Covid Christian hospitalized, but says "God brought her here"

Aldebaran said:

And they need to be Constitutional. If you want something added to that, you'll have to add it yourself.

Click to expand...

Not how it works. The Supreme Court has already says vaccine mandates are Constitutional for public health

RestoreTheJoy said:

. . We all know the injection neither prevents contraction of the virus to the recipient nor spreading of the virus of others..

Click to expand...

but you have yet to provide a cogent rationale as to why that means you shouldn't take it since vaccine proponents are not using those arguments .

I would contend that most are indeed consulting their doctors. After all, the rate of injection into the elderly is pretty darn high, and they see doctors the most.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because they watch so many of their friends die.

pitabread said:

We do that all the time. They're called "laws".

Click to expand...

No, no. We do not by law mandate that anyone has to routinely do some invasive bodily procedure of any kind in order to make others more comfortable.

Not to mention here, the procedure - the injection- does not prevent transmission nor contraction of the virus in anyone, even the one who takes it, as the thousands of breakthrough cases so far are demonstrating.

So do what your doctor recommends, based on your own history.

rambot said:

but you have yet to provide a cogent rationale as to why that means you shouldn't take it since vaccine proponents are not using those arguments .

Yes. Because they watch so many of their friends die.

Click to expand...

They are indeed using those arguments. Listen to people here. You must have the vaccine so you aren't a plague rat, spreading it around, completely forgetting that millions already had it and are immune.

Biden's CDC et. al. have moved the goalposts several times as it becomes clear this isn't working. At first, the injection produced "immunity", then when it became clear that wasn't true as the vaccinated began getting it by the thousands, the language changed to "protection". Then "some protection against serious illness" But wait...vaccinated are showing up in the hospital too. What's the next term (asked rhetorically)? "You probably won't die" (which was always true, and would have been if we did nothing but distance)?

Biden said on Thursday - talking out of both sides of his mouth - that everyone had to get the Pfizer or Moderna because it provided serious protection, then on the other hand that the unvaccinated were dangerous to the vaccinated (but wait...serious protection?) when in reality both can spread it equally.

You just can't make this stuff up. But it's eerily reminiscent of the language about "quarantining Jews in the Ghettos to protect the rest of the population because they carried diseases " heard in the 1930s in Germany and Poland.

" During the years of the Nazi regime, German doctors frequently argued that Jews spread disease. Reflecting common themes in Nazi propaganda, these medical professionals repeatedly pushed the false claim that Jews were especially responsible for outbreaks of typhus—a deadly contagious disease spread by lice."

Propaganda Poster: “Jews Are Lice: They Cause Typhus”

This should concern anyone conversant with both Constitutional protections and history.

RestoreTheJoy said:

No, no. We do not by law mandate that anyone has to routinely do some invasive bodily procedure of any kind in order to make others more comfortable.

Click to expand...

For clarity, the part I responded to didn't have anything to do with "invasive body procedures". Rather, it's simply that we do tell people what to do via laws in some cases that have to do with comfort (noise by-laws for example).

In the context of vaccine laws, it's not a matter of comfort but public safety. And there are existing vaccination laws, so there is certainly precedent for what is currently happening.

Not to mention here, the procedure - the injection- does not prevent transmission nor contraction of the virus in anyone, even the one who takes it, as the thousands of breakthrough cases so far are demonstrating.

Click to expand...

Absolute prevention, no. Reduce the risk of, yes.

No safety measures are 100% guaranteed. It's about relative risk reduction, not perfection.

Only me

RestoreTheJoy said:

They are indeed using those arguments. Listen to people here. You must have the vaccine so you aren't a plague rat, spreading it around, completely forgetting that millions already had it and are immune.

Click to expand...

How can I argue against this?
Immunity means you can carry it and it won't make you sick. This is also what happens to people who get the vaccination they have some measure of immunity from it.
I have NEVER heard anyone but liars say "a vaccine means you can't carry the disease".
when you fundamentally forget how science works;

Biden's CDC et. al. have moved the goalposts several times as it becomes clear this isn't working.

