Have you got the Vaccine

[Deleted member 82509]

Hello retardo!

If the vaccinated gets infected do they need to be vaccinated again? No because the illness is much less severe than for the not being vaccinated and not having Covid already.

So why would the non vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 infected person need to get the vaccine if it doesn't add any extra protection???

Catching the virus again has the same implications for both groups.

But you wouldn't understand this because you're a moron.

Why did u get vaccinated then u moron

 

[altaguetta]

Why did u get vaccinated then u moron

Because I'm in the high risk group, idiot!

 

[Deleted member 82509]

Because I'm in the high risk group, idiot!

Your safe just stay in your mother's basement she will take care of u

 

[OppaiLover]

It's all about money and control. Why do you think no one in government or media is saying the covid infected are immune? They don't add them with the vaccinated to show the number of people that are immune. The covid infected interfere with their plan to vaccinate everyone. There is an agenda here and most of the population is in denial.

Control us to do what exactly? I'm genuinely curious. And of course there is an agenda. They want everyone vaccinated because they would love to open up the economy sooner. Why do you think so many businesses are offering incentives for people to take the shot? Both the government and business aren't making money because the economy is functioning well below capacity. So of course it's about money, maybe not in the way you think it is.

And you aren't immune from covid if you've already been infected. You can still get it again although your symptoms will be less severe. I'm not sure if the variants can make things worse though.

 

[Hornet]

Control us to do what exactly? I'm genuinely curious. And of course there is an agenda. They want everyone vaccinated because they would love to open up the economy sooner. Why do you think so many businesses are offering incentives for people to take the shot? Both the government and business aren't making money because the economy is functioning well below capacity. So of course it's about money, maybe not in the way you think it is.

And you aren't immune from covid if you've already been infected. You can still get it again although your symptoms will be less severe. I'm not sure if the variants can make things worse though.

The craziest thing about when people say it’s “Big Pharma and government control” is that they say it in the singular, yet this is a global pandemic and virtually every world government is attacking the virus the same way. As for “Big Pharma”, well, Russia and China developed their own vaccines. Do those constitute “Big Pharma” in the normal use of the term?

When all governments around the world disagree on everything, how did they all agree on the strategy to attack the virus?

 

[altaguetta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409485975500242944

 

[stripfan]

Preliminary data seems to show the vaccinated are getting sicker than the unvaccinated.

Account Suspended

humansarefree.com

 

[stripfan]

Back to square one.

Account Suspended

 

[Mav]

Hello retardo!

If the vaccinated gets infected do they need to be vaccinated again? No because the illness is much less severe than for the not being vaccinated and not having Covid already.

So why would the non vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 infected person need to get the vaccine if it doesn't add any extra protection???

Catching the virus again has the same implications for both groups.

But you wouldn't understand this because you're a moron.

Definition of CIRCLE

ring, halo; a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve; the plane surface bounded by such a curve… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Keep talking

 

[sy barite]

This is a LENGTHY read, but everything you just mentioned is discussed and addressed here, with sources.

Why Is the Intellectual Dark Web Suddenly Hyping Ivermectin?

Even as scientists study a drug used to deworm dogs as a COVID treatment, the loudest people online claim it's a miracle cure, and that inquiry into it is being suppressed.

www.google.com

Thanks. I had read that article previous to posting and in part it was why I wanted to share the podcast. If you read the article and listen to the podcast, the inescapable conclusion is that one side or the other is lying, wrong, or possibly both. Let me reiterate up front, I'm struggling not to be gullible with this topic as I know nothing about it. I'm just curious.

Questions that pop to mind are,

1. Which side is right about study results? Kory claims to have results from over 60 studies showing ivermectin works and says that the balance of data is far greater on that side. The other side cites one study and the rest of their commentary is about the quality of the studies Kory uses.
2. Has ivermectin actually been prescribed to humans over 4 billion times and shown to be safe? If this fact alone is true, what is the harm in trying?
3. Following on the heels of #2 (and this is perhaps most important), why must this topic be censored? The article you shared is certainly wrong in claim that it has not been censored. Youtube specifically mentions ivermectin claims as something that will get your channel canceled. Do we have yet another situation here like the Wuhan lab theory, which just 12 months ago mention of was enough to get you branded racist? Why did they have to remove his senate testimony? Why must their Twitter accounts be closed?
4. Aside from claims about formal studies, which side is right about experiential (anecdotal) claims? Again, they can't both be right. Either Kory is telling the truth about places like Zimbabwe, South Africa and Uttar Pradesh, or he is not. If he's incorrect or lying, it should be the simplest thing to expose.

