Migrants get in jab free. Why ?

"IMMGRANTS ARE NOT WRONGDOERS"

Tell that to families that have lost loved ones.
I can't belive people are this narrow minded, what a moron.

I swear, you have no heart for the least of those. I will not have anybody treating the functioning members of society you call illegal aliens like anything less than human beings on the same level as the rest of us. Much, much more people die in the cages than because of illegal aliens.

Plus, if it were legal to knowingly hire illegal aliens, this thing you posted most likely wouldn't have happened.

May you be treated throughout your life like you treat people crossing the border looking for work.

You don't pass through a safe-nation, seeking "asylum" in another nation, over it's neighbor's borders.

Apparently people do all the time. The evidence is clear.

5nfpe9.gif (click to show)

I'm aware of the situation, which is why I made the point.

Mexico had those people, so why did they pass up a chance for asylum in Mexico? If they were ACTUAL asylum seekers, they would have seeked in Mexico for legal-immigration for asylum, not walk through Mexico all the way to United States, when they could've stayed in Mexico and applied there.

"if it were legal to knowingly hire illegal aliens" - dumbest response ever.

They are offered at the border when they come in. More than 60% refuse

It's not irrelevant, your argument is garbage.

Keep up? You're still lagging behind, you haven't closed the borders, there's zero physiological proof of any vaccine-claimed-benefits, so stick that needle up your own butt if you want.

Lol, it’s not my job to close the borders. Are you drunk?

Do some reading, the vaccine is beneficial. The people who are being hospitalized from severe cases of covid are the overwhelmingly majority of people who are unvaccinated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/09/08/99-percent-of-covid-19-hospitalizations-from-unvaccinated-data/amp/

"Do some reading, the vaccine is beneficial." --- *yawn* another empty-promise.

"The people who are being hospitalized from severe cases of covid are the overwhelmingly majority of people who are unvaccinated." --- Nope, I've heard from pro-vax people, that they're deliberately putting non-vaccinated individuals onto ventilators, and sending vaccinated individuals home, to cook those omissive numbers up.

"The people who are being hospitalized from severe cases of covid are the overwhelmingly majority of people who are unvaccinated." --- You can't physiologically prove that.

Guess what also? CDC says you're still "unvaccinated" 13 days after your first dose. So if you had a bad reaction to the vaccine and you're hospitalized, that's counted as "unvaccinated" if it had not been 14 days.

"I don’t know what you mean by physiological proof."

They have digital microscopes, that could show the public, physical evidence at the cellular level, to show us the claimed-benefits, or at least prove what they're saying is true, about the vaccine causing a re-coding of the human cells, we should be able to see it on microscope-recordings, they should be able to say;

"See, right there, it's doing 'such and such', just as we said it would, here's more confirmation in this other cell-group" they should be able to show us the similar pattern in say 10 or 12 different individuals of different backgrounds/ethnicities, and health-types, and say "Yea, without a doubt, what you're seeing in all of these slides are each a little different, but mostly the same reaction that we wanted to see"

If they wanted to be open and honest, they should be able to throw all of that into a presentation for 40-60 minutes and at the least, prove the vaccine does what it says mechanically to the cells' functions, aka physiologically proving their vaccine does what they claim it does.

Now, whether or not that is long term or if there are problems later that should be a 3-month, 6-month, 1 year, 1.5 year, 2 years, 2.5 years, and so on, until 10 years, at the least, for studying again, the vaccine's physiological "benefit" to the cells, like they claim it does.

If they can't, then they can't, but they could at least show us the slide recordings, show us, so we can see for ourselves.

Whether or not we trust they are showing us the honest slides and not tampering with it, could be explained or addressed later, but at the least, if you were an honest vaccine manufacturer, you'd prove your work, even school students have to prove more work than what is injected into them.

Oh, you want microscopic proof that it works!

Here you go!

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.1c00080

No. I want physiological proof, shown by recordings.

Microscope "proof" isn't enough, they have digital microscopes, that could show the public, physical evidence at the cellular level, to show us the claimed-benefits, or at least prove what they're saying is true, about the vaccine causing a re-coding of the human cells, we should be able to see it on microscope-recordings.

Saying "look at this microscope" isn't proof, they have to prove the microscope recordings align with what they tell us, AND works nearly the same in every person they vaccinate.

Oh, you want moving pictures. That I cannot provide you. There is loads of documentation that does still count as your "physiological proof" within the link provided.

The way they prove that it works is through hard data, which has also been provided in addition to the statistics that the general vaccinated public have a significantly lower hospitalization rate than the unvaccinated.

Don't move the goal post. Stop defending them with more lies/excuses.

"Loads of documentation" -- None of which displays to the individual, actual physiological proof. Loads of horse-honky, loads of vague studies and numbers, with no proof of work that anyone independent can physically check in a sample library.

"The way they prove that it works is through hard data" --- No they don't, stop it. Stop believing horse-honky.

No physiological proof via sample stills. This is where you say "Yes, I see that they don't have physiological proof, they should prove their work" like a rational human being.

In conclusion, even high school students can record and show what changes they were studying, and isn't being injected into anyone, and if they did, they COULD be sued.

Vaccine makers can't show their work and maintain liability-immunity? ha

Dude, you asked for your so-called "physiological" proof and I delivered.

At this point, you're just in denial.

As I was saying...

Link works for me.

So, wait... you didn't even look at my link before criticizing it?

That sounds like you're not being very intellectually honest.

No recordings of those still-shots they're using? Fishy. They should be able to upload a little MP4 file onto that same study article.

Let's see the live-recordings, of at least a dozen different human samples, variety of differences in their chemistry, all showing nearly the same interaction from the vaccines.

I've been waiting so you're not being intellectually honest at all, you should just give up, they will not release the live-recordings, it's internal documents, which again, shows corruption and reasons why they don't want to be sued, for nefarious reasons.

You wouldn't pursue the government to make you immune from lawsuits if you produced honest products.

They're not honest products.

You wanting an mp4 file is like a child wanting more pictures in a book.

Your ability to "wait" has no bearing on my intellectually honesty.

I should just give up, because you've done nothing but troll.

"You wouldn't pursue the government to make you immune from lawsuits if you produced honest products."

A lot of products nowadays offer a ToS. Signing one of these does not grant total immunity from legal proceedings no matter how well-written.

Ever heard of natural immunity? Doctors and scientists say we should not take the vaccine if we've had SARS/HIV 2.0.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

Vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity according to this study.

""CDC just redefined as "unvaccinated" being 13-days after second-dose individuals are "unvaccinated""

No, they haven't."

--- Yes they have.

"However, that natural immunity was only developed by people exposed to the original SARS/COV2, it seems."

--- Which were more deadly variants, so therefore the natural immune system CAN benefit from learning from the initial variants, and may pick up on some cellular data that was recorded in cells, passed along.

"--- Which were more deadly variants, so therefore the natural immune system CAN benefit from learning from the initial variants, and may pick up on some cellular data that was recorded in cells, passed along."

Not the Delta variant.

"Let me know when you have evidence to support your claims."

You have to physiologically prove your vaccine-benefit claims.

I don't have to disprove or prove any product that is not mine.

What do you mean by that?

I'm not the one injecting something into someone for whatever reason anyone claims to make, so therefore, I do not have to prove harm or safety, that's up to the person pushing the vaccine. There is no choice if there is no consent, and there is no consent without informed consent, and there is no informed consent, so therefore no consent to vaccinate.

The argument has to be made that there is a physical/physiological benefit to the human body and/or cellular functionality, and with recorded physical/physiological proof, that ACTUALLY shows, physical/physiological response from a vaccinated-individual, can show a physical/physiological response that is claimed to happen with words from people that advertise the vaccine.

