Mandated vaccines or weekly testing for employers of 100+ people.......

[BehindBlueI's]

None of this is reassuring. Do you really think it bolsters your argument that the only time the technology was used in humans was in those whose prognosis was "gonna die anyway so why not"?

"First time" is not "only time". We're all going to die anyway and I'm sure you didn't read the abstracts to see how long patients lived, what side effects were observed, etc., but if you want to know what the side effects of the vaccine technology are years down the road, you've now got a place to start and do your own research. There are multiple human trials.

Do you want to do some research and then form a belief based on available information or do you want to have a belief and just assume all data fits it/ignore anything that doesn't? I'm not an expert by any stretch, I surely don't understand the underlying chemistry and biology...but you don't have to be an expert to understand the statistical outcomes and understand the correlations between these human trials and how the technology was so readily adapted into huge human trials once large amounts of resources were funneled into the arena.

With that, I'll bow out. People who want to learn have a place to start and have a more informed opinion regardless of what they decide. People who won't do that basic research aren't going to be convinced by anything or anyone because they've already made up their mind and it's easier to just be confident in a belief then challenge it.

 

[Tombs]

The underlying technology/science has been studied since the 1960s.

Experiments on mammals have been going on since at least 1990.

Experiments using the technology for vaccination on mammals has been going on since at least 1995. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7882341/

Use in humans as a cancer treatment has been happening since at least 2009. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19609242/

So for people who apparently have a brain capable of something beyond bumper sticker logic, could someone direct me to where in these articles that it shows long term testing data, or even the complete study?

If these are literally just abstracts, I'm going to have a laugh.

I usually run them past my buddy who has a degree in biochemistry.

Update, so I asked around, and you'd have to pay to read those papers. So what you linked you don't even understand, nor have you likely even read. You did the equivalent of posting the back of a book and citing that as your source for information only available inside of a book you haven't even read.

A friend did manage to find the full text elsewhere for me: https://pdfhost.io/v/DDFG8X6Fi_ConryMessenger_RNA1995
There, reliable host.
This is covering potential for immunization against tumors in mice. It makes no mention of long term side effects. I have no idea what you think you are proving.

 

[Lex Concord]

First and foremost: DON’T TAKE THE BAIT. I’m sure I heard it on here somewhere, that one shouldn’t take the bait. On’t-day ake-tay the-way ait-bay.

Any action taken that can be used to further spin their narrative will be used for months and miles. They are destroying themselves, let them do it. “Never interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake.”

Secondly - How many times must it be said that fighting for your rights doesn’t necessarily mean with a gun? There are many weapons with which to fight against oppression and tyranny: nullification, dissent, propaganda, activism, civil disobedience, striking, protesting, etc,.

Lets us not forget that during our founding, we had men fighting from the trees in what, at that time, was considered a “less than honorable” tactic. A hundred years ago, regular men and women opened up their homes and businesses in the dead of night creating speakeasies so as to fly their disdain in the face of the overbearing government who was destroying their livelihood. Sixty years ago, black men and women had to hold their ground at lunch counters as they were spit on, covered in food and received vile, racist threats just for having differently colored skin.

Sometimes, fighting for what is right means actually having to put some skin in the game, taking a chance and being an inspiration to those around you. For the first step, something as cheap and easy as a piece of paper is as minimal and effective as you can get. While we shouldn’t have to have this fight, we ARE, and nothing is going to change that. This is not just about covid, this is not just from the US government. We are all living through a momentous occasion in history that will be recognized in the history books, one way or another, by the victor.

There’s a reason that everyone has felt “off” for the last five years or more. It’s because our natural instincts have been targeted and that we are all being manipulated. We can all feel it. Things like this don’t occur by happenstance, there’s a reason and impetus behind it, and if we’re all being honest with ourselves, we know that something ain’t stirring the Kool-aid.

Individually, you can sit back and watch as this whole story unfolds, and in ten years wonder why you and your kids have to walk through a medical checkpoint just to go grocery shopping, or why you have to take a picture of yourself on your phone to prove your location when the government sends out its text alert to do so. (Both of which are already happening, by the way.) Or you can start standing up for yourself by getting your hands a little dirty. They don’t play by the rules; we shouldn’t be hamstrung by them. The folks who fought for their freedom before us sure didn’t.

 

[buckwacker]

"First time" is not "only time". We're all going to die anyway and I'm sure you didn't read the abstracts to see how long patients lived, what side effects were observed, etc., but if you want to know what the side effects of the vaccine technology are years down the road, you've now got a place to start and do your own research. There are multiple human trials.

