Thank you for proving my point.
31 Reasons To Reject The Jab
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Everything you said is literally backwards. Death by covid was removed to death with covid to scare people. This is who really got sick. The jab largely does not factor in. Although my guess is people who choose this unhealthy life are "vaccinated". They still wear a cloth face covering Walmart.
SwordOfTruth
Active member
Unfortunately you are (deliberately?) omitting to factor in the levels of harm any given vaccine or other medical treatment causes. So if you vax your 71,000,000 million people how many 1000s are you harming and / or killing? Unless you know with any level of rigour those numbers, you can't make an informed decision on the merits of the vaccine or treatment. Your "good day at the office" could well be a terrible day if you've inadvertently caused immense harm among the vaxxed population. In addition to this we might also consider what alternatives there are to the vaccines in preventing a given pathogen. For example simply giving people good doses of Vit D3 and possible vit K2 along with it you might be able to prevent a high number of flu cases with far less adverse side effects along the way and as this boosts and supports the immune system you'd also be preventing numerous other pathgens from manifesting into serious conditions.
The question of "high risk" or otherwise "vulnerable" or "immune compromised" people is an interesting one however simple human morals surely dictate that it is inherently wrong for us to protect such people in those categories if at the same time we are harming other people who are not in those categories. Protecting one person whilst harming another is a patently stupid philosophy and approach. Equally, when we think of the utterly appalling and catastrophic approach of lockdowns that was taken during the pandemic, it's plainly clear that you should isolate the vulnerable, not those that are healthy and have good immune systems. This has been the medical tradition for eons. You isolate the sick people, not the healthy people.
In respect of the flu vaccines we have been discussing, the vaccines do not provide benefit for very long for otherwise people would not need repeated jabs. In fact the protective benefits of the traditional flu shots last but a few weeks as stated here:
The above chart shows that the effectiveness of the shots are low from the outset and drop to nothing in short measure. We have to also consider that the choice of what specific strains the manufacturers choose to cover in their trivalent and quadrivalent shots are decided very early on (to allow time for vaccine manufacture and distribution ready for the "flu season") and it's educated guess work they have to do which is often wide of the mark. So for any of these shots to be effective you first have to hope that the "scientists" have predicted the correct strains of flu that are likely to be prevalent that specific season and then as per the above, the effectiveness of the shot will wane pretty quickly anyway.
There's also another factor here which always amazes me why no-one ever highlights it which is this. If you deliberately make your body and immune system expend vital resources and do significant "work" by subjecting it to some form of inactivated or otherwise doctored virus/pathogen (as in a flu shot) then AT THAT SPECIFIC point your system is more vulnerable than it otherwise would be. i.e Your body is already fighting a pathogen and expending resources which is what the vaccine is designed to do, to stimulate that response. In that period you're going to be more vulnerable to any pathogen that is circulating. The same would be true of any illness. If you are already suffering from say Shingles or a Winter vomiting tummy bug then your body is already weak, expending many resources to try and heal itself, and thus during that period it is far more vulnerable to something like Flu coming along on top of those ailments. Hence all those people who take the Flu shots are for a short while, likely more vulnerable than otherwise. That period might be 1 week, maybe 2 weeks. People often testify that they feel "off" after jabs and thats clearly because their bodies have been forced to undertake work and use resources by the vaccine stimulating that response. That makes the vaxxed comminity more susceptible to pathogens during that 1-2 week period and that in turn means they may well catch and spread more bugs/germs/ viruses to others around them. In fact I would go so far as to say that vaxxed people should have to isolate for at least 1 week after having the shots to protect the wider community.
This is iterated further by a PNAS study which found that:
"In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons."
Worth just letting that sink in. It's saying that vaxxed people are 6 times more likely to shed virus than unvaccinated people !!! So the vaxxed community should really be made to isolate if we want to protect wider society.
