# News & Current Events > Coronavirus SARS-CoV2 >  How do you refute pro-vaccine arguments?

## sdsubball23

I'm just looking for an honest rebuttal to those who claim the Vaccines are the answer to stopping COVID. I'm not trying to promote the vaccine here as I'm not interested in taking the vaccine myself. How would you all respond to these pro-vaccine arguments?

1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying. 

2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).

3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.

4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated. 

5) Hospitals are being burdened and could cause those seeking non-covid treatment from not being able to seek the treatment.

6) If Vaccines aren't the answer, then what alternatives do we have that are just as safe and effective or better than vaccines?

----------


## Anti Globalist

1.  Rushed out experimental vaccines are in no way safe or effective.  It roughly takes 2-5 years to develop a good vaccine.  We've seen plenty of stories of people fully vaccinated and still testing positive for COVID.  In Australia, there are more vaccinated people in hospitals than unvaccinated.

2.  Theres a lot of stories of people developing blood clots, myocarditis, women having issues with their pregnancy, and dying after taking this vaccination.  According to the latest VAERS report, a little over 17,000 have died.  OSHA has released a statement saying they are no longer going to keep track of side effects.  We also don't know what the long term effects of this vaccine are going to be, something our politicians are refusing to talk about.

3.  This is hard to believe considering COVID deaths have been inflated since this whole thing began.  There are videos of health officials stating that if someones cause of death is from an accident, but they tested positive for COVID, they are being counted as a COVID death.  There's also a difference between dying with COVID and dying from COVID.

4.  98% of Israel's population is fully vaccinated.  It is not preventing the spread of the virus.  Those that have taken the COVID vaccine are the real super spreaders.  It is impossible to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.  

  5.  If a hospital is being burdened with so many COVID patients, it's not because of the virus.  It's because the hospital has poor management skills.  Might be best to avoid these kinds of hospitals and go to ones that have things under control and can freely focus on other health issues that people have.  

6.  HCQ and ivermectin have been proven to be very effective at fighting against COVID.  You can also boost your immune system by getting plenty of exercise, vitamin D and zinc.  In the event that you recover from COVID, your body has natural immunity meaning taking the vaccine is unnecessary.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm just looking for an honest rebuttal to those who claim the Vaccines are the answer to stopping COVID. I'm not trying to promote the vaccine here as I'm not interested in taking the vaccine myself. How would you all respond to these pro-vaccine arguments?
> 
> 1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying. 
> 
> 2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).
> 
> 3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.
> 
> 4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated. 
> ...


1) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.

2) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.

3) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.

4) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.

5) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.

6) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.

----------


## acptulsa

Adverse effects are numerous, and not uncommon.  Benefits seem to be nonexistent.  Compare high-"vax" countries like Singapore, Israel and the British Isles with low-vax countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ight=Singapore

The numbers say that "vaccine" has no benefit whatsoever.  Quite the opposite.

----------


## tod evans

A vaccination is suppose to prevent you from acquiring a disease. 

If you don't get the disease you can't spread it let alone die from it.

Their injection might lessen symptoms of covid or it might not, their injection does not 'slow the spread', just look at the data (science)...

Their propaganda alone should give any sane person pause when considering what concoctions he injects. 

Don't debate their talking points, simply ask "What has any government ever done that has proven good for the people?" and let them try to explain their position.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> I'm just looking for an honest rebuttal to those who claim the Vaccines are the answer to stopping COVID. I'm not trying to promote the vaccine here as I'm not interested in taking the vaccine myself. How would you all respond to these pro-vaccine arguments?
> 
> 1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying. 
> 
> 2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).
> 
> 3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.
> 
> 4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated. 
> ...


Freedom ?

----------


## 69360

I don't. I'll never take their vax, but I have better things to do with my life than argue over the virus.

----------


## CaptUSA

1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying. 
_Maybe.  Maybe not.  The evidence is still inconclusive to me, but if you want to take your chances, go ahead._

2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).
_The same could be said for Covid.  How many athletes have been hospitalized or died from Covid?  So, if my risk is already VERY small, why would I take a "vaccine" that only adds a new risk just to potentially get a VERY small marginal benefit?_

3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.
_Yeah, they really care about you - that's what this is all about.  They could have gotten a bigger marginal benefit gain by telling everyone to get sunshine, exercise, reduce stress and eat healthy - but how would Big Pharma rake in billions from those policies?_

4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated. 
_The data don't seem to support that hypothesis, but if you believe it, go ahead and take the chance._

5) Hospitals are being burdened and could cause those seeking non-covid treatment from not being able to seek the treatment.
_Hospitals aren't being burdened.  They set up tents and triage centers when this all started and got billions of dollars to prepare.  Then tore them all down.  If any hospital is having issues, it's not because of patients, it's because of poor management.  Quit letting the press mislead you._

