Build a Better Mouse Trap And The World Will Beat A Path To your Door: "Vaccines"?

[NoirMan]

You should stop right there. The level of stupid in your posts is ridiculous. You dismiss large sample size tests for tests without any sample size at all. In the words of Debbie Birc “I can’t even. “

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

You HF and others keep spewing false information. You are 80% or so less likely to get infected when vaccinated and 90% less likely to get seriously ill. Stop saying shit you read from the likes of Bambino and Rex and other folks that don’t know what they are talking about. Read the million threads on here that point out that the false narrative that vaccines don’t prevent infection is false, incorrect, stupid, ignorant, etc.

If your underlying premise is wrong, the rest of your argument is just as wrong.

And you just "spewed" false information which is nothing new. I clearly said more than a few times that the sole purpose of the vaccine is to keep you from serious illness and death not infection. I couldn't have been more clear. My question was and is, "if I'm vaccinated, why should I care ( being selfish here ) about somebody that isn't"?



So just to be clear ( if that is even remotely possible with you ) this vaccines does not prevent you from being infected. The are meant to prevent serious illness and death and having had all 3 shots does not prevent me from being infected, it's called a break through case and there are thousands of such cases.



It is clear that your sole objective here is to spew false information and lie about what other people have said. Shame on you.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by NoirMan

Since evidently you get your information from conspiracy sites and such, let me help you out.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...uce-risks.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-benefits.html

A new CDC study finds the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people.

Other study findings suggest that fully or partially vaccinated people who got COVID-19 might be less likely to spread the virus to others. For example, fully or partially vaccinated study participants had 40 percent less detectable virus in their nose (i.e., a lower viral load), and the virus was detected for six fewer days (i.e., viral shedding) compared to those who were unvaccinated when infected. In addition, people who were partially or fully vaccinated were 66 percent less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection for more than one week compared to those who were unvaccinated. While these indicators are not a direct measure of a person’s ability to spread the virus, they have been correlated with reduced spread of other viruses, such as varicella and influenza.

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...ure-vaccinated

https://patient.info/news-and-featur...tting-infected

60-80% reduction in infections and 90% reduction in hospitalization.

Now it’s your turn to provide the proof that it doesn’t provide any protection against getting the disease, or a far lower number than I provided.

I’ll wait.

"Might be"? Like you "might be right or you might be wrong"? Ever said "might be" in a court of law counselor?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Nothing in ICU's post is wrong!

So wheres the beef 1b1?

NoirMan ( AKA 1blackman1 who was banned ) sole purpose in being here is to attack persons he doesn't like no matter what they write. Lying to preserve a narrative is something NoirMan has no problem with. He should get a job at MSNBC where his "skills" could be put to good use.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Like HCQ and Ivermectin?!? Thought not. However, turns out the FDA is running an Ivermectin study now and expects to complete it by late 2023. Odd, an existing and cheap drug would take 2 years to study compared to a never used gene therapy being designed in 2 days and tested for 10 months and is reaping windfall profits. Go figure.

I might take Ivermectin but I’d a hell of a lot rather have a monoclonal antibody infusion or the new Pfizer pill. The other OTC components of the eastern Virginia medical school protocol you dug up might work better than the ivermectin. You don’t want to be like the poor sucker in San Angelo who was in the press. He could have gotten the infusion but decided to rely on ivermectin instead. He died, leaving a wife and three small children behind.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

The vaccination conundrum is familiar to country folk.

The unvaxxed can always change their mind and get vaxxed if/when they decide to. The inverse is not possible for the already vaxxed, i.e. you can't get un vaxxed.

In the country you take someone's word to not pee on the electric fence or find out for yourself.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

..The other OTC components of the eastern Virginia medical school protocol you dug up might work better than the ivermectin...

Glad you mention that. I dug up a couple other and somewhat similar protocols.

• Math+ Protocol (you referenced)
• I-Mask+ Protocol
• Zelenko Protocol (Zstack) [Dr. Vladimir Zelenko]

Side note that I found interesting about IVM is that some of it's benefit in un-developed countries (apparently would apply to Blue States then) is that it also battles parasites that are rather common in their environment. Sort of a double benefit.

