Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Given that the vaxx has been a widely discussed topic (I am even inclined to say that it is rivalling C-19 itself regarding the amount of coverage), I wonder what is the most likely aftermath regarding the vaxx campaigns and distribution?

Let's put a cap on the time limit, and say in the next 2-5 yrs.


*Multiple options poll BTW.

crywank

First vote.

Option #7.

Though they'll never, ever admit that their precious vaccines were a mistake and is what is causing the mass deaths (which they will be, of course).

LOL@ anyone who thinks we'll ever go back to "normal." The globalists want their one world totalitarian government (and Bible prophecy will be fulfilled) and these lockdowns , masks, and fascistic vaccine mandates will help usher that in. Tyrannical people in power have gotten a taste of the power that comes with controlling people's lives and they'll never fully relinquish it, I hate to break it to anyone who thinks otherwise.


Funny thing is, if Hillary had won in 2016 all of this shit would've happened already. Globalists didn't expect Trump to win. He set back their timetable.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Option #7.

Though they'll never, ever admit that their precious vaccines were a mistake and is what is causing the mass deaths (which they will be, of course).

LOL@ anyone who thinks we'll ever go back to "normal." The globalists want their one world totalitarian government (and Bible prophecy will be fulfilled) and these lockdowns , masks, and vaccine mandates will help usher that in. Tyrannical people in power have gotten a taste of the power that comes with controlling people's lives and they'll never fully relinquish it, I hate to break it to anyone who thinks otherwise.


Funny thing is, if Hillary had won in 2016 all of this shit would've happened already. Globalists didn't expect Trump to win. He set back their timetable.

Where is your proof of these "mass deaths" due to the covid vaccines?


If people like you were as prevalent back when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was started, Polio wouldn't have been virtually eliminated.

*Other

F*ck you, Robtard

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
*Other

F*ck you, Robtard
haha, yeah. Forgot to include that one

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
crywank

this should also be a poll option

Originally posted by Robtard
Where is your proof of these "mass deaths" due to the covid vaccines?


If people like you were as prevalent back when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was started, Polio wouldn't have been virtually eliminated.

Polio didn't have the controversy of a scientific divide on whether it was properly developed or rushed out.

You'll of course cite the nay sayers as fringe, but they are still scientists. And to me, I find it concerning when any number of scientists have concerns, as academics are traditionally dogs of the state (Their very careers depends on securing grants, meaning they won't want to rock the boat without good cause).

Amusing opinion given that its usually the scientists who go against consensus that subsequently are found to be beholden to an agenda. Like those in the pockets of the tobacco industry, fossil fuels industries etc.

When the ones funded by the state discover findings the state doesn't like or fits with their political agenda the state usually just ignores it like they've been doing with climate science for decades.

I should've chosen several of those options. Oh well, too late.

Originally posted by cdtm
Polio didn't have the controversy of a scientific divide on whether it was properly developed or rushed out.

You'll of course cite the nay sayers as fringe, but they are still scientists. And to me, I find it concerning when any number of scientists have concerns, as academics are traditionally dogs of the state (Their very careers depends on securing grants, meaning they won't want to rock the boat without good cause).


Yeah, like this one, cdtm:

Of course leftists will say that doctor's opinion doesn't count.... because... well.... REASONS lol.

Or better yet, they'll scream "she isn't a real doctor!" since she is not going along with the bs mainstream narrative.

Reminds me of how they claim any scientists who says darwinian evolution isn't real (and yeah, there are lots) isn't a "real scientist" lmao.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
this should also be a poll option it and **** you Robtard, are the only options that make sense.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Amusing opinion given that its usually the scientists who go against consensus that subsequently are found to be beholden to an agenda. Like those in the pockets of the tobacco industry, fossil fuels industries etc.

When the ones funded by the state discover findings the state doesn't like or fits with their political agenda the state usually just ignores it like they've been doing with climate science for decades.


Money'd interests will protect money'd interests. I see no gain for the nay sayers here.



If anything, they risk censor without any reward to compensate. Call them quacks but their sincerity is unquestionable.


Converselty there is much money for pharmaceutical vaccine owners.