The article makes other claims that look curious to me. Did you read the article linked to by the claim that Gorski poked holes "the size of a Mack Truck" in the argument for Invermectin? I read it and as far as I can tell, it amounts to a lot of innuendo.

I don't know who's right, but it looks like an interesting point to keep an eye on.

 

[altaguetta]

 

[OppaiLover]

Thanks. I had read that article previous to posting and in part it was why I wanted to share the podcast. If you read the article and listen to the podcast, the inescapable conclusion is that one side or the other is lying, wrong, or possibly both. Let me reiterate up front, I'm struggling not to be gullible with this topic as I know nothing about it. I'm just curious.

Questions that pop to mind are,

1. Which side is right about study results? Kory claims to have results from over 60 studies showing ivermectin works and says that the balance of data is far greater on that side. The other side cites one study and the rest of their commentary is about the quality of the studies Kory uses.
2. Has ivermectin actually been prescribed to humans over 4 billion times and shown to be safe? If this fact alone is true, what is the harm in trying?
3. Following on the heels of #2 (and this is perhaps most important), why must this topic be censored? The article you shared is certainly wrong in claim that it has not been censored. Youtube specifically mentions ivermectin claims as something that will get your channel canceled. Do we have yet another situation here like the Wuhan lab theory, which just 12 months ago mention of was enough to get you branded racist? Why did they have to remove his senate testimony? Why must their Twitter accounts be closed?
4. Aside from claims about formal studies, which side is right about experiential (anecdotal) claims? Again, they can't both be right. Either Kory is telling the truth about places like Zimbabwe, South Africa and Uttar Pradesh, or he is not. If he's incorrect or lying, it should be the simplest thing to expose.

The article makes other claims that look curious to me. Did you read the article linked to by the claim that Gorski poked holes "the size of a Mack Truck" in the argument for Invermectin? I read it and as far as I can tell, it amounts to a lot of innuendo.

I don't know who's right, but it looks like an interesting point to keep an eye on.

Completely agree, it's something to keep an eye on. Anything that helps get us out of this sooner is worth validating. I can't respond to all your points as I'm swamped today but, I'll just quickly comment on a few. With regards to Zimbabwe, India etc. I believe Zimbabwe just approved ivermectin for research purposes only. India has halted ivermectin use as a covid treatment since early June. If it was really making significant headway there and savings lives, why would they stop it? Even the company that created ivermectin put out a statement saying that it should not be used to treat covid. They cited there was no scientific basis, no meaningful evidence and lack of safety data in the majority not studies. If it was all about making money, then why would they care how their drug is used as long as a they're lining their pockets?

I think the censorship has has to do with a lot of the above. The general consensus is that there haven't been enough studies and there is little evidence to show that ivermectin works. So saying that it does is misinformation which leads to vaccine hesitancy, especially if it's coming from a doctor. Once actual studies are done, ( I believe a large scale one is being carried out in the UK right now) if results are positive, only then can it be used as an effective form of treatment.

 

[stripfan]

There seems to be conflict between different Indian states with regard to Ivermectin. There have been enough people who have used it successfully. If some choose not to use it, it's not because it doesn't work.

Ivermectin saves India

India saw a dramatic fall in cases after the ICMR and AIIMS added Ivermectin to their protocols on April 20, 2021. Daily COVID-19 cases, which peaked at 414,188, are now

www.thedesertreview.com

 

[altaguetta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409543246779273216

 

[altaguetta]

At this stage of the game many people are still being naïve observers. "Why would someone do something if blah blab blah." Because people are told what to do. Actions are not based on evidence but commands from "above".

 

[altaguetta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409330756321562628

 

[stripfan]

Former FOX reporter says media, WHO are covering up reports about effectiveness of Ivermectin, HCQ to treat coronavirus - LifeSite

YouTube bans videos that discuss Ivermectin as a possible coronavirus treatment.

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[Mav]

“Lifestyle news”

 

[jimmyd]

For whatever it’s worth…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 82509]

At this stage of the game many people are still being naïve observers. "Why would someone do something if blah blab blah." Because people are told what to do. Actions are not based on evidence but commands from "above".

View attachment 157595
View attachment 157596

Time to get a life bro get out of the fucken basement and enjoy life meet some ladies