You Either Keep Getting Your Booster Shots Or Admit You Were Wrong

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

When you have been infected then you don't need to get vaccinated. These are 'new principles' in immunology sponsored by Pfizer, Moderna, and that rest of the gang.

What happens when you are infected and die...lol Isn't that the purpose of any vaccine to not roll the dice to see if you actually live though it so you can then have superior immunization?

Here is Yellow Fever, get the vaccine or go for natural immunity...

Severe symptoms include high fever, yellow skin or eyes (jaundice), bleeding, shock, and organ failure.
Among those who develop severe disease, 30-60% die.
Once you have been infected, you are likely protected from future infections.

I am talking about those who get over primary infection i.e the 99.85% of all those people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Now the number has changed and the infection fatality rate has become much lower.

Yes the purpose of a good vaccine is to protect you so you have lower chances to get harmed if you come into contact with a given virus. But SARS-CoV-2 isn't Yellow Fever and most people develop mild symptoms or no symptoms at all and equally important is that fact that the vaccine are not safe and effective and as a result they could cause great harm to people who are at very low risk from the virus itself.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am talking about those who get over primary infection i.e the 99.85% of all those people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Now the number has changed and the infection fatality rate has become much lower.

99.85% is not really a good argument though it is used a lot. When 85%+ of the people who die are old and or high risk those groups are much lower than your 99.85%. Take the OP's title, why would he say that? We should all judge our own risk levels and for many the initial vaccine was a good choice. Now as we move into more of a normal flu type their risk is much lower and they forgo the boosters unless they are in the smaller high-risk groups still.

Yes the purpose of a good vaccine is to protect you so you have lower chances to get harmed if you come into contact with a given virus. But SARS-CoV-2 isn't Yellow Fever and most people develop mild symptoms or no symptoms at all and equally important is that fact that the vaccine are not safe and effective and as a result they could cause great harm to people who are at very low risk from the virus itself.

Sure, then don't get the vaccine or booster, it's that simple. If you are low risk, then why get the vaccine? If you were mandated to get it, then that was wrong to do. I think everyone here agrees with that point, if not let them speak up on it. Not safe is your term as in zero drugs are "safe" and that is why we only take any drug when the risk factor of the problem is worse than the drug. Chemotherapy is really really bad for you, not something I would like to see the whole population mandated to do, but then people with cancer is worst so it justifies its use.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am talking about those who get over primary infection i.e the 99.85% of all those people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Now the number has changed and the infection fatality rate has become much lower.

99.85% is not really a good argument though it is used a lot. When 85%+ of the people who die are old and or high risk those groups are much lower than your 99.85%. Take the OP's title, why would he say that? We should all judge our own risk levels and for many the initial vaccine was a good choice. Now as we move into more of a normal flu type their risk is much lower and they forgo the boosters unless they are in the smaller high-risk groups still.

Yes the purpose of a good vaccine is to protect you so you have lower chances to get harmed if you come into contact with a given virus. But SARS-CoV-2 isn't Yellow Fever and most people develop mild symptoms or no symptoms at all and equally important is that fact that the vaccine are not safe and effective and as a result they could cause great harm to people who are at very low risk from the virus itself.

Sure, then don't get the vaccine or booster, it's that simple. If you are low risk, then why get the vaccine? If you were mandated to get it, then that was wrong to do. I think everyone here agrees with that point, if not let them speak up on it. Not safe is your term as in zero drugs are "safe" and that is why we only take any drug when the risk factor of the problem is worse than the drug. Chemotherapy is really really bad for you, not something I would like to see the whole population mandated to do, but then people with cancer is worst so it justifies its use.

No. I don't think so. The 99.85% it's the average survival rate which is now much higher die to immunity that has been build up in the population. Specific age groups have different risks. That's obvious.

If you are at low risk just as the vast majority of people below the age of 65 who don't have co-morbidities you can decide not to take the vaccine. If you are older you could decide to go ahead. But do you trust the mRNA products. Maybe the older people don't have a better choice and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks in their age and condition. But for a 15 year old or a 25 year old the situation is very different.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Stop shilling for big pharma which is the most corrupt industry on the planet.

I don't know about that.

I think the US government hands down is the most corrupt thing that's ever been created.

