31 Reasons To Reject The Jab

marke

Well-known member
Which is exactly what they did, you dishonest fool.
I don't believe you know what you are talking about. Tell me what you know about those trials that deliberately infected a group of people with the covid virus to determine if vaccines were helping or not.
 

marke

Well-known member
Liar.

Nowhere in that article is there any evidence that, as a group, democrats are generally in favour of open borders.
Trump slowed border crossings to a trickle. After the democrats crookedly ousted Trump illegal border crossings skyrocketed. Normal people can see what that means and do not believe democrat lies that they are opposed to massive illegal immigration.
 

marke

Well-known member
He actually DID cause the disinformation that contributed to the 700, 000+ deaths. Also, his motive for the vaccine was for the sole purpose of retaining the WH.

By his own standard, he is the founder of Covid-19… at least in the US.
Fauci helped create the virus and then lied about his involvement. Trump never lied. Trust democrats to flip the truth upside down and backwards in their dishonest efforts to destroy God bless America in favour of their demonic alternative.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Trump slowed border crossings to a trickle. After the democrats crookedly ousted Trump illegal border crossings skyrocketed. Normal people can see what that means and do not believe democrat lies that they are opposed to massive illegal immigration.
You are a liar, marke. You have provided no evidence that democrats as group support open borders. And now you dance - nothing in the above statement of your supports the patently insane notion that democrats want open borders.
 

marke

Well-known member
You are a liar, marke. You have provided no evidence that democrats as group support open borders. And now you dance - nothing in the above statement of your supports the patently insane notion that democrats want open borders.
FJB fans sit in the bleachers shouting tribal drumbeat slanders at conservatives who oppose communism and depravity.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't believe you know what you are talking about. Tell me what you know about those trials that deliberately infected a group of people with the covid virus to determine if vaccines were helping or not.
Actually, I misunderstood your point but it doesn't matter. Even if they didn't inject people with the virus, which I'm sure they did not, it wouldn't matter because the test groups are large enough that all other factors are going to be statistically the same between the groups and the general population. That's why you have a control group. That is the specific purpose of having a control group. If you didn't have a control group then there would be no one to use the placebo on.

You want both the group that gets the vaccine and the group that gets the placebo to look like the general population, not just in terms of gender or ethnicity but in the way they live their lives. The only way to get that is to get a large enough sampling of the population. Once you have it, then it doesn't matter whether you intentionally infect people with the virus or not because the infection rate in your test groups is going to be the same as in the general population. That's part of what the control group is there to establish. If the control group ends up looking clinically different than the general population in some statistically significant way, then you've done your experiment wrong and have to start over.

In short, you pull two groups of people from the general population, give one the vaccine and the other a placebo. If the placebo group continues to look just like the general population and the vaccine group doesn't then you can reasonable attribute the effect to the vaccine.

Now, there are some things where intentionally infecting people would make sens, depending on what you're testing and why. Doing such a test in this manner is helpful because you can know exactly what the infection rates are in each group but, as I said, I very much doubt that anyone was intentionally given the COVID19 virus, although I could be wrong about that. People will volunteer for just about anything, it seems. The point is, however, that it would not be necessary to do so in order to get a valid result.

Again, this is junior high school level science class material. Science has been operating this way for literally centuries and we know for a fact that it does indeed work really really well. There is nothing you can say to assail the method without just proving to the world that you are, in fact, as dumb as a door knob.
 

marke

Well-known member
Actually, I misunderstood your point but it doesn't matter. Even if they didn't inject people with the virus, which I'm sure they did not, it wouldn't matter because the test groups are large enough that all other factors are going to be statistically the same between the groups and the general population. That's why you have a control group. That is the specific purpose of having a control group. If you didn't have a control group then there would be no one to use the placebo on.

You want both the group that gets the vaccine and the group that gets the placebo to look like the general population, not just in terms of gender or ethnicity but in the way they live their lives. The only way to get that is to get a large enough sampling of the population. Once you have it, then it doesn't matter whether you intentionally infect people with the virus or not because the infection rate in your test groups is going to be the same as in the general population. That's part of what the control group is there to establish. If the control group ends up looking clinically different than the general population in some statistically significant way, then you've done your experiment wrong and have to start over.

In short, you pull two groups of people from the general population, give one the vaccine and the other a placebo. If the placebo group continues to look just like the general population and the vaccine group doesn't then you can reasonable attribute the effect to the vaccine.

Now, there are some things where intentionally infecting people would make sens, depending on what you're testing and why. Doing such a test in this manner is helpful because you can know exactly what the infection rates are in each group but, as I said, I very much doubt that anyone was intentionally given the COVID19 virus, although I could be wrong about that. People will volunteer for just about anything, it seems. The point is, however, that it would not be necessary to do so in order to get a valid result.

Again, this is junior high school level science class material. Science has been operating this way for literally centuries and we know for a fact that it does indeed work really really well. There is nothing you can say to assail the method without just proving to the world that you are, in fact, as dumb as a door knob.
Conclusions drawn from the rates of covid infections in areas of low vaccinations are being challenged by the rates of covid infections we are seeing in areas of high vaccinations.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Conclusions drawn from the rates of covid infections in areas of low vaccinations are being challenged by the rates of covid infections we are seeing in areas of high vaccinations.
Change the subject much?