As in, the brand new truck that I'd buy, the seller would have to demonstrate, that it is indeed a truck, that I can ... see, touch, hear, with my own senses, even smell the "new car smell", before I fork over $40,000-60,000, for a "truck"(word, from a salesman), you'd have to present that physical truck, into my view, into my garage, in order for me to know that when he says "Here are your keys to your truck" that he's not just handing me words, he's showing me there's a truck outside and the key that he handed me, is the key for that same truck I physically sense is there.

Real physiological proof of vaccine-benefits, does not exist. Try finding any, good luck.

I don’t know what you mean by physiological proof.

Factually, vaccines are generally a benefit with the exception of the small percentage who may have an adverse reaction. Severe or otherwise. And in the case of the covid vaccines, they’re being monitored.

"That was their conclusion, my dude.
You said:
"The people that have had the infection, that got vaccinated, have higher risk of re-infection and severe complications."
Their conclusion states the opposite"

==========================================

No. The conclusion is the same.

"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."

Try actually reading the conclusion this third time.

The conclusion: Previously infected who were vaccinated gained additional protection.

You said: The people that have had the infection, that got vaccinated, have higher risk of re-infection and severe complications.

Seems you’re the one that needs to read.

I proved you wrong and then you say "but not the delta variant" when it's included in the family of coronaviruses, so there's no reason to assume that natural immunity to coronaviruses and COVAIDS-2.0 specifically, doesn't help fight off Delta, they didn't say what you said. They didn't make that distinction, so why are you reading into things that aren't there? Believing what you believe, not what you read?

As far as I know, no doctor is advocating people be intentionally be infected by the Delta variant.

By all means, find me one. I'm sure you can. So, I'll up the game. Find me one doctor with a medical degree who is practicing medicine.

You're the one who is advocating unvaccinated people go and purposely get infected, while all the data seems to indicate that is NOT a great idea. With more than 90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated.

"With more than 90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated."

Who are the "unvaccinated" ? The people that are 13-days out from their second dose of vaccines? That's who CDC considers "unvaccinated" so who are you even talking about? I never use "unvaccinated" to describe anyone, CDC does use that term, I do not.

So no, that number of 90% anecdote is not science-based.

More than 90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated.

"That number of 90% anecdote is not science-based."

Oh, but it is. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not science. It is a confirmed fact!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187

https://www.fox43.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-covid19-infection-pandemic-vaccine-shot-mask-moderna-pfizer/521-6adee87e-399c-433f-af3d-fa37ab608278

https://www.cbs17.com/community/health/coronavirus/unc-health-unvaccinated-make-up-90-percent-of-its-hospitalized-covid-patients/

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/569249-overnight-health-care-los-angeles-data-finds-unvaccinated-more-likely-to-be

https://www.wjhl.com/news/ballad-health-nearly-90-of-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-unvaccinated/

https://www.newsmax.com/us/anthonyfauci-covid-19-deaths/2021/07/05/id/1027539/

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/560240-almost-all-us-coronavirus-deaths-among-unvaccinated

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html?s_cid=10499:covid%20vaccine%20what%20is%20it:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

I get you are hung up on the fact that people who are within their 13 window of their second virus do not count as fully vaccinated BUT THEY ARE NOT COUNTED among the UNVACCINATED if they're on their SECOND dose. They would be counted as the partially vaccinated or not counted at all.

You've NEVER proven that people who've had ONE dose, and been 13 days within their second dose ARE counted among the UNVACCINATED.

Whereas I've more than proven my point that 90% of covid hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated.

Including Israel. Which, yes, more than half of the total hospitalizations are vaccinated BUT they have a very high vaccinated population. So, are those being hospitalizations specifically for covid? NOPE! The majority of hospitalizations for covid are still among the unvaccinated.

It has been very nice talking to you.

I hope one day you grow up.

"As far as I know, no doctor is advocating people be intentionally be infected by the Delta variant."

--- Hello Low-IQ-shoe. Delta is a vaccine-infection. Otherwise known as "Breakthrough Infection" aka vaccine damages.

Why are you so concerned about having authority do any judgement/thinking for you? What's the point in the doctor that needs to tell you something that you want to hear?

What doctor "practices" medicine? What professional "practices" ? What chemicals specifically are they "practicing" with? What do you consider "medicine"? Do you consider petrol-chemicals, left overs from making gasoline and diesel from crude oil, do you think those waste-by-products, toxic compounds, are "medicine" ?

"You're the one who is advocating unvaccinated people go and purposely get infected, while all the data seems to indicate that is NOT a great idea. With more than 90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated."

No, I'm not doing anything that you're saying. Here it is, you're lying again, I never said anything like that of any "unvaccinated" individuals.

Who are the "unvaccinated" ? The people that are 13-days out from their second dose of vaccines? That's who CDC considers "unvaccinated" so who are you even talking about? I never use "unvaccinated" to describe anyone, CDC does use that term, I do not. You do also, but even you don't even know what it means now, after redefinition. Look at you use it incorrectly.

Non-vaccinated is the scientific, proper term. Not the bureaucratic terminology that does not line up with science. You can't undo vaccines once they're injected, good luck on undoing all of the substances from the body and all the damages.

Also, just because a study doesn't say something or does say something, doesn't mean reality is any different or the same. Meaning what could be omitted in a study, for example, you feel you assumed natural immunity wouldn't protect against Delta, for some unknown reason, even if the study says what you said, which it doesn't, the study doesn't manufacture the cellular functionality of the human bodies out in the real world. So a study isn't end-all-be-all if it doesn't contain every single word/thought/assumption going through your head.

So, you're upset by your own study? Ok.

No, I did not say natural immunity wouldn't protect against the Delta variant.

I said people who have had no contact with less dangerous infections of coronavirus (specifically SARS/COV2.0) shouldn't purposely try to contract the Delta variant specifically because it is more dangerous than the previous variants of Covid, including it's initial infection. They are at a much higher risk of being hospitalized with the Delta variant than previous variants. Natural Immunity for many people who are unvaccianed and have not been previous exposed to inert variants are probably not going to do well against the Delta variant.

All I'm saying is your claim that people who've been infected, recovered, and then had the vaccine have a higher chance of being hospitalized is baseless because your study, that you linked, does not claim that at all but rather the EXACT opposite. That people who have covid antibodies and have had at least one dose of the vaccine are more protected than a fully vaccinated individual with no previous exposure.

I have said this so many times I will now condense my response to simply...

FOOT and link back to this very comment until you actually read it.

"So, you're upset by your own study? Ok."

-- Um no. Nice stupid insult though. Troll.

"No, I did not say natural immunity wouldn't protect against the Delta variant." -- Yes you flipping did, you liar.

You were trying to say that natural immunity doesn't protect against Delta, you said: "Not the Delta variant."

Still waiting on how that study you linked proves that those who were previously infected and had been vaccinated are getting more sick than the unvaccinated.

I think you're low-IQ now.

"I said people who have had no contact with less dangerous infections of coronavirus (specifically SARS/COV2.0) shouldn't purposely try to contract the Delta variant specifically because it is more dangerous than the previous variants of Covid, including it's initial infection."

--- The vaccinated are the ones coming down with "Delta variant" and are having severe complications, but CDC claims 13-days after second-dose individuals are "unvaccinated" so they're lying when they say "Pandemic of the Unvaccinated" because CDC changed the definition.

"They are at a much higher risk of being hospitalized with the Delta variant than previous variants."

--- Who are? You're assuming again. Delta variant, is just vaccine-infections called "Breakthrough Infections" it's another slide-of-hand labelling.

"Natural Immunity for many people who are unvaccianed and have not been previous exposed to inert variants are probably not going to do well against the Delta variant."

