Covid Vaccine Issues

[rotor]

You had the VIRUS and then you got the vaccine?(WHY)
You already have the antibodies if you survive the virus, you don't need a vaccine.

I had the virus Christmas to New Years (about a week) and I still had to feed all my goats, chickens, pigs and donkey every day. (Hay in the Winter) Felt bad but I kept moving slow so I would not come down with pneumonia. (try to stay vertical!)

I will not get a flu or virus again for 6 to 8 years like always. (seems to be a cycle for me)

A tetanus shot is all I have gotten in the last 40 years.

When you use the argument that you don't need the vaccine because you had the virus and then state that you get the flu every 6 or 8 years you defeat the argument that one already has protective antibodies. We really don't know how long the antibodies last after the actual covid infection and I believe the immunization push is more of a booster push but we don't know yet. We also don't know if the original infection gives protection of the new variants, just like flu doesn't necessarily protect against new strains. So, the issue remains unanswered, should one get the vaccine after having covid.

 

[rotor]

Ha ha. And some of us are not that challenged. I managed to survive and pass a regular semester of Differental Equations in a five week summer session as an undergrad.
But seriously, you have to choose the numbers that you work with. If the CDC admits that only 6% of the deaths are from Covid, your 1.6% figure is an absolute joke. Where do you get YOUR numbers?
Is it Jen Psaki? 8-)

Of course you have to choose the numbers you work with but are you claiming that the mortality rate is 0.4%? That is the number you used and I question the source of your numbers as well. The other issue, not frequently discussed, is morbidity rate. Many survive but have serious problems after that, I don't have those numbers.
We have had over a year with Covid now and I think the numbers are fairly accurate and consistent.

 

[LaborLawPaul]

As far as PCR testing? Kary Mullis, whom died in 2019, creator of PCR testing disputing Dr. Fauci's use of PCR testing and what he thought of him, well before Fauci became the so called foremost authority on COVID and testing.

Nobel Laureate, PCR Inventor Said Fauci Was a Liar, Abusing Test Data For An Agenda And Afraid To Debate

The Nobel Laureate inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, died at the age of 74 back in August of 2019 but prior to his death, he had a lot of interaction with Fauci. He’d already gone to war with Fauci for misusing his PCR test. Mullis and other scientists said Fauci was magnifying the...

roundtablereport.com

.

When they talked about the HIV/AIDS media blackout of 7 years it made me think about all of these Internet-based discussions we have now. It must be driving them nuts to be able to stamp out the voices of doctors and researchers stepping forward and warning everyone. They even have the White House declaring it will increase censorship on dissenting voices. Event 201 (the World Economic Forum pandemic modeling) occurred just before this "virus" broke loose in Wuhan. The WEF just held its annual Cyber Polygon event focusing on "digital ecosystems." I suspect whoever is in charge of this dumpster fire will crank down on digital free speech soon.

 

[oldag]

When you use the argument that you don't need the vaccine because you had the virus and then state that you get the flu every 6 or 8 years you defeat the argument that one already has protective antibodies. We really don't know how long the antibodies last after the actual covid infection and I believe the immunization push is more of a booster push but we don't know yet. We also don't know if the original infection gives protection of the new variants, just like flu doesn't necessarily protect against new strains. So, the issue remains unanswered, should one get the vaccine after having covid.

And keep wearing cheaps masks that aren't effective. And use disposable gloves when handling everything. And social distance, ten feet apart or more depending upon which way the wind is blowing. And stay home, self isolate. Set up an isolation bubble around your home.

 

[kbaxter60]

We have had over a year with Covid now and I think the numbers are fairly accurate and consistent.

Paging Major Irony! Major Irony, pick up the white courtesy phone!
You questioned MY numbers, but completely NEGLECTED to even HINT at what numbers you think are "accurate and consistent".

How about the numbers from Lisbon, Portugal, where a court ruled that only 0.9% of the deaths they claimed were "of" Covid were actually "from" Covid. Well, that forces you to use a completely different number in your numerator than you may have the day before. Even if you're really good with numbers. Hint: Your 1.6% claim just became 0.016%. But then.....them numberz is HARDDDDDD.

