- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
So you think the vaccines are immunotherapy? You have the same understanding as the poor souls who ask if they can get vaccinated after being hospitalized with Covid.
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
Southwest caved. Good for them, ******* Nazis.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/19/southwest-vaccine-mandate-unpaid-leave-exemptions.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/19/southwest-vaccine-mandate-unpaid-leave-exemptions.html
apparently you have no idea of which you speak
What are Cancer Vaccines?
Vaccines are medicines that help the body fight disease. They can train the immune system to find and destroy harmful germs and cells. There are many vaccines that you receive throughout your life to prevent common illnesses. There are also vaccines for cancer. There are vaccines that prevent...
What are Cancer Vaccines?
Approved by the Cancer.Net Editorial Board, 08/2020
Vaccines are medicines that help the body fight disease. They can train the immune system to find and destroy harmful germs and cells. There are many vaccines that you receive throughout your life to prevent common illnesses. There are also vaccines for cancer. There are vaccines that prevent cancer and vaccines that treat cancer.
Are there vaccines that prevent cancer?
There are vaccines that can prevent healthy people from getting certain cancers caused by viruses. Like vaccines for the chicken pox or the flu, these vaccines protect the body from these viruses. This type of vaccine will only work if a person gets the vaccine before they are infected with the virus.There are 2 types of vaccines that prevent cancer approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
HPV vaccine. The vaccine protects against the human papillomavirus (HPV). If this virus stays in the body for a long time, it can cause some types of cancer. The FDA has approved HPV vaccines to prevent:
- Cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers
- Anal cancer
- Genital warts
Hepatitis B vaccine. This vaccine protects against the hepatitis B virus (HBV). This virus can cause liver cancer.
Are there vaccines that treat cancer?
There are vaccines that treat existing cancer, called treatment vaccines or therapeutic vaccines. These vaccines are a type of cancer treatment called immunotherapy. They work to boost the body's immune system to fight cancer. Doctors give treatment vaccines to people who already have cancer. Different treatment vaccines work in different ways. They can:- Keep the cancer from coming back
- Destroy any cancer cells still in the body after treatments end
- Stop a tumor from growing or spreading
How do cancer treatment vaccines work?
Antigens, found on the surface of cells, are substances the body thinks are harmful. The immune system attacks the antigens and, in most cases, gets rid of them. This leaves the immune system with a "memory" that helps it fight those antigens in the future.Cancer treatment vaccines boost the immune system's ability to find and destroy antigens. Often, cancer cells have certain molecules called cancer-specific antigens on their surface that healthy cells do not have. When a vaccine gives these molecules to a person, the molecules act as antigens. They tell the immune system to find and destroy cancer cells that have these molecules on their surface.
Some cancer vaccines are personalized. This means they are made for just 1 person. This type of vaccine is produced from samples of the person's tumor that are removed during surgery. Other cancer vaccines are not personalized and target certain cancer antigens that are not specific to an individual person. Doctors give these vaccines to people whose tumors have those antigens on the surface of the tumor cells.
Most cancer vaccines are only offered through clinical trials, which are research studies that use volunteers. In 2010, the FDA approved sipuleucel-T (Provenge) for people with metastatic prostate cancer, which is prostate cancer that has spread. Sipuleucel-T is tailored to each person through a series of steps:
- White blood cells are removed from the person's blood. White blood cells help the body fight infection and disease.
- The white blood cells are altered in a laboratory to target prostate cancer cells.
- Next, the doctor puts the altered cells back into the person through a vein. This is similar to a blood transfusion. These modified cells teach the immune system to find and destroy prostate cancer cells.
What are the challenges of using treatment vaccines?
Making treatment vaccines that work is a challenge because:
Cancer cells suppress the immune system. This is how cancer is able to begin and grow in the first place. Researchers are using adjuvants in vaccines to try to fix this problem. An adjuvant is a substance added to a vaccine to improve the body's immune response.
Cancer cells start from a person's own healthy cells. As a result, the cancer cells may not "look" harmful to the immune system. The immune system may ignore the cells instead of finding and fighting them.
Larger or more advanced tumors are hard to get rid of using only a vaccine. This is 1 reason why doctors often give a cancer vaccine along with other treatment.
People who are sick or older can have weak immune systems. Their bodies may not be able to produce a strong immune response after they receive a vaccine. That limits how well a vaccine works. Also, some cancer treatments may weaken a person's immune system. This limits how well the body can respond to a vaccine.
