RFK - Make America Healthy? again?
I believe this guy is going to need his own thread.
LOLOL today Luciom discovers the whole idea behind vaccination."It might be smart to expose yourself to a really weak version of the virus to stimulate your body to produce antibodies."YOU DON'T ^&*#$@ SAYYeah, man the times that you might choose to get infected over getting vaccinated are when getting infected is most like getting vaccinated (but it's still not better because
hey dumbo gorg, we are talking 2020 pre vaccine.
? we couldn't know how the virus would have variated later on in 2020 so if you weren't at risk right then, it would have made perfect sense to try actively to get infected asap, as insurance against later more lethal variants.In hindsight it would have been fairly useless but given it was a close to 0 risk choice anyway, why not doing it?there was also a decent chance for a wh
Except he obviously was at risk then - he died - along millions of other people. Like I said, if reality were completely different his strategy may have made perfect sense.
He died August 2021, about 9 months after the vaccine became available in his country.
lol luc I couldn't care less what you were talking about. Tell us more about when it makes sense to get infected INSTEAD OF GETTING VACCINATED (which was what I was talking about, and not with you).
Also you gotta stop quoting that idiot. lolol
Hes a lawyer with a background in environmental litigation and has zero training, education, or study into the medical field but lets just let him run wild
Ok, let's pretend he faced the same situation in 2020, before the vaccine was available. He was 58 years old, which places him out of the low-risk age groups, so still a horrible decision. Or did you mean for your statement to be entirely theoretical?
Yeah, nearly as good as your vaccine study funded by Pfizer.
Speaking of pharmaceutical companies.
It looks like those people who said it was a gene therapy not a vaccine were right.
BERLIN – The president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division told international “experts” during a globalist health conference that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are indeed “cell and gene therapy” marketed as “vaccines” to be palatable to the public.
Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made these comments at this year’s World Health Summit, which took place in Berlin from October 24-26 and hosted 6,000 people from 120 countries. Oelrich told his fellow international “experts” from academia, politics, and the private sector that the novel mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing.
“We are really taking that leap [to drive innovation] – us as a company, Bayer – in cell and gene therapies … ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say: if we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate,” stated Oelrich.
The peer-reviewed one in a reputable journal with all the data published so you can verify it yourself?
No. Not nearly as good. In fact, anecdotes aren't even evidence.
Speaking of pharmaceutical companies.
It looks like those people who said it was a gene therapy not a vaccine were right.
No, they weren't.
Therapeutics are given after infections. It's not any kind of therapy, let alone gene therapy.
Also, it looks like someone just simply can't read. He didn't say that at all. He said:
"“We are really taking that leap [to drive innovation] – us as a company, Bayer – in cell and gene therapies … ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy."
They were an example FOR that cell and gene therapy (in other words, an example for them to aspire to - not an example OF the technology). It's funny how these articles always mischaracterize what someone says.
Hilariously, he then specifies cell and gene therapy as what people would reject, not the covid vaccines.
"‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate,” stated Oelrich."
So BJ, in addition to your claim being ridiculous to begin with (vaccines in general, specifically the covid vaccine, are NOT therapeutic, they are a preventative. Therapeutics are given after infection), you either lied or were lied to about what this guy actually said.
Why does it take 15 seconds for me to read and understand and you had all the time you needed and failed yet again?
edit to add: it's the article for sure. Just look at the obvious deception right under the headline:
‘We probably would have had a 95% refusal rate’ for these shots two years ago, but the pandemic and marketing of the injections as ‘vaccines’ has made them popular with the public, said Stefan Oelrich.
Single quotes that intentionally stop right before "these shots two years ago" and then adding "said Stefan Oelrich" at the end. He said NO such thing, and they know it or they would've quoted him directly. When they did quote him later, fully, the deception is made obvious. BJ for gods sake stop falling for this s
OH EVEN MORE HILARITY. The article was published in 2021. So his "these shots two years ago" COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN REFERRING TO THE COVID VACCINES because two years earlier was before Covid was even a THING.
hahahaha BJ seriously. Embarrassing.
The site has a terrible rating on media bias/fact check, also. Should've been your first clue, BJ.
Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Canada
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: EXCELLENT
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Failed Fact Checks
Target is donating $100,000 to “promote gay lifestyles to school children.” – MOSTLY FALSE
Parents in California are not allowed to pull their children out of sexual education classes. – MOSTLY FALSE
The proceeds of Girl Scout Cookies are used to support Planned Parenthood. – FALSE
“Johns Hopkins study mysteriously disappears after it revealed, in spite of COVID, no more deaths in 2020 than in prior years” – INACCURATE
Nuns contracted Covid-19 from Moderna vaccine – FALSE
“Terrifying new research finds vaccine spike protein unexpectedly in [the] bloodstream. The protein is linked to blood clots, heart, and brain damage” – FALSE
COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system; “Idaho doctor reports a ’20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients” – Inaccurate
Cancer increased twentyfold among COVID-19 vaccinated due to suppressed T cells – False
“If you get the Pfizer vax, you’re more likely to get COVID” – Inaccurate
We rate LifeSiteNews far-right biased for story selection that always favors evangelical Christianity and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and many failed fact checks. (11/25/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 03/19/2024)
Ok, let's pretend he faced the same situation in 2020, before the vaccine was available. He was 58 years old, which places him out of the low-risk age groups, so still a horrible decision. Or did you mean for your statement to be entirely theoretical?
