By now, denial seems a bit lame. — jorndoe

Denial of what?

Still doesn't change the healthcare problem, now does it? Also try to remember this is a pandemic. The world doesn't revolve around the USA.

The world doesn't revolve around the USA. — Benkei

Yes it does

I stand corrected?

bows to the audience*

Still doesn't change the healthcare problem, now does it? — Benkei

No, but it makes a massive difference to understanding the variance in support for different solutions.

Mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and government scientists is among the top reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Denying that such mistrust is justified is therefore among the top activities of the pro-vaccine lobby.

The matter of the degree to which government sponsored schemes were responsible for the origin of the virus, and more importantly, the extent to which they tried later to smother any such suggestion, even banning the very discussion of it, is absolutely critical to the choice of management strategy.

Surely you can see that a theory banned from discussion on various social media, which later is accepted as equally likely with no change in evidence (just a change in attitude), makes all appeals to "the scientists all say..." toothless. And it's not about the 'science constantly updates as new data comes in' tagline - no new data came in.

A dozen scientists were flat out paid off or otherwise persuaded to put their names to a letter which relegated a perfectly valid theory to the status of a banned conspiracy, written by the person who would be directly responsible if the theory were true.

So when someone like Dr Robert 'this-is-all-a-bioterrorism-plot' McCullough state their 'theory', a few dozen doctors come along to say it's nothing but wild conspiracy and all discussion of it is banned on Facebook - what do you expect people to think? Do you still think they'll see such treatment as good mark of a theory that's got no merits?

We can't keep sweeping the medical establishment's biases and the government's involvement in them, under the rug as if it were a non-issue. It's the issue. This is all about the extent to which we can trust governments and medical institutions to provide advice which is in the public interest over and above advice which is in the corporate interests. The treatment of the lab escape theory doesn't speak too well of the former side, sweeping it aside each time it's raised does even less.

Yep. I was reading that a case of shingles may be a sign of latent covid19 infection. Herpes viruses and SARS-CoV-2 circumvent the immune system at the same place, so there's some kind of link.

There may be other situations like that which we haven't detected yet.

Limitations:Predominantly male population; lack of data on disease severity, mortality, and effectiveness by SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and short-term follow-up.

Emphasis mine, to help your reading comprehension. — Isaac

:lol:

Finally found something to latch on to— the standard note about limitations, of which you’ll find in nearly every study. I guess that disproves the results! Well done.

Talk about desperation.

I wonder if that means pro-vaxxers will stop saying the vaccines are safe and effective...oh no wait, it won't...because it's just the opinion of one fucking physician and no one in their right mind would change their entire belief system on that basis... — Isaac

I didn’t cite just one physician, I cited two large studies which demolished your ignorant claims about infections and transmission.

Keep trying.

But that entirely misses the issue, because breakthrough cases are rare compared to cases in the unvaccinated
— Xtrix

The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons, especially of asymptomatic or mild infections.
— CDC — Isaac

Yeah, and..?

Reading comprehension problem again, I see. So I’ll help: “compared to cases in the unvaccinated.” Which is obviously true. But even if that weren’t the comparison, they’re still rare:

Fully vaccinated people have much stronger protection against COVID-19 compared to those who aren’t. Vaccinated people who get infected are less likely to experience symptoms (if any), compared to those who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people are also likely to recover faster, even against delta.
CDC data shows that over 99.99% of people who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 did not die or even require hospitalization. The highest hospitalization rates remain in areas with low vaccination rates.

That said, some vaccinated people can still get delta variant breakthrough infections and spread the virus to others. Previous variants produced less viral loads in fully vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people. In contrast, the delta variant seems to produce the same high amount of viral load in both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people.

How common are breakthrough cases?
Breakthrough cases are still considered to be very rare. They appear to be most common among new variant strains. It’s hard to get an exact count since many vaccinated people don’t show symptoms, and therefore, don’t get tested.
Washington state data shows there were 21,757 vaccine breakthrough cases among more than 4.1 million vaccinated people from January 17 — August 21, 2021. Although that might sound like a high number, it means that only 0.5% of vaccinated Washingtonians had breakthrough infections. Of the breakthrough cases that we have data for, just 9% required hospitalization and less than 1% died of a COVID-related illness.

