Doctors Endorse Delay Of 2nd Pfizer Jab

Link-a-Dink - Full Title: Doctors Endorse Delay Of 2nd Pfizer Jab Even As New Research Shows Low Efficacy Against South African 'Mutant'

Something's going on here. A vaccine (not vaccine) rushed through development. The government strong-arming you and threatening your right to travel freely. Made-up invisible creepy-crawly Doom Porn.

Following a flurry of data suggesting the first generation of COVID vaccines may not be as effective against certain COVID mutations, particularly a mutant strain first identified in South Africa, new "research" is suggesting patients may not even need a second dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 jab - or at least it could be delayed "in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective," according to two Canada-based researchers, who made the statement in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There has never been a cure for a virus. I want you to walk away with that in mind. The number is incredibly easy to remember: Zero

A virus runs its course. You live or die. Why is the government doing this thing that they're doing? Why do they persist? What are they afraid of right now? Why are there armed guards remaining on-station at the Capitol? What is up?

a reply to: Snarl

Why is the government doing this thing that they're doing? Why do they persist? What are they afraid of right now? Why are there armed guards remaining on-station at the Capitol? What is up?

Systematic destruction of the middle class.

People will be pissed. Hence, the armed guards.

This has nothing to do with a virus.

The Election Flu is over.

Return to normalcy.

California is opening up.

Cause, it’s the flu.

A bad flu. But, the flu none the less.

Let's keep this about the CoVid vax and not muddy the waters.......

All rules for POLITE debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It


Terms And Conditions Of Use




You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: Snarl

Oh so now the first one is “highly protective?” I thought we needed several shots and yearly boosters.

Hey Covid-19 Lovers- yeah, you folks who love being afraid and who eat up every little thing your MSM masters and government and bureaucrat idols tell you: how do you decide which story to believe? They say the opposite thing today to what they said yesterday. And they keep doing it. Are you goin to ever use your brain to think an independent thought and maybe ask a question or two?

I dare you.

a reply to: Snarl

Because is not about the virus to begin with and yes, is not cure for viruses, this is more than just about covid, in my conspirators mind I thing is more about the technology been tested and what is been injected in people that the covit itself.

Guys is been a year, if you do not have covid by now, you chances keep diminishing that you will have it. Either that or most people already have natural antibodies to it.

Next time I go see my doctor I will ask for an antibody test. Because truly I do not do anything to avoid covid at all.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Yes, is interesting, the states that really did not closed up their economies due to covid are doing pretty much well, but those that were on a covid induced political campaign are the ones that now are facing the backlash of after covid poverty, unemployment and a no very happy population.

Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

For clarity, the first shot is approx 60% effective. That is why the need for the second shot to push that effectiveness up to over 90%. Those in the front lines handling either covid-19 patients or the virus itself (in the collection/testing phases) should have both shots due to their repeated and direct exposure. This is why that demographic was chosen first.

If you are a regular person (based upon the data) you would need to be in close contact (within 3 ft) with an infectious covid person for at a minimum of 15 minutes to catch it.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

For clarity, the first shot is approx 60% effective. That is why the need for the second shot to push that effectiveness up to over 90%. Those in the front lines handling either covid-19 patients or the virus itself (in the collection/testing phases) should have both shots due to their repeated and direct exposure. This is why that demographic was chosen first.

If you are a regular person (based upon the data) you would need to be in close contact (within 3 ft) with an infectious covid person for at a minimum of 15 minutes to catch it.

You are looking at the false corrected interpretation of evidence that makes it appear above ninety percent efficient at reducing a severe case. The adjuvant chemistry...basically what they call inert lipid chemistry, actually reduces the cytokine storm by reducing IL-6 action, which has nothing to do with the actual medicine, eating egg yolks would also accomplish that because they contain phosphatidylcholine. Consuming anything with chemistry similar to Peg chemistry would also accomplish that. Some sodas contain polyethylene glycol in them and also some prepared foods. But you don't put sodas in a shot, you put shots in sodas.