You are conflating issues with this statement which is wrong to do. A perfectly healthy care worker is of no risk to an immunocompromised patient. They can't pass flu onto such patients if they don't have flu themselves. Whether they are vaccinated against flu is of no consequence whatsoever because being vaccinated does not guarantee that the vaccine recipient can't get flu. In fact as we have seen and discussed, you have to vaccinate 71 people to prevent one case of flu, so what you are horribly suggesting is that it's ok for the 70 vaccinees who got little to no benefit from the shots to be caring for immunoesuppressed patients !! Let's say it again The vaccine status of the health worker is a complete red herring and indeed a horribly dangerous status to determine the safety of immunosuppressed patients by. What matters 100% is that the healthworker DOES NOT HAVE FLU or any other given pathogen such as Covid. In this respect then the "status" that is needed is one that tells us that the healthworker does not have Flu or Covid and that therefore is determined by a RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC TEST of some kind. Unfortunately during the pandemic we did not have a reliable test to determine who had Covid and who did not. The PCR tests many of us took were horribly flawed and oftem inaccurate. We need proper tests that are 99.9% reliable. Those tests are what should be used to determine whether a given healthworker should go anywhere near an immunocompromised person. Their vaccination status is meaningless in this respect.
We saw during the pandemic that the Covid shots in no ways prevents people from getting Covid nor prevents them from transmitting Covid to others (which wasn't even tested as part of the Moderna vaccine trial). At best the vaccines lessen the severity of Covid for the vaccinee. In th eUK the Governments own weekly Vaccine Surveillance Reports showed very clearly that the hospitals were full of vaccinated people. They showed that the vaccinated people were the lion's share of Covid Cases, Hospitalisations and Deaths during the periods I tracked them. I still have copies of those reports somewhere.
It's patently not ok for therefore for a vaccinated healthworker that HAS Covid or indeed Flu to be looking after immunocompromised patients That much should be obvious. So let's completely debunk this notion that healthworkers need to be vaccinated for everything. It's irrelevant and the attempts by the medical industries and governments of some countries to force healthworkers to take shots or lose their jobs was utterly wicked and wrong on all levels. We should have learned the truth of this from the previous Swine Flu "pandemic) of 2009/2010 where numerous healthcare staff we heavily bullied and cajoled into taking the Pandemrix vaccine which was later withdrawn from use in the EU due to it being dangerous and causing cases of Narcolespy and other side effects. Brain damaged victims got some compensation, the manufacturers GSK acknowledged the problem and the EU withdrew the vaccine. See here:
Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
Children who reacted badly to vaccine now suffer from debilitating sleep disorder narcolepsy.
www.ibtimes.co.uk
"It was subsequently revealed that the vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause narcolepsy and cataplexy in about one in 16,000 people, and many more are expected to come forward with the symptoms.
Across Europe, more than 800 children are so far known to have been made ill by the vaccine."
"The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, and some patients and their families have already been awarded compensation. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has acknowledged the link, and some patients and their families have already been awarded compensation"
"Pandemrix has now been withdrawn from use in the European Union"
This brings us neatly back to your "not a bad day at the office" statement. If you vaccinated 71,000,000 people and 1 or more in 16,000 of those got narcolepsy or cataplexy as a result then that's about 4,500 people. How is that a "good day at the office"? In the end it's all a game of numbers and the true numbers in terms of harms generated are more and more difficult to come by as many cases of serious adverse reactions are not investigated or cataloged or just ignored. This is why vaccination should NEVER be mandated by governments. It's a personal risk assessment to be made by every individual based on their personal circumstances, needs and health status.
But at what cost to the rest of the cells in the human body and to the immune system? Can you quantify that so I could make an informed decision?
You could consider Grapefruit Seed Extract instead. Natural and very effective against yeast infections, Candida and the like I believe.
Last edited:
Iconoblast
New member
Goodness, you have time on your hands! It’ll take me all day to digest that. Are you interested in my response, or just grandstanding? For the second time, I’m not trying to deceive anyone. Why would I care if you got vaccinated? do what’s right for you. I took the Pfizer then the Moderna bivalent. On the advice of my doctor, nothing since. (I did take a flu shot last week.)
Placebo and intent to treat cause side effects when addressed by the scientific method, so of course vaccines inevitably will. Probably a lot more. I already conceded that multiple times. It should be assumed, not argued, by all, if there’s any intellectual foundation here.