--- Unvaccinated? Are you using the term that CDC just redefined as "unvaccinated" being 13-days after second-dose individuals are "unvaccinated" so they're lying when they say "Pandemic of the Unvaccinated" because CDC changed the definition?

You're worried about people with natural immunity, but have not taken a harmful-vaccine, so you think that their body would benefit from a harmful vaccine, that CDC proved has harmed?

"CDC just redefined as "unvaccinated" being 13-days after second-dose individuals are "unvaccinated""

No, they haven't.

You're referring to the definition of fully vaccinated. A person is fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose. Otherwise, they would be labeled as partially vaccinated. Unvaccinated means you've not had any doses at all.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

We're told the Delta variant spreads more but is less deadly, so, yes, the Delta variant, according to everyone on MSM and CDC.

Less deadly to the vaccinated.

You have zero physiological proof of that, citation needed before you believe vaccine-lies.

You keep saying there is zero physiological proof and I keep asking what that is.

There is most definitely proof the virus is less deadly to the vaccinated.

You’re the one who even said (without a citation) that we were told the virus was less deadly. And I continued that the same people who are saying that have a huge asterisk by it. Usually by saying the Delta variant is less deadly… to the unvaccinated.

This wouldn’t be the first time you left out an omission to change the narrative.

Here are my citations.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html?s_cid=10496:cdc%20vaccine:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

Do you not know how to comprehend? I said; "Doctors and scientists say we should not take the vaccine if we've had SARS/HIV 2.0.(the infection).

Try addressing the point. You're not making any sense. You don't know the difference between a source and a platform? So by your logic, if CNN posts "news" reports on Youtube, it makes it all discredited. Thanks for that brilliant reply.

I’ll clarify my rebuttal question, since you obviously didn’t understand me.

Are the majority of doctors saying this?

Is this the consensus?

If not, then who is saying this?

If you actually got a source, then great! Post it rather than trying to say all doctors, no you didn’t say all doctors but with your second comment you’re definitely implying that.

Not everyone with a PHd is reliable, yes. But that reliability is dependent on where they were educated, where or if they practice, and the most important thing; what studies they have to back up their claims.

It’s a valid question. Dodging it, shows more about you than me. And here, I’m not dodging your claims. Here is a quick search result of your claim and probably an answer:

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

The article answers my question and yours:

Yes, a majority of doctors are saying if you were previously infected with Sars/CoV2, (not HIV2.0 wth) then you’re less likely to show symptoms if re-infected with the Delta variant than someone who was vaccinated and wasn’t infected with the original covid strain.

Here is why natural immunity doesn’t work for everyone tho. And the article explains this.

The natural immunity is from those infected with a less deadly version of covid than delta. There is no controlled way of doing this yet. So the vaccine is still the best option.

It may be difficult or expensive to determine if you’ve had the right variant that continues to produce antibodies or if you are even still producing antibodies after your infection for those wanting to opt out. Vaccines are still your best protection, otherwise.

Another thing about your logical fallacy, it hasn't been that long yet either, we're still seeing how this plays out, the current tests aren't even done for a few more years, and besides...

Some questions for you to think about for yourself.

1) Who's going to spend the money to white-paper-prove the vaccine isn't the "best option"?
2) And who would spend the money to white-paper-prove vitamins are the best option?

"When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

The people that have had the infection, that got vaccinated, have higher risk of re-infection and severe complications.

Wow, way to misinterpret the data. The conclusion was actually the opposite of your claim.

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Lol, next time read it all.

Misinterpret? It's stated right there, even in quotes my guy, re-read it.

Conclusion? It states that natural immunity is better, are you not reading your own links at all? You said "next time read it all" I think you didn't read it all.

Imagine that, an accuser/projector, being that of which he claims that I am.

"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."

Did you read ANY of the conclusion? They have not proven the last sentence in their conclusion.

That was their conclusion, my dude.

You said:

"The people that have had the infection, that got vaccinated, have higher risk of re-infection and severe complications."

Their conclusion states the opposite.

"Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."

Was the initial part of the conclusion you left out, which was why I included it. I suspect you left it out because it inconveniently disproves your statement that the previously-infected-vaccinated have a higher risk of re-infection and severe complications when the conclusion specifically states that the vaccine gains them additional protection.

And while, yes, natural immunity (in this study, but not the numerous other studies that have concluded otherwise) from initial infection offered better protection than the vaccine; the Delta variant is NOT THE INITIAL INFECTION! but is rather more deadly to the unvaccinated. So both your conclusions are wrong that.

1. Natural Immunity is better (only if you were exposed to the INTIAL SARS/COV2.0 rather than the Delta.) than the vaccine.

Because the chances of that happening, thanks to the Delta virus being the most prominent strain right now. Making it impossible to people who are unvaccinated and were originally uninfected.

You're just not going to find ANY DOCTOR who will tell you to go out and get infected with the Delta variant if you've not been previously exposed to the original strain or been vaccinated. And, in the off-chance you do find one, hey will most certainly lose their license. Not because big pharma shut them down, but rather they will lose it after being sued by the families of the people dead from taking that advice.

2. That the vaccines are more deadly to people who have had been exposed to the INTIAL SARS/COV2.0

When the study you linked, actually says it offers additional protection.

"If you actually got a source, then great! Post it rather than trying to say all doctors, no you didn’t say all doctors but with your second comment you’re definitely implying that."

"The natural immunity is from those infected with a less deadly version of covid than delta." --- No. The earlier variants are more deadly, less contagious. Just like every Zoonotic, as they run through the immune system of their hosts, it becomes more and more weak, then is spread to the community, to give them a weakened version.

Vaccines have not and do not create this same affect, although, it's believed-to-be in the same, but it has not happened and won't happen. It has to happen through natural-pathogenic processes through the body's cellular defenses. No vaccine can replicate this, they should just stop failing/trying.

Delta is weaker, but spreads more(through whom exactly and what exactly is the source of the Delta, is another question, seems weird it came out when people were getting the vaccines).

"There is no controlled way of doing this yet. So the vaccine is still the best option." ---- You say there's no way to control a natural infection, but you'd either dishonest or not knowing there's vitamins D3, C, Zinc and Silver, to help the body kill pathogens, especially herbs like garlic, oregano, and more. The controlled way, to do it, the proper way.

You tell the public to boost their immune system, then go out and live their lives, at least the control is on the side of preventing severe symptoms that can lead to hospitalizations.

To tell the kids to run out and get it first, then give it to the young-adults, and by then it would be weak enough to have the 30+ years old meeting up gathering, and that'll make it even weaker. Then 40-50, then 60+, and lastly 80+. By that time, it'll be so weak it'll be a sniffle for even the weakest immune system.

You're missing the most important part of your article. "The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study"

No, I got that. Here, I'll demonstrate where I did understand that since you didn't read my comment.

"Yes, a majority of doctors are saying if you were previously infected with Sars/CoV2, (not HIV2.0 wth) then you’re less likely to show symptoms if re-infected with the Delta variant than someone who was vaccinated and wasn’t infected with the original covid strain."

I got it quite clearly.

What you're missing the most important part of the article I linked (It's not my article, obviously. But that would be really pedantic to point that out.) was that it would be extremely dangerous for people to be infected with the Delta variant who haven't been exposed to covid prior.

It appears your shotgun of multiple comments, when condensed, appear to be trying to say that not everyone should get the vaccine.

My answer to that is:

No shit.

What does that have to do with migrants (especially those with no prior medical documentation, among other things) not being forced to take the vaccine versus people who have such documentation who can legitimately get a medical exemption from the vaccine?

"it would be extremely dangerous for people to be infected with the Delta variant who haven't been exposed to covid prior." --- How would you know that to be certain?

I've seen articles mentioning studies that say otherwise, that the natural immunity is strong against all variants, because all the variants are still of the same family.

The data you're getting your info from supports my claim. That is precisely what they're saying.

