A New Dating Site For The Unvaxed

originally posted by: Thefineblackharm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Thefineblackharm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: AdultMaleHumanUK
a reply to: Allaroundya4k

The whole idea that unvaxxed people are disease spreaders is such a BS thing.

Infected people spread diseases, immunized or not.

If I get the flu because I'm not vaccinated

If you get the flu, then that is exactly when you are likely to spread the flu. People who are not infected can't really spread a disease they don't have.

If you don't get the flu because of immunization, or you have it for a shorter period because of immunization, or you have it very mild (i.e. a low viral load) because of immunization, it stands to reason that you will not spread it as much as someone who has the flu, has it worse, or has it longer.

, then I will NEVER get that particular strain again. And it might be circulating the next year, or the next. But guess what? I won't get getting it or spreading it. Your vax for that flu will wear off after between 10 to 14 months and then you're totally open to getting that flu again - and despite being vaxxed for flu, you will likely eventually get that flu.

Infectious diseases exist because our immune system isn't perfect in the first place, which also created the need for ways to fight those infectious diseases - so much for the 'natural is better' BS.

Immunizations work by exposing the organism to aspects of a pathogen, without that pathogen being viable. The organism's immune system has time to build defences against that pathogen, without getting sick from that pathogen. The immune system is primed and ready to fight. Not so someone who has never encountered that pathogen.

In both natural and immunized cases, the immune response is by the same immune system, and the fade off of response is the same no matter how the pathogen was encountered by that immune system.

In fact, all those early papers quantifying how fast the immune roll-off was, they weren't measures of of immunized roll-off, because the papers came out before and of the immunizations did. Those were how the natural immune response rolled-off over time.

What we know about the COVID-19 immune response - August 2020 (.pdf)

But here's something; the immunizations usually contain adjuvants, stuff to supercharge immune response. Natural infections just don't have them.

Perhaps that is why immunizations get higher effectiveness ratings than natural? The Pfizer was rated at 95% effectiveness, natural infection was rated at 87%, a whole 8% less!

Durability of Vaccine-Induced and Natural Immunity Against COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Same goes for measles that I had when I was six months old. I'm good for life. Measles vaccine wears off after about 8 years, and so most adults walking around who never had the measles but had the vax are susceptible to it. And then there's the fact that after the third measles vax, it's showing to wear off quicker and quicker, offering only a year's protection.

Yeah if you survive measles, your outlook is fairly good, however sometime measles does recur. It is also likely that you will infect 10 others in the 10 days that you have symptoms, too.

And, considering the nature of the disease and the cheapness and availability of the vaccine, a roll-off in immunologic protection in adulthood is easy to counter.

Breakthrough measles (reinfection)

Such a bunch of non-scientific, black and white ignorance.

You have been reading to many anti-vaxx sites.

You didn't listen to a word I said, and instead reiterated your baseless "facts" that you cling to religiously.

I paid attention and responded very specifically to what you posted.

What you say about adjuvents is sincerely hilarious. Adjuvents don't "supercharge" your immune system, they are added to attenuated virus vaccines because the vaccines wouldn't work without them.

Just about all types of vaccine since early in the 20th century use adjuvants. Not only attenuated virus ones.

The earliest vaccines against smallpox contained no adjuvants, and they were effective. So much so that for ever after Americans have called immunizations vaccines, named after the vaccinia virus used in the smallpox vaccine (Other immunizations do not use the vaccinia virus, and therefore should be more accurately referred to as immunizations).

Note that the mRNA immunizations do not use adjuvants. That is because they are not necessary, and adjuvants do increase the likelihood of adverse reactions, so the decision was made to omit them.

Adjuvents are things that FORCE your immune system to react. Ever heard of the explosion of auto immune diseases? Adjuvents! Aluminum hydroxide is one of them usually in the flu shot and it's incredibly bad for you. Injected ALONE into you, that adjuvent will cause immune responses that are not good. It's very much over-exciting the immune system.

But that somehow isn't supercharging immune response?

Natural infections don't need synthetic help to confer lifelong immunity. And as I said, I got the measles and I can't get them again, nor give them to anyone. Virology 101: you get a virus naturally and recover from it, you are immune for decades, and in fact, for most people, for life.

Some diseases infer lifetime immunity. But some don't.

Why do we develop lifelong immunity to some diseases, but not others?

And you are completely ignoring that the process of acquisition of natural immunity is the primary cause of; a lot of mortality, spreading of infection, and leaving a lot of debilitating chronic damage (like in the case of polio). This is why medical authorities universally promote immunization campaigns, rather that organizing community open infection events.

When H1N1 in 2009 made the rounds, researchers noticed that hardly anyone over 50 was getting H1N1. They concluded that H1N1 was actually a descendant from a different flu decades earlier, that these over 50s had recovered from, thus they were already immune. SCIENCE!

H1N1 is the Spanish Flu. It has recurred in waves since 1918. In 1976, then in 1977, then in 2009, then in 2012, then in 2017, then in 2019. You'd think that if everyone has had it, (including the zoonotic vectors) it would die out because natural immunity is so total. How would it ever replicate. Where and what is the resevoir?

