Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[brickhistory]

28 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Even one is too many, eh?

Hell of a way to make decisions about risk.

You do you. (sts)

I'll do me. (err, yesssss)

Don't try to do me and I won't try to do you.  I don't expect and won't tolerate the gub'mint trying to do me.

[VMFA187]

30 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Pawnman you’re the last person who needs to be lecturing based upon “risk”

Hahaha. Amazing. 

[pawnman]

12 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Pawnman you’re the last person who needs to be lecturing based upon “risk”

As opposed to people willing to risk a 99% survival rate but not a 99.9999% rate of no adverse effects?

[VMFA187]

Just now, pawnman said:

As opposed to people willing to risk a 99% survival rate but not a 99.9999% rate of no adverse effects?

There are potentially significant effects that we may not know about for years because how rapidly the vaccine was approved. Several steps were skipped during the process - Effects on cancer, potential for birth defects, etc...

And the survival rate for a healthy person is far above a flat 99%. 

How can you trust the people who have been making these decisions when there is zero transparency, they have no accountability, they have downright lied and changed their stance on multiple issues several times, and they don't want to release data for something like 60 years?

I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona if you're looking...

[war007afa]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-sees-44-increase-in-child-deaths-after-jab-rollout-for-young-teens-data-shows/

it’s unbelievable to me that anyone would vaccinate their children given the uncertainty surrounding safety.  

This article is terrible, to be honest.
 

The deaths are all presented in percentages (yet the numbers are all small, so going from 4 to 10 represents 150%).
 

Neither the article nor the data point to the causes of death having to do with the vaccine or COVID. In fact, they almost explicitly omit any mention as to the causes, other than to correlate the timing of the offering of child vaccines.

“Though there is a pattern of increased deaths since the shots began being used in children, the causes of the deaths were not published.”

I am willing to wager the increases in deaths are sadly related to the isolations. We fly medevac sorties frequently in Europe, and there is a marked increase in pediatric suicide attempts or ideations. Scary stuff. 

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, war007afa said:

This article is terrible, to be honest.

I concur. That being said, it's about the same as saying "The vaccine is safe and effective."

 

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, war007afa said:

This article is terrible, to be honest.
 

The deaths are all presented in percentages (yet the numbers are all small, so going from 4 to 10 represents 150%).
 

Neither the article nor the data point to the causes of death having to do with the vaccine or COVID. In fact, they almost explicitly omit any mention as to the causes, other than to correlate the timing of the offering of child vaccines.

“Though there is a pattern of increased deaths since the shots began being used in children, the causes of the deaths were not published.”

I am willing to wager the increases in deaths are sadly related to the isolations. We fly medevac sorties frequently in Europe, and there is a marked increase in pediatric suicide attempts or ideations. Scary stuff. 

“This article is terrible” is true if you were looking for a well researched scientific study. However if you are merely documenting a fact that is not widely documented elsewhere, then the article is helpful because it adds information to our evolving understanding of the situation we’re in.  
 

There could be many reasons the cause of deaths has increased, and I’m glad the article did not speculate. Vaccines or isolation, I don’t know. But since children are not at massive risk of contracting and dying from this disease, why are we even taking a risk with them?  

You are “willing to wager,” but I’m not.  I’m unwilling to have my children receive a vaccine that could harm them without proof the situation demands that risk.  As it is, our society is being too aggressive with the vaccination campaign. I am also uncomfortable that the entire media and government conglomerate seems to be pounding the same message and preventing debate: the vaccines are safe and effective. But there’s enough information to have me question if that is true always for all people under all circumstances. The blanket nature of these pronouncements and policies gives me a lot of pause because there are people with unique situations. Covid is not smallpox or the plague, and we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease. This article merely adds an avenue to further that discussion.

 

[glockenspiel]

8 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

As it is, our society is being too aggressive with the vaccination campaign.

Exhibit A: https://www.mn.gov/covid19/vaccine/vaccine-rewards/kids-deserve-a-shot/index.jsp

From my neck o the woods, a state website that is literally paying your child to get a drug, and up until about a week ago they were giving out 200$ gift cards for every 12-17 year old that got vaccinated. This is coercion, preying upon children.
 

If any rational parent saw this in 2015, I bet 99% of them would have been like “WTF, if the drug is so good why are they paying my child to take it? Shouldn’t it’s medicinal benefits be enough? This seems too good to be true. It probably is too good to be true”. Now a lot of parents are like all on board with state “carrot and stick” medical procedures targeting their own children. My mind is blown. Honestly people have lost their marble sack. How do you undo this madness?