Do you want to do some research and then form a belief based on available information or do you want to have a belief and just assume all data fits it/ignore anything that doesn't? I'm not an expert by any stretch, I surely don't understand the underlying chemistry and biology...but you don't have to be an expert to understand the statistical outcomes and understand the correlations between these human trials and how the technology was so readily adapted into huge human trials once large amounts of resources were funneled into the arena.

With that, I'll bow out. People who want to learn have a place to start and have a more informed opinion regardless of what they decide. People who won't do that basic research aren't going to be convinced by anything or anyone because they've already made up their mind and it's easier to just be confident in a belief then challenge it.

I did read the abstract, at least the last one as it was the only one germaine to the discussion we're having.

First, again, the subjects of the study are dying people, not healthy people with minute chances of dying from the illness we're trying to convince them to accept an unproven (long term effects) treatment for.

The abstract did not elaborate on long term effects as again, these are terminally ill patients. There is nothing in the abstract regarding the length of the study, unless I missed it. It states that there were no adverse effects beyond level II??, that the treatment was effective and safe. Surely you can understand what is considered effective and safe for a terminally ill patient is likely very different than that which would be considered so for healthy people and that the study of long term effects would be questionable in patients with terminal illnesses.

This was a study of a treatment for sick people, not of an inoculation for healthy people to keep them from getting sick. The criteria used to determine efficacy is different for those two cohorts, very different when the illness is terminal.

 

[Tombs]

I did read the abstract, at least the last one as it was the only one germaine to the discussion we're having.

First, again, the subjects of the study are dying people, not healthy people with minute chances of dying from the illness we're trying to convince them to accept an unproven (long term effects) treatment for.

The abstract did not elaborate on long term effects as again, these are terminally ill patients. There is nothing in the abstract regarding the length of the study, unless I missed it. It states that there were no adverse effects beyond level II??, that the treatment was effective and safe. Surely you can understand what is considered effective and safe for a terminally ill patient is likely very different than that which would be considered so for healthy people and that the study of long term effects would be questionable in patients with terminal illnesses.

This was a study of a treatment for sick people, not of an inoculation for healthy people to keep them from getting sick. The criteria used to determine efficacy is different for those two cohorts, very different when the illness is terminal.

I found the full study for the second link as well if you're interested.

untitled | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - untitled

pdfhost.io

I'm not really seeing anything describing any sort of long term study of the subjects involved, only short term very preliminary findings regarding the efficacy of the treatment. Except for one patient's bones basically dissolving. That doesn't really inspire confidence.

Let me boil it down to bumpersticker logic for behindblueis.
Study= "Our patients mostly died 10 months after treatment"
BehindBlueIs= "HAHA GOTCHA THIS STUDY PROVES THE VAX IS SAFE!"

 

[Route 45]

It was farmers, cobblers, smiths the first go round. They weren't professionals.

But they were vaccinated.

Just sayin'

 

[ditcherman]

But they were vaccinated.

Just sayin'

 

[Route 45]

View attachment 157741

Where did the article “George Washington and the First Mass Military Inoculation” go? - Ask a Librarian

www.loc.gov

 

[HoughMade]

What Biden should have done is have Facebook and YouTube start banning videos about how well the vaccines work. Apparently that's the key to getting certain people to put their faith and trust in a drug.

 

[Tombs]

What Biden should have done is have Facebook and YouTube start banning videos about how well the vaccines work. Apparently that's the key to getting certain people to put their faith and trust in a drug.

They'd need to ban all the studies too, they're sounding pretty bad to me if this is the best the vax pushers can come up with.

Can you imagine how bad the non-cherry picked studies must look?

 

[actaeon277]

Where did the article “George Washington and the First Mass Military Inoculation” go? - Ask a Librarian

www.loc.gov

As discussed before. ..
Military.

Are we going to make civilians live by military rule?
Hell, even the military don't live by the rules they had back then.

 

[Route 45]

As discussed before. ..
Military.

Are we going to make civilians live by military rule?
Hell, even the military don't live by the rules they had back then.

I didn't say anything about civilians. Was responding (in jest, mostly) to a comment about the OG freedom fighters, and commenting on the irony of them being vaccinated by Washington.

Don't read things that aren't there.

 

[actaeon277]

You must be new here.

Just trying to get my 50

 

[foszoe]

You must be new here.

