Will you take the H5N1 bird flu vaccine

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
How the vaccines and the other measures doing in the long term can be reflected in the number of excess number of deaths that are seen in pretty much every country that has adopted these measures.

You sure do not like to answer anything do you... On a side note YOU do not get to pick and choose for everyone what YOU think is correct though you really want to...

You idea of measurement is whatever you can find and mold it into anything that fits your narrative no matter the reality of any of it. Once you do that you conveniently ignore everything else.

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection.

No, you keep repeating the same untruths, even when I and others, and the study itself have explained differently.

Those numbers represent an approximation of the few that the vaccine was ineffective in preventing an infection. The vaccine did not help some people, roughly 1 in 119, or roughly 0.84%, in one study. That same study concluded that the actual effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine was 95%.

In terms of severe disease and deaths there is no much data other than the usual assertions of the dogma.

How the vaccines and the other measures doing in the long term can be reflected in the number of excess deaths that are seen in pretty much every country that has adopted these measures.

No, I don't pick and choose. The establishment picks and chooses what suits their narrative. Most of what they have claimed was wrong. From the the origin of the virus, to herd immunity, to natural immunity, to the safety and effectiveness of the 'vaccines'. Clearly the most failed medical campaign in history.

www.cnn.com...

The US Food and Drug Administration on Monday granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for people age 16 and older. This is the first coronavirus vaccine approved by the FDA, and is expected to open the door to more vaccine mandates

Clearly a counter measure and a reaction against a gain of functions experiment that went wrong. Or maybe it was intended this way. We don't know at this point. All we know is that never before coronaviruses were approved and this one was approved at the speed of science without any testing.

In a few words, panic and anti-scientific forces capitalising on the hysteria and paranoia created to make the maximum possible profit by selling junk as a counter measure to the a virus that has been manipulated in the lab.

You are an anti-vaxxer.

There is also no H5N1 pandemic.

a reply to: chr0naut

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. I don't know why you dint understand this basic information.

The anti-vaxxer accusation is s pejorative that prices exactly that you have no valid arguments and you have lost the argument.

As for the H5N1 I know there is no pandemic. I am not not keen to inject myself with experimental, untested, and potentially hazardous products. Those who believe in the vaccine ideology can do as they please.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. In terms of severe disease and deaths there is no much data other than the usual assertions of the dogma.

You keep saying this over and over and that has never been a point for me. The virus was novel and so high risk groups were getting waxed by it and the initial vaccine helped them a good deal. The effectiveness had nothing to do with the R0 of the virus. It was about priming the body to handle a novel virus and so reducing level of illness that was pretty devastating on the high risk population before the vaccine was released.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. In terms of severe disease and deaths there is no much data other than the usual assertions of the dogma.

You keep saying this over and over and that has never been a point for me. The virus was novel and so high risk groups were getting waxed by it and the initial vaccine helped them a good deal. The effectiveness had nothing to do with the R0 of the virus. It was about priming the body to handle a novel virus and so reducing level of illness that was pretty devastating on the high risk population before the vaccine was released.

Safety and effectiveness have never been established. And still these products are the opposite to being safe and effective. Your need to vaccinate 119 people with the product by Pfizer to prevent one infection.The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. No wonder why you can't protect granny.


The UK is trying hard to exonerate those responsible by making the mRNA products not available to anyone under the age of 50. But it's too late for this.

Florida is trying to suspend these products issuing a major health alert and Idaho is trying to criminalise anyone who administers them in their state. Other states and countries have expressed concerns about these products.

It gets worse. It's okay now to say this was a lab leak.

There's even some leaks that say the vaccine was in the making since 2017. That makes sense to me, it takes YEARS to make a vaccine and if you created the virus you would know how to defeat it with a vaccine.

I'll try to find links.

Anyone that's still defending this is obviously dilusional. Make a new account or whatever you do, it's over for you.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Safety and effectiveness have never been established. And still these products are the opposite to being safe and effective. Your need to vaccinate 119 people with the product by Pfizer to prevent one infection.The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. No wonder why you can't protect granny.


The UK is trying hard to exonerate those responsible by making the mRNA products not available to anyone under the age of 50. But it's too late for this.

Florida is trying to suspend these products issuing a major health alert and Idaho is trying to criminalise anyone who administers them in their state. Other states and countries have expressed concerns about these products.

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

You really need to stop reposting the same lines over and over in response to other posts. Most of the time it isn't even related to the post you are responding to and it seems you just do it to harass.


I would think if you have nothing new to say then just don't reply...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Safety and effectiveness have never been established. And still these products are the opposite to being safe and effective. Your need to vaccinate 119 people with the product by Pfizer to prevent one infection.The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. No wonder why you can't protect granny.


The UK is trying hard to exonerate those responsible by making the mRNA products not available to anyone under the age of 50. But it's too late for this.

Florida is trying to suspend these products issuing a major health alert and Idaho is trying to criminalise anyone who administers them in their state. Other states and countries have expressed concerns about these products.

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

You really need to stop reposting the same lines over and over in response to other posts. Most of the time it isn't even related to the post you are responding to and it seems you just do it to harass.