6) If Vaccines aren't the answer, then what alternatives do we have that are just as safe and effective or better than vaccines?
_Exercise, sunlight, fresh air, reduced stress, healthy foods...  If you're already doing those things, you have nothing to worry about.  If you start doing those things, you can easily lower risk more than you could from a leaky, ineffective vaccine.  And, you'll have the benefit of knowing that you're not contributing to more dangerous variants caused by a weak vaccine._

_Ultimately, you can do whatever you want - just don't force it on anyone else.  And quit allowing politicians and bureaucrats off the hook when they pretend they can make you safe if you just give up your wealth and liberty._

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm just looking for an honest rebuttal to those who claim the Vaccines are the answer to stopping COVID. I'm not trying to promote the vaccine here as I'm not interested in taking the vaccine myself. How would you all respond to these pro-vaccine arguments?
> 
> 1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying.


They are NOT safe.  And there are multiple vaccines with various levels of safety.  One study showed that boys are 6 more times as likely to develop myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine then they are to be hospitalized by COVID.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...suggests-study

And some European countries have suspended the Moderna vaccine in people under 30 over myocarditis concerns.

https://www.malaysiasun.com/news/271...ccines-for-men
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2021101...oses-in-france
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wire...eople-80432245

As for "effective", a Harvard study shows that countries with high vaccinations rates have the same *or higher* number of COVID cases per million as countries with low vaccination rates.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ccinated-areas




> 2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).


Depends on the population.  As pointed I pointed out to your point #1, young boys are more likely to have a severe adverse reaction than they are to be hospitalized from COVID.  




> 3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.


And they pushed burning Jews at the stake to stop the black plague too.  Just because someone pushes a solution doesn't mean they are right.  More people died from the Spanish flu vaccine than died from the flu.

https://lichtnahrung2015.wordpress.c...nish-flu-1918/

Don't want to believe a blog?  How about the NIH which said most of the "flu" deaths were really from baterial pneumonia?

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...uenza-pandemic

And human to human transmission of the 1918 flu was never confirmed, despite studies where the infected would litterally breath into the nostrils of uninfected, or even giving uninfected blood from the infected.

https://medium.com/microbial-instinc...d-9f91b37c4dd8




> 4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated.


Source?  But even if your right (and I doubt that), that doesn't change the fact that, according to god king Fauci, there's as much viral load in breakthrough cases in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated.  Which means that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread while contagious as the unvaccinated.  Now, according to your sources, you are more likely to have severe symptoms if you are unvaccinated.  Which means the vaccinated, with just as much viral load as the unvaccinated, are more likely to be walking around thinking they are not sick and infecting others.  That's what happened when the Democratic lawmakers from Texas spread COVID to Biden's cabinet.  They were ALL vaccinated.




> 5) Hospitals are being burdened and could cause those seeking non-covid treatment from not being able to seek the treatment.


Simply not true at all.  Just a talking point.  And even if it were true (it's not), then why fire first line workers who don't get vaccinated even when many of them have natural immunity from already having had COVID?  The data shows that you have 17 to 27 times the immunity from getting over COVID than you do from being vaccinated alone.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/N...ws.aspx/312538

And the Cleveland Clinic study showed no benefit to being vaccinated if you already had COVID.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...nic-study.aspx

The issue has never been a lack of beds.  It's been a lack of nurses to tend those beds.  And Biden is causing nurses to be fired.  But even the non issue of hospitilization is going away.  COVID hospitlization dropped in Alabama back in September by 33% in just 3 weeks and the situation continues to improve.

https://www.wsfa.com/2021/09/20/alab...VID%20patients.




> 6) If Vaccines aren't the answer, then what alternatives do we have that are just as safe and effective or better than vaccines?


1) Poor gut health is connected to COVID.  That can be fixed with proper nutrician, probiotics and laxitives.  (That's how I got over COVID in 2 to 5 days).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ovid+full+crap

2) Exercise greatly improved COVID outcomes.  (Already gave you a link).

3) Hydrotherapy can potentially aid in COVID recovery.

https://www.hydro4covid.com/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33303302/
https://www.adventistreview.org/conc...ay-play-a-role

4) Sunlight  kills COVID even under the skin.  And no, you don't have to stick a light tube down your lungs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7194064/

5) Being temperate may be important.  Studies have shown that heavy alchohol consumption reduces them immune systems ability to fight off viral and bacterial infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239251/

And yet, the government early on kept liquor stores open while closing churches.

6) Simply breathing fresh air helps fight COVID.  But it needs to be fresh air.  Air conditioning spreads COVID.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heal...hing-exercises
https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/air-...virus-covid-19

At a time when people needed to be out in the fresh air the most, Fauci said close the parks and beaches.