---------------
I get that this is a cancer site, but you're simply discarding that vaccines can be immunotherapy. Pretty sure cancer is more dangerous to get than the WooFloo, for anyone.
Would it not make sense that the
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
Yes, flu shot is a vaccine.
No, allergy shots are similar, but not a vaccine.
Tetanus shot is a vaccine, requires boosters.
Where is it stated that breakthrough cases change the term “vaccine” to “shot”?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
apparently you have no idea of which you speak
What are Cancer Vaccines?
Vaccines are medicines that help the body fight disease. They can train the immune system to find and destroy harmful germs and cells. There are many vaccines that you receive throughout your life to prevent common illnesses. There are also vaccines for cancer. There are vaccines that prevent...www.cancer.net
What are Cancer Vaccines?
Approved by the Cancer.Net Editorial Board, 08/2020
Vaccines are medicines that help the body fight disease. They can train the immune system to find and destroy harmful germs and cells. There are many vaccines that you receive throughout your life to prevent common illnesses. There are also vaccines for cancer. There are vaccines that prevent cancer and vaccines that treat cancer.
Are there vaccines that prevent cancer?
There are vaccines that can prevent healthy people from getting certain cancers caused by viruses. Like vaccines for the chicken pox or the flu, these vaccines protect the body from these viruses. This type of vaccine will only work if a person gets the vaccine before they are infected with the virus.
There are 2 types of vaccines that prevent cancer approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
HPV vaccine. The vaccine protects against the human papillomavirus (HPV). If this virus stays in the body for a long time, it can cause some types of cancer. The FDA has approved HPV vaccines to prevent:
HPV can also cause other cancers the FDA has not approved the vaccine for, such as oral cancer.
- Cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers
- Anal cancer
- Genital warts
Hepatitis B vaccine. This vaccine protects against the hepatitis B virus (HBV). This virus can cause liver cancer.
Are there vaccines that treat cancer?
There are vaccines that treat existing cancer, called treatment vaccines or therapeutic vaccines. These vaccines are a type of cancer treatment called immunotherapy. They work to boost the body's immune system to fight cancer. Doctors give treatment vaccines to people who already have cancer. Different treatment vaccines work in different ways. They can:
- Keep the cancer from coming back
- Destroy any cancer cells still in the body after treatments end
- Stop a tumor from growing or spreading
How do cancer treatment vaccines work?
Antigens, found on the surface of cells, are substances the body thinks are harmful. The immune system attacks the antigens and, in most cases, gets rid of them. This leaves the immune system with a "memory" that helps it fight those antigens in the future.
Cancer treatment vaccines boost the immune system's ability to find and destroy antigens. Often, cancer cells have certain molecules called cancer-specific antigens on their surface that healthy cells do not have. When a vaccine gives these molecules to a person, the molecules act as antigens. They tell the immune system to find and destroy cancer cells that have these molecules on their surface.
Some cancer vaccines are personalized. This means they are made for just 1 person. This type of vaccine is produced from samples of the person's tumor that are removed during surgery. Other cancer vaccines are not personalized and target certain cancer antigens that are not specific to an individual person. Doctors give these vaccines to people whose tumors have those antigens on the surface of the tumor cells.
Most cancer vaccines are only offered through clinical trials, which are research studies that use volunteers. In 2010, the FDA approved sipuleucel-T (Provenge) for people with metastatic prostate cancer, which is prostate cancer that has spread. Sipuleucel-T is tailored to each person through a series of steps:
Another vaccine uses a weakened bacteria called Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) that is injected into the body. This weakened bacteria activates the immune system to treat early-stage bladder cancer.
- White blood cells are removed from the person's blood. White blood cells help the body fight infection and disease.
- The white blood cells are altered in a laboratory to target prostate cancer cells.
- Next, the doctor puts the altered cells back into the person through a vein. This is similar to a blood transfusion. These modified cells teach the immune system to find and destroy prostate cancer cells.
What are the challenges of using treatment vaccines?
Making treatment vaccines that work is a challenge because:
Cancer cells suppress the immune system. This is how cancer is able to begin and grow in the first place. Researchers are using adjuvants in vaccines to try to fix this problem. An adjuvant is a substance added to a vaccine to improve the body's immune response.