Click to expand...

The CDC has changed recommendations as new scientific research comes out pointing to better results and outcomes due to procedures policies or medications.

At first, the injection produced "immunity", then when it became clear that wasn't true as the vaccinated began getting it by the thousands, the language changed to "protection".

Click to expand...

Good heavens..I want to believe you are just misrepresenting.
Immunity is possible for 83% of the population against the delta variant. I think that was the last test I read for phizer That's not 100%. It has never claimed to be 100% and so there should have been an awareness that vaccinated folks would still get sick. What we see has been to some extent expected in terms of efficacy.

Then "some protection against serious illness" But wait...vaccinated are showing up in the hospital too. What's the next term (asked rhetorically)? "You probably won't die" (which was always true, and would have been if we did nothing but distance)?

Click to expand...

We're you going to provide data at any point to impress and support your opinion?

Biden said on Thursday - talking out of both sides of his mouth - that everyone had to get the Pfizer or Moderna because it provided serious protection, then on the other hand that the unvaccinated were dangerous to the vaccinated (but wait...serious protection?.
[/QUOTE]yes. The chances of severe outcomes is much smaller.
Is that a new piece of information?

You just can't make this stuff up. But it's eerily reminiscent of the language about] "quarantining Jews in the Ghettos to protect the rest of the population because they carried diseases " heard in the 1930s in Germany and Poland.

" During the years of the Nazi regime, German doctors frequently argued that Jews spread disease. Reflecting common themes in Nazi propaganda, these medical professionals repeatedly pushed the false claim that Jews were especially responsible for outbreaks of typhus—a deadly contagious disease spread by lice."

Propaganda Poster: “Jews Are Lice: They Cause Typhus”

Click to expand...

Sweet. A full, unabashed Godwin.

While I was unsure, I will now confidently bid adieu to someone feeling as victimized as as a Jewish person in a pressure testing chamber in Dachau whose head was about to burst out of his head.

Taodeching said:

Not how it works. The Supreme Court has already says vaccine mandates are Constitutional for public health

Click to expand...

There are issues that differ. For one only one has FDA approval. And that one has been under scrutiny. Infertility, clotting and death to name a few. It is amazing actually after one actually looks into it that even got an approval.

Be selfish and let more people suffer and die die... great values from the supposedly 'pro-life' camp...

HIM said:

There are issues that differ. For one only one has FDA approval. And that one has been under scrutiny. Infertility, clotting and death to name a few. It is amazing actually after one actually looks into it that even got an approval.

Click to expand...

Because most of those are people not telling the truth and others believing lies. The problem is anyone can say anything about the vaccine without proof. The vaccine does not cause infertility in anyone, that was a complete lie. There is no clotting with Pfizer that was Johnson and Johnson and in a very, very few people who meant certain preconditions and were warned not to get the vaccine. No one has died from any COVID vaccine, another lie. There are to many lies that people are believing.

Strathos said:

Be selfish and let more people suffer and die die... great values from the supposedly 'pro-life' camp...

Click to expand...

Because they really many not mean it. It's okay to be pro-life when it's over there but when compassion comes knocking it becomes "I'll do as I please" and "my rights" this is selfishness in action

RestoreTheJoy said:

We all know the injection neither prevents contraction of the virus to the recipient nor spreading of the virus of others.

Click to expand...

I know with the vaccine I have at least an 80% chance of not coming down with covid if I come in contact with it.
That's much better than no protection at all.
It also means I have an 80% chance that I won't pass the virus on to someone else.

Taodeching said:

Because most of those are people not telling the truth and others believing lies. The problem is anyone can say anything about the vaccine without proof. The vaccine does not cause infertility in anyone, that was a complete lie. There is no clotting with Pfizer that was Johnson and Johnson and in a very, very few people who meant certain preconditions and were warned not to get the vaccine. No one has died from any COVID vaccine, another lie.

Click to expand...

But there is proof.

HIM said:

But there is proof.