7) A study fromt the Cleveland Clinic showed that melatonin decreased COVID risks in whites by 25% and in blacks by 54%.  You can get melatonin in supplements, from food, and your body naturally produces it from proper rest.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/c...reat-covid-19/

8) Trust in God.  Everything I listed above has been taught by the Seventh Day Adventist Church since the late 1800s.  We believe that was from inspiration from God.  Regardless, it's all been proven true.  Barbara O'Neil, an SDA health evangelist, was persecute in Austrailia back in 2018 because she was falsely accused of pushing these over modern medicine.  The truth is that she always maintained people should go to the doctor as well, but that natural healing was something that should also be considered.  This is her story:

----------


## sdsubball23

> 1.  Rushed out experimental vaccines are in no way safe or effective.  It roughly takes 2-5 years to develop a good vaccine.  We've seen plenty of stories of people fully vaccinated and still testing positive for COVID.  In Australia, there are more vaccinated people in hospitals than unvaccinated.
> 
> 2.  Theres a lot of stories of people developing blood clots, myocarditis, women having issues with their pregnancy, and dying after taking this vaccination.  According to the latest VAERS report, a little over 17,000 have died.  OSHA has released a statement saying they are no longer going to keep track of side effects.  We also don't know what the long term effects of this vaccine are going to be, something our politicians are refusing to talk about.
> 
> 3.  This is hard to believe considering COVID deaths have been inflated since this whole thing began.  There are videos of health officials stating that if someones cause of death is from an accident, but they tested positive for COVID, they are being counted as a COVID death.  There's also a difference between dying with COVID and dying from COVID.
> 
> 4.  98% of Israel's population is fully vaccinated.  It is not preventing the spread of the virus.  Those that have taken the COVID vaccine are the real super spreaders.  It is impossible to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.  
> 
>   5.  If a hospital is being burdened with so many COVID patients, it's not because of the virus.  It's because the hospital has poor management skills.  Might be best to avoid these kinds of hospitals and go to ones that have things under control and can freely focus on other health issues that people have.  
> ...


Appreciate your thoughts. But what do you think of my responses?

1) I agree, but so far over a billion doses have been given and in the US alone we have 58% fully vaccinated and tiny percent have had adverse events. Nobody I know that's been vaccinated has had any adverse events. Maybe some have because I know two people that have had some recent health issues arise, but they haven't said it's due to the vaccine and I don't know for sure.

Where do you have the stats for Australia having more vaccinated in the hospital?

2) I hear stories too, but overall the numbers seem very small don't you think? Maybe there are a lot of unreported events? But with the data we have so far, I feel as if it's hard to argue against the safety of the vaccine so far. How else would you argue against this?

3) How would you respond to those that rely on the CDC and gov't to give their official data on COVID deaths? I'm kinda skeptical myself regarding the numbers.

----------


## BortSimpson

Check the "Estimated Study Completion Date" for Pfizer clinical trials for "SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY"

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

*Sponsor:*
BioNTech SE*Collaborator:*
Pfizer*Information provided by (Responsible Party):*
BioNTech SE
*Study Design*

Go to  


Study Type  :
Interventional  (Clinical Trial)

Estimated Enrollment  :
43998 participants

Allocation:
Randomized

Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment

Masking:
Triple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator)

Primary Purpose:
Prevention

Official Title:
A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2 RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS

Actual Study Start Date  :
April 29, 2020

Estimated Primary Completion Date  :
May 2, 2023

Estimated Study Completion Date  :
May 2, 2023

----------


## BortSimpson

This is the clinical trial for Moderna testing "Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity".  

Estimated Study Completion Date  :	October 27, 2022

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427

*Sponsor:*
ModernaTX, Inc.*Collaborators:*
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)*Information provided by (Responsible Party):*
ModernaTX, Inc.
*Study Design*

Go to  


Study Type  :
Interventional  (Clinical Trial)

Actual Enrollment  :
30420 participants

Allocation:
Randomized

Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment

Masking:
Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking Description:
Part A is observer-blind. During Part B participants may request to be unblinded by scheduling a Participant Decision clinic visit.

Primary Purpose:
Prevention

Official Title:
A Phase 3, Randomized, Stratified, Observer-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older

Actual Study Start Date  :
July 27, 2020

Estimated Primary Completion Date  :
October 27, 2022

Estimated Study Completion Date  :
October 27, 2022

----------


## acptulsa

> Nobody I know that's been vaccinated has had any adverse events.


How nice for you.  I know--_knew_--a woman just entering middle age whose heart seized up as a result of myocarditis.  May your luck hold out for you.

----------


## TheTexan

> 1) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.
> 
> 2) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.
> 
> 3) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.
> 
> 4) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.
> 
> 5) I don't want to change your mind or argue with you, but I don't want to share a country with you either.
> ...


+rep x100

----------


## cjm

Pro-jab arguments are like flat earth arguments or "we need government for roads" arguments.  They only appear to take the form of science or fact based arguments. At their core, those arguments are professions of faith and no amount of "refuting claims" can change what someone believes.  I don't waste my time (any more).

