Are You Getting Vaccinated?

[Origins]

@Jaccobtw apparently "our version" (can't believe we're collectively doing an "our version" theme like its some Nike brand) turns you into a solitary blood clot to be consumed by a hundred screeching  vampire bats in the night. The caves called democracy are a dark, dark thing.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by Origins

[Origins]

so yeh this ding justa jokez to me

[DrewNows]

I resonate with this channeled message 

 

 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Origins

17 hours ago, Origins said:

@Jaccobtw apparently "our version" (can't believe we're collectively doing an "our version" theme like its some Nike brand) turns you into a solitary blood clot to be consumed by a hundred screeching  vampire bats in the night. The caves called democracy are a dark, dark thing.

 

 

   Do you have any proof of this? Otherwise, it's just conspiracy.

[Willie]

Might be referring to this but exaggerating?

[Danioover9000]

@Willie

7 minutes ago, Willie said:

Might be referring to this but exaggerating?

   I highly doubt the legitimacy, and the timing of such a report.

[Globalcollective]

I live in the UK and had the AstraZeneca vaccine about 2 weeks ago, felt flu like for 12 hours then felt better. No blood clots as of yet ?, but ya never no but there is always mahasamadhi if so. 

[Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj]

 

[vladorion]

One thing worth mentioning about vaccines is this:

If you have antibodies, there's no reason why you should get the vaccine. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the immunity you get from a vaccine is better than the immunity you get from being exposed to the virus. I'd argue, the opposite is true.

So if covid immunity passports become a thing, then having antibodies should be enough to get the passport, if there's no hidden agenda behind the vaccination campaign.

People should get tested for antibodies before getting a vaccine instead of just giving it to everyone. I bet half of the people getting the vaccine are already immune.

Edited April 11, 2021 by vladorion

[vladorion]

Also, if you're gonna get a vaccine, don't go for Pfizer or Moderna. That's some experimental shit that no one knows what the long term effects are going to be. I'd go for more a more traditional vaccine, such as J&J.

[DocWatts]

@vladorion The CDC is recommending that people that have caught Covid and recovered should still get the Vaccine (after waiting around 90 days or so).

While recovering from Covid does offer some short term resistance to the virus, the vaccines were developed to train your immune system to mount a long term defense. 

Covid isn't like the chickenpox where it's a one and done deal, it's entirely possible to catch Covid a second time.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by DocWatts

[vladorion]

54 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@vladorion The CDC is recommending that people that have caught Covid and recovered should still get the Vaccine (after waiting around 90 days or so).

While recovering from Covid does offer some short term resistance to the virus, the vaccines were developed to train your immune system to mount a long term defense. 

Covid isn't like the chickenpox where it's a one and done deal, it's entirely possible to catch Covid a second time.

It's also entirely possible to catch Covid after getting vaccinated, they call them breakthrough cases. And very few cases of being reinfected with Covid have been documented, so the natural immunity must be quite good.

There is no evidence that you get more protection from a vaccine than from being exposed to the virus. Without long term studies, the idea that the vaccines provide a better long term defense compared to being naturally infected is just an assumption.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, vladorion said:

Also, if you're gonna get a vaccine, don't go for Pfizer or Moderna. That's some experimental shit that no one knows what the long term effects are going to be. 

Please be mindful of fear-monger with hyperbolic statements. 

[vladorion]

13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Please be mindful of fear-monger with hyperbolic statements. 

Was what I said untrue? 1) They are experimental 2) No one knows what the long term effects are going to be.

What's fear mongering about advising people to go with more traditional vaccines that at least have some track record?

Fear mongering is what you do when you blow this virus's danger out of proportions.

[DocWatts]

26 minutes ago, vladorion said:

It's also entirely possible to catch Covid after getting vaccinated, they call them breakthrough cases. And very few cases of being reinfected with Covid have been documented, so the natural immunity must be quite good.

There is no evidence that you get more protection from a vaccine than from being exposed to the virus. Without long term studies, the idea that the vaccines provide a better long term defense compared to being naturally infected is just an assumption.

My understanding is that while getting a single dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine might be comparable to the natural immunity you mention, the long term inoculation comes from the second dose administered a month later. (I'll admit upfront that I'm less knowledgeable about how the single dose J & J vaccine works, other than the fact that it's less effective at stopping someone from catching Covid than the two dose vaccines).

So you're probably right that in the short term it's unlikely that a person who caught Covid will do so a second time over the next few weeks or months. But the disease hasn't been around long enough to know if just how long that natural immunity lasts.

To my knowledge virtually no one who has gotten both doses of the vaccine has ended up dying from Covid (even in the very rare cases where a vaccinated person ended up catching it, thier symptoms were much, much less serious than an unvaccinated person).

Trusting your own immune response to provide a comparable level of protection seems a risky proposition, given that we know that the vaccines are both effective and safe. No reason not to defer to epidemiologists on this one, especially given the intense level of scrutiny that these vaccines have been under.

And while I'm not insensitive to wanting to know what's in the vaccine, do you apply that same level of scrutiny to the literally hundreds of compounds you put in to your body on a weekly basis? I know for a fact that most people don't, because there's literally not enough time to do extensive research on every bite of food you eat, or every over the counter medication you take. Which is why we have organizations like the CDC and the FDA, who have the time and resources to advise us and make sure things that make it to the public meet certain safety requirements.