— CDC

I wasn’t expecting such a weak response from you…but not surprised.

If you continue to spread this idea that vaccines generally make you unable to spread the virus (apart from a few 'rare' breakthrough cases) you'll worsen the problem. — Isaac

Given that this is confirmed by the evidence, I will continue to make that claim until shown otherwise. In breakthrough cases, where the individual is actually infected, they can transmit the virus— yes, that’s true. I never claimed otherwise. To claim vaccinated people spread the virus as much as unvaccinated people—no, that’s not true. With has now been demonstrated, and which you prediction ignore by pointing to the “limitations” section of the study.

It is dangerous to spread the myth that vaccines reduce transmission in all but a few 'rare' cases. — Isaac

And yet these studies say exactly that. Odd.

It’s almost as if you don’t want it to be the case…

:chin:

the standard note about limitations, of which you’ll find in nearly every study. — Xtrix

Yes, that's right. The indicators of the exact humility, concern for accuracy and acceptance of complexity which you consistently lack in your sophomoric understanding of the science.

I didn’t cite just one physician, I cited two large studies which demolished your ignorant claims about infections and transmission. — Xtrix

The other studies aren't about transmission, they're about infection. Infection and transmission are not the same thing. The virus is transmitted mainly by the nasal mucosa, the vaccine reduces infection, which is measured by viral load in the blood. Two different places. That reducing the load in one place will also reduce it in another is a theoretical assumption. One which the studies you cite do not provide any new data on.

from the NEJM September 2021

Given that vaccination reduces asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2,2,3 it is plausible that vaccination reduces transmission; however, data from clinical trials and observational studies are lacking.

How do you square...

even if that weren’t the comparison, they’re still rare: — Xtrix

...with

It’s hard to get an exact count since many vaccinated people don’t show symptoms, and therefore, don’t get tested.

I know your grasp of statistics is shockingly poor, but if we don't know the population size we can know the frequency of the observations. Primary school level - we divide the number of observations by the size of the population. The second part of that equation is missing.

It is dangerous to spread the myth that vaccines reduce transmission in all but a few 'rare' cases. — Isaac


And yet these studies say exactly that. Odd. — Xtrix

So the WHO are wrong then when they say

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. — https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice

...those damn overwhelming consensus of scientists, eh?

The studies don't address transmission, as I mentioned above. They don't address viral loads in the nasal mucosa, they don't address viral load in asymptomatic cases, they don't address behavioural changes in vaccinated people, they don't address different responses in the full range of cohorts. That is the reason the WHO still appeals to people to continue with their hygiene measures, despite vaccination. But that doesn't work quite so well as an advertisement for the vaccine, so of no interest to you.

you consistently lack in your sophomoric understanding of the science. — Isaac

Says the guy who was completely ignorant of these studies, and then refuses to accept their results because he doesn’t like them—pointing to “complexities,” which can be said of literally everything. That’s impressive.

I didn’t cite just one physician, I cited two large studies which demolished your ignorant claims about infections and transmission.
— Xtrix

The other studies aren't about transmission, they're about infection. Infection and transmission are not the same thing. — Isaac

For anyone following, notice the pattern. When all else fails, simply create a straw man.

I never claimed they were the same.

You cannot transmit a virus you don’t have. If the vaccines lower infections, as was shown, then the virus cannot be transmitted. If the vaccinated were still infected, but symptoms were far less severe, then that’s a separate issue — which has its own studies (in breakthrough cases).

None of this is actually hard to understand. You simply don’t want to understand it, and so have to invent positions to fight against.

Desperate.

from the NEJM September 2021 — Isaac

At least provide a link.

How do you square...

even if that weren’t the comparison, they’re still rare:
— Xtrix

...with

It’s hard to get an exact count since many vaccinated people don’t show symptoms, and therefore, don’t get tested.

I know your grasp of statistics is shockingly poor, but if we don't know the population size we can know the frequency of the observations. — Isaac

How do I square it? Don’t you mean how does the CDC square it? From the exact same citation:

Breakthrough cases are still considered to be very rare.