----------


## tod evans

> They are NOT safe.  And there are multiple vaccines with various levels of safety.  One study showed that boys are 6 more times as likely to develop myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine then they are to be hospitalized by COVID.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...suggests-study
> 
> And some European countries have suspended the Moderna vaccine in people under 30 over myocarditis concerns.
> 
> https://www.malaysiasun.com/news/271...ccines-for-men
> https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2021101...oses-in-france
> https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wire...eople-80432245
> ...


I just got around to watching this video, thanks for posting it!

I've been a Barbra O'Neil fan for years and had no idea the problems she was having with the AU government.

Anyone who likes natural remedies would do themselves a favor by seeking out her lectures.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> How do you refute <insert left wing arguments>?


There may be a pattern here...

----------


## ClaytonB

> I'm just looking for an honest rebuttal to those who claim the Vaccines are the answer to stopping COVID. I'm not trying to promote the vaccine here as I'm not interested in taking the vaccine myself. How would you all respond to these pro-vaccine arguments?
> 
> 1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying. 
> 
> 2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).
> 
> 3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.
> 
> 4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated. 
> ...


According to this table from the Mayo Clinic (grabbed today):



... nearly 100% of the major risk groups have received the first vaccine dose. So, the entire narrative that "we have to maintain economy-busting epidemic-control policies because otherwise the doomsday-virus would swamp the capacity of hospitals" is busted. Not to mention that we've had 18 months to put into place additional medical flex-infrastructure in the event of an outbreak (perhaps of something completely other than the doomsday-virus). If you're 18-50 and you want to run the risk of coming down with it, that's your choice. Yes, that presents some very tiny, yet real, additional risk to others. But you present a vastly greater additional risk to others (thousands of times greater) every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you're insured (insurance does not and cannot reduce the risk you pose to others when behind the wheel).

In short, the entire doomsday-virus narrative is completely busted, and has been completely busted from the moment the first provisionally-approved dose of vaccine rolled out of the lab. It was always political theater but now it's _transparently_ political theater. Throughout this entire "epidemic" the infection rates in Democrat-controlled states was higher than in Republican-controlled states, just go back and look at the historical infection-rate maps, they look pretty much the same as the US political map for any recent Presidential election. I haven't done a county-by-county comparison, but it might be even more enlightening in this regard.

If I need to take the vaccine for some legitimate reason, I'll take it. But otherwise, no, I don't trust the same bungling morons that have screwed up on every possible dimension that you can screw up, and yet somehow keep managing to pass themselves off as "the experts in the room". I won't voluntarily become a lab-rat.

----------


## fisharmor

> 1) Vaccines are safe and effective and help reduce chances of being hospitalized and dying.


We have known since April 2020 that the numbers on hospitalization and death are complete bull$#@!, and the numbers for reducing chances of hospitalization and death are being presented by the same people.




> 2) Vaccine adverse events are very small in number, so the claim is they are safe. To be fair, over a billion doses have been given and a very small percentage have had adverse events. Just look at all the athletes in our country, I only know of one athlete who had an adverse event out of 100s if not 1000s (Brandon Goodwin of the NBA).


The same people who have presented bull$#@! data for nearly two years have also logged thousands of deaths in the US that 'happened after vaccination' but refuse to admit there is a potential causal relationship and just like every other VAERS reported case going back to 1986, there is zero follow-up investigation.  So they want it both ways.  They want any dead body in any way associated with COVID antibodies to count as a COVID death, but they want every death that happens shortly after vaccination to remain an utter mystery.
That's hard proof that they're playing faster and looser with the facts than most people can even conceive.




> 3) Over 700k have died from COVID so they push the vaccine to help resolve mortality issues.


Already addressed.




> 4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated.


Who says so?  The same people who got so tired of it being brought up that there were no studies saying masks worked that they simply published some data-free studies that say masks work, after the start of the mask mandates?  I'm not sure why anyone capable of typing out questions like this haven't gotten by themselves to the point of realizing the people pushing this narrative have no concern at all for truth.




> 5) Hospitals are being burdened and could cause those seeking non-covid treatment from not being able to seek the treatment.


Hospitals are being burdened?
Think back to the beginning of all this when they were bringing in hospital ships (which all went totally unused) to high population areas to help ease that burden.  What were they saying?
"We don't have enough beds."
That went TOTALLY unchallenged.
How $#@!ing long has mankind known how to make a bed?  20000 years?  And we're expected to just take that statement at face value?
What they never divulged, at least not clearly, was that the real statement is "Our state government colluded with hospitals to put a legal limit on the number of beds we're allowed to have in our hospital and we legally can't operate at greater than X capacity".
Of course they put temporary suspensions on those restrictions - and things worked themselves out.  The initial problem has been gone for some time now.

What about ventilators?  Again- what is the definition of a ventilator?
Is it one of the state-controlled devices that they had limited numbers of, or is it one of the devices that YouTubers immediately started publishing plans for that could serve not one, but 200 or more people at a time, using common plumbing components?

