Why Are Some of My Fellow Conservatives Being Irrational About COVID-19 Vaccination?

[eagle1462010]

And now add vaccinating all these healthy young non-vulnerable people with these experimental vaccines. People in high places are in pure panic mode.

No they are not. They are being made filthy rich.

The kit from India used to help costs $2 No money in that. Gillead products cost a fortune and they own members of the gov't. The patents for these jabs are owned partially by the NIH. And Fa Chi gets royalties off of it.

This is already an ENDEMIC situation. Then they will want shots forever. Eventually a mutant that is a real killer is gonna emerge and kill the hell out of people. And they will...........as they do now BLAME US for refusing to obey.

Sheep

 

[mikegriffith1]

I am in Michigan. We are in a bad wave. Almost EVERYONE I know who has covid--and that is a lot of people--are fully vaccinated. My count is at least 10. And yes, those who are fully vaccinated are obviously getting it AND transmitting it freely.

I just posted a thread on this, but let's see if your mind is actually open to any information, or if you're just a Vaccine Cultist here to preach.

Your experience is the exception. Statistically, the percentage of people who have caught the virus after being vaccinated is very small, around 3-5%, which is in line with the clinical trials, which found the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be effective in about 95% of the people in the trials.

People who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have a smaller degree of protection, around 68%. J&J has admitted that people who got the J&J shot should probably get a second shot after six months.

 

[eagle1462010]

Your experience is the exception. Statistically, the percentage of people who have caught the virus after being vaccinated is very small, around 3-5%, which is in line with the clinical trials, which found the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be effective in about 95% of the people in the trials.

People who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have a smaller degree of protection, around 68%. J&J has admitted that people who got the J&J shot should probably get a second shot after six months.

 

[SweetSue92]

Your experience is the exception. Statistically, the percentage of people who have caught the virus after being vaccinated is very small, around 3-5%, which is in line with the clinical trials, which found the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be effective in about 95% of the people in the trials.

People who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have a smaller degree of protection, around 68%. J&J has admitted that people who got the J&J shot should probably get a second shot after six months.

What is the percentage of people who have caught the virus unvaccinated though?

And of course, that would be since they were fully vaccinated. You have pretty good protection against catching covid for the first 90 days. Is that what you signed up for? A 90 day vaccine?

 

[ding]

You realize the shots do the same thing, I hope. You realize, I hope, that the spike proteins in the shots were supposed to stay confined to the arm muscle and do not. That's why you're seeing heart damage, menstrual changes in women, etc. Those spike proteins in some people go EVERYwhere.

That's crazy talk. Stop getting your news from social media.

 

[ding]

"Conspiracy theory" implies a lack of facts. The vids conclusively present facts. But it is indeed definitely a conspiracy. Probably the most evil conspiracy in world history.

Have you gotten covid yet?

 

[SweetSue92]

That's crazy talk. Stop getting your news from social media.

Not at all. Japan insisted on the information from Pfizer, and they got it. Here. Specifically pg 16. That crap found everywhere.

https://files.catbox.moe/0vwcmj.pdf

 

[ding]

Not at all. Japan insisted on the information from Pfizer, and they got it. Here. Specifically pg 16. That crap found everywhere.

https://files.catbox.moe/0vwcmj.pdf

Can you save me some time and post the relevant passage and cite the page number?

 

[SweetSue92]

Can you save me some time and post the relevant passage and cite the page number?

So you don't want to know, you didn't even look. You couldn't even be bothered to click the link and scroll to page 16, because if you would have you would have seen that the "relevant information" is the entire page.

Okay, you made your choice and now you're a Vaccine Cheerleader. Fine. But don't pretend you're open-minded because you're not.

 

[ding]

So you don't want to know, you didn't even look. You couldn't even be bothered to click the link and scroll to page 16, because if you would have you would have seen that the "relevant information" is the entire page.

Okay, you made your choice and now you're a Vaccine Cheerleader. Fine. But don't pretend you're open-minded because you're not.

I’m not going to go sifting through 23 pages looking for something that might not be there. But I will look at page 16 and get back to you.

 

[ding]

So you don't want to know, you didn't even look. You couldn't even be bothered to click the link and scroll to page 16, because if you would have you would have seen that the "relevant information" is the entire page.

Okay, you made your choice and now you're a Vaccine Cheerleader. Fine. But don't pretend you're open-minded because you're not.

I looked at page 16 of the pdf which is numbered page 6 of the document here it is:

Exactly what is it that you think this is saying?