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

“This article is terrible” is true if you were looking for a well researched scientific study. However if you are merely documenting a fact that is not widely documented elsewhere, then the article is helpful because it adds information to our evolving understanding of the situation we’re in.  
 

There could be many reasons the cause of deaths has increased, and I’m glad the article did not speculate. Vaccines or isolation, I don’t know. But since children are not at massive risk of contracting and dying from this disease, why are we even taking a risk with them?  

You are “willing to wager,” but I’m not.  I’m unwilling to have my children receive a vaccine that could harm them without proof the situation demands that risk.  As it is, our society is being too aggressive with the vaccination campaign. I am also uncomfortable that the entire media and government conglomerate seems to be pounding the same message and preventing debate: the vaccines are safe and effective. But there’s enough information to have me question if that is true always for all people under all circumstances. The blanket nature of these pronouncements and policies gives me a lot of pause because there are people with unique situations. Covid is not smallpox or the plague, and we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease. This article merely adds an avenue to further that discussion.

 

Are you also unwilling to put them in your car? Because they're more likely to get injured or killed in an accident than by the vaccines.

[Smokin]

But that's a choice I get to make on the risk/reward.  I know the risks of car crashes as they are well established and generally not altered to fit some political objective.  My kids wear a seat belt or sit in a car seat because the risk of a car crash, while minimal, has a realistic chance of death.  The cost/risk of wearing a seat belt is hearing them complain about it.  The cost/risk of my kids getting the vaccine are not established.  Could be nothing, could be a lethal blood clot; no one can really say for sure because they won't release the "science".  The risks of serious consequences due to COVID for my healthy kids are basically zero, so why take any risk at all to avoid what is essentially no risk?

If we were facing an Ebola outbreak with a 90% mortality, my kids would get the shot.  Instead, we're facing a virus that I personally know multiple people that were sick and never realized it (based on positive anti-body tests).

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Are you also unwilling to put them in your car? Because they're more likely to get injured or killed in an accident than by the vaccines.

And even less likely to be killed or injured by COVID.  

[pawnman]

9 hours ago, Smokin said:

But that's a choice I get to make on the risk/reward.  I know the risks of car crashes as they are well established and generally not altered to fit some political objective.  My kids wear a seat belt or sit in a car seat because the risk of a car crash, while minimal, has a realistic chance of death.  The cost/risk of wearing a seat belt is hearing them complain about it.  The cost/risk of my kids getting the vaccine are not established.  Could be nothing, could be a lethal blood clot; no one can really say for sure because they won't release the "science".  The risks of serious consequences due to COVID for my healthy kids are basically zero, so why take any risk at all to avoid what is essentially no risk?

If we were facing an Ebola outbreak with a 90% mortality, my kids would get the shot.  Instead, we're facing a virus that I personally know multiple people that were sick and never realized it (based on positive anti-body tests).

So basically, you're fine with poor risk decisions about your kids as long as you get to make them. 

No wonder this pandemic is drawing out so long. 

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, HU&W said:

And even less likely to be killed or injured by COVID.  

Than the vaccines? Not by a long shot. 

[Smokin]

So basically, you think you know what is best for my kids and anything that doesn't agree with your opinion is "poor risk decisions". 

No wonder this country is on the path it is on.

[tac airlifter]

10 hours ago, pawnman said:

Are you also unwilling to put them in your car? Because they're more likely to get injured or killed in an accident than by the vaccines.

Actually I do a lot of things with my son more risky than driving: shooting, weight lifting, ocean swimming. I do those things on purpose because I am raising him to be an eagle, not a chicken.  And I am with him and able to mitigate the risk while I teach him.  
 

Said another way, I take calculated and controlled risks when required in order to achieve desired benefits.  I do not play Russian roulette. I do not take risk for its own sake.  I understand your viewpoint from a mathematical perspective, but from a leadership perspective unnecessary risk is extremely irresponsible.

There’s enough information in the public domain for me to conclude that mandatory vaccination of all children is child abuse.

[pawnman]

59 minutes ago, Smokin said:

So basically, you think you know what is best for my kids and anything that doesn't agree with your opinion is "poor risk decisions". 

No wonder this country is on the path it is on.

Did you balk at any of the other vaccines your kids required before you sent them to school? 

Did you do a deep-dive on the VAERS data for MMR before taking them to the pediatrician? 