Worse than the catholic church.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Indeed! But it's still a wacky logic to say you should risk something just because there are other risks in life. Best to measure things on their own merits imo

a reply to: McGinty

and it seems people are doing just that as take up beyond the first 2 has collapsed like mask wearing and all the other things are now left to the virtuous as the rest of us wrestle with reality..

a reply to: neo96

at this point I'd say on par and why this all screams selling indulgences and salvation..

#its why it also feels we're heading for our own reformation..

i like to frame it as bBoris Johnson as our henry8, liz truss as our lady jane gray, current sunak/Westminster edges in as Mary1 as the pendulum swing all over the place..with the likes of Blair as cardinal Wolsey wanting to be emperor of Europe, cummings as a Thomas Cromwell..

As we progress our way back to enlightenment

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

''This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products' Not my words.
twitter.com...
Excess Mortality: It should be all over MSM... but it isn't. This could be the greatest crime in human history. Just look at the excess deaths.
I said this could be...because I don't know. Nobody knows. There should be an independent investigation into the excess mortality.
So if an ATS member spends so much time in his post to keep us informed, I don't think that's wasted time. On the contrary.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

''This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products' Not my words.
twitter.com...
Excess Mortality: It should be all over MSM... but it isn't. This could be the greatest crime in human history. Just look at the excess deaths.
I said this could be...because I don't know. Nobody knows. There should be an independent investigation into the excess mortality.
So if an ATS member spends so much time in his post to keep us informed, I don't think that's wasted time. On the contrary.

Have already made a thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Professor Levi

By now I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis

And finally, autopsies of people that die closely after they receive the vaccine indicate that with the enlarged number of cases, there is strong evidence that the death was caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical product in the history of medical products

The member you have replied to is engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the official narratives and the pharmaceuticals. His/her attempts to argue reasonably have failed long time ago.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No. I don't think so. The 99.85% it's the average survival rate which is now much higher die to immunity that has been build up in the population. Specific age groups have different risks. That's obvious.

If you are at low risk just as the vast majority of people below the age of 65 who don't have co-morbidities you can decide not to take the vaccine. If you are older you could decide to go ahead. But do you trust the mRNA products. Maybe the older people don't have a better choice and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks in their age and condition. But for a 15 year old or a 25 year old the situation is very different.

You basically repeated what I said. I have said about 100 times that with what we have seen with the virus those under 40 really should not get the vaccine, and over 40 they should look at their situation. Those over like 65 and/or high risk better get the vaccine... That has been my steady view over a year now. The deal is if a new variant comes along that hits younger people hard then my view on who should or should not get the vaccine will change with the risk. As to whether the vaccine is safe or not I view it about the same as any other vaccine/drug.

originally posted by: McGinty

Indeed! But it's still a wacky logic to say you should risk something just because there are other risks in life. Best to measure things on their own merits imo

I been a pilot for 40+ years and every flight we did a risk assessment work sheet to compare the risk to the need of the flight, or in generic terms the reward. I have done this so much that it is imbedded in me in everything I do, so it's a part of my life.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No. I don't think so. The 99.85% it's the average survival rate which is now much higher die to immunity that has been build up in the population. Specific age groups have different risks. That's obvious.

If you are at low risk just as the vast majority of people below the age of 65 who don't have co-morbidities you can decide not to take the vaccine. If you are older you could decide to go ahead. But do you trust the mRNA products. Maybe the older people don't have a better choice and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks in their age and condition. But for a 15 year old or a 25 year old the situation is very different.

You basically repeated what I said. I have said about 100 times that with what we have seen with the virus those under 40 really should not get the vaccine, and over 40 they should look at their situation. Those over like 65 and/or high risk better get the vaccine... That has been my steady view over a year now. The deal is if a new variant comes along that hits younger people hard then my view on who should or should not get the vaccine will change with the risk. As to whether the vaccine is safe or not I view it about the same as any other vaccine/drug.

The last part of your text has been the discussion of several threads here on this site and pretty much everywhere online and offline. Does it look that these vaccines are safe and effective? Are they really vaccines?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The last part of your text has been the discussion of several threads here on this site and pretty much everywhere online and offline. Does it look that these vaccines are safe and effective? Are they really vaccines?

