Poll of the Day > Would you take part in a COVID-19 vaccine trial?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If it works, you'll be protected from the virus and won't be able to spread it to others either. If it doesn't work, you won't be protected, though you probably wouldn't be infected by the vaccine. In either case, you'll at least have tried to help your fellow man.

---

captpackrat posted...

though you probably wouldn't be infected by the vaccine

It's other potential side effects I'd be worried about

OhhhJa posted...

It's other potential side effects I'd be worried about

Pleasing taste, some monsterism.

---

Leave it for those who need it.

---

Hell yes. Especially if monsterism is a side effect.

DPsx7 posted...

Leave it for those who need it.

If any infected people volunteer, they certainly should get priority. Otherwise I'm up for it.

---

Sure, Ive done medical trials in the past

---

If it were just myself to consider, I'd probably volunteer.

But I'm currently caring for 2 sick, elderly parents, one of which even a mild case of Covid would almost certainly kill.

I can't risk exposing myself to the disease.

---

No, because vaccines are designed to harm, not to protect people from illnesses. I know thats hard to hear, and the fact that mainstream media along with world governments would lie about this is astonishing, and completely true.

Most of the little guys in the public eye dont know or wont accept the truth, while the big ones like Bill Gates and co very much do.

keyblader1985 posted...

Hell yes. Especially if monsterism is a side effect.

If any infected people volunteer, they certainly should get priority. Otherwise I'm up for it.

If you are already infected there isn't a lot of point in getting the vaccine. I assume DPsx7 was referring more towards people in high risk groups, people in health care, essential jobs, elderly, existing conditions, etc...For a vaccine trial some of those risk groups would probably be excluded.

I don't want to be a human lab rat thanks.

Demellic posted...

No, because vaccines are designed to harm, not to protect people from illnesses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA

---

Demellic posted...

No, because vaccines are designed to harm, not to protect people from illnesses. I know thats hard to hear, and the fact that mainstream media along with world governments would lie about this is astonishing, and completely true.

Most of the little guys in the public eye dont know or wont accept the truth, while the big ones like Bill Gates and co very much do.

Amazes me that people still believe this shit.

Also...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA

---

No because I don't super trust a vaccine that's been heavily pushed right now.
I live with my fiancee, and nobody that's elderly or immunocompromised, I don't go out at all, I'm not a threat.

---

Demellic posted...

No, because vaccines are designed to harm, not to protect people from illnesses. I know thats hard to hear, and the fact that mainstream media along with world governments would lie about this is astonishing, and completely true.

Most of the little guys in the public eye dont know or wont accept the truth, while the big ones like Bill Gates and co very much do.

We got one, boys!

---

@wwinterj25 @Fastest_Spartan @Sarcasthma
Do any of you three have an argument to make? If so, Id be more than happy to have a conversation. But lets be real. Bill Gates has already literally admitted on camera three times that vaccines depopulate the world.

@shadowsword87 Good call. Do your research first, ask yourself what is found inside vaccines (massive amounts of heavy metals like mercury and aluminum, for example), and also question why an anti-vaxxer poses a health risk to vaxxers if vaccines work.

Demellic posted...

Good call. Do your research first, ask yourself what is found inside vaccines (massive amounts of heavy metals like mercury and aluminum, for example), and also question why an anti-vaxxer poses a health risk to vaxxers if vaccines work.

What, no, lmao that's not why I'm saying no.
Because it's untested and being rushed, vaccines work when they've had decades of research on them, not 3 weeks and a dream.

The materials inside of them, in small doses, are perfectly safe. Same reason chlorine is unsafe, but in table salt it's totally fine. The mercury and aluminum isn't in it's elemental forum, they're in chemical componds.

Also, because not everyone can be vaccinated. My aunt-in-law, for example, is heavily immunocompromised, and I actively don't want to see her to keep her safe, because I could have the virus in the dormant stage, and it's unreasonable for me to put that on her and potentially kill her.

---

How about we just stop eating weird fucking shit. Thought we learned something the last time this happened, when there wasnt near as much panic over it.

---

@shadowsword87

Unfortunately, the materials inside of them arent also in the dosage that would make them safe, although I would hardly call a neurotoxin like mercury or aluminum safe to inject into humans or animals, especially into a newborn with an undeveloped immune system.

