Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
hilarynw
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:00 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by hilarynw »

It is true that I haven’t had a vaccine for over 37 years. Why? Am I an anti-vaxxer? My two daughters 30 and 32 were pretty well fully vaccinated but that was then and the number of vaccinations has increased dramatically. I also have moved on with increasing study of biology and a more natural approach to medicine, largely because of my own struggles with health. Maybe if I knew then what I know now I might have acted differently.

Do I feel vaccines are sometimes necessary - yes - do I feel that vaccination has become somewhat of a religion that it is almost heretical to question - yes. Do I feel that there are risks - yes - just as there are risks to every medication. But the reason that I haven’t personally taken a vaccination for all those years is that a) I have never been offered one (and this could be a reflection of the kind of doctor I have chosen to visit and b) I have never seen the need. I haven’t had flu for decades so why would I take a flu vaccine and I’m really not sure what else there is out there.

Basically I believe in free choice in the way I trear my health. Just as I choose not to take other medications and prefer to eat well and make other lifestyle choices, I choose not to have this current vaccination. The current pernicious attitude towards those who choose not to be vaccinated does little for the credibility of those who feel everyone should be vaccinated and may, indeed, be somewhat of an own goal just as the Government’s apparent desperation to get us vaccinated makes me somewhat suspicious.

So I’m sorry for those who seem to be almost personally offended by people like me. All I can say is that your choice to be vaccinated doesn’t offend me so please allow me the same courtesy.

RichardTechnik
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by RichardTechnik »

hilarynw wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:42 am So I’m sorry for those who seem to be almost personally offended by people like me. All I can say is that your choice to be vaccinated doesn’t offend me so please allow me the same courtesy.
Well said hilarynw. This is the crux of the matter. No doubt we will have the vaccine zealots /govt paid stooges along to say its your public duty to be vaccinated and don't be selfish. But Public Health Tyrrany and the Political Power grab riding on the back of it needs this dumb compliance even though anyone with half a brain cell asks the question " why are we still locked down in Tier4/Alert Level 3/Step1 when all the vulnerable have been vaccinated ?"

Speedstick
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Speedstick »

Brilliant post Hilary, my sentiments exactly.
Whilst in my late fifties, good investment in diet, exercise and lifestyle choices has helped reach this age without the need for any regular medication.
Therefore l feel no threat from Covid whatsoever, why on earth would l want this 'wrongly named vaccine', when there is a risk it could possibly kill me!!!
The NHS and PHE are dragging everybody's health down to the lowest common denominator, and what's more we are all paying for this utterly ridiculous idea.
Didn't a nurses motto use to be 'Observe the Patient'

JohnK
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by JohnK »

I agree with all that; I’ve used vaccinations on travel grounds in the past, and have used a record sheet created by one of the pharmaceutical firms alongside my passport for trips to some places, such as Pakistan, but what I don’t like is the manipulation of the terms used at present. Given that it is not even declared to be effective enough to prevent one being infected, nor to guarantee that one would be prevented from ‘passing it on’ (see the NHS pamphlet that comes though the post when it’s on offer), it could be argued that it’s got the wrong name. Not only that, there’s a fair bit of poor marketing by you know who.

It’s entirely possible that they believe what they are trying to do, on the basis that they are out of their depth, or it could be a deliberate tactic to bamboozle the public. Educational fraud, though, when all’s said and done. Came across this American YT entry today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A , and around 5:30 it does a good job of explaining the ‘mechanics’ of it, roughly in line with the NHS bumf, albeit that the latter is simplistic. In effect, it’s intention seems to be to act as an ‘infection mitigation’ drug, not to prevent one from acquiring it. Needs a better use of a new term, so as to avoid undermining the meaning of the term ‘vaccination’ for other things. Most languages are capable of growing, otherwise they’ll die out.

Fudge
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:42 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Fudge »

Excellent post Hillarynw. Clear and straightforward that I'm sure even Year 5's would understand but know doubt the anti-pro-choicers will continue to struggle with, to their own detriment.