Cancer cells start from a person's own healthy cells. As a result, the cancer cells may not "look" harmful to the immune system. The immune system may ignore the cells instead of finding and fighting them.
Larger or more advanced tumors are hard to get rid of using only a vaccine. This is 1 reason why doctors often give a cancer vaccine along with other treatment.
People who are sick or older can have weak immune systems. Their bodies may not be able to produce a strong immune response after they receive a vaccine. That limits how well a vaccine works. Also, some cancer treatments may weaken a person's immune system. This limits how well the body can respond to a vaccine.
---------------
I get that this is a cancer site, but you're simply discarding that vaccines can be immunotherapy. Pretty sure cancer is more dangerous to get than the WooFloo, for anyone.
Would it not make sense that thevaccineshot be considered immunotherapy when you consider how wide spread the KungFlu is, how fast it spread and who it effects? Nah, not to some obtuse ******** like yourself.
Ah so allergies and cancers are viruses like Covid? Read up…
Cancer Vaccines and Their Side Effects
Some vaccines protect against viruses that cause cancer, while others are used to actually treat cancer. Learn more about cancer vaccines here.
whar be i do say brak threw kases be mayk chayng frum vax to shawt?
I wouldn't hold your breath on this being answered. The liberal mind doesn't have a rationalized thought process, and never ever answers a direct question.
False. Lying liar telling lies about his lies.
Oh, the Covid ******* would care. It's all you have in your worthless life.
Nahh, rooting for just one mortality really.
Floggy, you wanna jump in here? After all, these are your areas of expertise.
Huh. Serious illness among the vaccinated is so rare, it accounts for a higher percentage of Chinese flu deaths in Maryland than Sloppy Joe got as a percent of the vote in West Virginia.
Go figure. Almost as if the vaccine harpies are lying douchebags or something.
You simple dumbass. A vaccine is quite specific in definition and has been since their inception, until the CDC began re-defining vaccine in 2015.
A "shot" is an injection. An injection, for the stupid among us:
- Vaccination is the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
- Immunization is a process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination.
If the answer is no...they are not vaccines in the literal sense.
See the difference yet? Of course you don't.
Last edited:
I know a Type 1 diabetic who takes multiple vaccines per day to minimize the effects of a non-functioning pancreas.
Allergy shots minimize your chances of not suffering from allergens by injecting you with said allergen. I know, I took them for over a decade as a kid, every week.
They aren't foolproof, like an effective vaccine. They make you stronger at resisting the impact those allergens have on you. But they don't eliminate the problem. Effective to degrees. They work on some people, not others, on some very well, on some little or not at all.
The concept in administration is the same as a vaccine. Inject the person with the specific allergen they are allergic to in tiny doses so their natural system learns to battle the allergens.
Allergy shots do not prevent you from being allergic to dust or pollen or mold for life. You will still have outbreaks, just hopefully fewer and less severe. Unlike getting the polio vaccine which prevents spread and prevents you from suffering from it.
These Covid shots are like allergy shots. They don't prevent transmission. And they may lessen your symptoms, though no guarantee. Ask Colin Powell.
Great read.
eugyppius.substack.com
Corona is primarily dangerous to the very old and the already sick. Occasionally, it is true, somebody who is younger or not already sick ends up dying. This happens with influenza and other viruses too. While that’s regrettable, Corona is not the leading cause of tragedies like these, and on balance they are too rare to pose an overarching unprecedented global threat to our hospitals, to our public health, to our nursing homes, or to whatever it is we’re supposed to be worried about right now. Given the stratified nature of Corona risk, the majority of the gains to be had from stimulating SARS-2 antibodies are concentrated in around 10-15% of the population. This is true whatever you believe about the vaccines, their safety or their efficacy.
If you want to lower hospitalisations and deaths, in other words, the difference between vaccinating 40% of your population and 80% of your population is not nearly as great as it seems. In fact, as you move to ever lower-risk cohorts, the volume of vaccinations required to reduce deaths grows in inverse proportion to the deaths you are reducing. This is the phenomenon of diminishing returns. It means that if you have vaccinated all the olds and sicks and an additional 50% or 70% of everyone, AND you are still suffering from a raging pandemic of the unvaccinated, there are probably not enough immunologically naive people left to give you a hope of vaccinating your way out.