Placebo and intent to treat cause side effects when addressed by the scientific method, so of course vaccines inevitably will. Probably a lot more. I already conceded that multiple times. It should be assumed, not argued, by all, if there’s any intellectual foundation here.
SwordOfTruth
Active member
Takes very little time in truth because I have all the data, all the studies, research at my fingertips from having studied it all over the years. I guess that's little different from many of the Open Theists here who have all the Bible quotes for just about any argument already at their fingertips.
Very happy for you to respond and no I'm not at all grandstanding, I'm just thorough in my approach and I think it's important that the information is out there so people can make informed decisions.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Trust the science! The science wouldn't lie to you! The science wouldn't hide facts from you!
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Finally Released: Confirms 'High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death' | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Drabik
As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, a COVID-19 vaccination study is back in the news.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Are there studies that demonstrate that the covid shots were effective in most people and therefore saved more lives that it took?Trust the science! The science wouldn't lie to you! The science wouldn't hide facts from you!
View attachment 13218Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Finally Released: Confirms 'High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death' | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Drabik
As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, a COVID-19 vaccination study is back in the news.
Answer: Yes!
An Imperial College London study estimated that COVID-19 vaccines prevented nearly 20 million deaths worldwide in 2021 alone. These figures accounted for both direct prevention of severe disease and reduced transmission. Researchers also noted that equitable distribution could have saved an additional 600,000 lives【7】【8】
A National Institutes of Health-supported analysis found that vaccines prevented approximately 140,000 deaths in the United States by May 2021. This was based on modeling vaccine uptake rates across states during the early months of availability【9】
Another report from the USC Schaeffer Center highlighted that vaccines saved 2.4 million lives across 141 countries in 2021, further emphasizing the significant health and economic benefits of vaccination【7】
[7]: A USC Schaeffer Center report detailing the global impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, including lives saved and the benefits of equitable vaccine distribution.
[8]: A study from Imperial College London estimating that vaccines prevented nearly 20 million deaths worldwide in 2021 and emphasizing the role of equitable vaccine distribution in saving even more lives.
[9] refers to a study supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that analyzed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in the U.S. It found that vaccines prevented approximately 140,000 deaths by May 2021. This conclusion was drawn from modeling state-level vaccination rates and their effects on COVID-19 death rates during the early rollout period.
Last edited:
SwordOfTruth
Active member
Oh dear . . . . but then lots of scientists warned this would happen
dailysceptic.org
DNA Contamination of mRNA Vaccines Can Integrate into Human DNA, Top Molecular Scientist Confirms – The Daily Sceptic
The DNA contamination found in mRNA vaccines can integrate into the genome of normal human cells, a top molecular scientist has confirmed with an experiment in his lab.
VladtheDestroyer
Member
Oh no, I took the Johnson & and Johnson vax. Does that mean I am contaminated now? Or was the J&J one safe?Oh dear . . . . but then lots of scientists warned this would happen
DNA Contamination of mRNA Vaccines Can Integrate into Human DNA, Top Molecular Scientist Confirms – The Daily Sceptic
The DNA contamination found in mRNA vaccines can integrate into the genome of normal human cells, a top molecular scientist has confirmed with an experiment in his lab.
VladtheDestroyer
Member
I didn't want to take it but I am poor and I could not risk losing my job. What lousy luck. 
SwordOfTruth
Active member
I didn't want to take it but I am poor and I could not risk losing my job. What lousy luck.
So you were happy to risk your life for your job? Seems a strange style of priorities.
There's always a choice.
VladtheDestroyer
Member
I am happy to gamble little bits and pieces of my health and life away, if it helps me to not turn to a life of crime and grieving my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Sometimes my Christian brothers and mothers whom I have never even met before are put in jail for just for defending innocent lives of the unborn. And sometimes not.
We win some and we lose some. The risks we take is what makes us laugh and gives us our great sense of humor. But in the end we know we all will win. That's is what keeps us strong.