Maybe your accurate, consistent numbers are from the CDC, who have already admitted that only 6% of the "Covid deaths" they report are "from" the disease?

Consistent? Maybe at least that.
Accurate? Hah.

So: How many US fatalities FROM Covid? How many infections (note: include only actual tested cases, with cycle counts < 25. False positives are antithetical to accurate/consistent)?

So, please: DO share your numbers here. Tell us where you got them. Us challenged folk will take it from there.

 

[easy rider]

When you use the argument that you don't need the vaccine because you had the virus and then state that you get the flu every 6 or 8 years you defeat the argument that one already has protective antibodies. We really don't know how long the antibodies last after the actual covid infection and I believe the immunization push is more of a booster push but we don't know yet. We also don't know if the original infection gives protection of the new variants, just like flu doesn't necessarily protect against new strains. So, the issue remains unanswered, should one get the vaccine after having covid.

That's why I research, to find those answers. Here are a couple organizations made up of hundreds of doctors and scientists that routinely get censored: FLCCC Alliance, started by Dr. Pierre Kory whom testified to the U.S. Senate and the C19 Coalition that Dr. Peter McCullough belongs to.

I'm not going to stop anyone from receiving a vaccination if they want it, I just would like to see people go into it with some knowledge. Something that our government isn't being forthright with.

 

[Texas45]

Rotor drives his car by hisself with a mask.

One can never be too safe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rotor]

Maybe your accurate, consistent numbers are from the CDC, who have already admitted that only 6% of the "Covid deaths" they report are "from" the disease?

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[kbaxter60]

Do you have a reference for that?

Now wondering if you have ever heard the phrase "It is better to give than to receive"?
You pitch a lot of rocks, but when asked to pony up your own numbers, you ask for more information.

Very well. Not that you could not have Googled this yourself, but here is ONE reference. This story only refers back to the original CDC release, which they spent much time and effort cleaning up (You know, that "misinformation" and "problematic content"...). But it hits the high points.

People Think the CDC Said 94% of COVID-19 Deaths Were Actually Caused by Something Else—but That's Not Accurate at All

The CDC said 6% of people who died from COVID-19 did not have the disease on their death certificate. Find out why people on social media are misinterpreting the stat and what the facts are.

www.health.com

 

[easy rider]

Now wondering if you have ever heard the phrase "It is better to give than to receive"?
You pitch a lot of rocks, but when asked to pony up your own numbers, you ask for more information.

Very well. Not that you could not have Googled this yourself, but here is ONE reference. This story only refers back to the original CDC release, which they spent much time and effort cleaning up (You know, that "misinformation" and "problematic content"...). But it hits the high points.

People Think the CDC Said 94% of COVID-19 Deaths Were Actually Caused by Something Else—but That's Not Accurate at All

The CDC said 6% of people who died from COVID-19 did not have the disease on their death certificate. Find out why people on social media are misinterpreting the stat and what the facts are.

www.health.com

Also, since he brought up comorbidities. How do you pad the number of deaths? What better way than to send sick people to nursing homes, where comorbidities abide.

 

[rotor]

Now wondering if you have ever heard the phrase "It is better to give than to receive"?
You pitch a lot of rocks, but when asked to pony up your own numbers, you ask for more information.

Very well. Not that you could not have Googled this yourself, but here is ONE reference. This story only refers back to the original CDC release, which they spent much time and effort cleaning up (You know, that "misinformation" and "problematic content"...). But it hits the high points.

People Think the CDC Said 94% of COVID-19 Deaths Were Actually Caused by Something Else—but That's Not Accurate at All

The CDC said 6% of people who died from COVID-19 did not have the disease on their death certificate. Find out why people on social media are misinterpreting the stat and what the facts are.

www.health.com

So, you claim that the article says that the CDC has already admitted that only 6% of the "Covid deaths" they report are "from" the disease. Is that what you claim? You have data from the CDC that only 6% of stated Covid deaths are really from Covid? Where is that data from the CDC?

