Should the coronavirus vaccine be mandatory

The Libertarian model is to let people die because they are old. They like statistics and use the often. So did Stalin who is reported to have said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

The Libertarian model suggests all vaccines are a "tool of control" and would rather you be "free" while your children die of polio, measles, small pox, diphtheria, tetanus or a host of other deadly diseases rendered harmless by vaccines.

Libertarians regard your death as a "statistic" and are content to trade your life and those of your family for their sociopathic interpretation of freedom. The positive news is they are an assortment of fringe element conspiracy kooks that is easily ignored and have no impact on mainstream society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

The Libertarian model is to let people die because they are old. They like statistics and use the often. So did Stalin who is reported to have said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

The Libertarian model suggests all vaccines are a "tool of control" and would rather you be "free" while your children die of polio, measles, small pox, diphtheria, tetanus or a host of other deadly diseases rendered harmless by vaccines.

Libertarians regard your death as a "statistic" and are content to trade your life and those of your family for their sociopathic interpretation of freedom. The positive news is they are an assortment of fringe element conspiracy kooks that is easily ignored and have no impact on mainstream society.

---

That is why in federal elections they get less votes than the Rhino Party. . More people would rather vote for a Rhino than a libertarian. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

'It should not even be developed, it is only a tool of control' ? Climate change ? Global warming? Is every thing you disagree with, ( going against scientific knowledge), just to enable a NWO ? Tin foil hat time.

---

Money can't fix global warming lol.

We need to work as a society and together to better it. But we are so divided and many can't think outside of what they believe.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

That is why in federal elections they get less votes than the Rhino Party. . More people would rather vote for a Rhino than a libertarian. lol.

---

For good reason too. The Rhino party has a sense of humour and perspective. Libertarians not so much. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

That is why in federal elections they get less votes than the Rhino Party. . More people would rather vote for a Rhino than a libertarian. lol.

---

If it came down to 2 sides the libtards would likely be gone.

Many voted NDP that were lib supporters
If they were not there they would have vote con because our leader is a tool.

To many voices in control and nothing much gets done.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

Agreed 100%%%%%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakezilla

another article on the subject. The actual petition and supporting articles are contained in the article and it is an interesting read.

It basically says this is a big experiement and due to the inaccuracy of the pcr tests you can never know if this experimental mrna vaccine actually works.

The petition lays out some of potential dangers that they are not taking into account or overlooking with the early approval/release of this experimental vaccine. Possible infertility in women of an unknown duration and something called antibody dependant enhacement or ade (viii under statement of grounds) where you handle the vaccine fine but if you catch the wild virus later you get much sicker than you would have without the vaccine.

I am not a biologist or a doctor but i can read. If anyone on here can explain these concerns away please do.

I am not an anti vaxxer but i have questions.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/ex...nfertility-and

---

So were did I introduce Libertarian philosophy into this convo. You have just earned the FC response, hence forward. P.S., the fact that you didn't refute anything I wrote - is exactly why your response doesn't matter. P.S. old people die...its what they do, P.S.S, you people die as well. P.S.S.S - all people die and the All Father "Odin" knows the time and date each persons fate. JESH....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

The Libertarian model is to let people die because they are old. They like statistics and use the often. So did Stalin who is reported to have said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

The Libertarian model suggests all vaccines are a "tool of control" and would rather you be "free" while your children die of polio, measles, small pox, diphtheria, tetanus or a host of other deadly diseases rendered harmless by vaccines.

Libertarians regard your death as a "statistic" and are content to trade your life and those of your family for their sociopathic interpretation of freedom. The positive news is they are an assortment of fringe element conspiracy kooks that is easily ignored and have no impact on mainstream society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by line052

So were did I introduce Libertarian philosophy into this convo. You have just earned the FC response, hence forward. P.S., the fact that you didn't refute anything I wrote - is exactly why your response doesn't matter. P.S. old people die...its what they do, P.S.S, you people die as well. P.S.S.S - all people die and the All Father "Odin" knows the time and date each persons fate. JESH....

---

"old people die... its (sic) what they do." Is it any wonder that type of thinking is either discredited or held up for ridicule and renders those who espouse it entirely unelectable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I think I'd be far more worried about the potential long term affects of the virus itself....taking a vaccine, even with it's potential side affects , to prevent this is a far better choice.

---

MikePal,

That Mayo Clinic article on long term effects is pretty broad. I tried to look up some of the cited papers but had trouble finding them although I am sure they exist. I wanted to look at the articles because I would like to know how many people have these long term effects? Is is 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000? What was the sample size? Did they have a preexisting condition that could have contributed to the long term effects? Where any of the people with lung issues on ventilators and that could have caused some of the damage? This article is just vague enough to put the fear in people so they will keep doing what they are told. If it was 1 in 10 that suffered from long term effects they would have definitely put it in there. The fact they they didn't tells me it is probably very rare or there are underlying conditions that could be a reason for the long term effects.