SwordOfTruth
Active member
J&J’s COVID vaccine is dead in the US; FDA revokes authorization
The withdrawal leaves the two mRNA vaccines and the Novavax protein subunit vaccine.
arstechnica.com
"The beginning of the end for the once-promising single-dose vaccine came just weeks after its FDA authorization on February 27, 2021. On March 13, 2021, the FDA and CDC paused the use of the J&J vaccine out of concern for an extremely rare clotting disorder, which was first noticed with a similar vaccine made by AstraZeneca. Both vaccines used an adenovirus vector-based design, though the AstraZeneca vaccine was never authorized for use in the US. The pause on J&J's vaccine lasted just 11 days, but the damage was done, and demand for the vaccine tumbled, never to recover."
"Meanwhile, US production of the vaccine was mired by the scandal surrounding Emergent BioSolutions, a government contractor that ruined tens of millions of J&J COVID-19 vaccine doses due to quality-control problems and contamination. Despite raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from government contracts, Emergent had a history of manufacturing violations."
The Link Between J&J’s COVID Vaccine and Blood Clots: What You Need to Know
Concern over a small, but growing number of cases of a rare, but serious blood clotting disorder associated with the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine prompted the CDC to recommend making the two mRNA vaccines a clinical priority.
www.yalemedicine.org
TTS symptoms to look for
While the risk for a rare blood clot is low, anyone who still gets the Johnson & Johnson vaccine should know about early symptoms of the disorder. The CDC recommends seeking immediate medical care if you develop any of the following symptoms after getting the shot, especially if you are a woman aged 50 or younger:- Severe or persistent headaches or blurred vision
- Shortness of breath
- Chest pain
- Leg swelling
- Persistent abdominal pain
- Easy bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin beyond the injection site
SwordOfTruth
Active member
If you believe this then why take any vaccine at all? Why not just put your faith in your chosen deity?
VladtheDestroyer
Member
Why does anybody do anything?
The likelihood of your being "contaminated" if very nearly zero and fools like SoT have no idea what the Christian faith is about nor can he think past the end of his nose far enough to remember that at the time, it looked like getting Covid was the riskier choice to make. Indeed, at the time, it was the riskier move to make, by far!I didn't want to take it but I am poor and I could not risk losing my job. What lousy luck.
SwordOfTruth
Active member
False
It only "looked like" Covid was risky in the mainstream media outputs on TV, radio and elsewhere and that was the direct result of a concerted and rather disgusting scaremongering campaign that was waged against the public. The truth, the facts, were to be found really very simply by just downloading a copy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trial papers which any member of the public could do at the time. Those papers detailed the numbers of people in the vaccine and placebo groups and also detailed how many of those people got Covid in each group and so on. Those papers informed us very simply that the chances of getting Covid were extremely tiny in the first place and that being vaccinated made about 0.5% or less difference to those chances. From that it was extremely easy to decide for me personally that there was absolutely nothing to gain from being vaxxed whilst there were tangible downsides in the form of side effects ranging from mild to very serious, to life changing.
Thus the media straplines and scaremongering were baseless nonsense designed just to steer gullible people into taking an incompletely tested new medical treatment founded in gene therapy, marketed as a "vaccine". Worse still, many of the the doctors and others administering the jabs didn't simultaneously warn people of the long list of possible side effects, nor that the vaccine trials were still on-going for at least 2 years and consequently those gullible people could not have given informed consent which is required by law.
I'd be happy to put up a link to the vaccine trial papers for people to download if they wish and to set out the numbers which demonstrate how useless the jabs were, however, since this isn't a forum that tends to dwell on hard facts but rather prefers to dwell on personal beliefs and tends to operate as an echo chamber I doubt there's much point in doing so.
This entire thing is a lie. I'd ban you for it, if I had the authority to do so.
I can't comprehend what you're game is or what you're even doing here. Why don't you post that link right next to the link you've no doubt got that proves that lead can be transmuted into gold with the sorcerer's stone that you claim Jesus was walking around with. I'm sure it'll have just as much validity.
SwordOfTruth
Active member
Saying it's a lie doesn't make it so, just makes you opinionated. Suggesting you'd ban someone for not adhering to your opinion identifies you as an Authoritarian.