The mRNA effectiveness seems to be about sixty six percent or so as related to stimulating an immune response, and giving it all in one shot overruns the dampening effect of the PEG and PLC dampening and is dangerous. Those lipids are there for two reasons, one is to stop over reaction and the other is to dampen the storm probability. Those phospholipids will most likely be out of someone's system within two months after the last shot but that is a guess on my part.

First it was mask or no mask and then it went to 2 masks are better than one.
First it was 2 shots. The other day they were recommending a 3rd shot instead of just 2. Now they are saying 1 shot is good enough.

I'm 70 and they can keep their FFing shots, or better yet give themselves 40 shots in their asses.

I wouldn't trust that air is necessary for life if one of these so-called experts said it.

Besides, I have my Ivermectin.

This whole thing is a captain less ship, nobody "in charge" knows their ass from a hole in the ground. They make it up on the go, and expect people to believe

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

For clarity, the first shot is approx 60% effective. That is why the need for the second shot to push that effectiveness up to over 90%. Those in the front lines handling either covid-19 patients or the virus itself (in the collection/testing phases) should have both shots due to their repeated and direct exposure. This is why that demographic was chosen first.

If you are a regular person (based upon the data) you would need to be in close contact (within 3 ft) with an infectious covid person for at a minimum of 15 minutes to catch it.

You are looking at the false corrected interpretation of evidence that makes it appear above ninety percent efficient at reducing a severe case. The adjuvant chemistry...basically what they call inert lipid chemistry, actually reduces the cytokine storm by reducing IL-6 action, which has nothing to do with the actual medicine, eating egg yolks would also accomplish that because they contain phosphatidylcholine. Consuming anything with chemistry similar to Peg chemistry would also accomplish that. Some sodas contain polyethylene glycol in them and also some prepared foods. But you don't put sodas in a shot, you put shots in sodas.

The mRNA effectiveness seems to be about sixty six percent or so as related to stimulating an immune response, and giving it all in one shot overruns the dampening effect of the PEG and PLC dampening and is dangerous. Those lipids are there for two reasons, one is to stop over reaction and the other is to dampen the storm probability. Those phospholipids will most likely be out of someone's system within two months after the last shot but that is a guess on my part.

I am not disagreeing that alternatives can have a similar function in many ways. All I am going on is the CDC reports I get on a regular basis from my wife who works with this bug every day.

If you look at daily graphs it seems 9th January is when covid-19 infections peaked around the world and is now dropping. Governments claim thats because of the lockdowns but that same drop is occuring in countries like sweden or states like florida that didn't have any lockdowns. What is with that date, Was the dna of covid-19 guaranteed to mutate into something more harmless after a set period of time.

Clearly if they always new that would be the case then the agenda is not erradication of covid-19 but the implementation of rna based vaccines. The wuhan lab bat-human virus transmission was financed through grant that US NIH gave to US based EcoHealth Alliance. When you check EcoHealth Alliance partners page one of its corporate sponsors is Johnson and Johnson, maker of pfizer vaccine. Is that just a co-incidence???

Then you have Billy Gates coming out with economic study before covid-19 on economic remifications or world panademic.

Yes it doesn't smell right.

I was told in 2015 from a spiritualist of a message that came from the other side. Beware the ice-cream men, they want change the DNA of man. Whether you believe in spiritualism or not, I would not rule out that possibility.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

For clarity, the first shot is approx 60% effective. That is why the need for the second shot to push that effectiveness up to over 90%. Those in the front lines handling either covid-19 patients or the virus itself (in the collection/testing phases) should have both shots due to their repeated and direct exposure. This is why that demographic was chosen first.

If you are a regular person (based upon the data) you would need to be in close contact (within 3 ft) with an infectious covid person for at a minimum of 15 minutes to catch it.