They then go on to give some data, which you ignore. But ask yourself how they square these two claims that you’re struggling with. Are they bad at statistics? Or are you simply a deluded anti-vaxxer with reading comprehension problems? What’s more likely…?

I’ll explain it to you if you want. But consider it for a second. I’ll repeat what I already quoted, so you can try again:

Washington state data shows there were 21,757 vaccine breakthrough cases among more than 4.1 million vaccinated people from January 17 — August 21, 2021. Although that might sound like a high number, it means that only 0.5% of vaccinated Washingtonians had breakthrough infections. Of the breakthrough cases that we have data for, just 9% required hospitalization and less than 1% died of a COVID-related illness.

0.5% is rare, I’d say. True, we don’t have an EXACT count. You seem to take this to mean that they CDC is therefore unjustified in claiming breakthrough cases are “very rare,” but you simply don’t understand statistics— despite your pathetic attempts to portray this as your speciality.

Primary school level - we divide the number of observations by the size of the population. The second part of that equation is missing. — Isaac

I’ll help: the population was 4.1 million. Breakthrough cases: 21,757. That’s one example from one state, yes— there are others. But that goes to show how this is measured.

You’re just confused, I’m afraid.

So the WHO are wrong then when they say

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. — Isaac

That’s also an old link, last updated in July.

But regardless, they’re talking about all vaccines— the studies I cited only mentioned Pfizer and Moderna. The “extent to which” is worth remembering as well — that’s true, but that’s not questioning their effectiveness of doing so. It just means an individual shouldn’t feel invincible. I think it’s perfectly fine for the WHO to be cautious. No one, including me, would encourage people do be reckless simply because they’re vaccinated — breakthrough cases happen, one can be asymptomatic yet infected, etc.

The claim was that vaccinated people are just as likely to transmit the virus as the unvaccinated. This is simply untrue, and remains untrue — no matter how badly you want to believe otherwise.

You cannot transmit the virus if you don’t have the virus. Vaccinated people do not have the virus as much as unvaccinated people, as is abundantly clear. That alone shows your claim is completely bogus. Now substitute “have” with “infected,” and the same thing applies to transmissibility: you cannot transmit something you don’t have. That fact that you struggle with this connection would be baffling, until one understands you simply don’t want to understand it.

You cannot transmit the virus if you don’t have the virus. — Xtrix

The vaccines reduce the virus in the blood, the virus that you transmit is in the nasal mucosa.

systemic respiratory vaccines generally provide limited protection against viral replication and shedding within the airway, as this requires a local mucosal secretory IgA response

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320052/

That the two are linked is a theoretical assumption that you've done nothing to even address, let alone confirm.

Mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and government scientists is among the top reasons for vaccine hesitancy. — Isaac

You sure they're converging on a genetic fallacy? You think they'd be happier with witchdoctors brewing things out in the woods?

You sure they're converging on a genetic fallacy? You think they'd be happier with witchdoctors brewing things out in the woods? — jorndoe

I think they'd be happier with a system guided more around the public good and less around private profiteering.

Are you really so bromidic that you can't think of any other option than the system we have or witch doctors?

Mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and government scientists is among the top reasons for vaccine hesitancy. — Isaac

That is not true. If it were, then people would not take pharmaceuticals. But, as a gargantuan industry, that is clearly not the case. People love pharmaceuticals.

The top reason for vaccine hesitancy is politics.

Denying that such mistrust is justified is therefore among the top activities of the pro-vaccine lobby. — Isaac

No. The top activity of the pro-vaccine lobby is politely asking people to vax.

If it were, then people would not take pharmaceuticals. — James Riley

Ah, the binomial thinking is contagious. Why, in your bizarre hypothetical, are people robbed of their ability to use more than one factor in their judgements?

In France for example...

Until the start of the 2000s around 90% of French people were pro-vaccine, but then scandals involving drug companies shook public confidence. A turning point came in 2009 when the French government ordered huge quantities of vaccine against the swine flu epidemic. Less than 10% of people took up the offer to get the vaccine amid fears of side-effects. The government was seen as having massively over-ordered with public funds, raising questions about financial interests.

“In our recent history, the H1N1 [swine flu] was the moment when doubt settled into the general population. It went beyond the small circles of anti-vaccine campaigners,” Vignaud said.