Freeman Exiled
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:40 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Freeman Exiled »

fon wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:59 pm
Freeman Exiled wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:32 pm
Why should I be coerced into an uncessary medical procedure?
Why? It's brutal actually: Because. as far as we know, you only represent risk to others. Apart from that we don't care two hoots about you. We just see you as one extra risk of being a reservoir of virus.Having said that you might have won the Nobel peace prize, but we don't know anything - just that you are an unnecessary risk to others. That's all we know.
Well as far as I know , you represent a risk to others as a murderer!
I see you as one extra risk of being a serial killer!
Having said that you might have been awarded a prize for protecting homeless kittens, but i don't know anything - just that you are an unnecessary risk as a mass murderer!
Therefore we have to lock you up in prison for the rest of your life!

fon
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by fon »

Freeman Exiled wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:02 pm
fon wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:59 pm
Why? It's brutal actually: Because. as far as we know, you only represent risk to others.
Well as far as I know , you represent a risk to others as a murderer!
We represent the same risk in that respect, hence why worry? You know nothing about us while we have statistics to characterise your risk to others, hence you are under pressure while we are not.

Freeman Exiled
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:40 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Freeman Exiled »

fon wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:42 pm
Freeman Exiled wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:02 pm
fon wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:59 pm
Why? It's brutal actually: Because. as far as we know, you only represent risk to others.
Well as far as I know , you represent a risk to others as a murderer!
We represent the same risk in that respect, hence why worry? You know nothing about us while we have statistics to characterise your risk to others, hence you are under pressure while we are not.
Your assessment of risk is saying
100% of people will be infected and
infected people are contagious/infectious,
The infectious period lasts forever,
Unless stopped by a experimental gene therapy vaccine.

Completely ignoring everything about natural immunity, acquired immunity, and how long the potential infectious period lasts.
We have a 14 day isolation because the infectious period lasts from 8 to 11 days. The more severe the symptoms the more infectious you are . No symptoms equals no disease.

You claim the statistics is what's telling what the risk is? Statistics are comprised from reports and procedures. When your testing methodology is flawed, deaths are misrepresented and overstated, reporting procedures are constantly altered so there can be no consistency and smear tactics are used to cover up your lies, then your statsics are flawed, misrepresented, inconsistent and complete and utter lie!

For example;
"The coroner, Brenda Bock, says two of their five deaths related to COVID-19 were people who died of gunshot wounds," CBS News Denver reports. "Bock says because they tested positive for COVID-19 within the past 30 days, they were classified as 'deaths among cases.'"

And centre for evidence based medicine
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/death-cer ... -of-death/

So to summarise what you define as statistics;
- A dodgy model by a so called scientist who has been consistently wrong for the last 20 years
- a flawed testing procedure giving erratic false negatives and false positives, which was never designed for virus detection
- false claims on death certificates
- a government controlled by technocrats , a coup d'etat of sorts
- decisions made behind closed doors
- a national disaster called lockdown
- erroneous reporting procedures
- harsh and erratic enforcement, by an overly enthusiastic police force
- bizzare and random health rules which bear no relation to any form of reality
- a compliant and pliable media
- and a lapse of discipline amongst the professional classes (doctors,lawyers, journalists, politicians)

And you claim this is justification for brutally and forcibly injecting me with an experimental vaccine which utilises experimental gene tech! I think you need to check your ethics.

Oh and by the way...
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/art ... -holocaust
"TEL AVIV, Israel (ChurchMilitant.com) - The International Criminal Court (ICC) is considering an investigation into Israel's "blatant and extreme" violations of the Nuremberg Code after Jewish conscientious objectors to the nation's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination regime sued the government for "crimes against humanity."

"Were they up-front with the masses, very few would agree to participate in such an experiment. Manipulating the masses to participate in a medical experiment under false pretenses violates the foundations of medical ethics and democratic law. I will not allow unethical people who engage in such conduct to inject me with anything.

The horror stories are already coming in at warp speed, but the politicians are not the least bit concerned; the medical establishment is brushing them aside as unrelated or negligible; the media is ignoring it; the drug companies are steaming ahead at full and those who raise a red flag continue to be bullied, censored and punished. ... I will not be their next guinea pig in their laboratory. I will not risk being the next "coincidence." 

fon
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by fon »

quote="Freeman Exiled" post_id=16120 time=1616522561 user_id=7519]


Your assessment of risk is saying
100% of people will be infected and
infected people are contagious/infectious,
The infectious period lasts forever,
Unless stopped by a experimental gene therapy vaccine.
[/quote]

not at all.

fon
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by fon »

Freeman Exiled wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:50 pm
Your assessment of risk is saying 100% of people will be infected and
infected people are contagious/infectious,The infectious period lasts forever,
Unless stopped by a experimental gene therapy vaccine.
No, 100% will not be infected, only infected people are contagious/infectious for a period, there are two ways to limit spread, pharmaceutical interventions and other interventions.
No symptoms equals no disease.
That's a somewhat contrarian view.

Post Reply