I have discussed this in 100 posts. The vaccine hesitant side has made up their minds and they feed their beliefs with only events that support their views, so there is no debate here with the vaccine.

Even the part about it not being a vaccine, and I have said if it is not one then there are like 50 that been called vaccines for many decades that are now also not a vaccine. So, I don't think people can just change the narrative to fit their agenda. The deal is that mRNA isn't even a drug... We also have like 30 other COVID vaccines that are not mRNA based, so what about them?

The vaccine hesitant side manipulates at will to support what they decided is reality. It's a game I'm not really interested in anymore.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The last part of your text has been the discussion of several threads here on this site and pretty much everywhere online and offline. Does it look that these vaccines are safe and effective? Are they really vaccines?

I have discussed this in 100 posts. The vaccine hesitant side has made up their minds and they feed their beliefs with only events that support their views, so there is no debate here with the vaccine.

Even the part about it not being a vaccine, and I have said if it is not one then there are like 50 that been called vaccines for many decades that are now also not a vaccine. So, I don't think people can just change the narrative to fit their agenda. The deal is that mRNA isn't even a drug... We also have like 30 other COVID vaccines that are not mRNA based, so what about them?

The vaccine hesitant side manipulates at will to support what they decided is reality. It's a game I'm not really interested in anymore.

Vaccine hesitancy is a made up term just as the term anti-vaxxer (made up and pejorative).

Since when we have to accept every product out there in the absence of evidence and proof just because they have called it a 'vaccine".

Do you know the short, medium, and king term effects of these products?? Do you know the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?? The answer is no. Hence the 'vaccines' are not safe and effective. There is no way out of this.

The vaccine definition had to change so these products can get a vaccine statues. Hence they are no vaccines.

The other vaccines such as the AZ and J&J have been abandoned in most countries. Especially the Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from most markets and even from the UK that is the country of origin of the product. It killed many as it seems.

The same will be happen to the mRNA products as they have killed and harmed many more. The AZ vaccine is benign in comparison. The UK has decided not to give the mRNA products to the under 50. Other countries are thinking of similar measures.

There is growing concern and growing calls for the products to be suspended permanently and fir those who pushed them in the market to be indicted and end up in jail forever.

Professor Levi

By now I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis

And finally, autopsies of people that die closely after they receive the vaccine indicate that with the enlarged number of cases, there is strong evidence that the death was caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are numerous far more deadly causes of death (and probably preventable, too, if there was sufficient political will to stop these deaths) that are tolerated in the US.

How many die in traffic accidents?
How many die from misuse of firearms?
How many die from crime?
How many die from poisonings and overdoses?
How many die from simply taking stupid risks?
How many die from cancers caused by exposure to environmental carcinogens (because alternative chemicals are too expensive).

So if more people die in traffic accidents than from falling from a building, is it then safer to fall from a building?

These are both highly likely causes of death. Safety comes from reducing the overall risk of death, not by actively pursuing one particular high risk over another.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: chr0naut
What do any other causes of death have to do with vaccine deaths?

Indeed! What do they have to do with vaccine deaths?

You see, the recent 'all cause' fluctuation in current statistics are being blamed upon the vaccines by some (like nurse Campbell).

There have been more than 13 billion doses administered, surely we should be seeing massive depopulation (like in the hundreds of millions, at least), but it isn't happening.

The vaccines are statistically safer than table salt in use as a condiment.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Vaccine hesitancy is a made up term just as the term anti-vaxxer (made up and pejorative).

Yes, they both are invented and are terms to describe the group against the COVID vaccine. I been told that anti-vaccers has been seen as a derogatory term, so I use something different now just to identify a position where people are against the vaccine. Nothing more to it... I been called Pro vaccine, or Big Pharma shrill, or half dozen other terms most meant to be derogatory in nature, so what is your point here?

Do you know the short, medium, and king term effects of these products?? Do you know the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?? The answer is no. Hence the 'vaccines' are not safe and effective. There is no way out of this.