The data you're mentioning is talking about the original SARS/CoV2.0. The Delta isn't that.

The reason why the United States has such a high hospitalization rate among unvaccinated may be due to lockdowns. Meaning those people who didn't venture forth to get infected with the original SARS/CoV2.0 (Covid-19, non-variant) but are now getting infected without getting vaccinated are being hospitalized. That is what the data is saying. Even among conservative media now:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/99-percent-of-covid-19-hospitalizations-from-unvaccinated-data/

Oh for sure! There's no justification to mandate any vaccine for any reason, and on top of that point, your point on top, is that especially when we're told not even Americans with medical-exceptions or even natural-immunity, are told to get the jab or lose your job, while they leave the borders open, some of that migration for drug/guns/child smuggling and some for under-the-table work for the very same corporations that will exile us.

Well, that is quite a run-on sentence.

I'll condense it.

I agree, mandating a vaccine with zero medical exemptions are dumb.

Are they doing that, tho? Well, you can't respond to that question without replying nonsensically to an earlier comment so I'll save you the need to answer.

No, it doesn't look like they are allowing medical exemptions in these mandates but I found nothing definitive that says that.

It seems the problem isn't the mandate itself but we don't have an outline of medical exemptions. True, if there was no mandate, the problem would go away and that is an exceptional conservative/libertarian view.

But, I'd just like to point out that mandating all migrants take it if businesses with more than 100 employees are going to be forced to do so is counterproductive in demanding there be exemptions.

Clearly, exemptions are on the table. Saying migrants shouldn't have that privilege is just lame.

"Are the majority of doctors saying this?

Is this the consensus?"

-- This thinking is a logical fallacy. Just because a new idea or better idea hasn't reached consensus(what that word when used like you have, what that word "consensus" can mean we can save for another topic), doesn't mean it's not an idea or point to dismiss.

Not all information gets out to the masses and thoroughly read through. If you were paying attention there's scientists that have papers that should be read that don't get read, reviewed, double/triple holy-scientism stamps. But then decades later, it is confirmed by someone that spends the money for the studies that confirm their findings.

So it's about who has the money for the funding and who writes the specific needs of those studies.

What is funny, is that I already answered those questions if you bothered to read the comment.

LOL

The answer is, yes. They were saying it.

*clap clap*

They are also saying to still get vaccinated, tho'.

So...

Just makes zero logical sense to get a "vaccine" for something you've already have a natural immunity to.

I agree. If that immunity proves useful against the virus. However, that natural immunity was only developed by people exposed to the original SARS/COV2, it seems. Not everyone got it the first go around. And most doctors and experts agree that it would be dangerous to expose someone who wasn't previously infected with SARS/COV2 to the delta variant.

"double/triple holy-scientism stamps"

No, such thing. Science is fact-based.

Science really hasn't been pure science since lead pipes, water fluoridation, vaccines, GMOs, etc

"Clearly, exemptions are on the table. Saying migrants shouldn't have that privilege is just lame."

Right, but you said science is fact-based, which we're told this is "trust the science" when there's no science to 99 employees to 100 employees, difference, besides a size difference of one, why target small businesses, yet again, that compete with the larger corps.

This is fascism to mandate anything to do with COVID. From masks, vaccines, lockdowns, restrictions, all should be up to the private business, and may the best business with the best ideas, thrive. Shouldn't get fined for being private or funded for being a good little statist.

You're right. Science alone isn't determining these mandates, specifically the detail of how many are being employeed but that doesn't mean the mandate itself is without any scientific merit.

It's not fascism to mandate anything to do with Covid. The government has the authority to reduce personal freedoms temporarily in the event of a crisis, including a health crisis. You would not call the government fascist if the people who were infected with Ebola were put in quarantine, would you? Maybe you would but that is still an overtly nonsensical exaggeration.

"It's not fascism to mandate anything to do with Covid." -- Yes it is.

When MSM, Gov, Medical industry, and Pharma industries, all control majority of the flow of information, censor those that dissent, yes, that's fascism like a MF.

Bullshit.

I know you're in denial. It'll be okay. I'm here to help like Morphous.

If you were Morpheous, I wouldn't take your blue pill or your red pill. I'd just go home.

"The government has the authority to reduce personal freedoms temporarily in the event of a crisis, including a health crisis." --- We're not in a "health crisis" though with covid, we're in a medical genocide crisis, with vaccines being the very tool to control the human population as it's pretended to be it's "savior". So because we're not in a covid health crisis, all mandates, whatever they are, are BS.

If the entire world has agreed on something, that is a bloody miracle in and of itself by the way, and the consensus is that the pandemic is very real, very danerous, and should be taken very seriously.

A whole lot of foolish people that lie to themselves, while you and all of those consensus, still have not provided any physiological proof of vaccine-claimed-benefits.

Notice how that's weird? All those scientists, yet, no shred of physiological proof to back up their vague-studies that leave out variables.

I don't worship scientists.

I don't know what you mean by pyhsiologically prove their benefits.

Mostly politicians are supporting mandates rather than scientists. Or rather, not all scientists are for mandates. Especially conservative ones.

I'm cool with people defending themselves with guns. Just not over political reasons. And no one is coming into your house to force you to inoculate. You might lose your job, and that sucks, but if your job fires you for refusing to vaccinate; I definitely don't condone you going around shooting up your office or school.

That's not why they made the second amendment, my dude.

"You would not call the government fascist if the people who were infected with Ebola were put in quarantine, would you?" --- Yea I have, in 2014 and 2015, I exposed CDC's blatant disregard for proper protocols of handling Ebola cases. It was fascistic to bring the sick here in Omaha, Nebraska, it was fascistic to fly Duncan's 100+ nurses to OTHER hospitals, just after they worked with him, the CDC was trying to spread Ebola.

So F-you, and the CDC.

So, your problem was the CDC then was that it was not restrictive enough?

Not sure how that explains your logical conclusion that they're fascist.

Try re-reading my comment.

Breaking protocol, flying them here, intentionally trying to spread Ebola, was my problem with CDC.

Apparently you can't read.

And it doesn't back up your claim they were fascist at all.

"Not sure how that explains your logical conclusion that they're fascist."

A fascist group of government+pharmas+MSM intentionally trying to Bio-attack America, IS fascistic, you piece of poop

Breaking protocol, flying them here, intentionally trying to spread Ebola, was my problem with CDC.

Bio-warfare is not exclusive to fascism. Not to mention that no one has filed such charges against the CDC so, forgive me for saying your claims are rather exaggerated and alarmist.

The mandate has no merit, scientific especially.

You may have that opinion but factually speaking, you're wrong.

Nope, not my opinion. It's never been scientifically proven to work in any way they claim it would, because 1) the vaccines do not work, they are not physiologically proven, therefore all mandates are shameful and should be rejected by force if necessary.

Okay, it was nice talking to you.

Let me know when you have evidence to support your claims.

It's such bullshit right in our faces, in the article you posted.

"Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 30, about 99 percent of hospital admissions were among those who hadn’t been fully inoculated, which is defined by the CDC as two weeks after the second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or two weeks after Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose jab."

Telling us "99% unvaccinated in hospitals, but if you've had the jab and hasn't been 14 days yet, you're still unvaccinated" which is complete lie, evil, omission of guilt too, the person writing this has to be making connection between the false story headlines and the manipulation of the data.

Except that it isn't.

It's just the facts. To achieve full inoculation, you need those two weeks for your body to take full advantage of the vaccines effects. If you were correct, then the percentage of those being hospitalized with the vaccine would be increasing. There is no evidence to support this claim.

I will go ahead and quote Israel is seeing such rise in hospitalizations among the vaccinated but these are from the earlier vaccinated who had severe health risks and other underline reasonings for being hospitalized.