Already, earlier scandals had taken a toll. In the mid-1980s haemophilia patients were given HIV-tainted blood transfusions, and questions were raised as to how much the state had known. Then came a row over hepatitis B vaccinations: between 1994 and 1998 almost two-thirds of the French population and almost all newborn babies were vaccinated against hepatitis B, but the programme was suspended after concerns arose about possible side-effects.

The vaccines reduce the virus in the blood, the virus that you transmit is in the nasal mucosa. — Isaac

For those following along: notice the strategy. Now it's a shift to differentiating internal and mucosal immunity. Those without a leg to stand on often engage in diversion like this, but let's remember the original claim: vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated people. It's worth repeating that no matter how you slice it, this is incorrect.

We can now move on to the vaccines' effectiveness on mucosal immunity, if we want to. But the data so far suggest a much, much better efficacy rate for nasal infection as well, compared to the unvaccinated, even though with the Delta variant and the waning of immunity these numbers have dropped from in the 90% range to the 40%-80% range. This is still superior to being unvaccinated, which is why every major medical organization in the world is encouraging vaccinations.

So this diversion still doesn't support the original claim.

[...] both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines strongly protect against infection and severe disease

Mayo Clinic

They do urge, however, "further evaluation of mechanisms underlying differences in their effectiveness such as dosing regimens and vaccine composition are warranted." Which is understandable.

So in summary of this odd interchange, we're left where we were, despite lies, ignorance, denial, and misreading, distraction, and delusion: the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus by lowering both infection (internal and mucosal) -- whether one contracts the virus at all -- and severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases (hence far less hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated who contract the virus).

Lastly, breakthrough cases remain rare indeed, as per the CDC -- and for those without reading comprehension issues.

let's remember the original claim: vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated people — Xtrix

I never made that claim.

the data so far suggest a much, much better efficacy rate for nasal infection as well, compared to the unvaccinated — Xtrix

Your data?

So this diversion still doesn't support the original claim. — Xtrix

Why would it. I didn't make the 'original claim'.

the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus by lowering both infection (internal and mucosal) -- whether one contracts the virus at all -- and severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases (hence far less hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated who contract the virus). Breakthrough cases remain very rare indeed, as per the CDC -- and for those without reading comprehension issues. — Xtrix

Is all the opinion of some scientists based on a handful of low powered studies suffering from the same limitations as most biosciences (which is why they can barely even manage a 50% replicability rate).

I've never claimed anything of the sort you've bizarrely attributed to me. My 'claim' is limited to showing that matters you present as certain, settled facts believed by virtually all experts are nothing of the sort. The kind of detail that matters is a wide open field with most studies still running, virtually none have been replicated, most have contrary studies opposing.

Institutions, consequently urge caution and seek confirmatiin an further data. It's only ideology flag-waivers who pretend this is all very simple and any difference of opinion is only political.

Ah, the binomial thinking is contagious. Why, in your bizarre hypothetical, are people robbed of their ability to use more than one factor in their judgements? — Isaac

They're not. Twas you that painted pharma with a single brush.

They're not. Twas you that painted pharma with a single brush. — James Riley

One factor. Distrust of pharmaceutical companies.

Another factor. Having diabetes and no other choice than to take the product of a pharmaceutical company.

Any understanding of how this works breaking through yet?

Yes, some people might distrust some pharmaceutical companies and not others. I'm not one of those people. I distrust all pharmaceutical companies, but I have other factors which weigh in when deciding whether to use one of their products.

Gods, I can't believe I'm having to actually write this out to explain...

Are you really so bromidic that you can't think of any other option than the system we have or witch doctors? — Isaac

:D I was inquiring about the genetic fallacy.