Mercury is that stuff in thermometers, the stuff thats so hazardous youre supposed to have a full-on bodysuit when dealing with it, like dentists and their assistants must have when dealing with mercury amalgam removals and the like. Now ask yourself if you think we should be injecting an amount of neurotoxic mercury (higher than supposedly safe levels) into newborns and not expect them to potentially have a horrible reaction.

captpackrat posted...

If it works, you'll be protected from the virus and won't be able to spread it to others either. If it doesn't work, you won't be protected, though you probably wouldn't be infected by the vaccine. In either case, you'll at least have tried to help your fellow man.

The vaccine would most likely contain COVID-19 like other vaccines contain strains of live virus, so you would be contracting it if you took the vaccine for it.

OhhhJa posted...

It's other potential side effects I'd be worried about

Like what?

Demellic posted...

although I would hardly call a neurotoxin like mercury or aluminum safe to inject into humans or animals

Everything has a safe dosage, just like everything has a lethal dosage. Without exception, toxicity is dose-dependent.

Demellic posted...

especially into a newborn with an undeveloped immune system.

Immune systems have absolutely nothing to do with heavy metal poisoning.

Demellic posted...

Mercury is that stuff in thermometers,

And chlorine is the stuff they sprayed on battlefields in WWI to blind and kill soldiers, which warranted full-face respirators to keep them safe from its brutally toxic effects. And yet there's some in the table salt we eat every day and that's perfectly fine (and, in fact, necessary for normal bodily function).

Combining an element into a molecule or compound changes its properties, often very dramatically. Toxicity is one of those properties. Chlorine gas is extremely toxic, but chloride ions are quite harmless (again, in sub-toxic doses, but the lethal dosage for chloride is far, far higher than that for chlorine gas). Elemental mercury is neurotoxic, but incorporate it into other compounds and that toxicity changes (mostly based on how readily the mercury ions can dissociate from the parent compound under physiological conditions). This is simply how chemistry works.

Demellic posted...

The vaccine would most likely contain COVID-19 like other vaccines contain strains of live virus,

Live virus vaccines are pretty rare. The worst you're likely to see are ones with dead viruses in them, but more commonly you'll just get a soup of the virus' surface antigens with no intact viral particles in it.

---

adjl posted...

Everything has a safe dosage, just like everything has a lethal dosage. Without exception, toxicity is dose-dependent.

My point is that it isnt safe behavior to inject a literal neurotoxin into a human or animal. What do you believe is the purpose for including heavy metals, adjuvants, and other neurotoxins in vaccines?

Immune systems have absolutely nothing to do with heavy metal poisoning.

How do you figure that, exactly? Our immune system actually has a lot to do with protecting our body from toxins.

And chlorine is the stuff they sprayed on battlefields in WWI to blind and kill soldiers, which warranted full-face respirators to keep them safe from its brutally toxic effects. And yet there's some in the table salt we eat every day and that's perfectly fine (and, in fact, necessary for normal bodily function).

Combining an element into a molecule or compound changes its properties, often very dramatically. Toxicity is one of those properties. Chlorine gas is extremely toxic, but chloride ions are quite harmless (again, in sub-toxic doses, but the lethal dosage for chloride is far, far higher than that for chlorine gas). Elemental mercury is neurotoxic, but incorporate it into other compounds and that toxicity changes (mostly based on how readily the mercury ions can dissociate from the parent compound under physiological conditions). This is simply how chemistry works.

Youre assuming that the mercury within vaccines is actually made safe, but in reality its not. Youve been told that its healthy, but again, youve been lied to. In addition to mercury, how would you explain the inclusion of formaldehyde, MSG, and aborted animal and human fetal cells into vaccines that are also being injected into humans out of curiosity?

Live virus vaccines are pretty rare. The worst you're likely to see are ones with dead viruses in them, but more commonly you'll just get a soup of the virus' surface antigens with no intact viral particles in it.

Vaccines have a long history of debilitating and incapacitating people by giving them the very thing they were supposed to protect from. Everything from polio, HPV, to the flu. There have been a very great many vaccine damage lawsuits lost by pharmaceutical companies, forcing them to admit they did damage the victim. One very recent lawsuit even forced them to admit that they DO NOT know if vaccines cause autism, believe it or not.

My advice to you and everyone in the thread: coming from a former pro-vaxxer and someone who has actually read vaccine inserts, do yourself a favor and dont take the vaccines, nor give them to your children.

