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

[Tombs]

If they wanted people dead, wouldn't they prefer to kill the non compliant? You know, the ones who disagree with them and their agenda?

If the vaccine is the instrument of death you claim it be, the only ones left alive will be those who oppose the .gov most vigorously. How's that gonna work out for them long term?

A much simpler way to kill off mass numbers of people and more selectively target those they'd prefer dead would be to crash the power grid in certain places. In under 2 weeks you'd have no food, no water, no fuel, etc. It'd be Mad Max world and a death toll like nothing we've ever seen. Sure you'd have a few preppers who'd be excited that SHTF, but only a comparatively small number. And they could be taken out by more traditional means.

It has nothing to do with compliant or non-compliant.

How does wiping out oil wells and US energy independence help them gain power? How does embracing the whole transgender nonsense help them gain power? How does abortion help them gain power? How does wiping out US manufacturing help them gain power?

You're assuming it's just DC behind this, that's where the flaw is.

 

[tim87tr]

Ok I was not expecting the response from the Australia video I posted earlier today. Tens of thousands in the streets, they know civil disobedience in the Down Under! Hopefully as a result the tyranny is abolished to set a precedent for the World. As you know, it's happening worldwide, but limited coverage much like the silent conflict here in the US.

I don't have social media, plenty to view and learn here. Just one more powerful video of citizen speaking to a riot officer who was quite honest about his family and work disposition.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This **** pisses me off.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Heh. I was right. Rules are for the peasants. Don’t worry, some people will believe the lies and do their due diligence to attempt making more peasants follow your mandates.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

View attachment 159534



Heh. I was right. Rules are for the peasants. Don’t worry, some people will believe the lies and do their due diligence to attempt making more peasants follow your mandates.

Well gee whiz, apparently Hollywood has figured out how to go out and socialize safely without masks, so why isn't the CDC consulting with them instead of Fauci??

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Well gee whiz, apparently Hollywood has figured out how to go out and socialize safely without masks, so why isn't the CDC consulting with them instead of Fauci??

Because it isn’t about safety. It’s about control. They have Hollywood in on it. Actors are doing commercials about it

 

[Ark]

View attachment 159534



Heh. I was right. Rules are for the peasants. Don’t worry, some people will believe the lies and do their due diligence to attempt making more peasants follow your mandates.

But it's just a little thing. Such a tiny inconvenience. Why couldn't they wear it anyway just to set a good example? /s

 

[Hatin Since 87]

But it's just a little thing. Such a tiny inconvenience. Why couldn't they wear it anyway just to set a good example? /s

Because they like to openly show they don’t have to follow the same rules we do.

 

[actaeon277]

The health dept. said it was okay, because they were "performers".

 

[foszoe]

It's times like these I hope they are right about masks

 

[JettaKnight]

It's times like these I hope they are right about masks

 

[Tombs]

It's times like these I hope they are right about masks

They're all probably on prophylactic dosages of ivermectin, NAC, Zinc Ionophores, and maybe going as far as getting plasma from people with natural immunity. When money is no object you can do a lot of things the average person is forbidden from.

 

[wtburnette]

Yeah, we'll never know...

 

[KLB]

But it's just a little thing. Such a tiny inconvenience. Why couldn't they wear it anyway just to set a good example? /s

Because it would mess up their makeup, and hide their beautiful faces from the throngs of adoring fans.

 

[chipbennett]

The mRNA technology isn't so much what concerns me. The frequency of vaccine side effects that are much more minimal to non-existent with other long established vaccines is what is concerning to me. It strikes me as half baked and needing work.

I'm pretty sure the tetanus vaccine isn't giving people bell's palsy at the same rate this is. I'm also skeptical of any data coming out on it considering how frequently VAERs is down or non-functional. When you have top health officials coming down with it after vaccination, I find that troubling.