Like I said, I am not an anti vaxxer but I have some serious questions about this experimental vaccine and the only answers I can find are "Don't worry about it, shut up and take the vaccine if you want life to go back to normal".

The PCR tests are flawed and are not accurate. The PCR test was never meant to be a diagnostic tool. Basically, a sample is taken and then put through cycles to multiply the sample to something that can be actually used. The false positives increase as the number of cycles increase in the PCR test. If they can't accurately identify who is infected and who isn't they can't tell if the vaccine actually works. This has been known since the beginning but has been ignored by governments and the MSM.

All the potential side effects of the mRNA vaccine are theoretical and there is no evidence because they haven't done any extensive studies. They jabbed 44,000 people a couple months ago and called it good. This is not good science.

From the UK government document issued to health professionals regarding the mRNA vaccine

Summary of safety profile
The safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 was evaluated in participants 16 years of age
and older in two clinical studies conducted in the United States, Europe, Turkey, South Africa, and
South America. Study BNT162-01 (Study 1) enrolled 60 participants, 18 through 55 years of age.
Study C4591001 (Study 2) enrolled approximately 44,000 participants, 12 years of age or older.
In Study 2, a total of 21,720 participants 16 years of age or older received at least one dose of COVID19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b and 21,728 participants 16 years of age or older received placebo. Out
of these, at the time of the analysis, 19,067 (9531 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 and
9536 placebo) were evaluated for safety 2 months after the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
BNT162b2.

They are treating covid like they treat global warming. Make it up as they go and adjust the numbers through junk science to fit the current narrative. The case numbers they give for COVID come from junk science (flawed PCR tests) and on top of that a positive test does not indicate viral load and therefore is not a "case". The death count is junk science (failure to account properly for comorbidities and labelling everyone that dies with covid in their system as a covid death). The virus is real but the threat is not near as high as the media or government would have us believe.

The risk posed by the virus does not warrant the risk associated with this type of world wide experiment of an experimental vaccine that has been rushed and not tested properly.

From the petition

II.
Petitioner hereby also incorporates the grounds, facts, arguments and opinions stated inthe external peer review of the “Drosten-Test” (Exhibit B). Design flaws of certain RT-qPCRtests that are identical to or modeled after what is sometimes called the “Drosten-Test” can leadto false-positive results in trials designed such that PCR results are the primary evidence ofinfection. Exhibit B attached hereto shall be incorporated herein and shall be understood to be a part hereof as though included in the body of this petition.
VIII.
For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce aneutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. A neutralizing antibody is onethat can recognize and bind to some region (‘epitope’) of the virus, and that subsequentlyresults in the virus either not entering or replicating in your cells. A non-neutralizing antibody isone that can bind to the virus, but for some reason, the antibody fails to neutralize the infectivityof the virus. In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, asubsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to thevirus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody. This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones. This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact,this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for othercoronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. If ADE occurs inan individual, their response to the virus can be worse than their response if they had neverdeveloped an antibody in the first place. This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, acytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus tocause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell typesthroughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway. There are many studies that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem withcoronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses. ADE has proven to be aserious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many of suchvaccines have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who werevaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lunginjury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not.Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showedhistopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus.
IX.
There are some concerning issues with the trial designs, spelled out by Dr. Peter Doshi inthe British Medical Journal. Dr. Doshi focuses on the two biggest issues. First, none of theleading vaccine candidate trials is designed to test if the vaccine can reduce severe COVID-19symptoms, defined as: hospital admissions, ICU or death. And, second, the trials are notdesigned to test if the vaccine can interrupt transmission(https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full.pdf). If neither of these conditions ismet, the vaccine in essence performs like a therapeutic drug, except a vaccine would be taken prophylactically, even by the perfectly healthy, and more than likely carries a higher risk ofinjury than a therapeutic drug. If this were to be true, then therapeutic drugs would be superiorto any COVID vaccine.
X
. In the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine candidate, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is found inthe fatty lipid nanoparticle coating around the mRNA. Seventy percent of people makeantibodies to PEG and most do not know it, creating a concerning situation where many couldhave allergic, potentially deadly, reactions to a PEG-containing vaccine. PEG antibodies mayalso reduce vaccine effectiveness. Pfizer/BioNTech is also inserting an ingredient derived froma marine invertebrate, mNeonGreen, into its vaccine. The ingredient has bioluminescentqualities, making it attractive for medical imaging purposes, but it is unclear why an injectedvaccine would need to have that quality. mNeonGreen has unknown antigenicity.
XI
. Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodiesagainst spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., “Response to nCoV2019Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses” - http://virological.org/t/response-to...troviruses/396), which is derived from human endogenousretroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals andhumans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found inhomologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whetherantibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To myknowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific riskscaused by antibodies is included.According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is usingan acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention).This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post-vaccination infertility could be observed.
XII.
It appears that Pfizer/BioNTech have not yet released any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, instructions/information patients/subjects weregiven regarding ADE and PEG-related issues and (potential) fertility- or pregnancy-specificissues

Jkhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c982804aa1.jpg

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk