Are we actually "vaccinated?

AProudLefty said:
What response? All I asked was if you think the ENTIRE media and the Establishment have been lying to us. If you think that, how do you even know what the truth is?
Click to expand...

obtuse
ob·tuse | \ äb-ˈtüs , əb-, -ˈtyüs \
obtuser; obtusest
1 formal : stupid or unintelligent : not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple
He is too obtuse to take a hint.
an incredibly obtuse person

boor
noun
\ ˈbu̇r \
1: PEASANT
2: a rude or insensitive person
 
Truth Detector said:
Wrong. The polio vaccine has eliminated polio in nations where vaccinations are common.
Click to expand...
Nope. Polio still exists. Indeed, I used to work with a guy that contracted poliio FROM THE VACCINE. He lost the use of both of his legs. He went out and started 2 successful businesses despite that. Sure didn't slow him down much!

The polio vaccine has been very successful. No known cases have occurred in the United States since 1993. Vaccination for polio began in 1963, some 16 years earlier. Polio still exists in other nations, particularly in Asia and Africa.

Truth Detector said:
Tuberculosis vaccines have eliminated tuberculosis as a human disease.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a tuberculosis vaccine. Tuberculosis is a bacteriological infection, easily treated with antibiotics now, so long as you get it early. Yes, tuberculosis also still exists in the United States. In 2020 (the latest figures correlated), 7,174 cases of tuberculosis were diagnosed. Some 1.5 million people get it every year.
Truth Detector said:
Next false argument?
Click to expand...
That depends on which one you decide to make, if you make one.
 
AProudLefty said:
You asked if people are really vaccinated. I quipped that they certainly are being injected with SOMETHING. If it isn't a real vaccine or it doesn't work, it would be the biggest story in a century. Worse if it's filled with something nefarious.
Click to expand...

it is behaving more like a flu shot. wont necessarily stop it but (supposedly) makes the symptoms less severe.
 
AProudLefty said:
All it takes is one dr. to analyze the shot,

Did anybody ever do that? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

disagree.

what may be the kicker is the naming associated with the annual flu treatment normally called "shot".

I do not believe its intended to behave as a vaccination. Its a mild infection intended to cue your immune system to grow it's own defense against the flu(s) projected to be rolling around this year (which they usually get wrong which is why flu shots are no better than 60% effective).

Vaccinations are different (as I understand it (but I am not an MD). They are intended to block the cootie as was seen with polio, measles etc. I suspect that the china cootie treatment is not, strictly speaking a vaccination neither is it a flu shot targeting the china cootie but something different. That would explain it's hit and miss track record (based on the human testing having been done on the public at large as opposed to scientifically).

Once again I think that if "science" had been more honest from the start expectations would have been better managed.

Now they likely had little choice as the stakes were driven wildly up by politics.

Moral of the story: honesty is the best policy
 
Celticguy said:
disagree.

what may be the kicker is the naming associated with the annual flu treatment normally called "shot".

I do not believe its intended to behave as a vaccination. Its a mild infection intended to cue your immune system to grow it's own defense against the flu(s) projected to be rolling around this year (which they usually get wrong which is why flu shots are no better than 60% effective).

Vaccinations are different (as I understand it (but I am not an MD). They are intended to block the cootie as was seen with polio, measles etc. I suspect that the china cootie treatment is not, strictly speaking a vaccination neither is it a flu shot targeting the china cootie but something different. That would explain it's hit and miss track record (based on the human testing having been done on the public at large as opposed to scientifically).

Once again I think that if "science" had been more honest from the start expectations would have been better managed.

Now they likely had little choice as the stakes were driven wildly up by politics.

Moral of the story: honesty is the best policy
Click to expand...

All is needed is an expert to analyze the shots. That's it. Nobody has ever done so.
 
Truth Detector said:
Remember when we got a flu SHOT? It wasn't called a vaccine because you can still catch the flu. Why doesn't that definition apply now? We aren't actually getting vaccinated, we are getting a shot.

vaccinate
[ vak-suh-neyt ]
verb (used with object), vac·ci·nat·ed, vac·ci·nat·ing.

to inoculate with the vaccine of cowpox so as to render the subject immune to smallpox.
to inoculate with the modified virus of any of various other diseases, as a preventive measure

I would argue, correctly, that these shots are not making us immune nor are they preventing the virus from infecting you. The term "vaccine" is a phony claim as is the many political policies intended to protect us from a relatively harmless virus. Particularly in the case of Omicron.

We are being gaslighted. It's time to wake up sheeple.
Click to expand...

Definition of vaccine
1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease...
Click to expand...
m-w.com

Dude- you've let yourself be flummoxed by the Brandon misinformation machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top