Remember the vaccine-craze during the H1N1 crisis?
Yeah I'm not taking any vaccines until it's properly tested first.
---

Demellic posted...

how would you explain the inclusion of formaldehyde, MSG, and aborted animal and human fetal cells into vaccines that are also being injected into humans out of curiosity?

Dude, I have a tupperware container full of msg crystals and a squeeze bottle of msg and water for when I cook meat.
It's not bad for you, you can eat a tablespoon of the stuff and it's fine just really weird tasting.

---

Demellic posted...

Do any of you three have an argument to make? If so, Id be more than happy to have a conversation. But lets be real. Bill Gates has already literally admitted on camera three times that vaccines depopulate the world.

First of all, Bill Gates said that vaccines can help reduce population growth, not that they would depopulate the world. Those are two completely different things. Secondly, he said that with the knowledge that as child mortality rates decrease, so too does population growth. Because if people don't have to have 7 children in an attempt to make sure they get one or two that survive childhood, they aren't going to try to have children as often. And vaccines help decrease child mortality rates.

Good call. Do your research first, ask yourself what is found inside vaccines (massive amounts of heavy metals like mercury and aluminum, for example), and also question why an anti-vaxxer poses a health risk to vaxxers if vaccines work.

Aluminum isn't a heavy metal. You know what are heavy metals? Iron, cobalt, and zinc. You can't just paint "heavy metals" as universally dangerous when at least three of them are essential for the proper functioning of the human body and you've misidentified a light metal as a heavy metal. I'm going to assume you meant "toxic metals".

Is elemental mercury toxic? Yes, absolutely. Is methylmercury toxic? Definitely. Is ethylmercury toxic? Probably, if the dose is high enough. Extremely unlikely that you're going to get a high enough dose of ethylmerucry unless you're injected with at least the entire contents of a multi-dose vial of the influenza vaccine. Completely impossible if it's a single-dose vial of the influenza vaccine.

Is aluminum toxic? Generally no, unless you're ingesting over 40 mg/day per kg of body mass. That's about 3.2 g a day for a person weighing around 180 lbs (~80kg). But that's for elemental aluminum. Aluminum salts, like those used as adjuvants in vaccines, are incredibly nontoxic, usually having an LD50 in the ballpark of 500g for that same 180 lb person. Vaccines that use an aluminum salt adjuvant (and many of them don't) contain no more than 840 micrograms per dose.

And as to why someone in support of vaccines should have something to fear from someone who's not, it's actually quite simple. Some people have compromised immune systems and can't get vaccinated. They rely on herd immunity to protect them from disease, and the fewer vaccinated people there are, the more their health is at risk.

But seriously, if you're that concerned about mercury being in your vaccine, then next time you get a flu shot, you can request a single-dose vial from your doctor, which contains no thimerosal (and therefore no mercury) and no aluminum (because only one seasonal influenza vaccine uses an adjuvant, and even then it's one that contains no aluminum salts).

---

Demellic posted...

No, because vaccines are designed to harm, not to protect people from illnesses. I know thats hard to hear, and the fact that mainstream media along with world governments would lie about this is astonishing, and completely true.

Most of the little guys in the public eye dont know or wont accept the truth, while the big ones like Bill Gates and co very much do.

Okay, I'll bite, why are vaccines designed to be harmful? How do you know they are harmful? Are you medically licensed?

---

Demellic posted...

Do any of you three have an argument to make?

Will I shower you with the attention toy clearly crave? A little such as with this post.


---

Id rather deal with the corona then an experimental drug. Chances are on my side that Id get through it just fine.

---

Only if I know it's safe.

---

gguirao posted...

Only if I know it's safe.

And how would one know that?

dainkinkaide posted...

First of all, Bill Gates said that vaccines can help reduce population growth, not that they would depopulate the world. Those are two completely different things. Secondly, he said that with the knowledge that as child mortality rates decrease, so too does population growth. Because if people don't have to have 7 children in an attempt to make sure they get one or two that survive childhood, they aren't going to try to have children as often. And vaccines help decrease child mortality rates.

Pf. Oh, okay. Except thats not even close to factual. If only one or two are surviving we wouldnt have massive populations in certain areas. Fact is, all of them are surviving and people and having that many children because they either dont care about how it affects other people and the planet, or they arent educated on it.

LeetCheet posted...

Remember the vaccine-craze during the H1N1 crisis?
Yeah I'm not taking any vaccines until it's properly tested first.