The 'burden on hospitals' issue is the most blatant and abject horse$#@! about any of this.  If there is a burden or ever was a burden, or ever will be a burden, it is strictly because state regulatory bodies have CREATED AND MAINTAINED THAT BURDEN.

MOREOVER, it has come out in the last four months or so, that the initial reaction to COVID was completely contrary to the way pneumonias and other respiratory issues were handled.  Here is a video of a nurse who explains in detail that up until COVID the object was to get the patient breathing, exercising, and the hell out of their bed - and this is the polar opposite of how COVID was handled.  My sister is an RN who worked in New York City during the absolute worst of it in April/May 2020 and confirmed everything in this video.

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/m6tKbyYhLrGE/

So you have to ask two questions after knowing that:
1) How much of this 'burden' was actually self-imposed by dragging out the patient's convalescence, and 
2) How many of these COVID 'fatalities' were actually the direct result of $#@!ty medical practice?




> 6) If Vaccines aren't the answer, then what alternatives do we have that are just as safe and effective or better than vaccines?


Have you had COVID?  I have - my entire family was part of an outbreak involving over 50 people who weren't doing any of the nonsense and of course all got it at the same time.  We had not one single fatality and most of us, including myself, had incredibly mild symptoms that were gone within a day.  Dave Chapelle and Rand Paul aren't the exception: they are the NORM.

You know what was weird about the outbreak, though?  It was at church, in a group of people that don't associate with each other on a regular basis.  We all got it at the exact same time, after being in proximity to each other for about four hours.  It was literally like a bomb went off.

Now this is an environment where we've had bugs run through the parish before notably a stomach bug in 2018, and it happened the way bugs are *supposed* to run through a population: one family gets it, maybe a couple days spaced apart, then another family gets it, one member after another, and then another family, but very rarely more than one family at a time.  

COVID was not at all like that.  It all happened all at once.  We all got it at the same time and all had the exact same 10 day quarantine period.  There is NO evolutionary advantage to that - in fact there is evolutionary pressure AGAINST a virus spreading that quickly as it burns itself out.

There is some shady $#@! going on with that.

The best argument against all your points is WHO $#@!ING CARES WHEN THE LAB THAT CREATED IT IS STILL WORKING?

What reason do you have to believe that the next one that gets 'accidentally' 'leaked' is going to be one with a 99.94% survival rate?

Why in the everfucking $#@! are we arguing about stupid bull$#@! like vaccinations when we should be arguing about the fastest way to get the people who made this thing to cut the $#@!?

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## Working Poor

I tell them because I am not a cannibal.

----------


## sdsubball23

> 4) Viral load stays in the unvaccinated longer than the vaccinated so it's implied that the unvaccinated spread the virus more than the vaccinated.
> The data don't seem to support that hypothesis, but if you believe it, go ahead and take the chance.





> Source?  But even if your right (and I doubt that), that doesn't change the fact that, according to god king Fauci, there's as much viral load in breakthrough cases in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated.  Which means that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread while contagious as the unvaccinated.  Now, according to your sources, you are more likely to have severe symptoms if you are unvaccinated.  Which means the vaccinated, with just as much viral load as the unvaccinated, are more likely to be walking around thinking they are not sick and infecting others.  That's what happened when the Democratic lawmakers from Texas spread COVID to Biden's cabinet.  They were ALL vaccinated.




https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....16.21251535v3

I know it's pre-print, but it's a study discussing how vaccinated clear the virus more quickly than the unvaccinated.

----------


## tod evans

> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....16.21251535v3
> 
> I know it's pre-print, but it's a study discussing how vaccinated clear the virus more quickly than the unvaccinated.


Anything put forth by government/Big-Pharma should be questioned if not discounted off hand.

----------


## TheTexan

You can be pro-vaccine all you want - I don't care.

But if you're gonna start talking mandates, the only argument I need against that, is chambered in 5.56

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I'm just looking for an honest rebuttal....



No, you are not.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty



----------


## sdsubball23

> There may be a pattern here...


I guess so as it's mostly if not fully coming from the left. But then the right is pretty much the opposite.

----------


## sdsubball23

> Check the "Estimated Study Completion Date" for Pfizer clinical trials for "SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY"
> 
> https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728
> 
> *Sponsor:*
> BioNTech SE*Collaborator:*
> Pfizer*Information provided by (Responsible Party):*
> BioNTech SE
> *Study Design*
> ...


I assume you're saying that the vaccines are still experimental? I think the Pfizer vaccine may have been approved by the fda as they said you can use it interchangeably with their new vaccine Comirnaty that was "officially" approved by the fda. Comirnaty has the same formulation as the pfizer-biontech vaccine. Though I could be wrong on what they meant.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

neg rep

----------


## Firestarter

It's difficult to "refute" dishonest pharma trolls, when all the good citizens will simply believe any propganda the mainstream media and authorities tell them: https://summit.news/2021/10/22/delet...es-to-conform/


Big pharma is actually reporting adverse effects of the deadly COVID vaccines as "unvaccinated COVID cases".
They do this by reporting a positive COVID case within 14 days of the jab as an "unvaccinated COVID case", while the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines include immune deficiency for 6 to 8 days for healthy people.