Nah..Ingomike hacked his account

 

[wtburnette]

Getting back to the mandate discussion and not the vaccine discussion, I still see no compelling reason to get the jab. I've read a ton of articles, listened to rambling speeches given by the Bidiot, read stuff my employer IU Health has put out, watched a bazillion YouTube videos for and against and still come to the conclusion that there is no good reason for me to take it. I'm 54, healthy, not really overweight and am much more concerned about the possible side effects then I am about getting and surviving the WuFlu. Most of what the administration and MSM/Hollyweird put out are hyperbole and fear mongering. When I see the jab being pushed regardless of whether you already have natural immunity or not, I know the push is not about the virus. Plus I can see the statistics showing that the jabbed can get and pass the virus and I'm back to, WTF is the point to the jab? Yes, if I were over 70 and/or had multiple commodities I would have already taken it to ensure that I could get reduced symptoms. Since I don't fall into that demographic, I'm perfectly fine staying unjabbed and would appreciate the freedom to make that decision without someone trying to force this down my throat.

 

[04FXSTS]

I got the shots because I felt it was the better path for me. Not overweight, no other problems except kind of high blood pressure. Only other factor I will be 75 in November so whatever. Even though I got it I have all respect for any one that believes in not getting the shots. As far as a mandate that dottering old fool can shove that up his butt especially the way he is trying to do it by blackmail. Jim.

 

[buckwacker]

Getting back to the mandate discussion and not the vaccine discussion, I still see no compelling reason to get the jab. I've read a ton of articles, listened to rambling speeches given by the Bidiot, read stuff my employer IU Health has put out, watched a bazillion YouTube videos for and against and still come to the conclusion that there is no good reason for me to take it. I'm 54, healthy, not really overweight and am much more concerned about the possible side effects then I am about getting and surviving the WuFlu. Most of what the administration and MSM/Hollyweird put out are hyperbole and fear mongering. When I see the jab being pushed regardless of whether you already have natural immunity or not, I know the push is not about the virus. Plus I can see the statistics showing that the jabbed can get and pass the virus and I'm back to, WTF is the point to the jab? Yes, if I were over 70 and/or had multiple commodities I would have already taken it to ensure that I could get reduced symptoms. Since I don't fall into that demographic, I'm perfectly fine staying unjabbed and would appreciate the freedom to make that decision without someone trying to force this down my throat.

You work for IU health? Were you suspended for not getting jabbed? I thought I heard they were one of the first in Indiana to mandate it as a condition of employment and that several hundred employees had been suspended for noncompliance.

 

[rhamersley]

Getting back to the mandate discussion and not the vaccine discussion, I still see no compelling reason to get the jab. I've read a ton of articles, listened to rambling speeches given by the Bidiot, read stuff my employer IU Health has put out, watched a bazillion YouTube videos for and against and still come to the conclusion that there is no good reason for me to take it. I'm 54, healthy, not really overweight and am much more concerned about the possible side effects then I am about getting and surviving the WuFlu. Most of what the administration and MSM/Hollyweird put out are hyperbole and fear mongering. When I see the jab being pushed regardless of whether you already have natural immunity or not, I know the push is not about the virus. Plus I can see the statistics showing that the jabbed can get and pass the virus and I'm back to, WTF is the point to the jab? Yes, if I were over 70 and/or had multiple commodities I would have already taken it to ensure that I could get reduced symptoms. Since I don't fall into that demographic, I'm perfectly fine staying unjabbed and would appreciate the freedom to make that decision without someone trying to force this down my throat.

I’m right there with you, down to the exact age (might be a hair more overweight, but I’m working on it). With there being a history of heart problems in my family, along with the fact that my wife and I both think we had it in December 2019, I really think my chances are pretty good as I stand. Both of us really just want to be left alone…

 

[Leadeye]

Watching some of these speeches, not sure of the sequence, but the facial expression, content, and delivery of the one in front of the picture is angry and inflammatory. Brow furrowed and lowered, punching gestures with the hands, and general aggressive tone, it's written and rehearsed to provoke a response.

Demonizing the unvaccinated and trying to beat them into submission isn't a good idea, so I'm wondering which bag of money adviser wrote this one. Sounds like they are frustrated, and looking for somebody to unload on.

 

[Mongo59]

Let me start by saying I have read ALL the posts for the last few days. (I think I am due some kind of award)

Wow, what a rabbit hole.

Who remembers Afghanistan? This crap must be working.

My addition is on the topic of social distancing: The fart is the international sign for 'back the hell up' and does not require you to carry anything on you other than possibly a Taco Bell party pack. A shirt that says, "If you can breath my jet wash you are too close" would also be needed for those who are effected by the original beer flu. Just saying...