The right thing to do.

And even then.

---

shadowsword87 posted...

Dude, I have a tupperware container full of msg crystals and a squeeze bottle of msg and water for when I cook meat.
It's not bad for you, you can eat a tablespoon of the stuff and it's fine just really weird tasting.

It honestly is really bad for you and I think thats even accepted by the mainstream.

Demellic posted...

It honestly is really bad for you and I think thats even accepted by the mainstream.

It isn't. There was one media storm pulled out of someone's ass like 20 years ago and dirty hippies have stuck to it since, like claiming Diet Coke gives you Cancer.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It isn't. There was one media storm pulled out of someone's ass like 20 years ago and dirty hippies have stuck to it since, like claiming Diet Coke gives you Cancer.

I know one makes me really thirsty and the other tastes like shit, so just in case, I limit myself to if its the only option.

---

zebatov posted...

I know one makes me really thirsty and the other tastes like shit, so just in case, I limit myself to if its the only option.

One is literally salt, so what do you expect?
---

dainkinkaide posted...

First of all, Bill Gates said that vaccines can help reduce population growth, not that they would depopulate the world. Those are two completely different things. Secondly, he said that with the knowledge that as child mortality rates decrease, so too does population growth. Because if people don't have to have 7 children in an attempt to make sure they get one or two that survive childhood, they aren't going to try to have children as often. And vaccines help decrease child mortality rates.

Nah, he definitely said they depopulate:
https://youtu.be/TQNz9ocoCTM

Populations would only increase as people get healthier, they wouldnt have less children, certainly not for the reason you stated. Its natural

Aluminum isn't a heavy metal.

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-heavy-metal-605190

First search result clearly says it can be considered a heavy metal.

Some lighter metals and metalloids are toxic and, thus, are termed heavy metals though some heavy metals, such as gold, typically are not toxic.

Is elemental mercury toxic? Yes, absolutely. Is methylmercury toxic? Definitely. Is ethylmercury toxic? Probably, if the dose is high enough. Extremely unlikely that you're going to get a high enough dose of ethylmerucry unless you're injected with at least the entire contents of a multi-dose vial of the influenza vaccine. Completely impossible if it's a single-dose vial of the influenza vaccine.

Is aluminum toxic? Generally no, unless you're ingesting over 40 mg/day per kg of body mass. That's about 3.2 g a day for a person weighing around 180 lbs (~80kg). But that's for elemental aluminum. Aluminum salts, like those used as adjuvants in vaccines, are incredibly nontoxic, usually having an LD50 in the ballpark of 500g for that same 180 lb person. Vaccines that use an aluminum salt adjuvant (and many of them don't) contain no more than 840 micrograms per dose.

Youre misinformed about the toxicity of aluminum in vaccines, particularly in combination with mercury.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates."

This quote comes straight from the FDA, writing a critical document on drug evaluation. Link:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are aware that aluminum is dangerous. For example, in June 2000, Dr. Tom Verstraeten, CDC epidemiologist, made the following comment to a group of concerned scientists: "The results [for aluminum] were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum [in vaccines] goes along almost exactly with the mercury." He was referring to a landmark study that found "statistically significant relationships" between both aluminum and mercury in vaccines and neuro-developmental delays. Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccine advisor, provided another telling statement: "Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines. - Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH. Make an Informed Vaccine Decision. 2010. Page 206.

And as to why someone in support of vaccines should have something to fear from someone who's not, it's actually quite simple. Some people have compromised immune systems and can't get vaccinated. They rely on herd immunity to protect them from disease, and the fewer vaccinated people there are, the more their health is at risk.

Sounds like you avoided the original question of how unvaccinated people pose a health risk to vaccinated people. Can you explain that one?

Also, people with compromised immune systems are actually in danger from vaccinated people themselves, because the vaxxed actually carry around the virus with them after being injected, and often get very sick after their immunization.

But seriously, if you're that concerned about mercury being in your vaccine, then next time you get a flu shot, you can request a single-dose vial from your doctor, which contains no thimerosal (and therefore no mercury) and no aluminum (because only one seasonal influenza vaccine uses an adjuvant, and even then it's one that contains no aluminum salts).

Why would I inject myself with a massive cocktail of neurotoxins when I have a perfectly functioning immune system?