Why are we not seeing such rise in vaccinated hospitalizations here tho?

I'm just not going to accept conspiracy! Not until evidence is put forth. I'm sorry. The data just doesn't support your claims.

"Except that it isn't. It's just the facts. To achieve full inoculation, you need those two weeks for your body to take full advantage of the vaccines effects."

---- Just because you're waiting for the vaccine to "kick in" doesn't mean they're unvaccinated, they literally are post-vaccination, so no, that IS a lie to claim they're unvaccinated after they've had the vaccine, that is disingenuous and anyone stating it as fact should be held liable for anyone taking vaccines after such statements as saying "unvaccinated are dying like crazy" when it can be the post-vaccinated that have just had their second-dose and are in the 14 day window, and to say that lying "isn't", is lying of itself.

Just because you're waiting for the vaccine to "kick in" doesn't mean they're unvaccinated, they literally are post-vaccination, so no, that IS a lie to claim they're unvaccinated after they've had the vaccine.

Now that is pedantic.

"I will go ahead and quote Israel is seeing such rise in hospitalizations among the vaccinated but these are from the earlier vaccinated who had severe health risks and other underline reasonings for being hospitalized."

Good luck in trying to narrow down the specific data points of each side, because it's odd that all of the manipulation is benefiting one side, the vaccine.

I'm not entirely sure how the vaccine specifically benefits. Unless you mean the pharmaceutical companies who are providing the vaccines. Which sure, you can make that argument but it's still nonsensical. Just because they are getting paid doesn't mean they're unreliable. Not to mention that independent studies are being conducted that are in no way influenced by those companies. And if there was then there would be a money trail and if there was a money trail then there would be actual evidence to support that claim. So until you can provide that, it seems less than anecdotal, less than theoretical but just hypothetical.

"Just because they are getting paid doesn't mean they're unreliable." -- Yea, it does, it automatically discredits their reliability to have conflicts of interest.

Bro, this is reality, not your fantasy world.

So, to you, anyone who is paid to work is unreliable.

I respectfully disagree. Whether they're paid or not has no direct correlation with reliability.

In reality, everyone who works is paid unless they're a slave. And to be honestly, I get more reliable product if I put more money into it. Not every time, of course, but most of the time.

"And if there was then there would be a money trail and if there was a money trail then there would be actual evidence to support that claim."

Easy, tie the white-papers that support vaccines, trace the funding of those studies, I'll wait.

Or you could do it yourself. I'm not the one who needs such vindication.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

"I'll just have to take your word for it but I respectfully disagree."

That makes zero sense. You can't respectfully disagree or disagree at all, rudely if need-be, because it's an accurate statement, those that have preached "settled science" are the very same that are suppressing the information that proves that science is ever evolving.

"The conclusion: Previously infected who were vaccinated gained additional protection."

That's an assumption. They're assuming that the vaccine was what caused the immune system to "work" the way their study examines the participants.

Correlation is not causation, as THEY themselves say all the time. They're assuming the vaccines are what caused immunity, while ignoring the real possibility that a great number of those, gained immunity from natural infection pathways, not the vaccines.

Did they compare the infected and vaccinated, with the people that have not had vaccines at all? What about the Amish too? How do they not have any COVID, and it just seems to be the folks that took the flu vaccines in 2018/19 and those around them, that they shedded the vaccine virus around.

I got it from a recently-flu-vaccinated individual back in Fall of 2019, as I read up on it, they throw in a Coronavirus from time to time, with a few of those flu-shot batches, known other people that got it before the hype about China, so tell me what's up with that?

That's not an assumption, that was the conclusion based on the data you posted to me.

"They're assuming the vaccines are what caused immunity, while ignoring the real possibility that a great number of those, gained immunity from natural infection pathways, not the vaccines."

No, they're not. The study you linked acknowledges this. That same study says that people who were previously infected and were vaccinated gained additionally immunity based on their hospitalization rates. .

"Did they compare the infected and vaccinated, with the people that have not had vaccines at all?"

Nope! Your study was only assessing natural immunity vs vaccine induced immunity. This study doesn't draw any conclusions on whether getting covid is safer than getting a vaccine. It simply evaluates the protection of people who already had covid.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Yet, based on other studies and the statistics, the people who have the highest hospitalization remain the unvaccinated.

An assumptive-conclusion, not based on data, because the data says natural infection causes immunity. They'll try to falsely-claim that was from the vaccines, but it was really from the natural immune system. You and their paychecks just WANT to believe it was because of the vaccines.

Doesn't matter if the study SAYS what I say or not, even when it does, you still assume it doesn't, but this time, it does say what I say, and then they sneak in a lie, to please their paycheck-signers.

Doesn't even take a study for me to know the truth, the fact, the logic, that an untested vaccine should not take the claim of benefit when the natural immune system hasn't been FULLY factored into PAID-studies that have a lot to gain by slide of hand lie at the end.

"They'll try to falsely-claim that was from the vaccines"

The study did not make this claim.

"you still assume it doesn't"

I've made no assumptions.

You have made plenty, however, because to you it "Doesn't matter if the study SAYS what I say or not, even when it does"

Your bottom line remains the same:

Vaccines bad.

In real life, it does not matter what some words on paper say, how do you not understand that a vague-study that falsely-claims "benefits are from vaccines" when they just proved natural immunity works best, they try to claim it's the fault of vaccines.

You ARE assuming immunity from vaccines, just like THEY are. You're assuming that the vaccines are the cause of less symptoms/deaths, when there has been a PREVIOUS INFECTION, you do not comprehend what you read, obviously.

Sure, take credit for the natural immune system, with no physiological proof of dozens of live-recordings, of more and more samples, slide-recordings and more.

You can't argue for vaccines, neither can they, when they do not show their work.

"..how do you not understand that a vague-study that falsely-claims "benefits are from vaccines" when they just proved natural immunity works best, they try to claim it's the fault of vaccines."

I shall reply with a rebuttal from your own comment above: "You're assuming that the words in the study, are the absolute, end all be all."

"You ARE assuming immunity from vaccines"

No, I've read numerous studies that support that vaccines are generally better for the immune system.

"You can't argue for vaccines, neither can they, when they do not show their work."

They do. Do your own research.

You're assuming "vaccines work" when the study proved the natural infection caused immunity, then they slide of hand deny what they found.

Correlation (someone getting a vaccine after a natural infection, and assuming immunity came from the vaccine) is not causation(actual natural immunity works in real life, not your pretend-there-is-from-vaccines)

"You're assuming "vaccines work" when the study proved the natural infection caused immunity, then they slide of hand deny what they found."

It's slight of hand. Natural infection can cause immunity and so can vaccines. The two are not mutually exclusive. The difference is that vaccines are a controlled infection while natural infection has far too many variables. In most cases, exposure to viruses is non-deadly. In the exceptions where these viruses can be deadly, if a vaccine can be developed, it can potentially improve the survivability rate. This is the basic premises of what a vaccine is.

"Correlation (someone getting a vaccine after a natural infection, and assuming immunity came from the vaccine) is not causation"

Causation and correlation can exist at the same time, correlation does not imply causation. Causation explicitly applies to cases where action A causes outcome B. On the other hand, correlation is simply a relationship. When you compare this to numerous cases with similar results within a study or several, you absolutely can prove causation. The correct usage of the term is that correlation doesn't ALWAYS equal causation.

An example within the context is if someone gets the vaccine, and dies, that does not mean they died from the vaccine. In this case, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. Not without further variables to completely determine if the vaccine was indeed the reason why that particular someone died.

To be honest, i think these particular vaccines (Covid vaccines) are bad, but i sure not all are.

Explain this.

As Gumshoe has blocked my reply to his reply..I'd like to add that there is more data on the vaers site for each death, i.e vax date, vax type, symptoms, lab data, etc in the full reports.