 

[kbaxter60]

So, you claim that the article says that the CDC has already admitted that only 6% of the "Covid deaths" they report are "from" the disease. Is that what you claim? You have data from the CDC that only 6% of stated Covid deaths are really from Covid? Where is that data from the CDC?

Those are your numbers? I am so disappointed.

Edit: And, after some thought, this is the point I bow out. The moderators here do an awesome job and I will not be their next target for "Don't feed the..." Well, you know the rest.

Good luck, friend, I hope you DO find your accurate and consistent answer, no matter how elusive.

 

[easy rider]

When my kids were minors I would have been screaming from the high heavens if this was enacted. How is this not criminal?

Most states require parental consent for Covid-19 shots for ages 12 to 15, but not all. Here's the list. | CNN

Nearly all states require some form of parental or guardian consent for vaccine providers to administer Covid-19 shots to people ages 12 to 15, a CNN analysis finds. But there are a few exceptions.

www.cnn.com

 

[CyberWolf]

Like I said, I'm not a doctor, so I don't expect anyone to take what I post as gospel. I believe I mentioned before that I'm concerned, not just for myself, but for everyone, and especially those who've gotten these vaccines.

I'll leave this here, I don't expect you to believe it, I just hope it makes you ask questions of your own:

^ok, so while I hadn't seen that yet (and disclaimer, even at 2x I only had time to make it through about half of the video; they need faster playback options), I did hear enough to state that:

1. He's very likely correct in that this is all about the vaccine; good chance that it is (at least right now, anyway), and everything else is either a red-herring, purposeful(ly manipulative), or acceptable (possibly even desirable) collateral.

2. He's also very likely correct about the "marking", but only partially so; and is missing something big in his perspective - the "elephant-in-the-room", as it were...

---think about it...

a.) if the purpose was simply to "tag/track/etc. individual people", there are waaaaay the hell easier ways of going about that which are avaliable in one form or another...

b.) not sure if he got to this eventually, but one thing I've seen floating around is some notion related to IP/property rights and the presence of engineered compounds jn the body (e.g. all your body are belong to us, whahahahaha!). Highly doubtful, though plausible enough to make a great red-herring....Taken a look at the back of a Snickers bar lately?

The vaccinations would likely, however, provide an optimal global-scale payload delivery and feedback system however; also, looking back at 2.b above and the example given, one begins to wonder what other differences might be standing quietly in plain-sight...Could there possibly be something related to the delivery mechanism and the fact that an injection bypasses ingestion processing limitations?

As far as PCR testing? Kary Mullis, whom died in 2019, creator of PCR testing disputing Dr. Fauci's use of PCR testing and what he thought of him, well before Fauci became the so called foremost authority on COVID and testing.

Also right on-point.

Based on what I've read, the PCR testing process is ridiculous and useless for accurate covid testing; that's ok though, because that's not what the PCR process was designed for. Talk about 'icing on the cake', don't ya just love finding the perfect tool that can do multiple jobs well!?

Like, I don't know, maybe serve as a feeback/tracking tool for identifying and isolating genomic changes which could possibly be resultant from some function of the vaccine(s)? Just thinking out loud...

^What is funny though (not) is that in my 'primary' line of work, we actually have that very same concept - it's called "blind code injection" or "blind injection", and the basic gist of it is that:

--even without the ability to elicit any type of direct or immediately-observable response from a given System - if you have a way to "get something into it" in the way of direct code/commands (not filtered, or perhaps...'digested'?), and you already have at least a general idea of how that system is (or may be) structured internally, and/or how that new data may be handled; the you can start making predictions and 'blindly' sending in data in an attempt to elicit the desired (but not originally intended by the system designers) response, irrespective of any lack in immediate feedback/response. Keep in mind - the better you understand the system, the less 'noise' and unpredictability there typically is. If one only has a very rudimentary level of understanding, or perhaps understands the basics but not implementation-specifics, then it can get noisy, messy, and unpredictable...

Back on topic...

