Homesteading Forum banner

21 - 40 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,221 Posts
I got $5 less in the bank after the deposit and payouts. Can you send me the five bucks?!?!
Everyone keeps asking if I'm back!!! Four showers today. I'm.giod to go. Heck some thought I was out for the week...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
Folks, this is evidence of vaccination working, and expecting a 100% efficacy rate would either be scientifically naive or the set up for a straw man argument.
Good point....Whooping cough (the P in the DPT vax given to kids) had a fairly high death rate prior to the vaccine...After the vaccine became routine, the rate of whooping cough went down some, but it's still fairly common-- but the the death rate is now very, very low....If you ever had one of those colds where the nagging cough lasted for 3 months, that was whooping cough.
Prove that it is a vaccine. A vaccine is the use of a biologic to induce a protective immune response in the recipient. Nothing says it has to be a whole virus, or that the biologic itself must serve as the antigen...This novel approach of using the RNA to produce the antigen in vivo is the future of vaccine development. It's how are bodies do things naturally after an infection takes hold, inducing a much more robust antibody response compared to the initial viral exposure.

Prove that it does not manipulate RNA to reproduce spike proteins....That's what it does. It DOES NOT affect the recipient's genetics.

Prove that it went through stringent testing - especially double-blind testing, with a significant number of test subjects. You obviously haven't researched this or you would not be claiming that it wasn't double blind tested on a statistically significant number of subjects & controls.

Since you have called BS, we expect that you have the data to back it up. Perhaps it is you who should be providing the data to back up your claims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,437 Posts
I just don't understand why so many of those who have taken the Fauci Ouchie feel the need to look down on those who opted not to take it. They made their decision, now let others make theirs. The CDC says they are in no danger and can go without a mask, so who are the Ouchie objectors a threat to? Maybe other people who opted out based on their own decisions but certainly not the Ouchie takers. Us non takers understand our risk and are okay with it. Mind your own business and leave us alone. It's called freedom to choose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
I just don't understand why so many of those who have taken the Fauci Ouchie feel the need to look down on those who opted not to take it. They made their decision, now let others make theirs. The CDC says they are in no danger and can go without a mask, so who are the Ouchie objectors a threat to? Maybe other people who opted out based on their own decisions but certainly not the Ouchie takers. Us non takers understand our risk and are okay with it. Mind your own business and leave us alone. It's called freedom to choose.
Good post....For the record-- I've refused to take it for political reasons (confident that my risks are minimal given the number of immunized + recovered is high and my lifestyle gives me little risk of exposure). My response above was to Pony's false "excuses" for not taking it....If someone wants to refuse it, the decision should not be based on false info.
 

·
Be powerful. No other option exists.
Joined
·
41,210 Posts
False excuses? Where, exactly?

In another thread there were justifications.

No excuses.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
False excuses? Where, exactly?

In another thread there were justifications.

No excuses.:)
Exactly here: "This isn't a vaccine, it's genetic modification of the recipient. Why would anyone willing submit to a "vaccine" that has little or not testing"

All three of those things are false.

I just don't see all these people looking down on people that don't want the vaccine. If anyone doesn't want it, they shouldn't take it. They also shouldn't spout utter nonsense as the reason they don't want to take it. It's simple enough to say "I don't want to get it". You don't have to justify why you don't want it. But if you do justify it, and the reasons you use are simply not true, then you just look stupid.
 

·
Be powerful. No other option exists.
Joined
·
41,210 Posts
The historical definition of vaccine doesn’t fit the rna injections.

I have addressed the lack of complete testing in another post, quoting the employee at the medical research facility where I participate in a real trial. (3 years)

The rna injection is designed to “teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.”

You don’t think that is genetic modification? Really? A gene fragment changes the behavior of the recipient’s cells.

People keep nagging those who choose not to take the injection, asking WHY, and then you say there is no need to justify that choice. Hmmmm. Obviously, some folks didn’t get your memo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I think you're confused. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. So, if you claim it isn't a vaccine, you need to prove it, same as those others claims made by the person I was responding to. Aside from that, if you can't look up the definition of vaccine yourself, that's on you. Same with the other nonsense.
Interestingly, almost nothing you said is true. It is a vaccine, it doesn't modify your genetic makeup, it did not go through "little or not testing"...

If you don't want the vaccine, don't get it, but at least base the decision on facts, not utter bull****.
Todd,
  • If a person believes that this "vaccine" is a good choice for themselves, then I welcome them to go get the jab.
  • If a person questions the comments I made in my original post, then I welcome them to research those comments and decide for themselves. Then decide accordingly regarding whether this "vaccine" is a good choice for themselves.
  • If a person choses to attack my original post via emotional and/or rude response (e.g. "...utter bull**** "), then this is a person who I don't need to discuss anything further with.