You are looking at the false corrected interpretation of evidence that makes it appear above ninety percent efficient at reducing a severe case. The adjuvant chemistry...basically what they call inert lipid chemistry, actually reduces the cytokine storm by reducing IL-6 action, which has nothing to do with the actual medicine, eating egg yolks would also accomplish that because they contain phosphatidylcholine. Consuming anything with chemistry similar to Peg chemistry would also accomplish that. Some sodas contain polyethylene glycol in them and also some prepared foods. But you don't put sodas in a shot, you put shots in sodas.

The mRNA effectiveness seems to be about sixty six percent or so as related to stimulating an immune response, and giving it all in one shot overruns the dampening effect of the PEG and PLC dampening and is dangerous. Those lipids are there for two reasons, one is to stop over reaction and the other is to dampen the storm probability. Those phospholipids will most likely be out of someone's system within two months after the last shot but that is a guess on my part.

I am not disagreeing that alternatives can have a similar function in many ways. All I am going on is the CDC reports I get on a regular basis from my wife who works with this bug every day.

The way they altered the interpretation of the evidence changed. It is not really correct. With the flu vaccines, if the vaccine worked, you automatically fought off the virus and could not be a carrier, this vaccine does not work that way. You still can get the virus and pass it on, you just do not get the secondary disease, covid 19 nearly as often. Having the SARS-CoV2 virus isn't the same as having Covid 19.

The ninety five percent effectiveness is against Covid-19, not getting the virus.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

For clarity, the first shot is approx 60% effective. That is why the need for the second shot to push that effectiveness up to over 90%. Those in the front lines handling either covid-19 patients or the virus itself (in the collection/testing phases) should have both shots due to their repeated and direct exposure. This is why that demographic was chosen first.

If you are a regular person (based upon the data) you would need to be in close contact (within 3 ft) with an infectious covid person for at a minimum of 15 minutes to catch it.

You are looking at the false corrected interpretation of evidence that makes it appear above ninety percent efficient at reducing a severe case. The adjuvant chemistry...basically what they call inert lipid chemistry, actually reduces the cytokine storm by reducing IL-6 action, which has nothing to do with the actual medicine, eating egg yolks would also accomplish that because they contain phosphatidylcholine. Consuming anything with chemistry similar to Peg chemistry would also accomplish that. Some sodas contain polyethylene glycol in them and also some prepared foods. But you don't put sodas in a shot, you put shots in sodas.

The mRNA effectiveness seems to be about sixty six percent or so as related to stimulating an immune response, and giving it all in one shot overruns the dampening effect of the PEG and PLC dampening and is dangerous. Those lipids are there for two reasons, one is to stop over reaction and the other is to dampen the storm probability. Those phospholipids will most likely be out of someone's system within two months after the last shot but that is a guess on my part.

I am not disagreeing that alternatives can have a similar function in many ways. All I am going on is the CDC reports I get on a regular basis from my wife who works with this bug every day.

The way they altered the interpretation of the evidence changed. It is not really correct. With the flu vaccines, if the vaccine worked, you automatically fought off the virus and could not be a carrier, this vaccine does not work that way. You still can get the virus and pass it on, you just do not get the secondary disease, covid 19 nearly as often. Having the SARS-CoV2 virus isn't the same as having Covid 19.

Yes, I know all of that, and was never stating anything different. Please show me where I did....

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, people who had the virus should not be getting the vaccine since they already had the disease and have pretty good immunity. Give those shots to people who have not yet had covid, that makes the best sense. They have tests to make sure you have antigens to the disease, use those tests to make sure you protect the vulnerable first.

I actually do not know if this vaccine is worth anything, they made up a new system to determine it's effectiveness. It does not give you immunity, it just decreases your chance of the disease turning into Covid 19. Sorry, but I will not automatically believe things they tell me without properly interpreted evidence that shows what propaganda our government is spewing about this med. From reading some of the data from Pfizer, it appears in actuality that it is about sixty six percent effective. Not ninety four or ninety five percent. I hate lying, I do not even think little white lies are good anymore...but little white lies often keep the peace and because of that I will not condemn using them most times. The lies spewing from the media are not little white lies as related to the evidence being interpreted correctly about this virus.