I would think if you have nothing new to say then just don't reply...

You think so? So the H5N1 vaccines are not somehow related to the current situation where we have a range of untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous products that have been available on the market for over two years. Likewise we know nothing about the H5N1 vaccines and someone who is wise won't use either the Covid-19 vaccines or these vaccines for the bird flu, if they are actually available. It seems they are not widely available.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Did you see what hospital patients were being treated with before the quaccine was rolled out?

John Campbell has a video about it titled 'Pandemic unnecessary deaths, the data'. In the video he shows the NICE guidelines for managing covid 19 symptoms.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. I don't know why you dint understand this basic information.

The anti-vaxxer accusation is s pejorative that prices exactly that you have no valid arguments and you have lost the argument.

As for the H5N1 I know there is no pandemic. I am not not keen to inject myself with experimental, untested, and potentially hazardous products. Those who believe in the vaccine ideology can do as they please.

There are several H5N1 vaccines for humans that have existed for more than 10 years. They have been tested, and approved, by the normal pre-COVID, non-EUC processes.

H5N1 is a strain of influenza, and these vaccines are 'flu vaccines. They aren't mRNA vaccines, and they aren't to protect against a coronavirus.

You are just objecting to them because they are called vaccines, and you are an anti-vaxxer.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. I don't know why you dint understand this basic information.

The anti-vaxxer accusation is s pejorative that prices exactly that you have no valid arguments and you have lost the argument.

As for the H5N1 I know there is no pandemic. I am not not keen to inject myself with experimental, untested, and potentially hazardous products. Those who believe in the vaccine ideology can do as they please.

There are several H5N1 vaccines for humans that have existed for more than 10 years. They have been tested, and approved, by the normal pre-COVID, non-EUC processes.

You are just objecting to them because they are called vaccines, and you are an anti-vaxxer.

We dint know anything about these vaccines which are not widely acceptable. They have been tested where? What was the population size and what were the short, medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? I think you are mistaken again.


From another post of mine

Disadvantages of avian influenza vaccines

While preventative vaccination is widely used to control other avian diseases such as Newcastle disease, there are a number of disadvantages relating to currently available avian influenza vaccines:

Although the vaccines are able to reduce mortality, it is likely that some vaccinated birds would still be capable of transmitting avian influenza if they became infected, increasing the time taken to detect and eradicate this virus.

1) Influenza viruses can mutate rapidly, which could render a vaccine less useful. This is relevant when trying to get a good match between an outbreak virus and the candidate vaccine. The outbreak virus cannot be predicted with any certainty.

2)The vaccines present serious practical limitations in that they need to be delivered by individually injecting each bird. It can take up to 3 weeks for the birds to deliver optimum immunity, and some poultry require 2 doses, with a 4 to 6 week interval between these.

3)There is no proven efficacy of the vaccines in species such as ducks, geese and game birds.
It is difficult to differentiate infected from vaccinated birds.

4)There are welfare implications for birds through increased handling, especially when speed is necessary.

5)Vaccination may induce a false sense of security, resulting in a relaxation of biosecurity and vigilance.

6)There will be a risk to workers from the increased handling of birds.

You can apply most of the above with the exception of 6) and changing the wording from birds to humans to describe how effective the Covid-19 and the H5N1 vaccines are.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. I don't know why you dint understand this basic information.

The anti-vaxxer accusation is s pejorative that prices exactly that you have no valid arguments and you have lost the argument.

As for the H5N1 I know there is no pandemic. I am not not keen to inject myself with experimental, untested, and potentially hazardous products. Those who believe in the vaccine ideology can do as they please.

There are several H5N1 vaccines for humans that have existed for more than 10 years. They have been tested, and approved, by the normal pre-COVID, non-EUC processes.

You are just objecting to them because they are called vaccines, and you are an anti-vaxxer.

We dint know anything about these vaccines which are not widely acceptable. They have been tested where? What was the population size and what were the short, medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? I think you are mistaken again.


From another post of mine

Disadvantages of avian influenza vaccines

While preventative vaccination is widely used to control other avian diseases such as Newcastle disease, there are a number of disadvantages relating to currently available avian influenza vaccines:

Although the vaccines are able to reduce mortality, it is likely that some vaccinated birds would still be capable of transmitting avian influenza if they became infected, increasing the time taken to detect and eradicate this virus.

1) Influenza viruses can mutate rapidly, which could render a vaccine less useful. This is relevant when trying to get a good match between an outbreak virus and the candidate vaccine. The outbreak virus cannot be predicted with any certainty.

2)The vaccines present serious practical limitations in that they need to be delivered by individually injecting each bird. It can take up to 3 weeks for the birds to deliver optimum immunity, and some poultry require 2 doses, with a 4 to 6 week interval between these.

3)There is no proven efficacy of the vaccines in species such as ducks, geese and game birds.
It is difficult to differentiate infected from vaccinated birds.

4)There are welfare implications for birds through increased handling, especially when speed is necessary.

5)Vaccination may induce a false sense of security, resulting in a relaxation of biosecurity and vigilance.