At 58 in 2020 if comorbid/obese it's complicated, it then becomes about quantifying the chances a vaccine will be developed soon vs more lethal variants might appear and there wasnt enough data on either scenarios to make sensible estimates.
But the same was clear cut for a 31y old (or for those college students on spring break criticized because theydecided to live fully normally in spring 2020), so not theoretical, just applicable to a different segment of the population.
Oh btw there is also "if I catch the virus I can then live fully normally" vs the ongoing cost (which can be dramatic or low depending on subjective circumstances) of distancing
At 58 in 2020 if comorbid/obese it's complicated, it then becomes about quantifying the chances a vaccine will be developed soon vs more lethal variants might appear and there wasnt enough data on either scenarios to make sensible estimates.But the same was clear cut for a 31y old (or for those college students on spring break criticized because theydecided to live fully normal
It still represents horrible risk-based decision making. Putting one's life in danger for a virus he may not catch, on the chances the virus might mutate into a more deadly form, when many viruses actually do the opposite when adapting for survival in their hosts, and at a time the medical system was overloaded. Many people make poor decisions when faced with uncertain, open-ended risks - that appears to have been the case for this gentleman.
It still represents horrible risk-based decision making. Putting one's life in danger for a virus he may not catch, on the chances the virus might mutate into a more deadly form, when many viruses actually do the opposite when adapting for survival in their hosts, and at a time the medical system was overloaded. Many people make poor decisions when faced with uncertain, open-en
"life in danger", we are talking a risk profile lower than that of a bronchitis for an under 40, a disease people don't actively change their life to avoid at all.
Medical system was never overloaded after april 2020. It was actually very significantly UNDERloaded from may 2020 on, to the point of record-low usage of healthcare in records.
Guy just was dumb not to get the vaccine , when it became available, but the overall logic for 2020 was sound, for people not at risk.
Lol at "life in danger" getting covid as a non heavily comorbid under 40 person ffs, not a single one with those profile died in excess in2 020 in france, italy, spain, germany. Not a single ****ing person, we are talking a totally irrelevant disease for those people.
We actually would have needed plenty of young people getting covid, staying in isolation, and when healed to use them to treat nursing home patients. That would have been an intelligent plan. Instead you guys sent covid patients to nursing homes.
It still represents horrible risk-based decision making. Putting one's life in danger for a virus he may not catch, on the chances the virus might mutate into a more deadly form, when many viruses actually do the opposite when adapting for survival in their hosts, and at a time the medical system was overloaded. Many people make poor decisions when faced with uncertain, open-en
There's almost zero-chance a random would have enough information in 2020 to make a proper risk-assessment, anyway. Look at how badly off-the-mark most reasonably intelligent people on 2+2 are with years of hindsight under the belt, after all. A random in 2020 would have no clue about the true risk. All you could really do at the time is listen to experts and be cautious. Intentionally getting infected at that time would be incredibly reckless. Hell, it's not even smart now, and it was FAR more dangerous then.
After Bergamo excess data came in (we had them in April 2020), it was perfectly clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the disease was utterly insignificant for under 40 men without terrible comorbidities, and under 45 women.
And fairly low risk (but not 0) for under 55 men and under 60 women.
That was completly uncontrolled spread during total hospital chaos, the bottom low of conditions, and not a single person under 40 without incredible comorbidities died in excess.
Now, i could understand a non caucasian doubting those results generalize for all ethnicities (and it comes out in fact that people with south american native blood were actually a lot more at risk), but for a caucasian? it was all clear beyond any reasonable doubt (for the variant that hit Bergamo, that is).
An utterly insignificant disease for half of the population.
Diamond princess data told us that even older people were at really low risk if healthcare was available, like not worse than any other serious but fairly common and very rarely lethal respiratory condition at their ages.
all that data was known in april 2020.
Exactly. After the Diamond Princess anyone with half a brain knew this was basically a nothing burger if you were not elderly with comorbidities.
the time when Big Pharma Corrupted the Media and overtook bureaucracy!
the US should immediately ban all pharmaceutical advertising, again.
Yeah, good luck with that with your boy Orange in the White House. He'll probably be doing ads for the Purdue Pharma on the White House lawn next week and you'll applaud him for it.
Yeah, good luck with that with your boy Orange in the White House. He'll probably be doing ads for the Purdue Pharma on the White House lawn next week and you'll applaud him for it.
Except in republican circles the idea that pharma drug ads are the main source of income for mainstream media is circulating recently very strongly.
So the idea would be to ban them to starve what republicans consider democratic party media.
That makes it possible for this administration to push for it. But if they need congress i agree it would be VERY hard, as big pharma has deep pockets and it takes very few republicans voting against to block any such attempt (unless democrats come to the rescue)
You've made this claim repeatedly and it's still false. There were countless confounders that prevented this determination that early into the pandemic.
Not for age bracket risks no. Which is why Sweden didn't close elementary schools, citing exactly that data as the main reason, that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the disease wasn't risky for kids.
I know why you guys want to deny objective reality and the fact that we knew already for a certainty the disease was irrelevant for young people in April 2020, still not going to work when you try that.