> The following UK Column video features a "NHS whistleblower", who explains why suddenly all of these elderly people die after COVID-19 vaccination. In reality this is more a scientist than a whistleblower though - he analyses publicly accessible information.
> In short, the experimental Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines causes immune deficiency, until 7 days after the victims have been poisoned with these vaccines. This can make elderly people seriously ill, who could die from the immune deficiency caused by the vaccines.
> 
> With the result that the death rates among the elderly skyrocketed - a 4-fold increase in deaths.
> These deaths could last longer than the first 7 days after vaccination.
> 
> The interesting part with the NHS whistleblower is from 4:00 to 9:30 minutes.
> (video deleted: youtu.be/oHhCYkEwbAQ)
> 
> ...


Pfizer-vaccine-immune-deficiency-cover-up



In the following video, Robert Malone explains why the dangerous mRNA vaccines should have never been emergency approved at warp speed without proper medical trials.



> The following isn't some rant from an antivaxxer, but the educated opinion of an expert (inventor) on mRNA technology, Robert Malone, who goes on to explain that these type of vaccines should have never been approved without proper long-term medical trials (that usually include animal trials for at least 3 years), especially as they're completely new technology that has never been used in vaccines before.<br>
> He points out that the "biologically active" spike protein being spread throughout the body is especially troubling, and "very dangerous"...<br>


Risks-COVID-vaccines-larger-than-benefits

----------


## jmdrake

> 


Wise Indian!

----------


## jmdrake

> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....16.21251535v3
> 
> I know it's pre-print, but it's a study discussing how vaccinated clear the virus more quickly than the unvaccinated.


And you didn't even bother to address this.

But even if your right (and I doubt that), that doesn't change the fact that, according to god king Fauci, there's as much viral load in breakthrough cases in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated. Which means that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread while contagious as the unvaccinated. Now, according to your sources, you are more likely to have severe symptoms if you are unvaccinated. Which means the vaccinated, with just as much viral load as the unvaccinated, are more likely to be walking around thinking they are not sick and infecting others. That's what happened when the Democratic lawmakers from Texas spread COVID to Biden's cabinet. They were ALL vaccinated.

----------


## BortSimpson

> I assume you're saying that the vaccines are still experimental? I think the Pfizer vaccine may have been approved by the fda as they said you can use it interchangeably with their new vaccine Comirnaty that was "officially" approved by the fda. Comirnaty has the same formulation as the pfizer-biontech vaccine. Though I could be wrong on what they meant.


I'm saying you can tell people that there is a clinical trial (on a ".gov" website) to evaluate the "safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of the SARS-COV-2 RNA vaccine candidates against Covid-19 in healthy individuals" that isn't scheduled to complete until May 2023.  So even if the vaccine is "FDA Approved", would any sane person take a vaccine where this is still being tested?

Btw, I'm unclear on the FDA approval.  I could be wrong but I think I've read it's still contingent on the outcome of certain studies.  Also, the whole idea of "it's approved but use the EUA one instead", I believe allows them to still not be liable for adverse events.  

In other words, if you have an adverse event on an approved (as opposed to EUA) vaccine then Big Pharma would be liable.  The idea that they get to say "this is approved" but still give you the EUA version (since Comirnaty is not available) means they're "reaping the benefits" ("you can feel safe because the vaccine is approved") without taking any of the risk (legal liability for adverse events).  I guess you could tell someone who wants the approved vaccine to demand that they get Comirnaty.  That would be one way to prevent them from taking the vaccine (since they won't be able to get it).

----------


## sdsubball23

> And you didn't even bother to address this.
> 
> But even if your right (and I doubt that), that doesn't change the fact that, according to god king Fauci, there's as much viral load in breakthrough cases in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated. Which means that the vaccinated are just as likely to spread while contagious as the unvaccinated. Now, according to your sources, you are more likely to have severe symptoms if you are unvaccinated. Which means the vaccinated, with just as much viral load as the unvaccinated, are more likely to be walking around thinking they are not sick and infecting others. That's what happened when the Democratic lawmakers from Texas spread COVID to Biden's cabinet. They were ALL vaccinated.


I can understand that, but my point was that the viral loads stays in the vaccinated for less time than the unvaccinated, hence promoting the possibility that the unvaccinated could spread the virus more often because they'd have the viral load inside them for longer than the vaccinated. Seems if when I see the numbers, the unvaccinated largely outnumber the vaccinated in positive cases. I know in certain places in the world that's not the case, but it seems for the most part it's the unvaccinated getting tested positive.