I will remain neutral on advising anyone to take it or refuse it, everyone needs to make up their own mind. The vaccine may actually work for most people, but the evidence does not really back that and no long term testing has been done for side effects. I can't say there will be long term side effects, I am not an antivaxer by any means, I am just saying there is no evidence their won't be some complications further down the road. So, I have to just say I won't take it because I personally have had adverse reactions to a few vaccines and the PEG they use. Maybe someone who does not have cytokine storms to the flu vaccine can take them...but I am not even going to consider it for myself. The wife is planning on getting the vaccine, but she wants to be tested for antigens first, because we both had symptoms similar to what they now say matches covid back in March. For us it was not bad at all, whatever we had, but she had some lung problems and went to the ER and they said at the time that the symptoms did not match then and did not test her. But now they would be a big time symptom, especially what seemed to be a few tiny clots in the lung.

For clarity, the first shot is approx 60% effective. That is why the need for the second shot to push that effectiveness up to over 90%. Those in the front lines handling either covid-19 patients or the virus itself (in the collection/testing phases) should have both shots due to their repeated and direct exposure. This is why that demographic was chosen first.

If you are a regular person (based upon the data) you would need to be in close contact (within 3 ft) with an infectious covid person for at a minimum of 15 minutes to catch it.

You are looking at the false corrected interpretation of evidence that makes it appear above ninety percent efficient at reducing a severe case. The adjuvant chemistry...basically what they call inert lipid chemistry, actually reduces the cytokine storm by reducing IL-6 action, which has nothing to do with the actual medicine, eating egg yolks would also accomplish that because they contain phosphatidylcholine. Consuming anything with chemistry similar to Peg chemistry would also accomplish that. Some sodas contain polyethylene glycol in them and also some prepared foods. But you don't put sodas in a shot, you put shots in sodas.

The mRNA effectiveness seems to be about sixty six percent or so as related to stimulating an immune response, and giving it all in one shot overruns the dampening effect of the PEG and PLC dampening and is dangerous. Those lipids are there for two reasons, one is to stop over reaction and the other is to dampen the storm probability. Those phospholipids will most likely be out of someone's system within two months after the last shot but that is a guess on my part.

I am not disagreeing that alternatives can have a similar function in many ways. All I am going on is the CDC reports I get on a regular basis from my wife who works with this bug every day.

The way they altered the interpretation of the evidence changed. It is not really correct. With the flu vaccines, if the vaccine worked, you automatically fought off the virus and could not be a carrier, this vaccine does not work that way. You still can get the virus and pass it on, you just do not get the secondary disease, covid 19 nearly as often. Having the SARS-CoV2 virus isn't the same as having Covid 19.

Yes, I know all of that, and was never stating anything different. Please show me where I did....

From reading your posts as we went along, you never did. but it does sound as if that is what you said during one of your responses, I just wanted others to know that you were not stating it was saying it was giving people ninety some percent immunity....a lot of people I know that are getting this vaccine thinks it gives them immunity from the virus around here, I am constantly reminding people they still need to be cautious that they do not pass on this disease if they are wreckless.

a reply to: glend

I agree with you and I do believe in spiritualism, this pandemic is not about covid, but the crap that is been injected in people.

I had a vision a long time ago, as a matter of fact years, ago, I even talk to one other member of ATS about it. I seen a lot of people sick, everywhere, due to a virus. But what I seen was much worst than what covid soo far has done.

Hopefully it will not come to that.

But that new technology with the injection that gives me bad feelings and so my daughter feels the same.

a reply to: Snarl

Covid facts?

I wish I would get it so I know it's real. Because I don't believe
anything of what I hear. And only half of what I see.
People will deny that at some point the leaders of this world
are going to knock off a large percent of the global
population. I have a real hard time seeing why they wouldn't.
And how it wouldn't look exactly like what we're seeing now.