Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
BTW a mate of mines 98 year old grandma presented to her doctor with a nasty respiratory illness (COVID neg.), so the idiot doctor made her get a PFizer COVID shot and she immediately got filthy sick for days.
The family is furious that a doctor would do such a stupid thing when he should know better how an immune system works.
I am curious about this. A 98 year old woman gets a Covid vaccine. Her body then starts fighting against an invader that doesn't really exist and it does it by generating a fever and recruiting antibodies. She gets 'filthy sick' for days. Is she really at risk from her body's reaction to the invader that her immune system has identified?
Hmm, I don't know about the doctor in question, but I am now questioning my own understanding of how an immune system works. Just what about doing this creates a significant problem? Sure, she is going to feel ill, but she is not actually going to be sick is she? The invader is neutral and her own immune system is reacting.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..D3 said..peacenlove said..
Edit: no need to patronise D3.
You claimed that many "infectious" diseases are virtually eradicated by vaccines right?
I do agree that the diseases that affect the body are tricky, and that's precisely why a sub-cutaneous injection of biologics can make matters worse. It's totally unnatural except in the case of poisonous bite.
I'll promise to try stop being patronising if you promise to get your story straight?
According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook, COVID-19 vaccines are Intramuscular injections.
immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccination-procedures/administration-of-vaccines
Yeah! Wasn't claiming anything here. Trouble is, the mRNA wrapped in the nano-tech iOS specifically designed to travel through the body, and has even been found in the brain, heart, livers and lungs. That's why myocarditis and pericarditis and liver cancers increased after the shots. Even i know of one liver turbo cancer death certified by the patient's oncologist. Sobering.
If I seem to mincing or mixing up your words, it might be because you're frequently changing what you're saying.
Apparently you're "not claiming anything " when you frequently state the COVID-19 vaccines are so dangerous because they are injected subcutaneous/sub-dermally?
But you keep saying the injection method is a significant part in why they're dangerous.
That's exactly what you're claiming.
pretend as we do, we can't trick the immune system into submission by injecting genetically modified organisms wrapped in toxic nano-technology and contaminated with foreign DNA particles, because the body has evolved sophisticated defence systems against poisoning by sub-dermal intrusion - such as snake bite, spider bite, scorpion bite etc. The reason we can drink snake poison and only get a gut ache while the same tiny amount administered sub-dermally kills us is precisely because injection bypasses almost all our defence systems. This goes against the Laws of Nature, like eating processed pesticide-laden GMO foods low in nutrition makes us sick. This is why the new platform of injectables not deserving of the name "vaccines" is causing such high levels of excess all cause deaths, myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots and disorders, neurological diseases, turbo cancers and most hideously coined "sudden death".
sub-cutaneous injection of biologics can make matters worse. It's totally unnatural except in the case of poisonous bite."
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..peacenlove said..
BTW a mate of mines 98 year old grandma presented to her doctor with a nasty respiratory illness (COVID neg.), so the idiot doctor made her get a PFizer COVID shot and she immediately got filthy sick for days.
The family is furious that a doctor would do such a stupid thing when he should know better how an immune system works.
I am curious about this. A 98 year old woman gets a Covid vaccine. Her body then starts fighting against an invader that doesn't really exist and it does it by generating a fever and recruiting antibodies. She gets 'filthy sick' for days. Is she really at risk from her body's reaction to the invader that her immune system has identified?
Hmm, I don't know about the doctor in question, but I am now questioning my own understanding of how an immune system works. Just what about doing this creates a significant problem? Sure, she is going to feel ill, but she is not actually going to be sick is she? The invader is neutral and her own immune system is reacting.
I think the key part of this story is that the information has been filtered several times.
As is peacenloves reporting of the case of turbo cancer.
He is repeating these cases as they are told to him, however there probably isn't much opportunity for verification.
And in sensitive cases like these, I expect everybody would be humane enough to not push a grieving or concerned family for specific details about the cancer or grannies flu.
I can see why someone might believe in turbo cancer, but it's not a thing.
Unfortunately late stage cancers can often be detected/diagnosed when it's too late for treatment. This does not mean the cancer got to that point in an unusual time frame, just detected late.
Even if what I've said above is wrong, and these vaccines are somehow causing (new to science) turbo cancers?
Then, they're doing so at such a small rate as to be almost insignificant risk.
