Duke Trujillo (haha yo super serial) wrote:
Will Alan Webb get it?
the only thing alan webb is getting is made fun of having the worst hairline in history
and also a big disappointment when he realizes when he dies that all of his flanders churchiness, despite being made fun of constantly for it, got him absolutely nowhere
1. There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. Therefore, there is no scientific justification to treat vaccinated people differently from unvaccinated people.
Clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to observe asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 or the effect of the vaccine on the spread (transmission) of COVID-19. Consequently, in its briefing document for each vaccine, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that “it is possible that asymptomatic infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections” and “data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.” Furthermore, “additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.”2-7
2. There is evidence that previous SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection is more effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection than at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, those previously infected with COVID-19 should have at least the same rights as those vaccinated for COVID-19.
The Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial included over 2,000 subjects that had contracted SARS-CoV-2 before the study. The trial recorded the incidence of COVID-19 in that unvaccinated group at least 28 days after the vaccination of the other subjects in the study. The COVID-19 incidence of the unvaccinated group with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.1% (2/2,021), whereas the COVID-19 incidence of vaccinated subjects was 0.59% (113/19,306). These data suggest that there are six times more cases of COVID-19 in vaccinated subjects than in unvaccinated subjects previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. This also means that an unvaccinated person previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 has 99.9% chance of being protected from a repeat infection.7,8 Of note, as of April 17, 2021, there have been 165.7 million SARS-CoV-2 infections in the U.S., which is 50.2% of the U.S. population.9
Treating people differently depending on their COVID-19 vaccination status is not based on science.
Only a community CCP supporting totalitarian. Unpatriot nut job would say “ can we forget about FREEDOM.
Read the constitution, you raving lunatic.
All pharmaceutical products should be voluntary.
How many of you brainwashed people think you need a vaccine to live? You don’t! You need to live a healthy lifestyle and keep your weight under control to live while eating a healthy diet high in vitamins. Healthy people are the least likely to die from Covid -19. Get off the couch!!! You know what to do. That is why athletes are the least likely to die from Covid-19. Most don’t even know they have it when they get it.
Nobody should take a vaccine against their will.
[quote]bigmig19 wrote:
Can we just stop with the freedom of choice bs.
Says it all. These fascist Vaxxers call freedom of choice "BS".
2600 bro wrote:
[quote]Scott Peters wrote:
Getting back on topic: The right of individuals to control what goes into their body trumps the interest of other (pharma and the oligarchs who want population control through vaccines ) in obtaining knowledge or benefits from.
The Nuremberg code states that all research via investigational vaccines must be voluntary ! That includes emergency use authorization vaccines.
No one is forcing you to get a vaccine.
What alternate reality do you live in?
Several thousand Americans died within 48 hours of watching this year's Super Bowl? Suspicious?
Big Football wants you to think that watching the Big Game is safe, but they make BILLIONS on it. They can't let the truth come out, there's too much money at stake!
Scott Peters wrote:
Nobody should take a vaccine against their will.
Name one person who's gotten vaccinated against their will.
If the government was forcing people to get vaccinated, we wouldn't have hospitals in Missouri right now that are overflowing with Covid patients, to the point that they have to transfer some patients to other hospitals.
Southwest Missouri is in the midst of a case surge that began weeks ago and has now driven hospitalizations to breaking point levels. In Greene County alone, the average number of new cases each day has risen from 79 to 196 over the last month.
At the same time, the region is struggling with low vaccination rates. Many counties in southwest Missouri have fully vaccinated less than 40% of adults.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article252790973.htmlAre the military academies guilty of coercion because they force any kid who goes there to serve in the military after graduation?
Are Christian colleges guilty of coercion if they require all students to take a Bible course freshman year?
Is the University of Arkansas guilty of coercion because it requires all students to submit proof of MMR vaccination?
“You realize that people are calling you a moron”? What people? You? You’re just a pee-on pharmaceutical troll who is paid to troll the website for let’s run. Nobody gives a rats ass about what you think because you’re a serial liar .
Name one person who was vaccinated against their will:
Every single person that was blackmailed into being vaccinated because of a need to travel, attend a university, or work because of “requirement “. that forces them to take a COVID-19 vaccine against their will to work, travel or get an education …that’s who, you fking moron.
Scott Peters wrote:
Name one person who was vaccinated against their will:
Every single person that was blackmailed into being vaccinated because of a need to travel, attend a university, or work because of “requirement “. that forces them to take a COVID-19 vaccine against their will to work, travel or get an education …that’s who, you fking moron.
So, in other words, you cannot name a single person who was vaccinated against their will.
Scott Peters wrote:
…that’s who, you fking moron.
Unless you're in Asia, isn't it a little early to be so angry?
Scott Peters wrote:
Name one person who was vaccinated against their will:
Every single person that was blackmailed into being vaccinated because of a need to travel, attend a university, or work because of “requirement “. that forces them to take a COVID-19 vaccine against their will to work, travel or get an education …that’s who, you fking moron.
If you are traveling it's up the border agency of the host country you are going to whether they let you in. Some countries have strict visa requirements on vaccinations, criminal convictions and what you are allowed to bring with you. Quit complaining.
No requirements anywhere for work or school. Highly likely any policies would be rejected as a breach of rights. Nobody has brought a case saying they were forced to be vaccinated or lose their job/college place.
Scott Peters wrote:
1. There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. Therefore, there is no scientific justification to treat vaccinated people differently from unvaccinated people.
Clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to observe asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 or the effect of the vaccine on the spread (transmission) of COVID-19. Consequently, in its briefing document for each vaccine, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that “it is possible that asymptomatic infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections” and “data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.” Furthermore, “additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.”2-7
2. There is evidence that previous SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection is more effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection than at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, those previously infected with COVID-19 should have at least the same rights as those vaccinated for COVID-19.
The Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial included over 2,000 subjects that had contracted SARS-CoV-2 before the study. The trial recorded the incidence of COVID-19 in that unvaccinated group at least 28 days after the vaccination of the other subjects in the study. The COVID-19 incidence of the unvaccinated group with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.1% (2/2,021), whereas the COVID-19 incidence of vaccinated subjects was 0.59% (113/19,306). These data suggest that there are six times more cases of COVID-19 in vaccinated subjects than in unvaccinated subjects previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. This also means that an unvaccinated person previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 has 99.9% chance of being protected from a repeat infection.7,8 Of note, as of April 17, 2021, there have been 165.7 million SARS-CoV-2 infections in the U.S., which is 50.2% of the U.S. population.9
Treating people differently depending on their COVID-19 vaccination status is not based on science.
You have made a lot of claims. None backed by a link. The VAERS disclaimer invalidates the way you use VAERS data.
I suspect if you linked sources we would find that you misinterpreted those sources as well.
Where was all the outrage and cancel culture when they made us get spinal meningitis shots 13 years ago??
Harambe wrote:
Let it Rupp wrote:
Last sentence was supposed to be the other way aro...you know what, you know the thing.
No sure I get the argument here. Now we are supposed to care about an injustice from at 80s? Tell me your thoughts on systemic racism again? hehe
Blood is on your hands, Harambe. Killing babies to save grandma doesn't make much sense, now does it?
Let it Rupp wrote:
Blood is on your hands, Harambe. Killing babies to save grandma doesn't make much sense, now does it?
The abortion fanatics always find an angle. You all lost the culture war. Embryonic lines have saved thousands (millions?) of lives.
Again, if you're so up in arms about how an injustice 40 years ago is affecting the world today... might I suggest reading up on Critical Race Theory?