Click to expand...

No there is conspiracy theories and kiddes filling out the VARES (think I spelled that wrong, sorry) form, antecedental reports are not proof.

Taodeching said:

No there is conspiracy theories and kiddes filling out the VAERS (think I spelled that wrong, sorry) form, antecedental reports are not proof.

Click to expand...

If by Kiddes you mean kiddies you are mistaken on that count and the conspiracy theory remark.
These are the writers of the excerpt below. Google them. They are extremely creditable
Michael Palmer MD, Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Stefan Hockertz PhD


This is where you will find the PDF in which the excerpt below is taken.
doctors4covidethics.org

Here is an excerpt. Below are their resources. Pay close attention to them. It is strongly suggested that you follow the link to the PDF and check out all the resources yourself.

3.1.3.1 Fatalities reported in connection with COVID vaccines. Within just five months of the onset of vaccinations, EudraVigilance has accumulated 12,886 deaths in connec16 tion with the COVID-19 vaccines, of which the Pfizer vaccine accounted for almost half (6,306). In the same time period, VAERS has run up 4,406 deaths in all; of these, 91% were associated with the mRNA vaccines, with Pfizer accounting for 44% and Moderna for 47% of the total. It is impossible to know what percentage of all fatalities that occur after vaccination will actually be reported to VAERS or EudraVigilance. However, note that the 4,406 COVID vaccine-related fatalities accrued by VAERS during just the past 5 months exceed the cumulative total of all other vaccines combined, over the entire previous 20 years. It is therefore clear that these vaccines are far and away the most deadly ones in history— quite predictably so, and all for a disease whose case fatality rate does not exceed that of influenza [1, 38].
3.1.3.2 Severe events related to disrupted blood clotting. The litany of diagnoses in both databases that indicate pathological activation of blood clotting is almost endless— heart attacks, strokes, thromboses in the brain and in other organs, pulmonary embolism; but also thrombocytopenia and bleeding, which result from excessive consumption of thrombocytes and of coagulation factors in disseminated intravascular coagulation. These disease mechanisms caused many of the fatalities summarized above; in other cases, they caused severe acute disease, which will in many cases leave behind severe disability.
3.1.3.4 Severe adverse reactions among adolescents. In the age group of 12-17 years, two deaths likely related to the Pfizer vaccine were already reported to EudraVigilance. Also in this age group, there were 16 cases of myocarditis, all in males, and 28 cases of seizures among both sexes, 3 of them reported as life-threatening. There also were a few cases of stroke, myocardial infarction, and severe inflammatory disease. While the numbers of adverse events are much lower than those among adults, this is simply due to the hitherto far lower rates of vaccination in this age group. Should systematic vaccination be green-lighted for adolescents, we must expect these numbers to rapidly climb to a level resembling that seen in adults.
3.1.3.5 Miscarriages. As of June 21st, 2021, EudraVigilance lists 325 cases of miscarriage among vaccinated pregnant women. While it is difficult to ascertain by just how much vaccination will raise the rate of miscarriage, most of these cases were reported by healthcare professionals, who evidently considered a connection to the vaccine at least plausible. This series of cases alone would be reason enough to pause the vaccinations and investigate3.2.4 Reproductive toxicity. Reproductive toxicity was assessed using only one species (rats) and on only small numbers of animals (21 litters). A greater than twofold increase in pre-implantation loss of embryos was noted, with a rate of 9.77% in the vaccine group, compared to 4.09% in the control group. Instead of merely stating [30, p. 50] that the higher value was “within historical control data range,” the study should have stated unambiguously whether or not this difference was statistically significant; and if it was not, the number of experiments should have been increased to ensure the required statistical power. The same applies to the observations of “very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities.” Overall, these studies are inadequately described and apparently were also inadequately carried out. 3.2.5 Autoimmunity. Exposure to the vaccine will lead to cell damage due to the cationic lipids, and also to the immune attack on cells producing the spike protein. From the cells undergoing destruction, proteins and other macromolecules will be released; such material must then be cleared away by macrophages. When the clearing system is overloaded because of excessive cell damage and apoptosis (cell death), then the accumulation of cellular debris will lead to chronically excessive type I interferon release; this, in turn, will trigger further inflammation. With time, some macromolecules in the debris will become targets for the formation of autoantibodies and the activation of autoreactive cytotoxic T cells—they will begin to function as auto-antigens. This then leads to further tissue damage and the release of more autoantigens—autoimmune disease will develop. Such an outcome is particularly likely in immunocompromised people or in those who are genetically predisposed to autoimmune disease (e.g. those with the HLA-B27 allele). The risk of autoimmunity induced by BNT162b2 could be adequately addressed only in long-term studies; as with fertility or cancer, the very short period of preclinical and clinical testing means that we are flying blind. It should go without saying that all of these risks are particularly grave with children, adolescents, and young adults.