As of August last year, in Australia alone , almost 70 million doses of covid vaccines have been given.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-covid-vaccinations?tab=table
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
I think you have a very selective memory of history. That's exactly what our benevolent tyrant leaders and compliant mainstream media said that the vaccines would do. Prevent illness and stop the spread so the lockdowns could be ended.
You're making stuff up... again.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone thought that any and all vaccines "finish the job" by eradicating the disease they are intended to prevent serious illnes from?
Pretty sure everyone was expecting it to not be more effective than the Influenza vaccine.
You know the one they recommend you get an updated version every year?
Or hey, what about the Pertussis and Tetanus vaccines?
Recommended to get boosters?
Yep
Covid vaccines are not the magic bullet other vaccines have been, which is a shame. This does not invalidate what they achieved.
Did some politicians (in particular) and too many scientists, who should have known better, make announcements that did not match reality?
Unfortunately yes.
So this is one of the reasons the whole topic is more nuanced than what you kept posting
I thing some doctors, scientists and especially politicians, simplified presenrinf the expectations of the vaccine in the forlorn hope of getting scientifically illiterate people like PnL33 to take the vaccine, so as to get the pandemic under control. It worked almost as well as expected.
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines and Turbo Cancer: The Latest Myth That Won't Disappear
Jan 9, 2025
By Jessica Malaty Rivera, MS
Contagion, Volume 9, Issue 04
"It has been nearly 5 years since COVID- 19 first emerged. Although we have witnessed a deluge of erroneous claims about the virus, the vaccines, and the treatments, not all have stuck around. Psychology experts have identified certain cognitive factors that make some misinformation and disinformation "sticky"-in other words, persistent and pervasive. Misinformation is particularly sticky when it affirms preexisting beliefs (confirmation bias), affirms the beliefs of a shared political community or religious identity (bandwagon effect), or affirms an overreliance on individual or case-specific information over relevant statistical data (base rate fallacy). The reliance on heuristics or mental shortcuts has contributed to a steady erosion of trust in public health. One of the most dangerous consequences of a low-trust population appears to be the near permanence of demonstrably false information. Undoing the harm caused by ubiquitous misinformation could take decades.... "
Select to expand quoteremery said..
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines and Turbo Cancer: The Latest Myth That Won't Disappear
Jan 9, 2025
By Jessica Malaty Rivera, MS
Contagion, Volume 9, Issue 04
"It has been nearly 5 years since COVID- 19 first emerged. Although we have witnessed a deluge of erroneous claims about the virus, the vaccines, and the treatments, not all have stuck around. Psychology experts have identified certain cognitive factors that make some misinformation and disinformation "sticky"-in other words, persistent and pervasive. Misinformation is particularly sticky when it affirms preexisting beliefs (confirmation bias), affirms the beliefs of a shared political community or religious identity (bandwagon effect), or affirms an overreliance on individual or case-specific information over relevant statistical data (base rate fallacy). The reliance on heuristics or mental shortcuts has contributed to a steady erosion of trust in public health. One of the most dangerous consequences of a low-trust population appears to be the near permanence of demonstrably false information. Undoing the harm caused by ubiquitous misinformation could take decades.... "
Certified by the dead man's oncologist. 700 people turned up to his funeral. The gravesite is no myth - i promise.
. . . And you quote some virtue signalling industry propagandist in response?
Maybe time for another mRNA brain-booster?
Select to expand quoteremery said..peacenlove said..
I think you have a very selective memory of history. That's exactly what our benevolent tyrant leaders and compliant mainstream media said that the vaccines would do. Prevent illness and stop the spread so the lockdowns could be ended.
You're making stuff up... again.
LOL. It's history. It's exactly what we were told - day after day by condescending pontificating liars standing behind lecterns and sitting behind news desks - telling us the vaccines dramatically reduced transmission, prevented serious illness and even prevented infection so the lockdowns and mandates and draconian policies could be ended. If it didn't do this, what was the purpose of the draconian policies?
So many examples i won't bother to post them here.
Edit:
By the way, even Pfizer admitted that they never tested to see whether their quaccine prevented transmission of the pathogen:
?si=lYo8M8cYR1C-TWAd
"speed of $cience"
Yep, because they just tested the effectiveness of Preventing disease, serious disease and death.
If you're thinking this is a big "gotcha" moment, maybe you could find other vaccine trials where disease transmission was a measured outcome of the trial?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Yep, because they just tested the effectiveness of Preventing disease, serious disease and death.
If you're thinking this is a big "gotcha" moment, maybe you could find other vaccine trials where disease transmission was a measured outcome of the trial?