 

[ding]

Okay, you made your choice and now you're a Vaccine Cheerleader. Fine. But don't pretend you're open-minded because you're not.

I am the most open minded person you will ever meet.

How many times have you gotten covid?

 

[SweetSue92]

I am the most open minded person you will ever meet.

How many times have you gotten covid?

You are most certainly not; you barely opened the document. You wouldn't. The document is telling how much of the vaccine components were in the ORGANS after vaccination. This wasn't supposed to happen. This is what is damaging hearts, causing clots, and causing menstrual problems in women.

I have not had covid, am unvaccinated, and have been around so many people who have had it I can't even tell you. I lost count beyond 50. Now, most of them are fully vaccinated. I am in an early hotspot, MI, and we are in our fourth wave. I teach 150 children a day.

 

[eagle1462010]

Don't mention Ivermectin; it'll upset the vaccine rollout

Ivermectin is seen as a repeat of hydroxychloroquine and not to be taken seriously. Belief in it, worthy only of derision.

www.biznews.com

 

[eagle1462010]

You are most certainly not; you barely opened the document. You wouldn't. The document is telling how much of the vaccine components were in the ORGANS after vaccination. This wasn't supposed to happen. This is what is damaging hearts, causing clots, and causing menstrual problems in women.

I have not had covid, am unvaccinated, and have been around so many people who have had it I can't even tell you. I lost count beyond 50. Now, most of them are fully vaccinated. I am in an early hotspot, MI, and we are in our fourth wave. I teach 150 children a day.

The liver count got me there on page 16. Not sure what could happen there. But it shows the spike protein moving around the body.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So you're stating that right wing nut jobs are refusing the vaccine because of what Pelosi, Biden and Harris allegedly said?

Someone with a simple brain incapable of understanding would think that is all I mean yes... or someone who does understand, but just wants to troll. Which are you?

 

[Blues Man]

More excuses. The definition was fine til they needed to change it for mRNA.

The CDC Suddenly Changes the Definition of ‘Vaccine’ and ‘Vaccination’ - Citizens Journal

By Nick Arama, Red State Matt Margolis over at our sister site PJ Media has picked up on a very interesting change on the CDC website when it comes to the definitions for “vaccine” and “vaccination.” The timing of the change is very interesting. He notes that it would appear that the CDC is trying

www.citizensjournal.us

Of course you will post the PRAVDA of the CDC saying opposite.

Protection from the virus.

Well there are drugs you can take that do that now. So they are now vaccines.

lol

So tell me how the wording change makes the definition LESS accurate?

And I'm still waiting for you to post the data on all the vaccines that provide 100% immunity

 

[SweetSue92]

So tell me how the wording change makes the definition LESS accurate?

And I'm still waiting for you to post the data on all the vaccines that provide 100% immunity

If he doesn't it proves nothing. People can see what's going on, and it makes a difference.

People get their kids vaccinated for measles, mumps, rubella, polio. Generally no one gets these diseases, or if they do, everyone is SHOCKED.

Meanwhile, almost all my coworkers got vaccinated ONLY months ago, and many many many of them are getting sick with Covid. It is not shocking to hear this. It is now expected.

If you think there is no difference between the two, or somehow someone posting information that shows "no vaccine is 100%" makes these failed vaccines somehow better, you're wrong. People can see and know what's going on.

 

[eagle1462010]

So tell me how the wording change makes the definition LESS accurate?

And I'm still waiting for you to post the data on all the vaccines that provide 100% immunity

I never stated that vaccines offer 100% immunity. That was you attacking me twisting words. So I'm not going to go there . You will now go.....SEE YOU PROVE MY POINT. From something I never said.

Oh well Sucks to be you.

Changing the wording is BS. They did it because it DIDN'T MATCH THEIR NARRATIVE and nothing more.

Protection from ............Well hell the FOOTBALL PLAYER was VACCINATED FROM INJURY by wearing a helmet.

Same dang thing happened to the defintion of death with the CDC before this started. You COULD ASSUME they had covid at death. And then create a CARE's ACT that hands out $77000 per admitted patient in a hot spot. Soooo The hospitals CASHED IN.

 

[SweetSue92]

What makes people defend these failing vaccines at any rate?

Haven't we all taken medicine that sucked before? Didn't work, had bad side effects, etc? Go on any drug ratings website and see the people who are thrilled to tell you all about how bad the drugs SUCKED.

Yet here are all these yahoos, watching cases, hospitalizations and deaths explode even in highly vaxxed areas--STILL DEFENDING THEM.

Why? Do they work for Pfizer? It's just stupid