I think they'd be happier with a system guided more around the public good and less around private profiteering. — Isaac

You do eh? That's a rather unspecific/abstract, possibly overlapping, response. (Personally, I have no problem with paying taxes, if that's of any relevance.) Yet, I'm not convinced of your take. If I was to guess, it might more so be your own preference. Some incorrigibility among anti-vaxxers has been seen. Whether or not a vaccine is produced in this or that factory may not make much difference to those people. It's possible that closer involvement might make a difference, and that'd be moving into socializing type efforts.

the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus by lowering both infection (internal and mucosal) -- whether one contracts the virus at all -- and severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases (hence far less hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated who contract the virus). Breakthrough cases remain very rare indeed, as per the CDC -- and for those without reading comprehension issues.
— Xtrix

Is all the opinion of some scientists based on a handful of low powered studies suffering from the same limitations as most biosciences (which is why they can barely even manage a 50% replicability rate). — Isaac

And there it is. "Some scientists" and a "handful of studies." Annals of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, the AMA, the Lancet, the CDC, the WHO -- all just opinions. We should go with an anti-vax internet troll with reading comprehension problems instead.

:lol:

My 'claim' is limited to showing that matters you present as certain, settled facts believed by virtually all experts are nothing of the sort. — Isaac

Which is what flat-earthers, climate deniers, Creationists, and holocaust deniers all say as well.

I never said it was all "certain, settled fact." This is a fluid situation, and things may change.

But what we know, to the best our our knowledge, right now, is that vaccines are safe (that is indeed supported by overwhelming evidence), effective (likewise), and help stop the spread (likewise). You have shown no evidence to the contrary.

You deny the evidence of this, and distrust the sources given (yet are happy to cite them when you think it helps what you want to believe). Yes, we all knew that already. I mentioned at the beginning that there would be no amount of evidence that will convince you. You will go on believing what you believe years from now, after hundreds of studies have been done -- let's at least be honest about that.

most have contrary studies opposing — Isaac

Oh? What are the contrary studies opposing the several ones I've mentioned? Please enlighten us to such studies that contradict them. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

Some incorrigibility among anti-vaxxers has been seen. Whether or not a vaccine is produced in this or that factory may not make much difference to those people. — jorndoe

Ha! That's brilliant. You're citing a study showing how radicals refuse to believe in the possibility of error as evidence that we should accept what our governments tell us without question.

Yes. Many people who hold strong views do so because they have trouble seeing alternative possible worlds in which they might be wrong.

So, here I am arguing that alternative viewpoints to the government narrative are often perfectly valid, even if they're unpopular, so long as they meet the threshold of expert approval and peer review. I'm met with a wall of infantile simplicity, fixated on the utter truth of a single narrative.

Who exactly do you think is suffering from the metacognative failure?

Time to take some time out again.

So, here I am arguing that alternative viewpoints to the government narrative are often perfectly valid, even if they're unpopular, so long as they meet the threshold of expert approval and peer review. — Isaac

How nice it must be to feel as though you're a crusader for the truth. Very self-serving. The reality is that these "alternative viewpoints" are actually quite popular indeed. They're held by a significant portion of the population of otherwise ignorant people who have, for political reasons, decided to cast impregnable skepticism on this one topic.

Yes, it's distrust of government -- especially when a Democrat is in office -- and riding a wave of anti-intellectualism and general distrust of science (especially when it conflicts with our religious beliefs).

You're just one common example of it. I've now had the misfortune of interacting with many of you. A dime a dozen.

Anyway -- the "as long as they meet the threshold of expert approval and peer review" part is interesting, because that's exactly where you've been shown to misread almost everything you cite. You cite the CDC and the WHO, then claim they don't know what they're talking about -- that they contract themselves, etc. You cite outdated studies, and then claim newer studies are flawed.

I wonder: is your position evidence-driven, or did it exist prior to any evidence (and is, in fact, immune to evidence -- completely unfalsifiable)?

(I don't really wonder.)

Besides misreading studies and data, there are several results that would completely falsify my claims. For example:

Breakthrough cases shown to be very common.
As many (or close to) hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated as unvaccinated.
Studies (any studies) that conclude that the vaccines are ineffective.
Studies (any studies) that conclude vaccines are not safe.
Studies that show vaccinated people can transmit the virus as much as the unvaccinated.


I won't hold my breath, but they COULD be out there. They happen to NOT be. Yet vague, unsupported claims keep being made.

Anecdotes about sterilization, heart attacks, magnetization, chip implantation and death after taking a vaccine abound to this day. Claims about how there's no point in getting vaccinated if you have to wear a mask anyway, or that you spread the virus just as readily as someone without a vaccine -- all continue unabated, supported by nothing.