6)There will be a risk to workers from the increased handling of birds.

You can apply most of the above with the exception of 6) and changing the wording from birds to humans to describe how effective the Covid-19 and the H5N1 vaccines are.

Influenza H5N1 vaccines - Australian Prescriber article from 2009

F NO

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The effectiveness of these vaccines were never a proven fact but an assertion of the vaccine dogma. The absolute risk reduction was a staggering 0.84%. So you had to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection. I don't know why you dint understand this basic information.

The anti-vaxxer accusation is s pejorative that prices exactly that you have no valid arguments and you have lost the argument.

As for the H5N1 I know there is no pandemic. I am not not keen to inject myself with experimental, untested, and potentially hazardous products. Those who believe in the vaccine ideology can do as they please.

There are several H5N1 vaccines for humans that have existed for more than 10 years. They have been tested, and approved, by the normal pre-COVID, non-EUC processes.

You are just objecting to them because they are called vaccines, and you are an anti-vaxxer.

We dint know anything about these vaccines which are not widely acceptable. They have been tested where? What was the population size and what were the short, medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? I think you are mistaken again.

From another post of mine

Disadvantages of avian influenza vaccines

While preventative vaccination is widely used to control other avian diseases such as Newcastle disease, there are a number of disadvantages relating to currently available avian influenza vaccines:

Although the vaccines are able to reduce mortality, it is likely that some vaccinated birds would still be capable of transmitting avian influenza if they became infected, increasing the time taken to detect and eradicate this virus.

1) Influenza viruses can mutate rapidly, which could render a vaccine less useful. This is relevant when trying to get a good match between an outbreak virus and the candidate vaccine. The outbreak virus cannot be predicted with any certainty.

We have now gotten rather good at manufacturing influenza vaccines that are effective to specific influenza strains, prior to those strain becoming widespread. It's how we already manufacture and deliver Fluvax prior to a season.

2)The vaccines present serious practical limitations in that they need to be delivered by individually injecting each bird. It can take up to 3 weeks for the birds to deliver optimum immunity, and some poultry require 2 doses, with a 4 to 6 week interval between these.

3)There is no proven efficacy of the vaccines in species such as ducks, geese and game birds.
It is difficult to differentiate infected from vaccinated birds.

While it is difficult to manage wildlife through a multistage vaccination process, it is something that we routinely handle in human cases.

4)There are welfare implications for birds through increased handling, especially when speed is necessary.

5)Vaccination may induce a false sense of security, resulting in a relaxation of biosecurity and vigilance.

6)There will be a risk to workers from the increased handling of birds.

You can apply most of the above with the exception of 6) and changing the wording from birds to humans to describe how effective the Covid-19 and the H5N1 vaccines are.

No, you cannot just change many of those points about wildlife and apply them to the cases in humans.

a reply to: litterbaux

I'll take it just as fast as I took the fake covid vaccine.

originally posted by: litterbaux
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I don't think this will be the case, at least in The United States. Think about the people that will resist, probably rural area's. Think about the women and men you know that hunt, I mean unless you're stupid, you probably don't want to go anywhere near these people's property. I mean unless you want to die.

We'll question their intentions before we take aim. We won't shoot unless our lives are threatened.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care what the study shows. All I know is that people who got vaccinated are dropping like flies with heart attacks, from the age of 15 and up. Healthy football, basketball, and baseball stars. If you feel comfortable risking that, more power to you. I'm glad I wasn't dumb enough to fall for it and none of my family or friends were.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care what the study shows. All I know is that people who got vaccinated are dropping like flies with heart attacks, from the age of 15 and up. Healthy football, basketball, and baseball stars. If you feel comfortable risking that, more power to you. I'm glad I wasn't dumb enough to fall for it and none of my family or friends were.

People were dropping like flies from heart attacks prior to the vaccines. It has been the number 1 cause of death in first world countries, for decades.

Heart attack deaths in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 - ONS

Overall, heart attack statistics have fallen during the last 20 years:

Heart Attack Deaths Drop Over Past Two Decades - American College of Cardiology 2023 report

The alleged rise in heart attacks in young people is part of a social media anti-vax campaign and the recent fluctuations in numbers are officially suspected to be related more to the effects of the pandemic, which peaked in number of active infections in January 2023.

a reply to: litterbaux

Nope, I am no planning on sleeping with wild birds anytime soon, beside that we already have cases for bird flu for years in my neck of the wood and no pandemic or dead from it.

a reply to: chr0naut

This is nothing more than vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. They can't even produce an effective vaccine for wild animals and you think they will produce one for humans or have produced one for humans for H5N1? They can't even produce an effective vaccine for the normal flu we humans get every year.

There is nothing there that says they have produced safe and effective vaccines for humans for H5N1. Just as they haven't produced a safe and effective vaccine for SARS-CoV-2

a reply to: litterbaux

They have dumped a vast amount of the population's immune system, of course, there will be more pandemics. Compromising the immune system with the bit of HIV spliced in was one of the more fiendish ideas. Handing over the way they would be actioned on to the WHO gives the governments no liabilities or so they think. But things at the rate they are going will never get that far.