The mechanism for functioning also leaves a lot to be desired and suggests boosters will be a necessary thing, I don't see the need to get into the technical aspects to explain fully why, I'll just say that a vaccine is nothing compared to natural immunity when it comes to variants the vaccine wasn't implicitly designed for. To make a long story short, the information your immune system receives from the vaccine doesn't trigger the full immune system response the actual virus does, and leaves the door open for new variants your body won't recognize. (This is the reason for all the cases of inflammation you hear about, that other part of the immune system would normally be triggered by a vaccine and suppress it.)

Another reason I consider it half baked.
(And no I'm not an immunologist, I just read their papers)

Well, we certainly agree regarding the efficacy of natural immunity. Personally, IMHO, efforts to downplay natural/convalescent immunity are driven purely by politics.

 

[chipbennett]

The vaccine hasn’t even been out an entire year. Long term side effects are still unknown.



With the vaccine, I still get AND spread the virus. I don’t know what the long term side effects are. So it does nothing to curtail the spread, and may even have serious effects in the future, so what’s the point of getting the vaccine? If it doesn’t stop the spread, and doesn’t prevent infection, what’s the point? For a 66% effectiveness, against a virus with a 99.9998 percent chance of survival?


Now, I don’t know about you, but that sounds ****ing stupid.

I think I've been pretty consistent all along that Covid is serious for those at high-risk for Covid - and largely not, for most others. So, if you were already not high-risk, I agree: the vaccine is of dubious value. But for those who are high-risk, the vaccine is proving to be incredibly effective at making Covid much less-severe.

 

[chipbennett]

Not to mention, there's disagreement on the viral load present in the vaccinated. Some scientists claim hundreds of times greater viral load in the vaccinated, others claim a reduced viral load.

Both are reputable and have papers published on this.

No one really knows what's going on, and those that claim they do are bordering on malpractice.
This whole circus has nothing to do with science.

Science is being able to predict the future reliably and repeatedly, with an experiment anyone with the necessary equipment could perform and get the same results. With hundreds of millions of vaccines having been deployed and questions like this still existing, it suggests either significant coverups or incompetence.

I consider this to be somewhat inherent with a highly mutable, respiratory virus like SARS-CoV2. Vaccines aren't terribly useful against the common cold or the flu, either - IMHO, for similar reasons. (And, related, I don't think vaccines do anything to target viral load in the nasal passage?)

 

[chipbennett]

For someone claiming to be in the field, you should know better.

If we understood with certainty how all these compounds work togther, we wouldn't need an FDA approval process, now would we. No drugs would ever need pulled because we fully understood how these combinations of compounds work in the human body, right?

And no, it's not incumbent upon anyone other than the manufacturers and the FDA to prove the jab is safe. Until it's proven to be safe by going through the full (years long) FDA approval process, anyone can legitimately claim doubts about its long term safety. To insist that someone, being harangued into unwillingly accepting something being injected into their body, has the responsibility to prove that it's not safe is height of arrogance and foolishness.

Pfizer has full FDA approval. Last I read, Moderna had filed, or was planning to file, for full approval.

Full approval has little to do with safety, but rather efficacy. Safety is largely established through Phase 1 and 2 clinicals. Unless safety is established, an IND doesn't even make it to Phase 3, which is what is used to establish efficacy - and which is the basis for final market authorization. (Safety is monitored through pharmacovigilance; initial market release is often referred to as a "Phase 4" clinical study.)

Those IND data are available, and do not show particular safety concerns. Thus, for someone to claim that the vaccine is "toxic", or "poison", or otherwise unsafe, that person bears the burden to provide evidence of the claim.

 

[Keith_Indy]

You know, saying that, well everyone in the records we studied recovered from myopericarditis, is not all that reassuring.

1 case per 1000 inoculations. Doesn't seem all that safe to me.

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Development of CMR-confirmed Myopericarditis

Introduction Several case reports or small series have suggested a possible link between mRNA COVID vaccines and the subsequent development of myocarditis and pericarditis. This study is a prospective collection and review of all cases with a myocarditis/pericarditis diagnosis over a 2-month...

www.medrxiv.org

Found via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...eath-rate-within-5-years-risk-higher-dying-v/