Agreed, and agreed.
2 Likes
Those are staggering numbers, and it’s funny that I was JUST talking about Ivermectin with some coworkers. Well, more accurately a coworker who is also an ambulance tech, was saying a lot of what you just showed. Thank you @mikser.
2 Likes
@Mikser that was a VERY interesting read. You had me at …
Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to just 1% who had been infected previously.
With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.
2 Likes
@Mikser you’ve been MORE than fair, throughout this subject, since the beginning.
Fair enough.
2 Likes
Did you know VAERS reports over 11,140 Americans dead directly from the vaccine? And over 400,000 seriously injured, or adversely affected by the shot?
This VAERS system is widely considered to be greatly under-reported. So, the numbers are undoubtedly much higher. Are you aware a whistleblower claims the death toll from the vaccine is actually over 45,000 in just one reporting district? A lawsuit was filed just this week claiming the CDC is hiding this gigantic death count.
In the EU the numbers are even worse. Their vaccine reporting system reports almost 20,000 dead from the vaccine and two million seriously injured or adversely affected. This number does not include UK or half the countries in Europe. So, the true vaccine death toll must be around 40,000.
3 Likes
I’ve been wanting to get something like this off my chest for quite a while and apologies in advance if this offends in any way as it is not my intention to do so. Apologies also for the long read…
A lot of people who are not vaccinated give one of their reasons as “it’s new and unproven” and that they’re going to wait until “the clinical trials” have been completed first. Regardless of whether these vaccines prove safe or not after 3 years say, I won’t be taking the jab. I just don’t see a reason to voluntarily take the “juice” given that this virus has the survival rate it does. I can absolutely understand why some people would get it though. If it can keep them out of hospital and lessen their symptoms (suffering) then why not.
Personally I have no need for it. I was vaccinated at birth. That is, I have an immune system and trust it to do what it was designed to do. If not, there are alternative treatments available that I have complete and utter faith in. These treatments aren’t being offered to the population maybe (just surmising here) because if the vaccines weren’t required, governments across the globe would lose their “emergency powers” and ultimately their control. That always dismays me as I know these politicians were just normal kids like all of us at one stage or another and to think they’ve somehow evolved into these strange beings and are prepared to make people’s lives difficult has me confused.
Look, I’m not saying don’t take the vaccine. By all means do what you think is best in your own personal situation. Everyone has their own particular set of circumstances and their own set of health issues but I would hope that people were diligent and open minded with their research before making the decision.
I’m not a doctor and I haven’t spent 20 years researching viruses so the following is simply unfounded opinion. I may be over thinking this but my gut feeling is that once you take the vaccine, your immune system “might” be somehow weakened from taking said vaccine. If so, that will make you more susceptible to future variants (strains) which would require you to take “booster shots” which would perpetuate the “cycle” of taking yet more booster shots ad infinitum. Remembering of course that each time you did, you’d be paying for the privilege. All this money would obviously go to the drug companies. They’re not going to give the vaccine to you for free are they? No they’re not. Everything about the reasons for these vaccines and their existence just seems fishy to me.
These are the same drug companies that have been sued and fined billions of dollars. The same ones that have lied and been forced to pay compensation to victims of their dishonest practices. The same ones that have no regard for the health of their customers and the same ones that seem to consider profit a higher goal than honesty, responsibility and integrity. History has a habit of repeating itself you might say. It saddens me to say this but I expect they see humanity as their personal “cash cow”. As I said, this is purely my own conjecture and by god I hope I’m wrong.
At the end of the day we should be the ones who decide whether or not we take the vaccine. No-one should have the right to force me to do otherwise. If so, why stop at vaccines. If our governments were really concerned about our welfare then why not ban alcohol, cigarettes, motor vehicles, sugar and even peanuts?
I’m not here to get into an argument. Rather I’m just putting out an alternative viewpoint for consideration. You decide what’s best for you but please let me do the same.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are mine only and no problem if you disagree. Whatever decision you make is the right one. Peace 
9 Likes
I’m not embarrassed about being an Aussie but on rare occasions I am, and this from a few days ago is one of them. Absolute lunacy 
At least our brothers and sisters from Sydney turned out today (maskless) in their thousands to protest the lockdowns. Maybe there’s a sliver of hope …
4 Likes
Wow @Dardy, I’m kind of surprised we haven’t thought of that yet over here. Maybe we will. 
The chief health officer of New South Wales gave a press conference telling Australians that they shouldn’t “engage in conversation with each other,” even if they’re wearing masks, in order to reduce the transmission of COVID.
Yes, really.
3 Likes
3 Likes
To add on from the post I put up recently regarding the Queensland (Qld) gooberment advising people not to talk to one another even while masked, now this, albeit from a few days ago:
Look, I know the Qld Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young is just doing her job and there are people who are thankful that she is, but she’s doing it (very) badly. She’s fast becoming a laughing stock down here.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, now she’s put Brisbane (the capital city) and surrounds into a snap 3-day lockdown because a whopping six (6) new locally acquired COVID-19 cases were reported in Brisbane. She had previously threatened to kick the NRL (National Rugby League) out of Qld (see above) and it looks like she might get her way. Her reasoning is that they want to stamp out the Delta hard and fast. Pfft! 
https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/07/31/vlandys-hopeful-of-completing-round-…
3 Likes
This spring, while we waited for the ambulance to take my father home to die from lung cancer, my brother got a call letting him know that his son was exposed to COVID at a birthday party. We immediately did the mental math as to who would be at risk (not he or I) My brother who has COPD, my father’s best friends who have diabetes, and (once removed) my daughter who works with the elderly (as a teenager, she witnessed the loss 37 people) and my brother’s sister-in-law who is doing chemo for lung cancer. I risked the vaccine because I hold the lives of others as sacred.
8 Likes
@NoFumus I am very sorry to hear that, and you have been, and are going through a lot.
Absolutely understood, and it IS, your choice. I hope that you have no ill effects, and your brother’s son is OK. Again, very sorry to hear about your Father’s situation, and as well as your brother’s sister in law as well.
6 Likes
My father died of lung cancer as, sadly, many of us will. He quit 20 years before but likely the damage was done. I hope we keep this in mind when the stats start rolling in about vapers dying of lung cancer.
6 Likes
- The assumption that unvaccinated people are viral factories for more dangerous variants is false
- Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines put evolutionary pressure on viruses to speed up mutations and create more virulent and dangerous variants
- Viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a vaccine that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person. That is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots — they’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms of that infection
- In an unvaccinated person, the virus does not encounter the same evolutionary pressure to mutate into something stronger. So, if SARS-CoV-2 does end up mutating into more lethal strains, then mass vaccination is most likely the driver
- So far, SARS-CoV-2 variants are at most 0.3% different from the original Wuhan virus. Such minor variation means the virus will not present itself as a new virus. If you’ve recovered from COVID-19, your immune system will still recognize it
5 Likes
Why am I hearing so much about Novavax right now?
In a recent Phase 1 trial, Novavax had a 96 percent efficacy rate against the B.1.1.7 variant, the most common COVID variant in the U.S… That’s slightly higher than the Phase 3 trials for both Pfizer and Moderna.
As Dery said and studies have shown, Novavax also appears to be highly effective (90 percent) against a mixture of variants, which is an increasing concern as the Delta variant spreads around the world. (To be fair, ongoing studies suggest that Moderna and Pfizer are also effective against new variants.)
3 Likes
@Mikser, and, it comes. From our CDC …
This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html
What is the Shielding Approach?
The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.
2 Likes
My thoughts exactly …
2 Likes