The unspeakable truth is that the vaccines don’t suppress case rates at all. We have long known that their efficacy against infection fades to zero after week 20, but even at the high point — the first month after dose 2 — the protection is sure to be vastly overstated. This would be why even academic journals are starting to run pieces with titles like “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States”:
Unsurprisingly, the authors find that the same is true of US county-level data as well:
A consequence of these failures is raging cognitive dissonance among the elite, and a substitution of the means for the end. Last year, it was locking down itself that became the highest policy goal. Governments schemed less about how to get cases down, than about how to reduce the Google-certified mobility of their citizenry by margins great enough to satisfy their court astrologers. The same is now true of the vaccines, which in their failure to do much about anything, have become the focus of nearly all Corona policy everywhere in the world. All that our governments want to do now is vaccinate more and harder. They want to vaccinate all of the unvaccinated, and when that grows tiresome they will want to triple and quadruple vaccinate the already-vaccinated. And they especially want to vaccinate that last demographic that has so far remained largely exempt from vaccination, namely children.
This would be little more than a global comedy at the expense of our worthless public health establishments, if we did not have abundant evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than is normal for vaccines; and if SARS-2 did not pose such an infinitesimal risk to children, as to make even totally safe, ordinary vaccines an unacceptable measure in this context.
A beloved argument for vaccinating kids despite allegedly rare disturbing side effects, like myocarditis, is that these are also rare complications of Corona infection. Indeed, we are told that Corona is more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccines. The truth of course is that we don’t know the true rate of Corona-induced myocarditis in children, because most of infections go unnoticed. Beyond that, after the brief, 20-week window of protection against infection expires, vaccinated children will contract Corona at the same rate as unvaccinated children, and so the real question for Team Vaccine is simply this: Do the vaccines reduce the already near-zero longer-term myocarditis risk from Corona infection in children enough to compensate for the risk of myocarditis that they add?
This question is not likely to have an encouraging answer, but that will not stop mass child vaccination, to secure what will surely be the most diminished of all our diminishing returns so far. The only rationale necessary for vaccinating every last living organism is the same as the only rationale necessary for locking down all of human society: The disease statistics are not improving, and the only thing to do when they are not improving, is more of the thing that you sold to everyone beforehand, on basically no evidence, as the sole solution.
We have entered the world of Maximum Vaccination. Our best hope is that the farce of Corona suppression completes its self-discrediting arc before it can do much more damage.
Maximum Vaccination
The vaccines can't control Corona, which is why they won't stop vaccinating.
Maximum Vaccination
The vaccines can't control Corona, which is why they won't stop vaccinating.
eugyppius.substack.com
Corona is primarily dangerous to the very old and the already sick. Occasionally, it is true, somebody who is younger or not already sick ends up dying. This happens with influenza and other viruses too. While that’s regrettable, Corona is not the leading cause of tragedies like these, and on balance they are too rare to pose an overarching unprecedented global threat to our hospitals, to our public health, to our nursing homes, or to whatever it is we’re supposed to be worried about right now. Given the stratified nature of Corona risk, the majority of the gains to be had from stimulating SARS-2 antibodies are concentrated in around 10-15% of the population. This is true whatever you believe about the vaccines, their safety or their efficacy.
If you want to lower hospitalisations and deaths, in other words, the difference between vaccinating 40% of your population and 80% of your population is not nearly as great as it seems. In fact, as you move to ever lower-risk cohorts, the volume of vaccinations required to reduce deaths grows in inverse proportion to the deaths you are reducing. This is the phenomenon of diminishing returns. It means that if you have vaccinated all the olds and sicks and an additional 50% or 70% of everyone, AND you are still suffering from a raging pandemic of the unvaccinated, there are probably not enough immunologically naive people left to give you a hope of vaccinating your way out.
The unspeakable truth is that the vaccines don’t suppress case rates at all. We have long known that their efficacy against infection fades to zero after week 20, but even at the high point — the first month after dose 2 — the protection is sure to be vastly overstated. This would be why even academic journals are starting to run pieces with titles like “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States”:
Here’s their scatter-plot:
Unsurprisingly, the authors find that the same is true of US county-level data as well:
So high rates of vaccination can’t reduce infections, and vaccinating the oldest and sickest hasn’t done very much for overall hospitalisations and deaths either. Yet our governments press on, not because the vaccines are working, but because they’re not. We’ve been through all of this before. Last year, large swathes of the developed world banned most of public life because everyone decided that this was the way to save lives. Wuhan convinced them that lockdowns work, in much the same way as the Pfizer/BioNTech trials convinced them that vaccines work. Except lockdowns didn’t work, and vaccines don’t really work either. Corona rages on, indifferent to the strange learned fantasies of our medical bureaucrats.