CDC has a study on unvaccinated vs vaccinated cases: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...e1.htm#T1_down

I'm wondering if you or anyone has a refutation for that? As I said before, I'm not pro-vaccine for myself, but I feel as if the pro-vaxxers could make a case out of this.

----------


## tod evans

> I can understand that, but my point was that the viral loads stays in the vaccinated for less time than the unvaccinated, hence promoting the possibility that the unvaccinated could spread the virus more often because they'd have the viral load inside them for longer than the vaccinated. Seems if when I see the numbers, the unvaccinated largely outnumber the vaccinated in positive cases. I know in certain places in the world that's not the case, but it seems for the most part it's the unvaccinated getting tested positive.
> 
> CDC has a study on unvaccinated vs vaccinated cases: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...e1.htm#T1_down
> 
> I'm wondering if you or anyone has a refutation for that? As I said before, I'm not pro-vaccine for myself, but I feel as if the pro-vaxxers could make a case out of this.


"Teh Newz" is reporting that government studies have intentionally withheld statistics on vaccinated covid deaths since the release of booster shots. I read that earlier today.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can understand that, but my point was that the viral loads stays in the vaccinated for less time than the unvaccinated, hence promoting the possibility that the unvaccinated could spread the virus more often because they'd have the viral load inside them for longer than the vaccinated. Seems if when I see the numbers, the unvaccinated largely outnumber the vaccinated in positive cases. I know in certain places in the world that's not the case, but it seems for the most part it's the unvaccinated getting tested positive.
> 
> CDC has a study on unvaccinated vs vaccinated cases: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...e1.htm#T1_down
> 
> I'm wondering if you or anyone has a refutation for that? As I said before, I'm not pro-vaccine for myself, but I feel as if the pro-vaxxers could make a case out of this.


Yes.  The Harvard study that shows the opposite.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...e-arent-enoug/


The video was hosted by comedian and commentator Jimmy Dore, who cited a study published Sept. 30 in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology. The study’s lead author, S.V. Subramanian, is a professor of population health and geography at Harvard.

The introduction to the journal article noted a surge in cases in the United States and Israel. But the study itself analyzed the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases reported over a seven-day period across 68 countries and across 2,947 counties in the United States. The periods varied slightly by area, but were in late August and early September.

During that time frame, the study found, countries with a higher percentage of population fully vaccinated had a higher rate of new COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. 

The findings were similar in the U.S. Of the five counties with the highest vaccination rates, three of them — Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico) and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties — had above 90% of their population fully vaccinated while also being identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as high-transmission counties.
Of course PolitiFarce spun the facts to obscure the truth.  Vaccines are stopping the spread of COVID.  They MIGHT be causing variants to spread faster than they would otherwise.  And who give a flying fig if the best you can said is "promoting the possibility?"  It's just as possible, using the argument I put forward, that the vaccinated are the ones spreading COVID, especially variants, more than the unvaccinated.  So since YOU can't prove that mass vaccination is helping, there's no reason for vaccine mandates.

/thread

----------


## oyarde

Refute getting the shot ? Seems simple since it doesnt even work .

----------


## sdsubball23

> Yes.  The Harvard study that shows the opposite.
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...e-arent-enoug/
> 
> 
> The video was hosted by comedian and commentator Jimmy Dore, who cited a study published Sept. 30 in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology. The study’s lead author, S.V. Subramanian, is a professor of population health and geography at Harvard.
> 
> The introduction to the journal article noted a surge in cases in the United States and Israel. But the study itself analyzed the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases reported over a seven-day period across 68 countries and across 2,947 counties in the United States. The periods varied slightly by area, but were in late August and early September.
> 
> ...


You make a good point. The only thing is none of us know whether the vaccinated are spreading the virus just as much if not more than the unvaccinated. I think assumptions and guesses have been made based on different studies that provide different outcomes such as the CDC one posted or the Harvard one you mentioned.

I would think the proponents would point to hospitalizations based on the assumption that it's the fully unvaccinated going to the hospital and not taking into account partially vaccinated which have been lumped into the unvaccinated status. 

Just to be clear, I don't support the vaccine for myself at least and don't support the mandates. I'm trying to get some good pointers on answering vaccine supporters and their arguments and I appreciate yours and others' responses to the questions I've proposed. I'm also seeing if the unvaccinated arguments hold ground.

----------


## jmdrake

> You make a good point. The only thing is none of us know whether the vaccinated are spreading the virus just as much if not more than the unvaccinated. I think assumptions and guesses have been made based on different studies that provide different outcomes such as the CDC one posted or the Harvard one you mentioned.
> 
> I would think the proponents would point to hospitalizations based on the assumption that it's the fully unvaccinated going to the hospital and not taking into account partially vaccinated which have been lumped into the unvaccinated status. 
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't support the vaccine for myself at least and don't support the mandates. I'm trying to get some good pointers on answering vaccine supporters and their arguments and I appreciate yours and others' responses to the questions I've proposed. I'm also seeing if the unvaccinated arguments hold ground.