The covid vaccines were prioritized to be those who were among the most vulnerable. These numbers only reflect those who’ve got the vaccine and died. The data fails to include what they specifically died from.

You're assuming that the words in the study, are the absolute, end all be all.

Vaccines are bad, there's no good reason to destroy the human immune system, when you can just fuel the immune system and train it properly, not with vaccines, period.

Stop making excuses for crap-injections you can't sue for damages, just stop. You're not willing to put your money down to help any vaccine-damages, so stop.

"You're assuming that the words in the study, are the absolute, end all be all."

No, I'm simply saying your sources does not back your false claims that vaccines are harmful.

"Vaccines are bad, there's no good reason to destroy the human immune system, when you can just fuel the immune system and train it properly, not with vaccines, period."

This sentence makes no sense. Vaccines train the immune system.

"Stop making excuses for crap-injections you can't sue for damages, just stop. You're not willing to put your money down to help any vaccine-damages, so stop."

And you can't prove that vaccines are harmful without lying.

"The reason why the United States has such a high hospitalization rate among unvaccinated may be due to lockdowns."

I've learned from a pro-vax that the hospitals are ordered to send vaccinated-individuals away, and to put the non-vaccinated onto ventilators(that they know kill people).

So that's one way.

Here's a second way they could fluff that "unvaccinated increase in cases" is because CDC claims that you're "unvaccinated" even after 13 days of your first dose. So you could have a bad reaction to the vaccine, and if you die, and that test said you were "positive", then they'll mark you down as "unvaccinated".

A third way, is if they put you onto ventilator and your lungs are injured, they mark your death as "Complications of COVID"

Fourth, is the open borders, they're flying migrants around, that are also unvaccinated, so that could've been the spike, just from people flooding the border.

I asked a reported who these unvaccinated are, if they're not using numbers inflated by the open border flooding, and I was ignored, of course.

I think my anecdotal answer is much more reasonable than yours. I fail to see the relevance behind yours other than a need for conspiratorial vindication.

Why would doctors do that?

Why would it matter where the unvaccinated are coming from?

Who gains by conflating that number? I

t seems to me that it still supports the argument that of the people who are the most at danger of hospitalization are the unvaccinated so, I'm not sure what your point is in connection to that. It doesn't deflate my point at all.

Gumshoe, get a grip on reality... they want Americans to be FORCED to get vax... Illegals get the choice... that's the point.

Okay Nazi.

typical response from a child.

No, it's a common response. You don't like your job? Quit. Simple.

Now, calling people Nazis... that is rather childish.

Or.. big government could just not be nazi?

It isn't.

It is tho.

Your political party calls us Nazis all the time and you idiots continue to support it, so if you don't like us doing it to you, go get f**ked.

We shouldn't have to switch jobs just because an employer is being forced ILLEGALLY by the federal government to make their employees get the shot. That isn't freedom and it is against the law. It's called FASCISM. You know, that thing you blamed Donald Trump of being and are supposedly against but really aren't because you support it within your own f**king party.

Have they?

https://www.businessinsider.com/schwarzenegger-video-republicans-capitol-riot-rise-of-nazi-germany-2021-1

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/17/house-republicans-condemn-gop-candidate-racist-videos-325579

Well, if it makes you feel better I never voted for Schwarzenegger or Marjorie Taylor Green. But they appear to be the minority within the political party I vote for in the primaries, which is the Republican party, if you don't know. I don't think all Republicans in the party call people Nazis so I think it's a bit exaggerated to say the entire political party does it.

Oh! Did you think I was a Democrat? Nah, f**k that. I wouldn't vote for any Democrat that would do that either. Then again, Biden did compare Ted Cruz to Goebbels. But I don't think he was specifically calling him a Nazi...

You're confusing fascism with authoritarianism. Fascism is about superiority and severe regimentation of economic and social status. Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Which you have to deal with on a day to day basis without really knowing you do. Such as wearing clothes, having a license to drive, obeying traffic laws, not mugging or raping people, and so on. At some point, there needs to be a limitation of freedom.

You just happen to disagree with a vaccine mandate and I respect that. To a degree, I even agree with it.

It seems losing your job, with still the option of working somewhere else, is a limitation sure but it's not a complete elimination of freedom.

"Oh! Did you think I was a Democrat? Nah, f**k that. "

If it talks like one and smells like one, I typically believe it to be one. A lot of Republicans act like Democrats. They're typically referred to as RINOS. The Republican party has a set of standards that only a few adhere to. Most of them do not. Swartsadummy was one of them, which is why, along with his celebrity status, he won California.

Fascism is fascism and right now Biden and his administration are acting like fascists. There will be a revolt soon. How big is anyone's guess.

"..how do you not understand that a vague-study that falsely-claims "benefits are from vaccines" when they just proved natural immunity works best, they try to claim it's the fault of vaccines."

I shall reply with a rebuttal from your own comment above: "You're assuming that the words in the study, are the absolute, end all be all."

Right, but I don't believe/assume that everything about the study is absolutely true, in any condition, unlike you that believes/assumes "immunity from previous infection must've been the fault of what we injected into the person LATER".. which is illogical.

"You ARE assuming immunity from vaccines"

No, I've read numerous studies that support that vaccines are generally better for the immune system.

Yes, yes you are. You're assuming. Reading numerous studies? No you didn't, you don't even comprehend what you read.

"vaccines are generally better for the immune system." -- Again, more assumptions/beliefs not based in science.

"You can't argue for vaccines, neither can they, when they do not show their work."

They do. Do your own research."

They do not show their work, as you've proven over and over again, you can not find physiological proof backed up by live-recordings of different-health-situation samples of at least a dozen samples to show us a general-reaction that is beneficial to the human body.

If they showed their work, there wouldn't be such a push back. Also, they can't be sued, so therefore, if they can't show their work, can't be sue, then just those two facts alone, would be enough for people to reject injections.

"More than 90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated."

Apparently you can't comprehend, I addressed this lie, CDC changed the definition of "unvaccinated" to include anyone that hasn't had 14-days after the second-dose. So your "90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated" can easily be the people suffering from vaccine-damages of the second doses.

"That number of 90% anecdote is not science-based."

Oh, but it is. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not science. It is a confirmed fact!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187

https://www.fox43.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-covid19-infection-pandemic-vaccine-shot-mask-moderna-pfizer/521-6adee87e-399c-433f-af3d-fa37ab608278

https://www.cbs17.com/community/health/coronavirus/unc-health-unvaccinated-make-up-90-percent-of-its-hospitalized-covid-patients/

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/569249-overnight-health-care-los-angeles-data-finds-unvaccinated-more-likely-to-be

https://www.wjhl.com/news/ballad-health-nearly-90-of-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-unvaccinated/

https://www.newsmax.com/us/anthonyfauci-covid-19-deaths/2021/07/05/id/1027539/

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/560240-almost-all-us-coronavirus-deaths-among-unvaccinated

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html?s_cid=10499:covid%20vaccine%20what%20is%20it:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

---- Again, I addressed this lie, CDC changed the definition of "unvaccinated" to include anyone that hasn't had 14-days after the second-dose. So your "90% of the hospitalized due to covid are unvaccinated" can easily be the people suffering from vaccine-damages of the second doses.

"I get you are hung up on the fact that people who are within their 13 window of their second virus do not count as fully vaccinated BUT THEY ARE NOT COUNTED among the UNVACCINATED if they're on their SECOND dose. They would be counted as the partially vaccinated or not counted at all."

--- Lie. You don't know exactly how they are counted, everything you repeat proves this, they can be counted as "unvaccinated" when CDC changed the definition and MSM loves to lie, so f-your faith in MSM.

"You've NEVER proven that people who've had ONE dose, and been 13 days within their second dose ARE counted among the UNVACCINATED."

