should people who've had COVID still be required to get the vaccine?

Originally posted by cdtm
Anti-vax experts get cited all the time. The left censor's them as "misinformation".

Yet they are still experts, they went through the same schooling as anyone else and did their research, and can back up their conclusions. They simply disagree with the left wing narrative.

There isn't a left wing and right narrative when it comes to facts. There are just facts.

Example.

Narrative: lots of the first people to get the covid vaccine died within months of getting the vaccine
Reality: The first people to receive the vaccine in most countries were 70+ years old. Statistically many of them would have died within that same time period whether covid existed or not. If your opinion is that they died BECAUSE of the vaccine then cite the research.

Narrative: Lots of people have died because of the covid vaccine
Alternative narrative: The covid vaccine is perfectly safe
Reality: Like any vaccine, some people will have an adverse reaction and some people will die from it. The vast majority of these died due to anaphylaxis and have a history of severe allergic reactions to other stimuli. Small numbers of people are unable to take vaccines due to certain medical conditions.

Narrative: The covid vaccine is dangerous and untested
Reality: modern medicines require far stricter safety protocols than ones developed historically. 2 of the most common drugs most widely used on the planet today (paracetamol and ibuprofen aka Tylenol and advil) would not pass modern the safety tests that the covid vaccines had to undergo and would not be allowed to market due to their side effects and overdose risk.

When citing experts you should also examine reasons for why they are voicing opinions contrary to the scientific literature. Ask certain questions. Were they involved in the trials and development of the treatment in question? What is their current funding and/or marketing situation? Are they involved in a company promoting a product alternative to the vaccines? Is their a conflict of interest? Have they published studies or conducted meta-analyses of other studies that supports their opinion?

You're talking to people who invented and believe in "Alt-Facts".

Can't wait for the politicizing of the zombie apocalypse.

"We have it totally under control. It's one zombie coming in from China. We have it under control. It' going to be just fine."

"You know, a lot of people think that zombies go away in April with the heat - as the heat comes in."

"Zombies are going to disappear. One day - it's like a miracle - Zombies will disappear."

How to determine if something's true? It's simple! First ask "is the person talking a Christian?" If the answer is yes, then it's true, if they do something that Jesus wouldn't do, they are lying retarded scum and drink blood.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
There isn't a left wing and right narrative when it comes to facts. There are just facts.

Example.

Narrative: lots of the first people to get the covid vaccine died within months of getting the vaccine
Reality: The first people to receive the vaccine in most countries were 70+ years old. Statistically many of them would have died within that same time period whether covid existed or not. If your opinion is that they died BECAUSE of the vaccine then cite the research.

Narrative: Lots of people have died because of the covid vaccine
Alternative narrative: The covid vaccine is perfectly safe
Reality: Like any vaccine, some people will have an adverse reaction and some people will die from it. The vast majority of these died due to anaphylaxis and have a history of severe allergic reactions to other stimuli. Small numbers of people are unable to take vaccines due to certain medical conditions.

Narrative: The covid vaccine is dangerous and untested
Reality: modern medicines require far stricter safety protocols than ones developed historically. 2 of the most common drugs most widely used on the planet today (paracetamol and ibuprofen aka Tylenol and advil) would not pass modern the safety tests that the covid vaccines had to undergo and would not be allowed to market due to their side effects and overdose risk.

When citing experts you should also examine reasons for why they are voicing opinions contrary to the scientific literature. Ask certain questions. Were they involved in the trials and development of the treatment in question? What is their current funding and/or marketing situation? Are they involved in a company promoting a product alternative to the vaccines? Is their a conflict of interest? Have they published studies or conducted meta-analyses of other studies that supports their opinion?

Ya know, you could've easily avoided typing out this lengthy long ass post by simply saying you like experts who say things you agree with but dislike any experts who say stuff you don't agree with.

Like most lefties, you feel the need to unnecessarily overcomplicate things because you wrongly think more complicated equates to being smarter... smh.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Ya know, you could've easily avoided typing out this lengthy long ass post by simply saying you like experts who say things you agree with but dislike any experts who say stuff you don't agree with.

Like most lefties, you feel the need to unnecessarily overcomplicate things because you wrongly think more complicated equates to being smarter... smh.

Poor wittle blakey.

What just happened here is jaden posted analyses you don't understand and your argument was "the people who I agree with are smart too! No need to complicate things with thought!"