And the deal is we don't know any of that with ANY drug until it is released within the general population and is then monitored over years of use. When you see a drug ad on TV and at the end there is like 30 seconds of negative side effects listed those didn't come out in the Phase trials, they were discovered when the drug was in general use. This is how ALL drug work, how ALL drugs have worked, and now we have people complaining about a process that been around for 100 years or more with the COVID vaccine...lol

The vaccine definition had to change so these products can get a vaccine statues. Hence they are no vaccines.

You and others keep saying this, but what did they call all the other vaccines that also did fit the old definition as you suggest? The vast majority of vaccines are not what you suggest is a vaccine. Your logic on all this sucks.

There is growing concern and growing calls for the products to be suspended permanently and fir those who pushed them in the market to be indicted and end up in jail forever.

We will see...

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical

That is your opinion, so what do you want me to say?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Vaccine hesitancy is a made up term just as the term anti-vaxxer (made up and pejorative).

Yes, they both are invented and are terms to describe the group against the COVID vaccine. I been told that anti-vaccers has been seen as a derogatory term, so I use something different now just to identify a position where people are against the vaccine. Nothing more to it... I been called Pro vaccine, or Big Pharma shrill, or half dozen other terms most meant to be derogatory in nature, so what is your point here?

Do you know the short, medium, and king term effects of these products?? Do you know the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?? The answer is no. Hence the 'vaccines' are not safe and effective. There is no way out of this.

And the deal is we don't know any of that with ANY drug until it is released within the general population and is then monitored over years of use. When you see a drug ad on TV and at the end there is like 30 seconds of negative side effects listed those didn't come out in the Phase trials, they were discovered when the drug was in general use. This is how ALL drug work, how ALL drugs have worked, and now we have people complaining about a process that been around for 100 years or more with the COVID vaccine...lol

The vaccine definition had to change so these products can get a vaccine statues. Hence they are no vaccines.

You and others keep saying this, but what did they call all the other vaccines that also did fit the old definition as you suggest? The vast majority of vaccines are not what you suggest is a vaccine. Your logic on all this sucks.

There is growing concern and growing calls for the products to be suspended permanently and fir those who pushed them in the market to be indicted and end up in jail forever.

We will see...

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical

That is your opinion, so what do you want me to say?

You are mistaken.

First you need to know short, medium, and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio and then you release the products to the general population. What you said isn't true. You don't experiment in people with untested, experimental and potentially hazardous products.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical

This is the professional opinion by Professor Levi from MIT. Not mine. Although any reasonable person will agree with what he said.

For the product to be branded as a vaccine the definition had to change. Scientific and medical definitions don't change randomly. This is called deception and charlatanism

I am not a layman and I have a very good understanding of what a vaccine is. In addition you are mistaken if you think that everyone here thinks vaccines are vaccines when they only give you a certain type of immunity.

And again, from Professor Levi

By now I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis

And finally, autopsies of people that die closely after they receive the vaccine indicate that with the enlarged number of cases, there is strong evidence that the death was caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

I have already made a thread for this.
He has asked for the immediate suspension of all mRNA products as I mentioned above.

originally posted by: chr0naut

There have been more than 13 billion doses administered, surely we should be seeing massive depopulation (like in the hundreds of millions, at least), but it isn't happening.

The vaccines are statistically safer than table salt in use as a condiment.

I have brought this up when nurse Campell suggested something like 125 out of 100,000 and I was like where are the 16 million dead bodies hidden?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You are mistaken.

First guy need to know short, medium, and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio and then you release the products to the general population. What you said isn't true. You don't experiment in people with untested, experimental and potentially hazardous products.

No, I am not... Phase 4 is public monitoring. Phase 3 trials typically only involves about 3000 or less people. How do you get med and long-term effects from that? After Phase 3 testing is finished, the drug is released to the general population and that is where long term monitoring takes place. The reason why many go to EU for a drug is because their FDA equivalent has a lot less bureaucracy than ours, so drugs are leased much earlier. The key point is there are no further testing after Phase 3, so whatever time it takes the bureaucracy process has nothing to do with testing.

We can go back and forth on these points of your, but it doesn't change reality, or how things have always been done in the past.

I am not a layman and I have a very good understanding of what a vaccine is. In addition you are mistaken if you think that everyone here thinks vaccines are vaccines when they only give you a certain type of immunity.

What then is a vaccine in your professional opinion? Maybe start there...