What part of what I posted is a lie? It seems we need to post up the facts for all to see.
Here's the vaccine trial paper for the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine
Let's do the numbers. The results section states the following:
"A total of 43,448 participants received injections: 21,720 received BNT162b2 and 21,728 received placebo"
Good so far, about equal numbers of people in each group.
Now let's see how many of those people got Covid-19 in each group, this is stated in the Efficacy section thus:
"8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients.
So the vaccine group only experienced 8 cases of Covid-19
The placebo group experienced 162 cases of Covid-19
So let's do the math
Placebo group was 21,728 people and in that group there were just 162 cases of Covid-19.
That means their instance or chances of getting Covid-19 were 162/21728 * 100 = 0.75%
So just to be clear, for those that were UNVACCINATED their chances of getting Covid-19 at all were just 0.75%
This is the basline.
Now let's look at the vaccinated group.
Vaccine group was 21,720 people and in that group there were 8 cases of Covid-19
That means their instance or chances of getting Covid-19 were 8/21720 * 100 = 0.37%
Both the above percentages are incredibly small, less than 1%
but look at the difference between the two.
The difference is 0.75% - 0.37% = 0.38%
So the people being VACCINATED gained just 0.38% advantage over the UNVACCINATED in terms of efficacy against Covid-19.
That really is very small indeed. And that tiny difference has to be weighed up against the likelihood or frequency of an adverse reaction occurring and a serious adverse reaction occurring and a very serious adverse reaction occuring. It also has to be weighed up against the fact that at the time, the vaccine trials HAD NOT included testing of various things and also that the trials safety testing would be on-going for a further 2 years as stated here:
"Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of vaccine."
and here
"Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, given the high vaccine efficacy, ethical and practical barriers prevent following placebo recipients for 2 years without offering active immunization, once the vaccine is approved by regulators and recommended by public health authorities."
Exclusions from the testing included:
- "safety results for participants infected with HIV (196 patients) will be analyzed separately and are not included here".
- "These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection;"
- "This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women."
- "Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently, and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk groups, such as immunocompromised persons."
The above is quite revealing when you consider the concerted mainstream media campaign that the public endured which told us that vaccination prevented transmission of the virus to others. Remember the manipulative straplines like "Don't kill Granny" and the like. In fact as the vaccine trial paper very clearly states above the trial did not test whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection. So the so-called "science" was anything but.
The vaccine trial paper also states that:
"Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia). Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo"
In consideration of my own health and well-being I personally don't pay much heed to whether "the investigators" considered the deaths to be related to the vaccine or placebos.
I simply ask myself whether taking an un-fully-tested medical treatment that is founded in Gene Therapy, whose trial and safety assessment was on-going for another 2 years, which did not prevent transmission of the virus and which came with some level of risk of very serious adverse reactions, was worth the personal risk, in order to simply give me a tiny 0.38% advantage of not getting Covid-19 over an unvaccinated person.
My answer was no bloody way !
I have never regretted that decision and in the 3-4 year aftermath we have seen with Excess Deaths spiralling all over the world since the vaccine roll-outs I am convinced it was the right decision for me personally.
One can also do exactly the same analysis of the Moderna Vaccine Trial whose paper is here (on the internet archive Wayback Machine):
Clinical Trial Data | Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (EUA)
Read clinical trial results, and patient demographics and safety summary. See EUA Important Safety Information.
The math is very similar here.
"28,207 participants who received two doses (at 0 and 1 month) of either Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine (n=14,134) or placebo (n=14,073)"
"There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group"
So for placebo group the chances of getting Covid-19 were 185/14073 * 100 = 1.31%
The vaccinated group the chances of getting Covid-19 were 11/14134 * 100 = 0.78%
The difference then of being vaccinated was just 0.53%
As can be seen, how these medical treatments are presented is absolutely key. The reason why the manufacturers and media claimed 94% efficacy for these products lies in the crucial distinction between "Absolute difference" and "Relative difference" and the public should absolutely have been informed of BOTH those factors, which they clearly were not at the time. Again, hence informed consent could not have been given.
This is why many have called for another Numerberg Trial.