A consequence of these failures is raging cognitive dissonance among the elite, and a substitution of the means for the end. Last year, it was locking down itself that became the highest policy goal. Governments schemed less about how to get cases down, than about how to reduce the Google-certified mobility of their citizenry by margins great enough to satisfy their court astrologers. The same is now true of the vaccines, which in their failure to do much about anything, have become the focus of nearly all Corona policy everywhere in the world. All that our governments want to do now is vaccinate more and harder. They want to vaccinate all of the unvaccinated, and when that grows tiresome they will want to triple and quadruple vaccinate the already-vaccinated. And they especially want to vaccinate that last demographic that has so far remained largely exempt from vaccination, namely children.
This would be little more than a global comedy at the expense of our worthless public health establishments, if we did not have abundant evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than is normal for vaccines; and if SARS-2 did not pose such an infinitesimal risk to children, as to make even totally safe, ordinary vaccines an unacceptable measure in this context.
A beloved argument for vaccinating kids despite allegedly rare disturbing side effects, like myocarditis, is that these are also rare complications of Corona infection. Indeed, we are told that Corona is more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccines. The truth of course is that we don’t know the true rate of Corona-induced myocarditis in children, because most of infections go unnoticed. Beyond that, after the brief, 20-week window of protection against infection expires, vaccinated children will contract Corona at the same rate as unvaccinated children, and so the real question for Team Vaccine is simply this: Do the vaccines reduce the already near-zero longer-term myocarditis risk from Corona infection in children enough to compensate for the risk of myocarditis that they add?
This question is not likely to have an encouraging answer, but that will not stop mass child vaccination, to secure what will surely be the most diminished of all our diminishing returns so far. The only rationale necessary for vaccinating every last living organism is the same as the only rationale necessary for locking down all of human society: The disease statistics are not improving, and the only thing to do when they are not improving, is more of the thing that you sold to everyone beforehand, on basically no evidence, as the sole solution.
We have entered the world of Maximum Vaccination. Our best hope is that the farce of Corona suppression completes its self-discrediting arc before it can do much more damage.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
Vaccinated are 11X less likely to die from Covid, I’d say that confers immunity.
By your definition, NOTHiNG is a vaccine as NONE are 100% effective. LITERALLY NONE. Does that make literal sense to you? Of course not.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
Covid skepticism, politics and conspiracy theories… but it’s not ideological for you, right?Great read.
Maximum Vaccination
The vaccines can't control Corona, which is why they won't stop vaccinating.
Maximum Vaccination
The vaccines can't control Corona, which is why they won't stop vaccinating.
Corona is primarily dangerous to the very old and the already sick. Occasionally, it is true, somebody who is younger or not already sick ends up dying. This happens with influenza and other viruses too. While that’s regrettable, Corona is not the leading cause of tragedies like these, and on balance they are too rare to pose an overarching unprecedented global threat to our hospitals, to our public health, to our nursing homes, or to whatever it is we’re supposed to be worried about right now. Given the stratified nature of Corona risk, the majority of the gains to be had from stimulating SARS-2 antibodies are concentrated in around 10-15% of the population. This is true whatever you believe about the vaccines, their safety or their efficacy.
If you want to lower hospitalisations and deaths, in other words, the difference between vaccinating 40% of your population and 80% of your population is not nearly as great as it seems. In fact, as you move to ever lower-risk cohorts, the volume of vaccinations required to reduce deaths grows in inverse proportion to the deaths you are reducing. This is the phenomenon of diminishing returns. It means that if you have vaccinated all the olds and sicks and an additional 50% or 70% of everyone, AND you are still suffering from a raging pandemic of the unvaccinated, there are probably not enough immunologically naive people left to give you a hope of vaccinating your way out.