Of the little that's given in support, it's obvious to anyone without a reading comprehension disorder that the studies say the exact opposite of what's implied by these "skeptics." It's the exact same tactics used by Creationists. They too will cite Nature and Science articles, published studies, world renowned authorities and organizations, etc. (While simultaneously dismissing them all as corrupt establishment groupthink).

let's remember the original claim: vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated people
— Xtrix

I never made that claim. — Isaac

So you don't agree with that statement? Wonderful.

Ha! That's brilliant. You're citing a study showing how radicals refuse to believe in the possibility of error as evidence that we should accept what our governments tell us without question. — Isaac

Nah, wasn't citing. In all honesty, I was copy/pasting. (My mistake, gave you something to latch onto, sorry.)

Some incorrigibility among anti-vaxxers has been seen. In some cases, even in their death beds at the hospital. Fortunately, some have also regretted their (deadly) ways, though their pleas seem to have swayed few. The anti-vaxxer machine and the sheeplets referring to it, keeps rolling.

I'm met with a wall of infantile simplicity, fixated on the utter truth of a single narrative. — Isaac

:grin: Hilarious. The righteous martyr eh? It's not quite a narrative as such. The evidence is the authority on the ground, tells the story. Maybe you're up for doing a comprehensive meta-study? Effectiveness, risks, that stuff? We could make bets on the outcome. Where would you place yours?

Some measure of common sense isn't to be scoffed at. The evidence is the authority here more so than some (unweighted) "he-said-she-said", the truth of the SARS-CoV-2/pandemic matter more so than some sort of radical cultural relativism. Would be kind of neat if the virus could just be argued away though. :smile: — jorndoe

Still doesn't change the healthcare problem, now does it? Also try to remember this is a pandemic. The world doesn't revolve around the USA. — Benkei

Once the leading advocates of vaccination are discredited, then we might develop a real, longlasting approach to this US/China manufactured virus. What is needed is 1) Reduce obesity 2) Have better living conditions for the elderly (the nursing homes are death camps), 3) provide nutritious food, encourage exercise sunlight exposure, reduce stress to promote healthier immune systems, 4) Stop the over prescription of all of these chemical drugs that are destroying the immune system. 5) Focus on early treatment (I use natural modalities).

Vaccinations are just another unnatural manipulation of the natural immune system, with totally unknown effects. It has never been studied. Shrug. Humans tend towards the hysterical and craziness. And the more hysterical you are, the more likely that you will get in power. Sweden is the lone exception.

I had Covid, I have a very strong immune system, and it was uncomfortable. Ditto for my wife. There is a sane, non-hysterical, low stress way to lead a life. But, if someone wants a neverending series of vaccinations and boosters, then by all means. It will be interesting to see the results. This pandemic will die out as more of the population develops natural immunity. As for all those who are full of vaccinations .. I don't know what the fallout will be.

Gods, I can't believe I'm having to actually write this out to explain... — Isaac

That's because you can't keep your foolish eyes on the ball. You said:

Mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and government scientists is among the top reasons for vaccine hesitancy. — Isaac

I simply corrected your error in reasoning by showing you the real reason for vaccine hesitancy. See how that works? No? I didn't think so. You should leave the thinking for your intellectual superiors, like me and other vaxers.

As for all those who are full of vaccinations .. I don't know what the fallout will be. — MondoR

Yes, those 182 million Americans (out of 6 billion shots administered worldwide) are in for a real hell! What could happen! Could be anything! In a few months…a year maybe…maybe a few years, just wait…could take a decade or two…ugh, I died from pneumonia: thanks, Covid vaccines!

It has been studied. They’re not experimental.

Vaccinations are just another unnatural manipulation of the natural immune system, with totally unknown effects. — MondoR

Same with the polio vaccine. Totally unknown effects. Just wait. They’re a disaster waiting to happen.

9 months, 6 billion doses, over a billion people vaccinated— study after study showing safety and effectiveness. That’s quite a conspiracy. But you “NEVER KNOW.”

We don’t know the effects of your “natural modalities”…better watch out! Few months from now you could be in REAL trouble! I mean years…decades maybe. Just you wait. Prove that I’m wrong!