From NIST (1999)

Long Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Variable Number of Tandem Repeats (VNTR) Analysis

The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has revolutionized the analysis of DNA from a variety of sources.

www.nist.gov

"The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has revolutionized the analysis of DNA from a variety of sources. With its sensitivity and ability to amplify degraded DNAs and small quantities of samples, coupled with fast turn-around-time, PCR is often the analytical method of choice for DNA profiling in forensic laboratories."

Now is where it starts getting fun...

...

...

Finally, one point I need to make - if posting a reference to external/original sources, I usually try to let folks review and make up their own mind; maybe with a 'teaser' comment or description...

I don't, however, blindly parrot other's opinions (if I need to reference something like that, I'll pop-in a short disclaimer). While I may draw from multiple sources over time (usually more than I'm consciously aware of, that's for sure); the opinions/perspectives I share are fully my own and require no external attribution or acceptance. Don't agree with my opinions/conclusions or think they're incorrect? Well, maybe so - politely show/explain to me what I missed, and I'll offer the same courtesy. I couldn't care less, however, if someone doesn't "like" my opinions/conclusions; are they accurate or inaccurate? Incomplete or materially inclusive?

Maybe someone like that doc in the quoted post will take some effort to rethink current assumptions and run the analyses I had previously suggested...Like I said, this is neither my field nor professional background; just a topic that, IMHO, is worthy of some further consideration...


ETA: Hope these "brain-dumps" aren't troublesome or unwanted by the majority of forum members, especially on topics about shit that don't go bang! (Also, no comparative reference is being made in any way to any other forum member, so please don't interpret anything that way).

May not be able to 'turn it off', but don't need to flood y'alls feed if it's too much...

 

[rotor]

Those are your numbers? I am so disappointed.

Edit: And, after some thought, this is the point I bow out. The moderators here do an awesome job and I will not be their next target for "Don't feed the..." Well, you know the rest.

Good luck, friend, I hope you DO find your accurate and consistent answer, no matter how elusive.

You make the claim, I could not verify your claim as accurate. But let's not waste time on such a silly argument. have a good day.

 

[DubiousDan]

When my kids were minors I would have been screaming from the high heavens if this was enacted. How is this not criminal?

Most states require parental consent for Covid-19 shots for ages 12 to 15, but not all. Here's the list. | CNN

Nearly all states require some form of parental or guardian consent for vaccine providers to administer Covid-19 shots to people ages 12 to 15, a CNN analysis finds. But there are a few exceptions.

www.cnn.com

I believe it's not just for covid. Many teens across the country who have anti vax parents have been asking for the right to make their own decision regarding vaccinations for various diseases and some states have granted them that right.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-vaccinated-without-their-parents-permission/

 

[easy rider]

I believe it's not just for covid. Many teens across the country who have anti vax parents have been asking for the right to make their own decision regarding vaccinations for various diseases and some states have granted them that right.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-vaccinated-without-their-parents-permission/

I don't give a f*ck what reasons the states may think they have, they're not wards of the state. Parents need to put a stop to this, or soon they'll have no say over their child's life.

 

[DubiousDan]

I don't give a f*ck what reasons the states may think they have, they're not wards of the state. Parents need to put a stop to this, or soon they'll have no say over their child's life.

I have to side with the kids who don't want to die of suffer permanent effects of preventable diseases just because their parents are idiots.

 

[gll]

I have to side with the kids who don't want to die of suffer permanent effects of preventable diseases just because their parents are idiots.

If the kids don't want to abide by the parent's decisions, and the state won't support the parents, the parents should be able to turn the kids over to the state, or kick the kids out.

 

[easy rider]

I have to side with the kids who don't want to die of suffer permanent effects of preventable diseases just because their parents are idiots.

So taking away parent's rights are ok with you, let's talk about gun rights.

Here's the thing, when my kids were younger it didn't matter if it was field trips or vaccines, they needed mine or my wife's signature if they were under 18. Then I'm not sure when it happened, but they lowered some activities to 16. Now they are in some cases lowering it to 12? Where does it stop? At birth? Look at where they're going with transitioning.

Same with gun rights, give a little rights away, soon they'll be back for more. Once you start down the road of "well that seems to make sense" they've got ya.