Was humanity broken in some way before vaccines came along to save them? Do you really believe that pharmaceutical megacorporations are out there trying to save people?

shadowsword87 posted...

Dude, I have a tupperware container full of msg crystals and a squeeze bottle of msg and water for when I cook meat.

It's not bad for you, you can eat a tablespoon of the stuff and it's fine just really weird tasting.

Some people can get headaches from it. But that's less a case of the thing itself being an issue and more a case of some people having allergies.
---

dantrr posted...

Okay, I'll bite, why are vaccines designed to be harmful? How do you know they are harmful? Are you medically licensed?

Will reply to you and the rest tomorrow.

Demellic posted...

Nah, he definitely said they depopulate:
https://youtu.be/TQNz9ocoCTM

I don't know what the hell you were hearing in that video, but every single time he specifically said "reduce population growth", "reduction in population growth", or "population growth goes down", specifically in the context of child mortality rates decreasing.

Not once did he say "depopulate".

Populations would only increase as people get healthier, they wouldnt have less children, certainly not for the reason you stated. Its far more natural for people to want to have large families and communities where they also take care of each other.

That's not what the data shows.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality-vs-population-growth

As you can plainly see, there is a strong correlation between child mortality rate and rate of population growth. One theory that explains this correlation is the one I presented in my last post: if there is a higher risk of children dying before they reach adulthood, people will have more children in an attempt to have some that survive until adulthood. This can even be a cultural artifact from when child mortality rates were higher than they are now.

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-heavy-metal-605190

First search result clearly says it can be considered a heavy metal.

Some lighter metals and metalloids are toxic and, thus, are termed heavy metals though some heavy metals, such as gold, typically are not toxic.

Sure, there's probably a fringe definition that conflates "heavy metal" and "toxic metal", but it's ridiculously misleading, and the more widely accepted definition is any metal with an atomic number greater than 20, i.e. anything more dense than calcium. And even "toxic metal" can be a little misleading, because it actually means "metal that is generally toxic in low doses", like mercury, cadmium, or lead. What possible reason could there be for calling metals that are generally toxic in low doses "heavy"?

Youre misinformed about the toxicity of aluminum in vaccines, particularly in combination with mercury.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates."

Wow, a light metal that is generally harmless in normal doses to the average person is more dangerous to people with impaired kidney function? It's almost like one of the kidney's jobs is to filter minerals from your blood. You know what light metals are also more dangerous to people with impaired kidney function? Potassium and calcium.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are aware that aluminum is dangerous. For example, in June 2000, Dr. Tom Verstraeten, CDC epidemiologist, made the following comment to a group of concerned scientists: "The results [for aluminum] were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum [in vaccines] goes along almost exactly with the mercury." He was referring to a landmark study that found "statistically significant relationships" between both aluminum and mercury in vaccines and neuro-developmental delays. Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccine advisor, provided another telling statement: "Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines. - Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH. Make an Informed Vaccine Decision. 2010. Page 206.

In June 2000? Just before thimerosal was removed from almost every vaccine that contained it? There is literally one vaccine that still uses thimerosal as a preservative and aluminum salts as an adjuvant: The DT vaccine. Even then, it, like all multi-dose vials, is also available in a single-dose vial which does not contain thimerosal.

And aluminum salts are still incredibly, ridiculously nontoxic.

Why would I inject myself with a massive cocktail of neurotoxins when I have a perfectly functioning immune system?

What neurotoxins are you talking about exactly? Because I just gave you an option that eliminated the two supposed "neurotoxins" (ethylmercury and aluminum salts) that most ill-informed people are concerned about in vaccines. So what's left? MSG? Well, glutamate is a neurotoxin in extremely excessive concentrations, but it's also a key compound in cellular metabolism. If you're concerned about glutamates, you'd better avoid pizza, because tomatoes and cheese both contain glutamates in higher concentrations than the two vaccines that use MSG as a stabilizer do. Formaldehyde? You're going to get 100 times more of that from what your body naturally produces as a result of one-carbon metabolism than you are from any single dose of vaccine. In fact, the pectin contained in a single apple will metabolize (through methanol) to more formaldehyde than what exists in any single dose of vaccine.

Was humanity broken in some way before vaccines came along to save them? Do you really believe that pharmaceutical megacorporations are out there trying to save people?

Polio and smallpox would say yes, humanity was broken.