(And, just to note, it weakens your argument in an online debate when you consistently misspell things. Adjuvant Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)

a reply to: lilzazz

Most people, with insurance will be able to cover a meager blood test fee. As for me personally, I am covered through the VA as a medically retired combat veteran of GWOT.

FYI for the record, my last vaccine was for Anthrax, before deployment to Iraq.

No mRNA injections here, maybe some Super Soldier serum.

Those were my thoughts exactly, glad I wasn’t the only one thinking it. a reply to: Phatal

looks like a skim site, take money off a group of targeted people. They likely have a site specifically for vaxxed people as well.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care to get involved in this debate but I think you have been drinking too much Pfizer Coolaid.

If I am not mistaken,

The Pfizer was rated at 95% effectiveness

has been totally debunked at this point. Emphatically, completely absolutely!

I think 95% ineffective would be more accurate.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care to get involved in this debate but I think you have been drinking too much Pfizer Coolaid.

If I am not mistaken,

The Pfizer was rated at 95% effectiveness

has been totally debunked at this point. Emphatically, completely absolutely!

I think 95% ineffective would be more accurate.

If it has been debunked, then please source the peer reviewed academic paper showing the lab-work that debunks it.

That original efficacy rating of the original Pfizer mRNA immunization still stands against the original Alpha strain of COVID-19, however later clinical studies showed some roll-off of effectiveness over time-frame of about 3 months.

The Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine against showed: "Among 51017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% effective in preventing infection while the BA.4/5 lineages were dominant, and 20% effective while the BQ lineages were. Effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant".

As a side note, not being immunized, and/or not having survived infection, is 0% effective against every strain, so the Pfizer bivalent immunization is more effective that nothing.

100 percent convinced it is a data aggregation site where people give their information to some goob agency that has a plan to round up the stragglers who didn’t get injected. There are calls now for the blood of those who are unvaccinated currently.

Because blood from a vaccinated person is unsuitable for those who have vascular and circulatory issues. I can guarantee, it is nothing but a data gathering operation. a reply to: charlest2

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: charlest2

This should be interesting. How many vaccinations don't they have? Might be a few Darwin Award Winners.

Most just not the experimental one's that could never make it out of the animal testing phase because it killed more than it saved...

You my friend are the new lab rats good luck with that. Unvaccinated sperm will become the new bitcoin.

A New Dating Site For The Unvaxed

It's marvelous that romance is alive and well in America!

That’s a new one. I get it, though, people want to find someone with similar views on stuff like that. Imagine signing up for a site like that and ending up on some government watchlist—yikes.

That’s a new one. I get it, though, people want to find someone with similar views on stuff like that. Imagine signing up for a site like that and ending up on some government watchlist—yikes.

Honestly, if you’re just looking for something casual without all the personal drama or conspiracy theories, there are way easier ways to meet people. I’ve used sites like tosituhma.com... where it’s all anonymous and straight to the point.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care to get involved in this debate but I think you have been drinking too much Pfizer Coolaid.

If I am not mistaken,

The Pfizer was rated at 95% effectiveness

has been totally debunked at this point. Emphatically, completely absolutely!

I think 95% ineffective would be more accurate.

If it has been debunked, then please source the peer reviewed academic paper showing the lab-work that debunks it.

That original efficacy rating of the original Pfizer mRNA immunization still stands against the original Alpha strain of COVID-19, however later clinical studies showed some roll-off of effectiveness over time-frame of about 3 months.

The Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine against showed: "Among 51017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% effective in preventing infection while the BA.4/5 lineages were dominant, and 20% effective while the BQ lineages were. Effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant".

As a side note, not being immunized, and/or not having survived infection, is 0% effective against every strain, so the Pfizer bivalent immunization is more effective that nothing.

Be sure never to mention natural immunity. That would kill your point and make you look super silly.

a reply to: network dude

Speaking of Immunity









TGIF

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't care to get involved in this debate but I think you have been drinking too much Pfizer Coolaid.

If I am not mistaken,

The Pfizer was rated at 95% effectiveness

has been totally debunked at this point. Emphatically, completely absolutely!

I think 95% ineffective would be more accurate.

If it has been debunked, then please source the peer reviewed academic paper showing the lab-work that debunks it.

That original efficacy rating of the original Pfizer mRNA immunization still stands against the original Alpha strain of COVID-19, however later clinical studies showed some roll-off of effectiveness over time-frame of about 3 months.

The Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine against showed: "Among 51017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% effective in preventing infection while the BA.4/5 lineages were dominant, and 20% effective while the BQ lineages were. Effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant".

As a side note, not being immunized, and/or not having survived infection, is 0% effective against every strain, so the Pfizer bivalent immunization is more effective that nothing.

Be sure never to mention natural immunity. That would kill your point and make you look super silly.

There is no natural immunity against a novel pathogen. Covid-19 was a novel disease, which has now become endemic, meaning that people have developed natural immunity over the time-frame of the pandemic because they have been immunized, or caught the disease, or both.

Immunisation and exposure to the pathogen are both triggers of immune response. Both cause natural immunity, but immunization does so without necessarily having to catch the disease. Although the immunizations do not totally prevent the disease, they do prepare an immune response and so they reduce disease severity, and mortality, significantly.