Very sad...... while these forums and topics should have a great deal of valuable information, they so often turn to vile interchanges that are the scourge of social media.

Oh, and this is the last thing I'll post on this topic. Respond if you like, call me whatever you want to, but know it'll fall on deaf ears, as I won't waste any more time coming back to this discussion topic.
 

·
Sock puppet reinstated
Joined
·
24,511 Posts
Historically vaccines teach our cells to trigger a response that fights off the virus. The Covid vaccine just does that without introducing any dead or live virus. Still a vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
The historical definition of vaccine doesn’t fit the rna injections.

I have addressed the lack of complete testing in another post, quoting the employee at the medical research facility where I participate in a real trial. (3 years)

The rna injection is designed to “teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.”

You don’t think that is genetic modification? Really? A gene fragment changes the behavior of the recipient’s cells.

People keep nagging those who choose not to take the injection, asking WHY, and then you say there is no need to justify that choice. Hmmmm. Obviously, some folks didn’t get your memo.
"Definition of vaccine

: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see ATTENUATED sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)"

You can say that b: was added later for just this situation, but if that is the case (and I don't know if it is), the historical definition is this ": a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease" and that is exactly what this vaccination does. You explained yourself why it is a vaccine right here: "The rna injection is designed to “teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.”

mRNA cannot change your DNA. So, yes, that is silly.

The trials went faster because trials are generally slow due to financial factors. With unlimited money, the same trials that are used for any other new med can be done in a shortened time frame, not by cutting corners.

Honestly all this information is readily available to anyone that wants to bother looking, and again, I don't care at all whether people get the vaccine or not. My only concern is people constantly putting out misinformation, not only about this, but about anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
The historical definition of vaccine doesn’t fit the rna injections.

I have addressed the lack of complete testing in another post, quoting the employee at the medical research facility where I participate in a real trial. (3 years)

The rna injection is designed to “teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.”

You don’t think that is genetic modification? Really? A gene fragment changes the behavior of the recipient’s cells.

People keep nagging those who choose not to take the injection, asking WHY, and then you say there is no need to justify that choice. Hmmmm. Obviously, some folks didn’t get your memo.
I think it comes down to how you want to define of genetic modification.

Just like with whole discussion of GMO plants. Had a doctor tell me the wheat was a GMO plant and it was bad for me. I told her if she knew of any field of wheat like that she better tell the gov because someone is in deep trouble.

Depending how you want to apply the word all plants have been "genetically modified" through selection and cross breeding. Though we have a new type of GMO plant that contained DNA from other things that is not even plant biased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
I think it comes down to how you want to define of genetic modification.

Just like with whole discussion of GMO plants. Had a doctor tell me the wheat was a GMO plant and it was bad for me. I told her if she knew of any field of wheat like that she better tell the gov because someone is in deep trouble.

Depending how you want to apply the word all plants have been "genetically modified" through selection and cross breeding. Though we have a new type of GMO plant that contained DNA from other things that is not even plant biased.
Genes are made up of DNA. DNA cannot be changed by the mRNA vaccine. Therefore, it isn't genetic modification.
 

·
Be powerful. No other option exists.
Joined
·
41,210 Posts
Lots of posts after the one that said people that don’t agree with you look stupid and the statement that no one needs to justify.

BTW. The online definition of vaccine changed during the current furor. I just wish I had taken a screen shot 14 months ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Lots of posts after the one that said people that don’t agree with you look stupid and the statement that no one needs to justify.

BTW. The online definition of vaccine changed during the current furor. I just wish I had taken a screen shot 14 months ago.
That's really what you got from what I wrote?

As I said in my post, that definition could have changed, but the first part that defines vaccine didn't.

Either way, everyone should do whatever they like with regards to this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,437 Posts
The potential medical crisis is over, at least for now. We forget that this was the reason for all the "protective measures".

Let people live as they want.
Just a few days ago Fauci and Sen. Paul got into an argument when Paul asked him if wearing his mask after being vaccinated was just theatrics and Fauci snapped back that it was not theatre. Yesterday on ABC the reporter asked him why he still wore a mask after being vaccinated and Fauci said "I didn't want it to appear I was giving mixed messages". Uh, getting in front of a camera and saying or doing something to make things appear a certain way is the very definition of theatre. So Rand Paul was 100% right and Fauci was lying as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,577 Posts
Just a few days ago Fauci and Sen. Paul got into an argument when Paul asked him if wearing his mask after being vaccinated was just theatrics and Fauci snapped back that it was not theatre. Yesterday on ABC the reporter asked him why he still wore a mask after being vaccinated and Fauci said "I didn't want it to appear I was giving mixed messages". Uh, getting in front of a camera and saying or doing something to make things appear a certain way is the very definition of theatre. So Rand Paul was 100% right and Fauci was lying as usual.
Should give him a golden globe then. At least someone will get one this year.
 
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
Top