Jonas Salk never patented his polio vaccine. He believed patenting a vaccine was as ridiculous as patenting the sun. He wanted to save lives, not make money. Besides that, pharmaceutical companies stand to make way more money from treating illnesses than they do from preventing them. Vaccines are cheap, and drugs are expensive, whether that's absolute prices, prices as a ratio to cost of production, or total price over lifetime use. So if pharmaceutical companies were truly interested in making money at the expense of public health, why would they still make vaccines?

---

Demellic posted...

My point is that it isnt safe behavior to inject a literal neurotoxin into a human or animal.

And my point is that the "safe/unsafe" distinction is almost entirely dependent on dosage. You eat C. botulinum spores - the dormant form of a bacterium which produces the most toxic substance known to mankind - every time you eat honey, but do you end up dying of botulism? No, because the dose is too small to have an adverse effect. Well, at least in non-newborns, which is why you shouldn't give newborns honey.

Demellic posted...

How do you figure that, exactly? Our immune system actually has a lot to do with protecting our body from toxins.

Our immune system protects us from infections and foreign bodies. Toxins are processed and eliminated by the liver and kidneys, not the immune system. Exceptions exist, but they're usually more complex molecules that have some kind of identifiable antigen that the immune system can identify and attack, not simpler molecules or naked atoms like heavy metals.

Demellic posted...

Youre assuming that the mercury within vaccines is actually made safe, but in reality its not.

Which you're basing on...?

Demellic posted...

In addition to mercury, how would you explain the inclusion of formaldehyde, MSG, and aborted animal and human fetal cells into vaccines that are also being injected into humans out of curiosity?

Stabilizers and preservatives, mostly. These things do cost money, and there's no money to be made by throwing them in there if they don't provide some benefit. That'd just be silly.

Demellic posted...

Vaccines have a long history of debilitating and incapacitating people by giving them the very thing they were supposed to protect from.

Not really. Not under modern production standards, anyway (which is why modern production standards are what they are). Even the vaccines that do include live viruses use attenuated forms that are physically incapable of causing their respective diseases. You get plenty of people insisting that their flu shot gave them the flu, but that's always a matter of them confusing inflammatory side effects (which often include fevers and aches) or separate illnesses (the number of people that say they got "stomach flu" from their flu shot...) with actual influenza, because flu shots do not contain live viruses.

Demellic posted...

There have been a very great many vaccine damage lawsuits lost by pharmaceutical companies, forcing them to admit they did damage the victim.

Oh, sure. Any medical procedure has potential side effects, and pharmaceutical companies don't always disclose all of them. That doesn't mean people are being given the vaccine's disease, though, nor does it mean that protection from the disease isn't worth the risk in the vast majority of cases.

Demellic posted...

Sounds like you avoided the original question of how unvaccinated people pose a health risk to vaccinated people. Can you explain that one?

No vaccine is 100% effective. Even somebody who's been vaccinated against something can still potentially get it if they're exposed to a large enough pathogen load, though usually a milder case (example: I had pertussis when I was 9 and didn't die or end up hospitalized by it because I was vaccinated). Having a larger proportion of the population vaccinated means you're much less likely to experience the higher pathogen load of being around an actual infected person, meaning you're less likely to end up with the infection.

Furthermore, because I'm not a piece of shit that only cares about myself, being vaccinated doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't be concerned about the people who can't be. Even if I were being vaccinated did mean I was perfectly immune to everything, I'd still be calling anti-vaxxers selfish, misinformed idiots for endangering those who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason (to say nothing of endangering their children). You ask how anti-vaxxers pose a health risk to vaccinated people? I don't really care about that (except as outlined above, but that's a fairly minor concern). I care about the risk they pose to unvaccinated people, which is very significant and not something anyone can argue. So let's flip that question around on you: Why don't anti-vaxxers care about the health risks they pose to unvaccinated people?

---

Demellic posted...

why an anti-vaxxer poses a health risk to vaxxers if vaccines work.

lmao

---

Demellic posted...

Will reply to you and the rest tomorrow.

Please don't.

---

Demellic posted...

In addition to mercury, how would you explain the inclusion of formaldehyde, MSG, and aborted animal and human fetal cells into vaccines that are also being injected into humans out of curiosity?

I guess, since I've actually done the research, I should've addressed this.