--- I don't have to prove, they're the ones manipulating the numbers and definitions, not me. They're deceptively using numbers, they have to prove their numbers aren't deceptive. You can't prove they're not using those to fluff those numbers, deceptively. BUT, we do know they CDC changed the definition and MSM loves to lie, so

"Whereas I've more than proven my point that 90% of covid hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated."

--- No, because you keep denying that CDC changed the definition and MSM loves to lie, so

"Including Israel. Which, yes, more than half of the total hospitalizations are vaccinated BUT they have a very high vaccinated population. So, are those being hospitalizations specifically for covid? NOPE! The majority of hospitalizations for covid are still among the unvaccinated."

--- Another claim, you falsely-claim you've proven, but you have not, you've only used lying articles that omit that CDC changed the definition and MSM loves to lie, so

"It has been very nice talking to you.
I hope one day you grow up."

--- I am grown up, you aren't, you think of authority as your parent, you're not grown up enough to have an adult honest conversation because you've ignored the CDC being deceptive and you doubled down on their lies.

Nice? You've been very deceptively desperately lying your ass off for the faith of MSM you have, must make you proud to be such a shill

"Dude, you asked for your so-called "physiological" proof and I delivered.

At this point, you're just in denial."

No, you didn't, I asked for physiological proof. One still-shot is not enough, there needs to be more and more patterns of the same evidence, physically found in the human cells, outside of the human cells, inside the body, inside a petri-dish, many different samples.

You have not delivered physiological proof of the widely-claimed vaccine "benefits", can be repeated in different types of human beings.

You saying you've delivered proof, is a lie, more reason you are not grown up, you're not being honest.

"Here are my citations.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days"

From YOUR link...

"This shows the number of COVID-19 cases for every 100,000 people over the last 7 days, allowing you to compare areas with different population sizes."

Which tests proved they had COVID-19? Because the PCR tests can't differentiate between Flu A's and other Coronavirus.

So how are they claiming anyone is a real COVID-19 case? Run "the science" on your scam there, get back to me.

Wrong again.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/pcr-test-recall-can-the-test-tell-the-difference-between-covid-19-and-the-flu

At this point, you might as well being saying fact whenever you call me out for a "lie"

I've debunked this article already.

CDC moving away from PCR tests has nothing to do with them being inaccurate, they wish to continue using inaccurate tests, so they put opinion-pieces like this out.

It's not fact.

I'll explain, they say;
"The recall was not because the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was inaccurate."

---- That is an opinion. Many others say that was the very reason, but that they're covering their asses.

They go onto say;
"We caught up with pathologist and microbiologist Jana Broadhurst, MD, PhD, to understand what this means for testing accuracy. Dr. Broadhurst is director for the Nebraska Biocontainment Unit Clinical Laboratory and Emerging Pathogens Laboratory.

A brief summary of what happened:

The CDC's original PCR test has been voluntarily recalled in favor of a more efficient multiplex PCR test
The CDC's original PCR test gave accurate, dependable results. It was not recalled because of accuracy (sensitivity or specificity) concerns
All PCR tests for COVID-19 are designed to only give positive results if SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is present
PCR tests are more accurate and reliable than antigen tests"

--- That is not who designed the PCR tests. Look at the interview of the creator of the PCR test, that passed away in fall-2020.

Where did influenza go last year?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

Furthermore, covid is not influenza. If it was, then influenza has jump dramatically from something like 35,000-75,000 a year to 350,000. That's 5-10 times larger than any influenza for the past 100 years.

I never said covid is influenza. Nice strawman.

Answer the question, honestly this time, incorporating what we know of the PCR tests not being able to tell the difference. Do it with considering all available data on what you and I both know, has come out.

But PCR tests can tell the difference.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/covid-19-diagnostic-test/about/pac-20488900#:~:text=PCR%20tests%20are%20very%20accurate,can%20miss%20some%20cases.

I also answered where Influenza went here:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

To summarize, since it’s a lot to post, there are far too many variables to answer what happened to seasonal influenza.

From people taking precautions against covid, even minimal cautions, have cut down on the spread of influenza.

To covid itself may have dominated the usual points of contagion. Think of covid as, I dunno, Netflix; while influenza is Blockbuster. And the customers are it’s victims. Granted, this is not the most flattering picture of capitalism, but it’s a great illustration of how a new virus can overtake a previously seasonal nuisance.

We’re not quite 2018 Blockbuster with Influenza but we’re at about 2013 Blockbuster. Hopefully Covid doesn’t turn into 2020 Netflix… one might argue the variants are AmazonPrime, Hulu, and Disney+

Okay this analogy is just getting too silly.

No. PCR can't tell the difference, go look at the bottom of their data sheet, all of them explain there are inaccuracies.

So no, what you're posting from Mayo now, is a lie, opinion. Mayo hasn't debunked the maker of the PCR tests. No one has.

So go back to your bridge.

"PCR tests are very accurate when properly performed by a health care professional, but the rapid test can miss some cases." -- This is an opinion, not backed up by anything but nice-sounding-words.

"Influenza activity is currently low in the United States and globally."

According to what? Did they have a test that they tested everyone on the planet? No.

So again, this is opinion.

"What is added by this report?

Following widespread adoption of community mitigation measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, the percentage of U.S. respiratory specimens submitted for influenza testing that tested positive decreased from >20% to 2.3% and has remained at historically low interseasonal levels (0.2% versus 1–2%). Data from Southern Hemisphere countries also indicate little influenza activity."

Hilarious they don't see the irony of "because of mask wearing and COVID vaccines, the Flu went away, but COVID is still around so..."

I go back to my question, again, no tests that specifically target finding Flu As or Bs, was given to everyone on the planet. Just because you reduced the search for flu, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just because you used PCR tests that can't tell the difference, doesn't mean those were all COVID patients, it means some of them actually had the Flu.

Now, the people getting sick after getting the vaccine, are getting sick from vaccine.

"You're referring to the definition of fully vaccinated. A person is fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose. Otherwise, they would be labeled as partially vaccinated. Unvaccinated means you've not had any doses at all.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html"

No, I'm referring to them labeling people that have had second dose of vaccine, and only 13-days out, the CDC considers that "unvaccinated".

They are also changing the definition of vaccine/vaccination.

Keep your lying going, this is too easy to prove you wrong.

"No, I'm referring to them labeling people that have had second dose of vaccine, and only 13-days out, the CDC considers that "unvaccinated"."

Prove it. I linked the source where your misconception comes from.

Now, show me a cdc link where they define a partially vaccinated person as unvaccinated.

Or you can't keep baselessly claiming I'm lying since you can't easily prove me wrong.

"Still waiting on how that study you linked proves that those who were previously infected and had been vaccinated are getting more sick than the unvaccinated."

The link I shared confirms what we already know, is that natural-immunity is the best defense against all infections, all variants, all toxins, all stupidity. Those that were previously infected have gained natural immunity. The vaccine is assumed to be the reason, I do not buy their lies.

"Still waiting on how that study you linked proves that those who were previously infected and had been vaccinated are getting more sick than the unvaccinated."

"An example within the context is if someone gets the vaccine, and dies, that does not mean they died from the vaccine. "

This is why you are an active dangerous threat to all living things. If you injected something into someone, and they get infection from vaccine substances, that vaccine did kill that person, in the form of causing an infection or inflammation that killed the person, via vaccine.

Only if they get infection from vaccine substances. That is a rather important variable to prove vaccines are killing people.

If the infection originated somewhere else, then the vaccine is not the culprit. Now, if someone dies within that 13 day window; yes! It is entirely possible that the vaccine killed them. And do you know what? That is being monitored. The number of people who are dying as a result of the vaccine is being monitored. And not just deaths but adverse reactions, too!