Here is the closing statement of the paper and the resources references to which it was based. For those who are interested. The first paragraph is linked to the original PDF that was posted above in part. And a few of the references were also linked to their origin.

Overall, it is clear that the risk of ADE is recognized in theory but is not addressed in practice. Given the abundant evidence of ADE with experimental SARS vaccines, this is completely irresponsible.


References [1] J. P. A. Ioannidis: Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull. World Health Organ. (2020), BLT.20.265892. url: https://www.who.int/bulletin/ online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf. [2] J. P. A. Ioannidis: Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 5 (2021), e133554. pmid: 33768536. [3] CDC COVID-19 Response Team: Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Children - United States, February 12-April 2, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69 (2020), 422– 426. pmid: 32271728. [4] S. Tsabouri et al.: Risk Factors for Severity in Children with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Pediatric clinics of North America 68 (2021), 321–338. pmid: 33228941. 20 [5] J. Y. Abrams et al.: Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Systematic Review. J. Pediatr. 226 (2020), 45– 54. pmid: 32768466. [6] P. A. McCullough et al.: Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21 (2020), 517–530. pmid: 33387997. [7] C. Bernigaud et al.: Oral ivermectin for a scabies outbreak in a long-term care facility: potential value in preventing COVID-19 and associated mortality. Br. J. Dermatol. 184 (2021), 1207–1209. pmid: 33454964. [8] Anonymous: WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials. 2021. url: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/whoadvises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinicaltrials. [9] J. Flood et al.: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS): Prospective, national surveillance, United Kingdom and Ireland, 2020. The Lancet regional health. Europe 3 (2021), 100075. pmid: 34027512. [10] N. K. Shrestha et al.: Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals. medRxiv (2021). doi: 10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176. [11] S. S. Nielsen et al.: SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine 68 (2021), 103410. pmid: 34098342. [12] A. Grifoni et al.: Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181 (2020), 1489–1501.e15. pmid: 32473127. [13] N. Le Bert et al.: SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584 (2020), 457–462. pmid: 32668444. [14] S. Cao et al.: Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11 (2020), 5917. pmid: 33219229. [15] R. Wölfel et al.: Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature 581 (2020), 465–469. pmid: 32235945. [16] K. Basile et al.: Cell-based culture of SARS-CoV-2 informs infectivity and safe de-isolation assessments during COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. (2020). pmid: 33098412. [17] Anonymous: Covid: Secret filming exposes contamination risk at test results lab. 2021. url: Covid: Secret filming exposes contamination risk at test results lab. [18] K. G. Andersen et al.: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Med. 26 (2020), 450–452. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. [19] B. Sørensen et al.: Biovacc-19: A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity. QRB Discovery 1 (2020). doi: 10.1017/qrd.2020.8. [20] B. Sørensen et al.: The evidence which suggests that this is no naturally evolved virus. Preprint (2020). url: https : / / www . minervanett . no / files / 2020 / 07 / 13 / TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf. [21] L. Yan et al.: Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Preprint (2020). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4028829. 21 [22] L. Yan et al.: SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud. Preprint (2020). doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 4073131. [23] S. Yang and R. E. Rothman: PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings. Lancet Infect. Dis. 4 (2004), 337–48. pmid: 15172342. [24] V. M. Corman et al.: Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 25 (2020). pmid: 31992387. [25] Anonymous: Corman-Drosten review report. 