But if size matters - then Uttar Pradesh - for the love of all things holy, don't go with Wikipedia, except to see how bad the covid WAS effecting it)

Anyway, beats waiting 75 years to see how the vaxx shots will work out, because I'm kinda curious how they are going to report eliminating the control group. Time will tell.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

NoirMan ( AKA 1blackman1 who was banned ) sole purpose in being here is to attack persons he doesn't like no matter what they write. ...

I thought the lack of thought sounded familiar. Will add their new persona to the filter. Again, thanks

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

NoirMan ( AKA 1blackman1 who was banned ) sole purpose in being here is to attack persons he doesn't like no matter what they write. Lying to preserve a narrative is something NoirMan has no problem with. He should get a job at MSNBC where his "skills" could be put to good use.

Reading the back and forth between the two of you, I believe NoirMan respects your views more than most of the right-of-center posters here. As to coming off like he's "lying to preserve a narrative" or "attacking persons", maybe that's because of his background in the law. That's what good lawyers do, although I'd pick different words.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Glad you mention that. I dug up a couple other and somewhat similar protocols.

• Math+ Protocol (you referenced)
• I-Mask+ Protocol
• Zelenko Protocol (Zstack) [Dr. Vladimir Zelenko]

Thanks, I'll check those out when I've got some time. I'm not as concerned now. With my two Pfizer shots, 100 mcg Moderna booster, N95 mask, aviator goggles, and only contracting with providers who likewise are willing to wear N95 masks and goggles and do it in reverse cowboy position, I believe I am bullet proof.

[Chung Tran]

Notice how the anti-vaxxers are the same Folks who embrace other conspiracy theories, en masse? Shit like JFK jr. Would appear at Dealy Plaza last November 22, and announce a VP run with a reinstated Trump?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...jfk-jr-dallas/

Jesus, some of those Ignoramuses hung around for another 4-5 days. They thought JFK jr. Was just running late.

Notice how the 3-4 Quack conspiracy Doctors, are all continually quoted by the hardcore Right-Wing nut cases? All of them in the US? Funny that the International Medical community doesn't have these outlier propoganda Doctors. They don't politicize medicine, and life and death.

[NoirMan]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And you just "spewed" false information which is nothing new. I clearly said more than a few times that the sole purpose of the vaccine is to keep you from serious illness and death not infection. I couldn't have been more clear. My question was and is, "if I'm vaccinated, why should I care ( being selfish here ) about somebody that isn't"?



So just to be clear ( if that is even remotely possible with you ) this vaccines does not prevent you from being infected. The are meant to prevent serious illness and death and having had all 3 shots does not prevent me from being infected, it's called a break through case and there are thousands of such cases.



It is clear that your sole objective here is to spew false information and lie about what other people have said. Shame on you.

This is simply untrue. It is not 100% effective in preventing infection. But I suspect no vaccine is. It is however 80-90% effective in preventing infection. Hence its sole purpose is not to prevent death or hospitalizations. It’s purpose is to prevent infection and if infected, prevent hospitalization and death.

If you don’t understand that concept (which is clear by your writing and the incorrect information you spew along with ICU) we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Interesting fun factoid: Did you realize that each subsequent shot is double the dose of the previous one? Don't remember who posted it, maybe HF; Some day we will look back to now and laugh at ourselves for wearing goggles and masks, while wearing hazmat suits.

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks, I'll check those out when I've got some time. I'm not as concerned now. With my two Pfizer shots, 100 mcg Moderna booster, N95 mask, aviator goggles, and only contracting with providers who likewise are willing to wear N95 masks and goggles and do it in reverse cowboy position, I believe I am bullet proof.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Some day we will look back to now and laugh at ourselves for wearing goggles and masks, while wearing hazmat suits.

Goodness, I hope not!

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

This pic is accurate. If you need to beg someone to get your freedom back, you’re a slave.

This kind of philosophy while appealing is quite false. There are a number of reasons that free speech can and should be restrained including but not limited to.

1: National Security.
2: The ability to protect some victims in court. (usually minors)
3: The ability to protect copyright and patent information.
4: The ability to protect the identity of police, government officials, and sometimes the public.

etc. etc.

To think otherwise is to invite disaster.