Go have another six-pack, blakey. 😂

Il trust natural immunity over the gene therapy any day as the 2.5 million study from Israel shows.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Ya know, you could've easily avoided typing out this lengthy long ass post by simply saying you like experts who say things you agree with but dislike any experts who say stuff you don't agree with.

Like most lefties, you feel the need to unnecessarily overcomplicate things because you wrongly think more complicated equates to being smarter... smh.

That's you you're talking about. I read scientific papers on covid. You read screen caps of tweets.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
Il trust natural immunity over the gene therapy any day as the 2.5 million study from Israel shows.

Yes, but you see leftists don't like studies that go against their BS narrative. They'll say that study is "fake" or "doesn't count" because it doesn't align with what their pathetic "god" Fauci says.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yes, but you see leftists don't like studies that go against their BS narrative. They'll say that study is "fake" or "doesn't count" because it doesn't align with what their pathetic "god" Fauci says.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except they can't backup there conclusions because their conclusions go against science and logic (eg "the vaccinated are dying more than the unvacciated of covid", "the vaccinated are shedding poisins into the water" etc.) and this is why they're told they're stupid.

Try again?

That isn't an accurate statement at all, if a doctor says I treated x with y and had positive results it's discounted until the govt approves it.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
There isn't a left wing and right narrative when it comes to facts. There are just facts.

Example.

Narrative: lots of the first people to get the covid vaccine died within months of getting the vaccine
Reality: The first people to receive the vaccine in most countries were 70+ years old. Statistically many of them would have died within that same time period whether covid existed or not. If your opinion is that they died BECAUSE of the vaccine then cite the research.

Narrative: Lots of people have died because of the covid vaccine
Alternative narrative: The covid vaccine is perfectly safe
Reality: Like any vaccine, some people will have an adverse reaction and some people will die from it. The vast majority of these died due to anaphylaxis and have a history of severe allergic reactions to other stimuli. Small numbers of people are unable to take vaccines due to certain medical conditions.

Narrative: The covid vaccine is dangerous and untested
Reality: modern medicines require far stricter safety protocols than ones developed historically. 2 of the most common drugs most widely used on the planet today (paracetamol and ibuprofen aka Tylenol and advil) would not pass modern the safety tests that the covid vaccines had to undergo and would not be allowed to market due to their side effects and overdose risk.

When citing experts you should also examine reasons for why they are voicing opinions contrary to the scientific literature. Ask certain questions. Were they involved in the trials and development of the treatment in question? What is their current funding and/or marketing situation? Are they involved in a company promoting a product alternative to the vaccines? Is their a conflict of interest? Have they published studies or conducted meta-analyses of other studies that supports their opinion?

What is your opinion of Robert Malone and Michael Yeadon? Have you read much on their opinions?

Here's one example of Michael Yeadon's concerns:

http://totalhealthmatters.co.uk/a-massive-fraud-has-been-perpetrated-by-dr-michael-yeadon-phd/

The fact is, I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to really look as his claims and say "No, that's bunk". His words on how anti-bodies work, or the need for boosters.

I only know he's a crank, because I'm told he's a crank. And at least some of his narrative's were addressed, but others were not, which is a red flag for me..

Originally posted by cdtm
What is your opinion of Robert Malone and Michael Yeadon? Have you read much on their opinions?

Here's one example of Michael Yeadon's concerns:

http://totalhealthmatters.co.uk/a-massive-fraud-has-been-perpetrated-by-dr-michael-yeadon-phd/

The fact is, I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to really look as his claims and say "No, that's bunk". His words on how anti-bodies work, or the need for boosters.

I only know he's a crank, because I'm told he's a crank. And at least some of his narrative's were addressed, but others were not, which is a red flag for me..

Beyond Yeadon's statements early in the pandemic that were proven wrong quite quickly I don't know much about him.

Malone fell into the category of the previous example. At the same time he was attempting to cast doubt on vaccines his company were conducting trials with a look to marketing alternative treatments. I'm sure it's no coincidence he stopped his criticism when his trials fell apart and he left the company.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That isn't an accurate statement at all, if a doctor says I treated x with y and had positive results it's discounted until the govt approves it.

Claims have to be reviewed and tested over and over before they can be considered true, that's how science works.

Otherwise any single person can come up with a "cure" and it'd be true just because they say so, like that whackjob doctor out of Houston who early on claimed she was curing covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, even though it was bogus, but that didn't stop team Trump from pushing it.

In Viral Video, Doctor Falsely Touts Hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 ‘Cure’