As of Oct 4th 2021 (ten days ago as of this writing) there have been 23,506 break through cases in the United States that resulted in hospitalization. 6617 (28 %) of those resulted in death.

That actually isn't the real number of infections because those numbers completely ignore asymptomatic cases and the reporting is voluntary, etc but that doesn't matter really because it is a sufficient number of reports to show trends and allow for a relatively accurate understanding of how well the vaccines are working because the same people who report these data also report data concerning regular (i.e. non - break through) cases. The two data set can then be compared and good conclusions can be reasonably drawn and to date, no unexpected patterns have been identified in the case demographics or vaccine characteristics among people with reported vaccine breakthrough infections. Or put another way, there is still not an unexpected rate of break through infection and therefore the vaccines are still providing the protection expected given the data collected during clinical trials.

According to a report published August 27, 2021, as of July 25, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among unvaccinated persons was 4.9 times and the hospitalization rate was 29.2 times the rates among fully vaccinated persons. It should be noted that these number include all people 16 years of age and older and that they were compiled during a time when the vaccination rate was less than 50% which is much lower than it is today. The higher the vaccination rate becomes, the better these number get because whether you ever acknowledge it or not, these number flatly prove that the vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death.

As for serious adverse affects from getting the vaccine...

Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or resulted in persistent disability/incapacity. The proportions of participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group and 0.5% in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events in the vaccine group which were numerically higher than in the placebo group were appendicitis (7 in vaccine vs 2 in placebo), acute myocardial infarction (3 vs 0), and cerebrovascular accident (3 vs 1). Cardiovascular serious adverse events were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups. Two serious adverse events were considered by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as possibly related to vaccine: shoulder injury possibly related to vaccine administration or to the vaccine itself, and lymphadenopathy involving the axilla contralateral to the vaccine injection site. Otherwise, occurrence of severe adverse events involving system organ classes and specific preferred terms were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups.

(38,000 participants ≥16 years of age randomized 1:1 to vaccine or placebo)

FDA briefing document
 

marke

Well-known member
Change the subject much?

As of Oct 4th 2021 (ten days ago as of this writing) there have been 23,506 break through cases in the United States that resulted in hospitalization. 6617 (28 %) of those resulted in death.

That actually isn't the real number of infections because those numbers completely ignore asymptomatic cases and the reporting is voluntary, etc but that doesn't matter really because it is a sufficient number of reports to show trends and allow for a relatively accurate understanding of how well the vaccines are working because the same people who report these data also report data concerning regular (i.e. non - break through) cases. The two data set can then be compared and good conclusions can be reasonably drawn and to date, no unexpected patterns have been identified in the case demographics or vaccine characteristics among people with reported vaccine breakthrough infections. Or put another way, there is still not an unexpected rate of break through infection and therefore the vaccines are still providing the protection expected given the data collected during clinical trials.

According to a report published August 27, 2021, as of July 25, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among unvaccinated persons was 4.9 times and the hospitalization rate was 29.2 times the rates among fully vaccinated persons. It should be noted that these number include all people 16 years of age and older and that they were compiled during a time when the vaccination rate was less than 50% which is much lower than it is today. The higher the vaccination rate becomes, the better these number get because whether you ever acknowledge it or not, these number flatly prove that the vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death.

As for serious adverse affects from getting the vaccine...

Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or resulted in persistent disability/incapacity. The proportions of participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group and 0.5% in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events in the vaccine group which were numerically higher than in the placebo group were appendicitis (7 in vaccine vs 2 in placebo), acute myocardial infarction (3 vs 0), and cerebrovascular accident (3 vs 1). Cardiovascular serious adverse events were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups. Two serious adverse events were considered by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as possibly related to vaccine: shoulder injury possibly related to vaccine administration or to the vaccine itself, and lymphadenopathy involving the axilla contralateral to the vaccine injection site. Otherwise, occurrence of severe adverse events involving system organ classes and specific preferred terms were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups.

(38,000 participants ≥16 years of age randomized 1:1 to vaccine or placebo)

FDA briefing document
Maybe you have not read that the CDC refuses to track breakthrough infections anymore. I believe that is because the emerging data is proving to be very damaging to the narratives they have been propagating for months about how necessary it is to get vaccinated.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Okay - let's back this up to the conversation I was having with expo before I started "following around" the other guy who inserted himself into the conversation I was having with expo.

expo said:
... vaccinated people can get covid.
I said:
then it's not a vaccine
expo:
Come on, make it at least plausible.
me:
Define "vaccine"
If expo had looked up the definition of vaccine he would have found something like the following:



noun
  1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.


In a discussion of "vaccinated" people who subsequent to the "vaccination" develop the disease, the definition fails.

For those "vaccinated" people who develop the disease, the shot they were given was NOT a vaccination.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Maybe you have not read that the CDC refuses to track breakthrough infections anymore. I believe that is because the emerging data is proving to be very damaging to the narratives they have been propagating for months about how necessary it is to get vaccinated.
Nobody cares what you "believe".
 
Top