The Covid-19 Jabs are an Insult to Real Vaccines - Look How Fast Their Efficacy Plummets.

they're an insult to anybody with a higher than single digits IQ.

a reply to: carewemust

The only reason this junk medical gene/mRNA therapy is called a vaccine is so the murderers, errrr I mean manufacturers, could get away with no liability, You can check archive.org for the vaccine definition change in 2020. You ever heard of any other big pHARMa product getting a no-liability clause OTHER than a vaccine?

Oh wait, politicians, congresscritters and some other highly placed parasites get indemnification from prosecution for insider trading, kickbacks, graft, RICO ops, treason and bribes.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

1.Because we weren't talking about his personal choice to take the vaccine or not.

2. Because it isn't as simple as that

www.thelancet.com...(21)00407-0/fulltext

3. One does not preclude the other.

www.science.org...

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

If the government continues ignoring the SCIENCE along with the +37 million U.S. citizens who do not need the vaccine, due to natural immunity from Covid-19 recovery, there will be hell to pay.

Once a certain critical threshold of anger is reached by those who have natural immunity, combined with those losing their "fully vaccinated" status, the authorities will have no choice but to back the phuck off.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Yes..there are millions of suckers all over. They are free to be taken advantage of by slick or forceful entities. All I care about is the Government steering clear of health-related mandates, like forced Covid-19 vaccinations.

If the government thought we had any sense, they would let us choose whether or not to get vaccinated against Covid-19, just like they do with the real vaccines for other conditions.

If Covid-19 was scary, people would be lined up to get vaccinated and boostered, 24/7, even though they are risky drugs.

Does OUR Federal Government not understand this simple truth?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

1.Because we weren't talking about his personal choice to take the vaccine or not.

2. Because it isn't as simple as that

www.thelancet.com...(21)00407-0/fulltext

3. One does not preclude the other.

www.science.org...

Your first link doesn't work. Your second doesn't refute anything I said, so not sure what your point is there.

As far as personal choice goes, that's more or less all this is about at this point. Pretty much everyone who wants to get the vaccine has had it already. People who have already had Covid, like the poster you were replying to, don't need it and shouldn't be mandated to get it. For them, the risk of serious complications from Covid isn't high enough to make the risk of side effects from the vaccine worth it. That's the same reason children don't need it. You agree, don't you? You believe in the science?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

If the government continues ignoring the SCIENCE along with the +37 million U.S. citizens who do not need the vaccine, due to natural immunity from Covid-19 recovery, there will be hell to pay.

Once a certain critical threshold of anger is reached by those who have natural immunity, combined with those losing their "fully vaccinated" status, the authorities will have no choice but to back the phuck off.

If you say so. If they were gonna be forced to back off I think it would've happened by now. The millions of people who are fed up with this # have been fed up for over a year, and we haven't done much about it but piss and moan at a few school board meetings.

a reply to: ScepticScot

For regular healthy people the chances of that was already less than 1%.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Every vaccine is a risk v reward calculation for the individual. For some people with severely compromised health, it may make, but for normal, healthy people it does not, and this is why mandates are bad things. They force people to take risks they need not take.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

1.Because we weren't talking about his personal choice to take the vaccine or not.

2. Because it isn't as simple as that

www.thelancet.com...(21)00407-0/fulltext

3. One does not preclude the other.

www.science.org...

Your first link doesn't work. Your second doesn't refute anything I said, so not sure what your point is there.

As far as personal choice goes, that's more or less all this is about at this point. Pretty much everyone who wants to get the vaccine has had it already. People who have already had Covid, like the poster you were replying to, don't need it and shouldn't be mandated to get it. For them, the risk of serious complications from Covid isn't high enough to make the risk of side effects from the vaccine worth it. That's the same reason children don't need it. You agree, don't you? You believe in the science?

Did you read the OP? Or even the title?

The topic of this thread is not personal choice.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Every vaccine is a risk v reward calculation for the individual. For some people with severely compromised health, it may make, but for normal, healthy people it does not, and this is why mandates are bad things. They force people to take risks they need not take.

I don't agree with vaccine mandates for covid.

I think I have said that a couple of times in this thread.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

For regular healthy people the chances of that was already less than 1%.

Even 1% or less is a lot of people from the whole population.

And at a personal risk level if the choice is 1% unvaccinated or 0.1% vaccinated then it seems an easy choice.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

a reply to: carewemust

How does it compare to the Flu vaccine? You know, the ones you have to get every year for it to have a 50% effectiveness if you are lucky.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Even 1% or less is a lot of people from the whole population.

And at a personal risk level if the choice is 1% unvaccinated or 0.1% vaccinated then it seems an easy choice.

But if you add the risk of vaccine injury back into the equation, is it still 0.1% total risk for the vaccinated ? If the risk is cumulative why bother with so many unknowns you are playing with fire..

a reply to: ScepticScot

99.98% of surviving for almost everyone ...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

1.Because we weren't talking about his personal choice to take the vaccine or not.

2. Because it isn't as simple as that

www.thelancet.com...(21)00407-0/fulltext

3. One does not preclude the other.

www.science.org...

Your first link doesn't work. Your second doesn't refute anything I said, so not sure what your point is there.

As far as personal choice goes, that's more or less all this is about at this point. Pretty much everyone who wants to get the vaccine has had it already. People who have already had Covid, like the poster you were replying to, don't need it and shouldn't be mandated to get it. For them, the risk of serious complications from Covid isn't high enough to make the risk of side effects from the vaccine worth it. That's the same reason children don't need it. You agree, don't you? You believe in the science?

Did you read the OP? Or even the title?

The topic of this thread is not personal choice.

Sure let's pretend side discussions don't happen in threads or that related information can't be legitimately discussed. If that's the out you were looking for, I'll allow you it. As usual I'll let you have the last word, I know that's important to folks like you around here. I don't wanna ruin your day. Nice dodge on following the science by the way. I guess you don't have to if it doesn't fit the narrative you want.