Formaldehyde is used during vaccine production to kill live viruses so that they pose no risk of infecting those vaccinated. The amounts used are so small, that in testing, blood concentration of formaldehyde was found to be an average of only 1% higher than the baseline prior to vaccination. Which means there was already 100 times more formaldehyde in the bloodstream from natural metabolic processes than was being introduced by the vaccine.

MSG is used as a stabilizer. Stabilizers are used to prevent a loss in efficacy caused by separation of individual ingredients whether during storage, transport, or movement from an area of one temperature to another. The amount and concentration used is far less than what one would find in a single piece of kelp (which is actually what MSG was originally isolated from), and insignificant compared to what the body normally uses for cell metabolism.

Aborted animal fetal cells aren't really used anymore. They haven't been for decades. Human fetal cells can be found in some vaccines, and that's because they're used in the production of vaccines. See, viruses need a cellular host in order to replicate. So, in order to grow enough of certain viruses to either kill or strip the antigens from and put in a vaccine intended for humans, human cells are ideally needed. Now, given that cells can only divide (and therefore reproduce) a limited number of times (the Hayflick limit), then the older the person the cells are from, the less often they'll be able to be used for vaccine production. In fact, through judicious use of freezing in liquid nitrogen, American medical science has been using the same batch of fetal cells (from a voluntarily terminated pregnancy) for vaccine production since the 1960s.

Any other vaccine ingredients you're curious about?

---

Mead posted...

Sure, Ive done medical trials in the past

that explains a lot
---

dantrr posted...

Okay, I'll bite, why are vaccines designed to be harmful? How do you know they are harmful? Are you medically licensed?

Vaccines are designed to be harmful because the people that created them are hardcore eugenicists and bigots to put it kindly, the ones that really do want to murder billions of people for their vision of a perfect world. A New World Order.

https://youtu.be/_3Mpw7CJJfM

Did you even read their posts?
You just pulled the bigot card and ignored everything they said.
---

LeetCheet posted...

Did you even read their posts?
You just pulled the bigot card and ignored everything they said.

@Demellic

---

Demellic posted...

Vaccines are designed to be harmful because the people that created them are hardcore eugenicists and bigots to put it kindly, the ones that really do want to murder billions of people for their vision of a perfect world. A New World Order.

https://youtu.be/_3Mpw7CJJfM

And they have a devious master plan to do so by... incorporating ingredients with one-in-a-million side effects that are rarely lethal into a medical treatment that's given indiscriminately to just about everyone in the developed world. Positively brilliant!

Usually, to be a successful eugenicist, you need to be doing something to shape who survives the eugenics process. You also need to have a process that reliably removes the undesirables from the gene pool. Vaccines are administered indiscriminately and very rarely sterilize or kill anyone (more rarely than the diseases they prevent, in fact), meaning they fail utterly on both counts. You might have something resembling a case if you took the opposite approach and tried to claim that vaccines are created by eugenicists who give them out so that only the people they don't want die of smallpox or polio or measles. As it stands? You just went from "person whose confirmation bias is keeping them from recognizing the actual science of the matter" to "complete lunatic" in one sentence. Well done.

---

adjl posted...

And they have a devious master plan to do so by... incorporating ingredients with one-in-a-million side effects that are rarely lethal into a medical treatment that's given indiscriminately to just about everyone in the developed world. Positively brilliant!

Usually, to be a successful eugenicist, you need to be doing something to shape who survives the eugenics process. You also need to have a process that reliably removes the undesirables from the gene pool. Vaccines are administered indiscriminately and very rarely sterilize or kill anyone (more rarely than the diseases they prevent, in fact), meaning they fail utterly on both counts. You might have something resembling a case if you took the opposite approach and tried to claim that vaccines are created by eugenicists who give them out so that only the people they don't want die of smallpox or polio or measles. As it stands? You just went from "person whose confirmation bias is keeping them from recognizing the actual science of the matter" to "complete lunatic" in one sentence. Well done.

Can you imagine the extreme and vitriolic hate that would come if vaccines caused complications in, say, black people? That would be a method of eugenics.

---

Demellic posted...

Its far more natural for people to want to have large families and communities where they also take care of each other.

You made that up for sure or are projecting at the very least. If your SO is on the same page about having 15 kids, you do you, but you can't claim it's what people naturally want.

---

I'd take it I already passed the autism test with a perfect score! And yes it was for aspengers. Could explain problems with my personality.

---

Demellic posted...

Vaccines are designed to be harmful because

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcSmlSok32g

---