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.

You're trying to say that if you get an infection from vaccine substances, that you're not vaccine-injured, or are vaccine-injured?

Let's be mindful we disagree, obviously, but no need to be unclear or imprecise.

No, I’m saying if you have an infection, injured, or die after taking the vaccine - the vaccine is very unlikely to be the cause of death.

If you get the vaccine then get into a car crash, get an infection unrelated to covid or the vaccine, and die - the vaccine did not kill you.

You might recognize my argument is not too dissimilar to those who were claiming covid death numbers were inflated. “You get covid, die from a car accident, you’re listed as a covid death” And, for a time, this was true as hospitals and other facilities lacked the protocols and resources to correctly identify the cause of death for several weeks to a few months.

The difference between my argument and the old argument of covid death inflation is that we’ve resumed having autopsies and covid numbers have not improved. Meaning their argument, while understandable is no longer relevant. But that argument now stands in defense for people who died who were vaccinated. We can more accurately identify if vaccines are the cause of death through autopsy.

Furthermore, the number of people who’ve died who had the vaccine is not the same thing as the number of people who’ve died from the vaccine. The reason why the former number is so alarmingly high is because the people who were at risk had the first priority for the covid vaccine.

So if your Grandma got both vaccines in December, like mine did, then got an infection or died from a stroke; that does not mean the vaccine killed her.

She’s fine, by the way. Not her first time on a ventilator. She has dementia and no longer recognizes who her family are. Her biggest fear was losing her mind and she really wanted to be put down if that happened. She begged me, my father, and my uncle to aid in her death. Two problems with that.

One, she lives in the United States where that is really really frowned upon. Especially the Bible Belt. Eee.

Two, even without her mind, she’s a stubborn broad and refuses to give up.

The fact she wanted to be assisted-suicided (murdered) rather than do it herself shows she does have some strength or reluctance to die. She knew I couldn’t do it, my Father is dead, and my Uncle, who isn’t incredibly Christian - is on schedule to find Jesus the older he gets and the fewer non-religious circle of friends shrink. So…

Sorry for the anecdotal personal tangent.

"No, I’m saying if you have an infection, injured, or die after taking the vaccine - the vaccine is very unlikely to be the cause of death."

You could pretend it's not the vaccine, but that would be you being scientifically and morally dishonest.

"If you get the vaccine then get into a car crash, get an infection unrelated to covid or the vaccine, and die - the vaccine did not kill you."

True statement, but that is not how hospitals handled a lot of random "COVID" cases, that were of gunshot wounds and car accident, motorcycle accident, and they were added to the COVID count.

That is anti-scientific, unethical, and because those numbers are used to enforce draconian government actions, it's criminal and people saying any vaccines are safe, should be investigated for financial conflicts of interest, private or government, people need to start being put in jail for harming people via vaccines(legal bioweapons) and people need to be sued out of existence.

"But that argument now stands in defense for people who died who were vaccinated. We can more accurately identify if vaccines are the cause of death through autopsy."

Absolutely agree.

I'm not against science, I'm just against junk science, and that happens to be the area of which vaccines have been for the last 70+ years, have been a huge liability for our nation and the world.

We have plants that can kick SARS2's ass all day everyday, but MSM and government, especially medical industry, does NOT want Americans or humans to survive this, for some reason, and it pisses me off.

These are people that didn't harm anyone, getting sick from either the virus, or from the vaccine, and that's not right that government and pharma aren't being held liable for damages.

"Furthermore, the number of people who’ve died who had the vaccine is not the same thing as the number of people who’ve died from the vaccine."

Right! Truth. I care about those people and if there's any problems in the future, I want them to be able to sue the pharmaceutical companies directly.

I don't think lawsuit payments should come from the US taxpayers.

I'm the same way with police brutality cases, I believe the officer should have to pay out, not the city/county/state.

"So if your Grandma got both vaccines in December, like mine did, then got an infection or died from a stroke; that does not mean the vaccine killed her."

But it doesn't rule out the vaccine.

It doesn't rule out the vaccine caused the blood clotting that caused the stroke.

So it would be the vaccine that killed her, via stroke, because of the vaccine causing blood clots.

Now, that there is lots of evidence there is blood clotting and there's no hiding it at this point, you could make a good case against vaccine makers, for not being more upfront and steadfast in warning people to not take their product unless taken with Ginger, Turmeric, and other anticoagulants.

That should've been #1 advise for everyone taking any of the vaccines, that a day or two before coming to get any vaccine, and for the days/weeks after the vaccine, they are to take Ginger, Turmeric, two-three times a day for better chances of survival.

Then I would say at least we are dealing with a vaccine maker that will A) not hide side effects B) help reduce side-effects C) removes all immunity from lawsuits of their products.

"Not her first time on a ventilator."

That's what kills 88% of the people they put them on. I'd recommend getting her out of the hospital and onto some vitamin therapy right away.

I'm sorry you've gone through this.

I've had a grandma on ventilator before, in the 1990s, and it wasn't pretty, and I knew then, it was harming her, so all of these deaths from ventilators being marked down as "Complications of COVID" I already knew, was full of shit, the moment I knew they were putting viral-mucus filled patients onto ventilators, I knew back in Feb 2020, watching Chinese media, that they were going to pull that here and kill as many people as they could via ventilators, too.

I've known how bad shit is, for a long, long time. I wish everyone to make it out of this alive, whether or not people believe in vaccines or not, I want everyone to be well, take extra Ginger/Turmeric if anyone has taken the vaccine, it might save people's lives.

Maybe the jelling of the blood is temporary, we won't know, but at least for now, to help the body keep it flowing right, plant-medicine/herbs is the way to go.

Did you know about this?

Infection through natural pathways, they've estimated a 27-times greater immunity, if you are Non-vaccinated, compared to those that are vaccinated(regardless of what CDC claims is "unvaccinated" or "vaccinated", because Israel doesn't jack with terms, just yet)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/study-covid-recovery-gave-israelis-longer-lasting-delta-defense-than-vaccines/

Again, those are people with the initial infection rather than exposure to the Delta variant.

Since the Delta variant is more deadly to the unvaccinated, they are at risk if they weren’t exposed to the previous variants prior to Delta.

The study your article is referring to is the one you linked before that said:

—“Individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

The article goes on to say:

—Cohen said of the study: “The data presented is important and can draw a kind of immune hierarchy. From the most protected to the less, there are vaccinated convalescent, convalescent, then vaccinated and then preople who choose not to vaccinate, who are the most vulnerable.”

Again, it fails to account the unknown variable of the unvaccinated who do not have antibodies.

Direct citation: "It showed that Delta had a 27-fold higher chance of breaking through vaccine protection from January and February and causing symptoms than breaking through natural immunity acquired in the same period and causing symptoms."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/study-covid-recovery-gave-israelis-longer-lasting-delta-defense-than-vaccines/

Direct citation: “ The data presented is important and can draw a kind of immune hierarchy. From the most protected to the less, there are vaccinated convalescent, convalescent, then vaccinated and then preople who choose not to vaccinate, who are the most vulnerable.”

You misinterpreted it, what they mean to say is....people who choose not to vaccinate, AND who are the most vulnerable.

They're listing a number of groups, they're not tying "people who choose not to vaccinate" with the last group they mentioned "who are the most vulnerable"

God you're low IQ or deliberately dishonest, every single comment.

They just got through reporting 27 times better chance at surviving Delta, and 6 time chance at any variant, so why would you assume that when they listed off groups of people, that they would include non-vaccinated into the group of "Most Vulnerable" ?

Are healthy people "MOST vulnerable"? LOL

Might be vulnerable to a couple bad days, but not considered "MOST vulnerable" of groups, when considering they just got through confirming there's natural immunity.

Dork.