You guys are taking a political stand and trying to disguise it as concern for your health.

[pawnman]

32 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Actually I do a lot of things with my son more risky than driving: shooting, weight lifting, ocean swimming. I do those things on purpose because I am raising him to be an eagle, not a chicken.  And I am with him and able to mitigate the risk while I teach him.  
 

Said another way, I take calculated and controlled risks when required in order to achieve desired benefits.  I do not play Russian roulette. I do not take risk for its own sake.  I understand your viewpoint from a mathematical perspective, but from a leadership perspective unnecessary risk is extremely irresponsible.

There’s enough information in the public domain for me to conclude that mandatory vaccination of all children is child abuse.

Do you feel that way about all vaccines...or just one specific one?

[M2]

[M2]

[tac airlifter]

5 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Do you feel that way about all vaccines...or just one specific one?

This one.  The rest of their vaccines are real vaccines, against genuinely threatening issues, with significantly more research and no political taint.  We even elected to have my daughter receive the HPV vaccine which is questionable for some, but it was our choice and it met my risk reward threshold.  

given all that, consider how disingenuous it is to label me an anti-VAXXER if I don’t unquestioningly comply with mandates surrounding this vaccine.  For children, the cure has been worse than the disease.  I’m speaking here not just of the vaccine but more importantly of the forced isolation, school lockdowns, school masking, no friendships, blunted development, etc.  The same experts who championed those practices are now forcing a vaccine while hiding the scientific data for 55 years. 

[Negatory]

33 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

For children, the cure has been worse than the disease.  I’m speaking here not just of the vaccine but more importantly of the forced isolation, school lockdowns, school masking, no friendships, blunted development, etc.  The same experts who championed those practices are now forcing a vaccine while hiding the scientific data for 55 years. 

I can agree with this for children. At least I can agree that the evidence supporting the need to get vaccines for healthy youth is shaky.

But do you guys support boosters for those over the age of 50 or 60? Boosters for those with BMIs > XX? Maybe boosters for those with certain immune issues?

Because there are very little actual analytical or data based reasons not to other than political propaganda says to be a pain in the ass to the “liberal” branch of society.

Thats the main issue with a lot of this conversation. Many folks on here are taking absolutely indefensible black and white stances (no boosters whatsoever, no shots whatsoever!) with no justification other than their political circle wouldn’t like it disguised with an “I don’t feel like it.”

Also, it’s a fallacy to say that an argument is incorrect (some people should get boosters) just because they said something else that may not be true (it’s imperative for children to be vaccinated). You don’t get to conveniently ignore all of the evidence of science or experts or whatever just because you disagree with one conclusion.

[VMFA187]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

Than the vaccines? Not by a long shot. 

Pawnman, do you personally know or do you think anyone knows exactly what the long-term effects of this vaccine are?

[brickhistory]

False in many cases.  At least for me.

 A rushed prophylaxis being pushed as a 'vaccine' when it is demonstrably not and has a not negligible serious side-effect potential.  The percentage of heart issues, in particular, leading to a coronary, given my family history, is simply not worth the risk to me.  I make an informed decision.  Authoritarians may not like it, but I utterly reject their views.

Can it help some people?  Certainly.  

Is it a 'vaccine?'  Absolutely not.

I trust my personal medical team rather than a government that has repeatedly lied.  Not said "we just don't know," but lied.  Multiple times.

And they, the FDA, claimed to have reviewed prior to approval some half-million documents, but want to delay the public release of those documents for 50 years.

I look forward to the clinical timeline studies of this in the next 5-10 years.

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Did you balk at any of the other vaccines your kids required before you sent them to school? 

Did you do a deep-dive on the VAERS data for MMR before taking them to the pediatrician? 

You guys are taking a political stand and trying to disguise it as concern for your health.

Do you always tell people their thoughts and reality? Dude, get a grip on reality. 

Why would they not be able to release data on the "vaccine" for 55 years? Sounds super sketch. You don't think so? They skipped several steps in the typical vaccination approval process and got it approved in 10% of the time of a typical vaccine - How does that not make you question this whole situation?

Edited December 3, 2021 by VMFA187

[VMFA187]

16 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

I concur. That being said, it's about the same as saying "The vaccine is safe and effective."

 

@pawnman, you gave me a minus for this statement. 

Does the vaccine have side effects that we know about that are harmful? Does it prevent people from catching covid? Does it prevent people from spreading covid? 

Answer those questions and then tell me why you think that statement is deserving of a down vote. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by VMFA187