Originally posted by cdtm
Money'd interests will protect money'd interests. I see no gain for the nay sayers here.



If anything, they risk censor without any reward to compensate. Call them quacks but their sincerity is unquestionable.


Converselty there is much money for pharmaceutical vaccine owners.


Yeah, lol @ jaden's lame argument... not really surprised though.

Originally posted by cdtm
Call them quacks but their sincerity is unquestionable.



Dont agree about sincerity.

I have an anti-Vaxx friend. Whenever I question his stance he just loses it.

Thats not being sincere. Its just being biased towards a certain stance.

And its arrogance that wont allow them to rethink and admit they are wrong. Hence, not sincere.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Dont agree about sincerity.

I have an anti-Vaxx friend. Whenever I question his stance he just loses it.

Thats not being sincere. Its just being biased towards a certain stance.

And its arrogance that wont allow them to rethink and admit they are wrong. Hence, not sincere.
That's an anectodal evidence, though.

But yeah, first and foremost we should be rational and have civil discussion

Originally posted by cdtm
Polio didn't have the controversy of a scientific divide on whether it was properly developed or rushed out.

You'll of course cite the nay sayers as fringe, but they are still scientists. And to me, I find it concerning when any number of scientists have concerns, as academics are traditionally dogs of the state (Their very careers depends on securing grants, meaning they won't want to rock the boat without good cause).

They are fringe, there isn't some huge mass consensus from the medical and science communities that the vaccines are "murdering people" and similar.

Originally posted by cdtm
Money'd interests will protect money'd interests. I see no gain for the nay sayers here.



If anything, they risk censor without any reward to compensate. Call them quacks but their sincerity is unquestionable.


Converselty there is much money for pharmaceutical vaccine owners.

You should post links to these credible pieces of research.

Originally posted by cdtm
Money'd interests will protect money'd interests. I see no gain for the nay sayers here.



If anything, they risk censor without any reward to compensate. Call them quacks but their sincerity is unquestionable.


Converselty there is much money for pharmaceutical vaccine owners. Actually there is a ton of conservative money to be made from the nay-sayers.

Also the logic you're using to defend the nay sayers is flawed because it can switched. There is no benefit for a pharmaceutical company to push a drug that will kill their consumers. Their business model is more built on people living long lives and using more of their product over time. And as mentioned above there is money to be made for the nay sayers.

So logically just trying to formulate motive isn't going to work that well. For instance for instance my logic is flawed because as pointed out there are many reasons why companies and people would say certain things.

That's why you have to work off the scientific consensus because it's really hard to game that many people.

Originally posted by Newjak


Also the logic you're using to defend the nay sayers is flawed because it can switched. There is no benefit for a pharmaceutical company to push a drug that will kill their consumers. Their business model is more built on people living long lives and using more of their product over time.

That's a good point

@Rob: Your link does not refute anything she said just because you prefer your source over her, sorry.

I'll stick with what she said, methinks.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Dont agree about sincerity.

I have an anti-Vaxx friend. Whenever I question his stance he just loses it.

Thats not being sincere. Its just being biased towards a certain stance.

And its arrogance that wont allow them to rethink and admit they are wrong. Hence, not sincere.

Heated partisanism has gotten pretty awful, I agree.


It's the scientists and academics I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to. They're putting their credibility on the line, and to any scientist that's essentially their career.


Not saying they're necessarily right, but they aren't the average troll without anything to gain except a giggle, and anything to lose except deplatforming.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not saying they're necessarily right, but they aren't the average troll without anything to gain except a giggle, and anything to lose except deplatforming.
Indeed. Why risk being ostracized?

Originally posted by cdtm
Heated partisanism has gotten pretty awful, I agree.


It's the scientists and academics I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to. They're putting their credibility on the line, and to any scientist that's essentially their career.


Not saying they're necessarily right, but they aren't the average troll without anything to gain except a giggle, and anything to lose except deplatforming.



I just think human nature kicks in. As in peoples actions dont always make sense.

However Id be interested to know if anyone actually working on one of the vaccines spoke out against them. You know like a whistleblower type situation.

Originally posted by Stigma
Indeed. Why risk being ostracized? crywank