it isn't minimizing those effects by a large degree. It likely does help some, but very little.

Monoclonal antibodies work by directly injecting antibodies to the virus in the patient. If an infection exists, the antibodies will attack their target proteins in sufficient number to provoke an immune response to create more antibodies, effectively jump-starting the immune response in a way the vaccines cannot. At the same time, monoclonal antibodies work against lung infections as well as blood infections, so the immune response can occur without the virus ever entering the bloodstream. The vaccine is a direct injection into the arm, where it has a chance of entering the bloodstream.

In short, treatment with monoclonal antibodies will promote what the vaccines are supposed to promote, but only in patients with an infection. I believe it would be far preferential to treat patients as needed with monoclonal antibodies than to try and continually vaccinate everyone with a vaccine with a poor response.

Why do you treat me like some libertard? lol

My Daddy used to say to me: If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult. If you want to be treated like a child, act like a child.

TheRedneck

a reply to: and14263

I Takes a big man to say you made a mistake, at lest you know now how hard it is to wake people up especially when you care about what happens to them. I am prepared to loose everything to stand my ground against this and if you don't you'll own nothing and be happy anyway.

Use that anger to resist in any way you can.

a reply to: and14263

myocarditis

look it it up

it is a side effect of these jabs(i too had to get them for my job).

i know a guy who is as fit as can humanly be and he ended up getting put in the hospital for observation for myocarditis as they were worried he was going to have a heart attack under stress.

this is a young man in his mid 20's and top physical condition and had zero issues before and now his heart is swollen


if you have chest pains that is a call for your doctor to make not your group of acquaintances, go to the doctor.