Yet we were continually being told by authority figures that the vaccines would also prevent transmission or at the very least, significantly reduce the incidence of transmission and prevent infections, when the truth is that no such evidence could be provided to support such claims. Even Brett Sutton talked often about how the vaccines were effective at preventing transmission but had to admit in that famous presser that quote "despite two-three doses, it's not so good at preventing infection in the first place".
So if Pfizer never tested for this, as they confirmed in the EU committee, why was Brett Sutton even talking about prevention of transmission of the pathogen as a thing in the first place?
See, i think it's in fact you D3, who doesn't really see the wood for the trees here, and your perception is clouding your judgement of my posts, making it appear to you that I'm changing my tune, whilst allowing you to rewrite history.
So by your logic, if one chose to be vaccinated then one would protected from serious disease and death - right?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..FormulaNova said..peacenlove said..
BTW a mate of mines 98 year old grandma presented to her doctor with a nasty respiratory illness (COVID neg.), so the idiot doctor made her get a PFizer COVID shot and she immediately got filthy sick for days.
The family is furious that a doctor would do such a stupid thing when he should know better how an immune system works.
I am curious about this. A 98 year old woman gets a Covid vaccine. Her body then starts fighting against an invader that doesn't really exist and it does it by generating a fever and recruiting antibodies. She gets 'filthy sick' for days. Is she really at risk from her body's reaction to the invader that her immune system has identified?
Hmm, I don't know about the doctor in question, but I am now questioning my own understanding of how an immune system works. Just what about doing this creates a significant problem? Sure, she is going to feel ill, but she is not actually going to be sick is she? The invader is neutral and her own immune system is reacting.
I think the key part of this story is that the information has been filtered several times.
Nope, what I was trying to get to was that I think getting a Covid vaccination just gave the old lady a normal vaccine reaction. Perfectly natural as her body will be thinking she has an infection. It then tries to heat up to kill off the source of infection. She feels bad for a few days as her immune system does this.
Does she actually degrade from this? That's what I was sort of asking and presumably her doctor is also thinking that she doesn't.
To someone that is ignorant of how the immune system works then maybe this scenario sounds like terrible medical care, but is it?
To a CTer a vaccination reaction like this is bad, but it is natural, and just like 'snakebite' PeaceNlove thinks it must be A OK. To the family they are thinking the doctor is an idiot, but is he? For sure there are some out there, but he seems to understand the process a bit better than the family and their consultant P&L.
^^^ Yeah guys!
Can we get back to discussing seabreeze.com.au site modifications again.
Going back to Japies original post.
RFK Junior has clearly stated the Measles vaccine is crucial for protecting individual's and communities from life threatening disease.
This goes against everything he has been campaigning for over the past 2 decades!
And now his supporters are worried he's going backflip on all these other issues they dreamed he was going to "fix".
Some supporters only voted for Trump because RFK Junior endorsed him.
So now that RFK Junior has compromised his morals to get a position of power, let's see if he has the integrity to keep his "convictions" on Health?
I'm all for changes being made in the medical system in the USA, it's obviously not working for them and hasn't for a long time.
But any changes should not be to take a step backwards and undo a lot of the gains made over the past century.
I think the USA adopting a single payer/universal healthcare model like other, much healthier, developed nations would go a long way to improving health for All Americans.
Not just those who can afford pay.
I wonder if that is on the table with the current administration?
Select to expand quotelaurie said..
Please take the CT / Covid / Vaccine discussion to anywhere but here.
Thanks
Laurie,
Yet you'll allow endless new topics that are totally political, and
that naturally require discussions about these sub-topics that you deem offensive or not permitted?
Except that it seems that you get to decide what is to be discussed when it comes to politics, so long as it conforms to your opinion on the boundaries of political speech, is that right?
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
is that right?
Yep.
And you just gotta deal with it.
And if you can't deal with it then you are free to leave. Just say caio and disappear off into the sunset like a Skoda heading east from Victoria during lockdown.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..laurie said..
Please take the CT / Covid / Vaccine discussion to anywhere but here.
Thanks
Laurie,
Yet you'll allow endless new topics that are totally political, and
that naturally require discussions about these sub-topics that you deem offensive or not permitted?
Except that it seems that you get to decide what is to be discussed when it comes to politics, so long as it conforms to your opinion on the boundaries of political speech, is that right?
SB is like a house party and everyone is invited, people come, people go. You can bang on about anything with who you want but the house still belongs to Laurie. If you piss off Laurie, he will kick you out of his house. His house his rules.
