Another take on the vaccines

I tried to restrain myself and couldn't.

 

I went through something akin to what you're going through here when I told people in 2008 to either short the market (if they knew how) or put their investments into cash when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. God couldn't have stopped the market going down at that point.

The people who heed to what you write might save their life or prevent serious illness, an even better deal than protecting their savings!

 

Another take on the vaccines


We need an anti viral medication
such as Tamiflu for influenza
Vaccination was the wrong approach
for a virus that mutates faster
than influenza!


El Moi
Defender of Truthiness

If not Who? ​

 

*******

 

This is correct, and it has worked up until now (and still works now).

Precisely. As a "doctor", you should be well aware of this. You should know that we need to be exposed to our environment in order to adequately develop our immune systems (and that obsessive hand washing and sanitizing, and fear of the outdoors and public areas, defeats this purpose).

Covid is not a part of "the nastiest, lethal bugs". It is the mildest of the SARS variants.

Correct, but covid is not tuberculosis nor meningitis.

In the way you are claiming that covid is "potentially lethal", a common cold virus is likewise "potentially lethal", "doctor"...

Fear mongering.

These are not vaccines... These are not injecting an inactive/weakened virus into you... These are injecting "instructions" into your body, to tell it to produce a spike protein found on the outside of covid. Your body is producing antibodies to THAT protein, not to the virus itself, since this shot is not exposing your body to the virus itself. It would be better to naturally get exposed to the virus itself than to get unnecessarily injected with a completely experimental jab of which we have already seen numerous serious side effects arise from it.

We didn't need a "solution". We already have a "solution" in hydroxy (and other already widely available drugs that are both SAFE and CHEAP). We already have a "solution" in keeping ourselves and our immune systems in good health, via regular exercise, low stress, healthy diets (NOT what the government tells you to eat, btw), regular sunlight exposure, and Vitamins C/D, and Zinc. This is all already KNOWN information. This is NOTHING NEW. You should have known this, as a "doctor"...

 

You are quoting an anti vaxxer site to prove your “point” which seemingly is - there have always been and always will be TWONKS


There has always been flat Earther’s - does that mean the Earth is actually flat?

 

That is true - Australia basically held back a little because we did have so few cases plus where I live Pfizer was NOT an option

 

Yeah
As I posted earlier - Australia has had the luxury of being able to hold back a little to allow more urgent areas to kick along. But there was also the issue of cold chain with Pfizer = many many of our more remote areas cannot sustain the Pfizer requirements. Plus I think our Government is being a bit more skittish than the USA with who how and when.

 

Actually, vaccinechoicecanada is about choice- it's in the name of the site. Anyway, I know that most speak of Jenner in glowing terms, but as Napoleon once said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” I've come to find that vaccinechoicecanada has very accurate information, so I think they're probably on the manner in regards to Jenner.

 

Yes, I understand now. See my post #125 above.

 

Ummm, what's your point? The original definition is no longer valid because modern science decides to change it to suit their current narrative and pursuits?

Stop and think....apply that type of "philosophy" to every and anything in your life that functions, and you throw out logic, because true science does operates to prove a hypothesis/theory.

 

Naaa-unnh, son. YOU made a declarative statement, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide valid, documented sources to substantiate your statement. Ask any hight school teacher who chairs the debate team. Your supposition and conjecture laden rhetoric is no substitute. I asked for medical definitions, not generalized references. You have indeed FAILED

 

Definitions are not updated to suit the current agenda/experiment. If that were the case then any and all medical definitives would consistently be in upheavel, as there would be no permanent "facts", if you go by your stance here. True science seeks to prove a theory or hypothesis via experiments. You don't claim 100% fact while the experiment is on going.

 

yeah, there are quacks every where. Then there are party line stooges who just ignore what they don't like and regurgitate their intellectual myopia.

 

Your quoted information and references call your information as clearly called "vaccines".

YOUR multiple documented sources provide YOUR source as "vaccines". The ONLY source of these sources, called "vaccines" is YOUR unsourced claims that Britannica, Psitechdaily, all credible sources from the medical societies, government, major medical research, and science research call "vaccines" as vaccines! Even most anti-vaxers call them "vaccines".

Hey, if you wish to claim some self-claimed idea that the COVID vaccines, or any other vaccine is not "vaccine", fine, but your (currently whackdoodle) "burden of proof" is yours, not the rest of the rational civilization.

 

translation: Dave cannot provide valid docunmentation from valid sources to support his blather...he just repeats himself and ignores total content for out of context quotes and basic misrepresentation on his part. The chronology of the posts exposes his folly. I won't waste more time with his nonsense.

 

No it is an anti vaxxer site unless you can point to articles on that site that support the widespread administration of vaccines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Choice_Canada

 

No they are updated with technology

 

It definitely provides a lot of information that vaccines can be dangerous, but it highlights that people should have the choice as to whether or not they want to take vaccines.

 

In other words an anti-vaxxer site. IF it is not presenting a balanced view it is an anti- vaxxer site

and I don’t even have to look - the theme is the same across all anti-science sites. Lots of emotive anecdotal stories and precious little good solid research. People convinced THEY are right because they have met someone who knew someone who overheard someone in a pub somewhere saying something about some issue some person had.

This is what vaccines have prevented

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-95742011000500014

 

I think it's one of the more balanced views that I've seen personally. It balances the harms against the alleged benefits of vaccines.

 

Vaccines have helped eradicate Two polio strains but COVID has disrupted normal vaccination routines in many poor countries and there is fear we will see a resurgence

 

Does it “balance” the research findings? And more importantly what is the quality of the research backing for its claims?

 

The mainstream idea that polio was vanquished is just smoke and mirrors...
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/polio-wasnt-vanquished-it-was-redefined/

 

As far as I'm concerned, credible research shows that vaccines provide little if any real benefit and can be incredibly harmful.