The unspeakable truth is that the vaccines don’t suppress case rates at all. We have long known that their efficacy against infection fades to zero after week 20, but even at the high point — the first month after dose 2 — the protection is sure to be vastly overstated. This would be why even academic journals are starting to run pieces with titles like “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States”:
Here’s their scatter-plot:
Unsurprisingly, the authors find that the same is true of US county-level data as well:
So high rates of vaccination can’t reduce infections, and vaccinating the oldest and sickest hasn’t done very much for overall hospitalisations and deaths either. Yet our governments press on, not because the vaccines are working, but because they’re not. We’ve been through all of this before. Last year, large swathes of the developed world banned most of public life because everyone decided that this was the way to save lives. Wuhan convinced them that lockdowns work, in much the same way as the Pfizer/BioNTech trials convinced them that vaccines work. Except lockdowns didn’t work, and vaccines don’t really work either. Corona rages on, indifferent to the strange learned fantasies of our medical bureaucrats.
A consequence of these failures is raging cognitive dissonance among the elite, and a substitution of the means for the end. Last year, it was locking down itself that became the highest policy goal. Governments schemed less about how to get cases down, than about how to reduce the Google-certified mobility of their citizenry by margins great enough to satisfy their court astrologers. The same is now true of the vaccines, which in their failure to do much about anything, have become the focus of nearly all Corona policy everywhere in the world. All that our governments want to do now is vaccinate more and harder. They want to vaccinate all of the unvaccinated, and when that grows tiresome they will want to triple and quadruple vaccinate the already-vaccinated. And they especially want to vaccinate that last demographic that has so far remained largely exempt from vaccination, namely children.
This would be little more than a global comedy at the expense of our worthless public health establishments, if we did not have abundant evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than is normal for vaccines; and if SARS-2 did not pose such an infinitesimal risk to children, as to make even totally safe, ordinary vaccines an unacceptable measure in this context.
A beloved argument for vaccinating kids despite allegedly rare disturbing side effects, like myocarditis, is that these are also rare complications of Corona infection. Indeed, we are told that Corona is more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccines. The truth of course is that we don’t know the true rate of Corona-induced myocarditis in children, because most of infections go unnoticed. Beyond that, after the brief, 20-week window of protection against infection expires, vaccinated children will contract Corona at the same rate as unvaccinated children, and so the real question for Team Vaccine is simply this: Do the vaccines reduce the already near-zero longer-term myocarditis risk from Corona infection in children enough to compensate for the risk of myocarditis that they add?
This question is not likely to have an encouraging answer, but that will not stop mass child vaccination, to secure what will surely be the most diminished of all our diminishing returns so far. The only rationale necessary for vaccinating every last living organism is the same as the only rationale necessary for locking down all of human society: The disease statistics are not improving, and the only thing to do when they are not improving, is more of the thing that you sold to everyone beforehand, on basically no evidence, as the sole solution.
We have entered the world of Maximum Vaccination. Our best hope is that the farce of Corona suppression completes its self-discrediting arc before it can do much more damage.
eugyppius | Substack
Covid scepticism, politics, history, and the occasional conspiracy theory.
eugyppius.substack.com
…..and another 3 poke EE is hospitalized
As we see here, day in & day out.
Do you work for a vaccine manufacturer, or do you just feel the need to troll incessantly?
Link? And from what day? The death rate of those vaccinated is rising.
As we joked pages ago, you would call using Vitamin C a vaccine. You consider allergy shots vaccines. If 400Million shots were administered and 3 lives were saved, you'd call it a vaccine.
No one has said any vaccine provides 100% immunity. But the FDA has minimum standards. Two of them (J&J and Pfizer) now don't meet it, and Moderna barely does. Compared to "effective" vaccines, these vaccines are bullshit.
Covid skepticism, politics and conspiracy theories… but it’s not ideological for you, right?
eugyppius | Substack
Covid scepticism, politics, history, and the occasional conspiracy theory.
Read and respond to what was said. Read the studies linked inside, studies I previously posted you had no comment on.
Maybe you'll read it this time: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7. It's from the European Journal of Epidemiology. Peer reviewed studies published there since 1985.
Source-attacking is all you have. You provide sources, we may attack the links, but we read them and dissect the content. Stop being lazy.
Last edited:
He's a Liberal cheerleader. If Biden mandated shooting lead through the eyes of Conservatives, he would support that too.
I would have assumed that immunity means no one should die.
Yeah, they did a full 180 because there were no sick outs, walk outs, etc. It was just weather.
www.cnbc.com
Southwest drops plan to put unvaccinated staff on unpaid leave starting in December
Southwest and American Airlines are trying to reassure employees about job security ahead of the federal vaccine deadline.