2020. url: https://cormandrostenreview. com/. [26] R. Jaafar et al.: Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction-Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates. Clin. Infect. Dis. 72 (2020), e921. pmid: 32986798. [27] F. M. Liotti et al.: Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Test Results Among Patients Who Recovered From COVID-19 With Prior Negative Results. JAMA internal medicine 181 (2020), 702–704. pmid: 33180119. [28] J. Bullard et al.: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples. Clin. Infect. Dis. 71 (2020), 2663–2666. pmid: 32442256. [29] Anonymous: FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. 2020. url: https: //www.fda.gov/media/144245/download. [30] Anonymous: Assessment report/Comirnaty. 2021. url: European Medicines Agency | en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_ en.pdf. [31] R. W. Frenck et al.: Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. N. Engl. J. Med. (2021). pmid: 34043894. [32] R. A. Campbell et al.: Comparison of the coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 and sepsis. Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis 5 (2021), e12525. pmid: 34027292. [33] G. H. Frydman et al.: The Potential Role of Coagulation Factor Xa in the Pathophysiology of COVID-19: A Role for Anticoagulants as Multimodal Therapeutic Agents. TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis 4 (2020), e288–e299. pmid: 33043235. [34] Anonymous: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 [Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study] (Japanese). 2020. url: https://www.pmda.go.jp/drugs/ 2021/P20210212001/672212000_30300AMX00231_I100_1.pdf. [35] I. C. Kourtis et al.: Peripherally administered nanoparticles target monocytic myeloid cells, secondary lymphoid organs and tumors in mice. PLoS One 8 (2013), e61646. pmid: 23626707. [36] C. Ye et al.: Co-delivery of GOLPH3 siRNA and gefitinib by cationic lipid-PLGA nanoparticles improves EGFR-targeted therapy for glioma. J. Mol. Med. Berl. 97 (2019), 1575–1588. pmid: 31673738. [37] R. Dal Magro et al.: ApoE-modified solid lipid nanoparticles: A feasible strategy to cross the blood-brain barrier. J. Control. Release 249 (2017), 103–110. pmid: 28153761. [38] R. B. Brown: Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. (2020), 1–24. pmid: 32782048. [39] V. Furer et al.: Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology (2021). pmid: 33848321. 22 [40] S. M. C. Tirado and K.-J. Yoon: Antibody-dependent enhancement of virus infection and disease. Viral immunology 16 (2003), 69–86. pmid: 12725690. [41] C.-T. Tseng et al.: Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7 (2012), e35421. pmid: 22536382. [42] F. Negro: Is antibody-dependent enhancement playing a role in COVID-19 pathogenesis? Swiss Med. Wkly. 150 (2020), w20249. pmid: 32298458. [43] J. A. Tetro: Is COVID-19 receiving ADE from other coronaviruses? Microbes and infection 22 (2020), 72–73. pmid: 32092539. [44] Y. Honda-Okubo et al.: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus vaccines formulated with delta inulin adjuvants provide enhanced protection while ameliorating lung eosinophilic immunopathology. J. Virol. 89 (2015), 2995–3007. pmid: 2552050

Sorry don't believe any of that, you can cut and paste until the cows come home it's all lies and conspiracies

Aldebaran said:

If someone doesn't want to die of Covid, then encourage them to get the blasted vaccine. Stop trying to force it on those who don't want it.

Click to expand...

Once again, the vaccine's effectiveness increases exponentially the more people get it. If just one person got it, it probably wouldn't protect that one person for long. But if everyone that one person came into contact with also had it, their chance of getting COVID would be much less. That's how herd immunity works.

Furthermore, the more people who don't get vaccinated, the more hospitals have to deal with more severe COVID cases, and the less resources they have to deal with other serious medical problems. Many people have died because of this already.