In Israel the rate of people fully vaccinated is 62.2%.  The hospitalization rate shows 60% fully vaccinated.  (The rate among the adult population is over 80% and the reason the overall rate is lower is because they haven't started vaxxing children.....yet.)   

https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...udy-finds.html

Now, why such a high rate for vaccinated getting hospitalized in Israel?  Well...the got to high vaccination rates quicker than anybody else and they were dealing with delta much sooner than the U.S.  The vaccines we currently use are MUCH better against the original strain than they are the variants.  So I suspect the "vaccine protects so much against hospitalization" numbers are including the months when delta was not the overwhelming majority of the cases.

That said, as I already explained, hospitalization numbers have no correlation whatsoever to transmission numbers.  So....why do you keep making that argument?  Hospitals are NOT being overburded by COVID patients.  So that makes the vaccine something that should be a 100% matter of choice.  And for people who've already had COVID, there's no reason to take the vaccine at all.  It provided marginal additional protection at best, while adding unnecessary risk.  Think of it this way.  If you're riding in a car with working airbags and you are wearing your seatbelt, also wearing a helmet might provide marginal additional protection.  But since that protection is so small there's no reason to do it.  The vaccinated who have not had COVID are like people riding in a car with a helmet but no airbags.  The unvaccinated who have had COVID are like someone riding in a care with a seatbelt and airbags but no helmet.  Biden's mandate is like saying you are safer with just a helmet.  Stupid.

Also, there are other ways to prevent hospitalization.  The early treatment options include, monoclonal antibodies, that new Merk drug, getting 30 minutes of exercise a day, melatonin, ivermectin + zinc, hydroxychloroquine + zinc, magnesium citrate, hydrotherapy, sauna, steam treatment, intraveneous vitamin C, vitamin D.  All of these treatments, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, have science to back them up.  Some are even FDA approved.  All, including the FDA approved Merk drug, have been downplayed by Dr. Fauci and his cabal because they want authoritarian solutions to be the ONLY solutions considered.

----------


## TheTexan

> Think of it this way.  If you're riding in a car with working airbags and you are wearing your seatbelt, also wearing a helmet might provide marginal additional protection.  But since that protection is so small there's no reason to do it.  The vaccinated who have not had COVID are like people riding in a car with a helmet but no airbags.  The unvaccinated who have had COVID are like someone riding in a care with a seatbelt and airbags but no helmet.  Biden's mandate is like saying you are safer with just a helmet.  Stupid.


Plus the helmet gives you a chance of clots/myocarditis

----------


## Firestarter

This should convince even the most gullible of the "trust the science" crowd.
The immune deficiency causing COVID-19 vaccines result in more COVID cases!
.



> Statistics from Public Health England of 28 October 2021 show that the dangerous COVID-19 vaccines have an average negative effectiveness of -70%...
> 
> For all age groups over 30 in the UK the COVID-19 vaccines show a negative effectiveness, lowest for the 40-49 age group of -132%. Surprisingly the clot shots, according to these numbers, have a positive effectiveness of +21% for the 18-29 age group (the "youngest" group reported).


Risks-COVID-vaccines-larger-than-benefits/page2

----------


## jmdrake

> Honestly, I'm not vaccinated yet either. I understand that I will most likely not have complications if I get it because I am young, I don’t have a congenital disease, and I take care of my health. I regularly read about various vitamins and go in for sports. I think I'll get vaccinated soon so that I can travel later, because without the vaccine it's very difficult to leave now. My parents are already vaccinated and they are fine, so I'm not afraid to get vaccinated.


For all of the reasons you mentioned you have no reason to fear getting COVID.  If you get it, you'll get over it.  There are some things you can do to get over it quickly such as magnesium citrate to clear out your gut.  When I took that I was over the major symptoms in 1 to 2 days.  As far as the risk of the vaccine, the younger you are the higher risk.  Some European countries have now banned (excuse me "indefinitely suspended") the use of Moderna for people under 30 because of the risk of myocarditis.  The FDA admits that risk exists especially for young people.  At this point, looking at the Virginia race, the momentum in this country is shifting.  I don't think Biden is going to be able to get away with a travel mandate and red states are striking down employer mandates.  This isn't just about health.  It's about freedom.  They will back down but only if enough people refuse to comply.  I don't know if you're old enough to remember this, but when the TSA first implemented the "get rape scanned (RAPISCAN) or get a pat down" policy, people across the nation decided to refuse right before the Thanksgiving holiday so that the pat downs would snarl airline traffic.  In response, that year, the TSA just waived everybody through.  Then...eventually...people got "used" to the rape scans or signed up for the TSA's "trusted traveller  program" so they could "travel faster."  In other words, Big Brother got exactly what he was wanting all along.  No one's asking you to go storm the capital building and get arrested.  But giving up, temporarily, a little convenience in order to bring the these government goons to heal isn't asking too much I think.

----------