[Forestluv]

52 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Was what I said untrue? 1) They are experimental 2) No one knows what the long term effects are going to be.

Fear mongering is what you do when you blow this virus's danger out of proportions.

I did not say “untrue”. I said “hyperbolic”. There is a distinction. One can take a truth, yet have selective dismissal and exaggeration which makes it hyperbolic. The person can then defend themself by saying “what is untrue about it?”

You raise some legitimate concerns with your statement, yet do so in a distorted way.

You did not frame the vaccine as “experimental”. You framed it as “experimental shit”. Those are different framings. 

In the context of experiments, there are decades of vaccine experimentation as well as cell / molecular research. The foundation of the vaccine is based on decades of research. As well, the introduction of one alteration, mRNA, is also based on decades of cellular/genetics research. And there had been extensive clinical studies prior to public vaccination (which is serving as a massive stage 4 clinical trial). 

Framing the vaccine as “experimental shit” dismisses extensive research and myopically focuses on one aspect of the vaccine. However, it still contains some truth. Hence, it is a hyperbolic framing and not 100% false.

The second framing was “experimental shit that no one knows what the long term effects are going to be. “

This framing is hyperbolic because it assumes this is experimental shit and there ARE going to be long-term effects. This is not 100% false because there COULD be long-term effects. There have not been long term studies with mRNA vaccines and it’s fair to say there could be long term effects. Yet your statement is hyperbolic because it assumes there WILL be long term effects. There is no reason to believe that there ARE going to be long term effects. Based on our current understanding on cellular biology and genetics, there is no reason to believe there is a high risk of negative long term effects. Your statement has an aspect of truth, yet filters out information and exaggerates. Hence, it is hyperbolic.

As a metaphor, if a car company added a new feature to airbags it would be unfair to assume this feature WILL have a negative consequence and make statements based on that assumption. That leads to a distorted framework and is misleading. Making statements that the airbag is experimental shit and we don’t know what the long term effects are going to be is hyperbolic and fearmongering. 

The fearmongering is claiming a danger as true, yet uses selective dismissal and exaggeration leading to a distorted, misleading claim. 

52 minutes ago, vladorion said:

What's fear mongering about advising people to go with more traditional vaccines that at least have some track record?

That is not what I’m referring to.

It’s fair to say that traditional vaccines may have a lower long term risk. Yet you have inserted the previous assumptions that mRNA vaccines are experimental shit and ARE going to have long term effects. That is the distorted part. 

[vladorion]

On 4/11/2021 at 5:55 PM, DocWatts said:

My understanding is that while getting a single dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine might be comparable to the natural immunity you mention, the long term inoculation comes from the second dose administered a month later. (I'll admit upfront that I'm less knowledgeable about how the single dose J & J vaccine works, other than the fact that it's less effective at stopping someone from catching Covid than the two dose vaccines).

So you're probably right that in the short term it's unlikely that a person who caught Covid will do so a second time over the next few weeks or months. But the disease hasn't been around long enough to know if just how long that natural immunity lasts.

To my knowledge virtually no one who has gotten both doses of the vaccine has ended up dying from Covid (even in the very rare cases where a vaccinated person ended up catching it, thier symptoms were much, much less serious than an unvaccinated person).

Trusting your own immune response to provide a comparable level of protection seems a risky proposition, given that we know that the vaccines are both effective and safe. No reason not to defer to epidemiologists on this one, especially given the intense level of scrutiny that these vaccines have been under.

And while I'm not insensitive to wanting to know what's in the vaccine, do you apply that same level of scrutiny to the literally hundreds of compounds you put in to your body on a weekly basis? I know for a fact that most people don't, because there's literally not enough time to do extensive research on every bite of food you eat, or every over the counter medication you take. Which is why we have organizations like the CDC and the FDA, who have the time and resources to advise us and make sure things that make it to the public meet certain safety requirements.

Again, we don't know how safe these particular vaccines are because no long term studies have been done on them.

Trusting your immune system with covid is not risky if you're not in a high risk group. Most people who get covid don't even know they have it, that's how bad it is.

I rarely put anything in my body that has a long list of ingredients and I don't take over the counter medications, unless I really have to, which is very rare. I also think it's incorrect to compare vaccines to things like preservatives that you can find in your food. 

These vaccines are still not FDA approved. And many drugs that FDA approves are far from being safe. Being approved by FDA doesn't mean much. They literally approved meth to be prescribed to kids. You can find a long list of drugs that FDA approved that later were discontinued because they turned out not to be safe.

[vladorion]

Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy and Respiratory talks about covid and vaccines.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qs9X8Blr4Ucv/?ml_subscriber=1661905918477997283&ml_subscriber_hash=q9r5

[Enlightenment]

Yes

You should get vaccinated for your own risk/reward health benefit and compassion for old people 

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, vladorion said:

Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy and Respiratory talks about covid and vaccines.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qs9X8Blr4Ucv/?ml_subscriber=1661905918477997283&ml_subscriber_hash=q9r5

Is this the same Michael Yeadon that last October said covid is “effectively over” in the UK and that “there is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic”?

I’d take him with a grain of salt. There is a reason his fanbase is ant-vaxxers on bitchute.