And Just Like That

Never was.

Innoculation

bio weapon

There is liability for fraud.

Yes... their No Liability Government Assurance is evaporating fast...

Not since Obama

0bama - divider in chief

The “architect”

THE DESTROYER

OBYrat as evil as they get

It never was.

The definition of “vaccine” was changed so that instead of having total immunity it gave partial or temporary immunity, and then lessened symptoms. It was just like how they changed the definition of “fully vaccinated” to where one was only fully vaccinated if he had gotten every booster he was eligible for. There were two goal for it: money and depopulation

You pretty much defined genocide

Vaccines are meant to stimulate immunity or remove the effects of symptoms as much as possible. It does both, but not as well as needed because the virus won’t stop changing and too many variables are at play to guarantee high levels of complete immunity. I’m so unbelievably tired of the brain rotting conspiracy crap about vaccines, there’s no ****ing cabal out there trying to kill you, that’s an unbelievably stupid thing to do.

I’m a revolutionary socialist, how the actual **** is that putting my head in the sand? 99% of you guys do nothing but complain and ***** about stuff you don’t even try to understand, so either sit down and listen to the damn scientists, or shut the hell up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GgpKRoRYGE

"Listen to the damn scientists" such as Rich McCormack, M.D. ?
or bureaucrats who brag, "I am the Science." ?

Not much of what I read here is revolutionary, yet certainly Marxist and Fascist
in it's actions of fear implemented in the name of socialism as a god. One that gloats in curtailing dissenting opinion from highly credentialed scientists and epidemiologists.

I listen to the vast majority of scientists, I analyze the costs and the benefits. For McCormick, I don’t freaking care if he was right or wrong, because I don’t support Fauci, and I don’t support mandates, on the premise of requirements for certain things, YES, I’m fine with that. A business can choose what it will on the subject of vaccines, the government can choose what it does inside its own borders, outside of that I have problems, but I don’t think it’s an issue that needs national attention as much as reform.

Bureaucracies will fail, inside and outside of government, because the issue of bureaucrats abusing the system is across the government and the private healthcare sector. Do I want to stop the government from touching healthcare? No, of course not, it’s been both historically and presently a force for good. I was literally saved by government assisted insurance because my birth costed me 400k my family didn’t have. My father was in the military, and thank god they let us have Tricare, because we literally wouldn’t have had my other two siblings otherwise.

There’s reasons for every belief people hold, and I don’t deny that. However, McCormick saw it inside a part of the government where I can confirm they were legitimately trying to make this work, and therefore focused on that. I see the same problems in massive pharma companies today and insurance corporations, and that’s where I focus because I believe that’s the heaviest hitter.

On the subject of revolution, marxism and fascism are diametrically opposed, our greatest enemy has always been the fascist and the liberal, and the fascist has never once supported socialism, regardless of the bs excuse for “socialism” that Nazi germany claimed to be. That wasn’t socialism at all, Hitler put that term in his party to make the left more inclined to listen to him, but he always got the far right on his side, and kept private property, in fact, he expanded it at a higher level than most countries at the time. I don’t think socialism is “god”, I don’t believe in any god, I believe in making a better future, and socialism solves almost all the contradictions of capitalism, and communism will fix all of them overtime. Logically speaking, it’s the only solution to class conflict, and that’s both empirically and historically true.

"If lockdowns were to have worked as they said they did,
...when we opened up, we would have seen a Massive Exit Wave, and we did not."
-Sunetra Guptra, Oxford Medical School Epidemiologist, UK

It appears listening to Epidemiologists at Oxford, Harvard, or Stanford Medical Schools were not in the "vast majority of scientists" that were mentioned.

norfolkgroup.org

Who are you or anyone else to dismiss or 'discredit' their credible scientific observations ?

I didn’t say to ignore them, I said to weigh the options with what they knew at the time, at no point did I say these guys were idiots.

That's not what happened at the time.

Fauci and Collins went after these three and labeled them as "Fringe Epidemiologists" and had Twitter and other Social Media shut them down, and quieted their credentialed voices through Censorship.
Is this how they ensure they are ignored?

Is this the way for Fauci (CDC) and Collins (NIH) to weigh the options,
or is it more a way to force their personally preferred collective options be implemented?

Are the signatories on the following website link, part of the "vast majority listened to" as mentioned?

https://gbdeclaration.org/

I don’t think McCormick is an idiot, I think he’s shaped by his experience, and Fauci is caught up in his system. Their positions are different, and therefore they act and respond differently. McCormick is on the ground trying to get the best possible outcome for the people under his guidance and directly needed assistance. Fauci is more wide and varied, focusing more on trade offs, and trying to successfully pioneer through unknowns. He’ll be right and wrong, anyone will be regardless of who’s in charge, so mistakes will happen, while successes will happen.

I think it’s understandable to hate him for the aftershocks of his own failures, but I don’t think he’s the problem at all. If you want to avoid these issues, create a more efficient bureaucracy, increase the size of advisory boards, and make a more ground-up system instead. It’s not impossible to fix, and Fauci isn’t the problem.

Someone will always get censored, attacked, or mistreated, and I hate that, but it’s inevitable. The best thing that can be done is to factor that voice into the equation, and try to figure out the situation, because Covid was something we were unprepared for, a disease that spread like wildfire, and mutated faster than our vaccines could catch up with. So yes, vaccines will have reduced effectiveness, but the very same people complaining about their ineffectiveness simultaneously despise funding pharmaceutical companies in developing new ones.

If we want to fix the problem, government needs to do the big actions, scientists need to be at the helm (as Fauci is himself a scientist), and companies need to cooperate. This type of stuff is painful, and no matter who stands at the top, the public will hate them. In the context of that video, Fauci was referring to usual conservative talking points with less educated workers, and how that could be fixed via assisting companies if they chose to make it mandatory, as is both legal and ethical since it’s their company. Personally, I’d love to obliterate companies as a concept, but factoring out Marxist ideals in this equation, it’s a general right for a company to do that stuff. The bureaucracy is just the engine, what it does is the result of what it’s ordered to do, which is perpetuated by previously established systems. If you want to find the big picture, hate on capitalism and the established system, not bureaucracy itself, as it’s necessary to make anything happen.

Seems you're well versed in Fauci. How's about Francis Collins and Mandy Cohen ?

If you're into listening to a vast majority of scientists,
here is a great "on topic" interview and discussion by a highly credentialed,
Stanford Med School Epidemiologist Professor and Medical Student Advisor,
right in the thick of it from the get go.

Worth a listen, if one is open minded and willing to take an unbiased look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2e3QAYrzR0&t=279s

April 4th, 2024 Speech at MIT,
that mathematical science university, aka
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
might be of interest in anyone's spare time.

Published Research, peer reviewed, and Randomized Studies matter in the field of Science.
SCIENCE LIVES MATTER
Who knew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF5G46kSKR4

Oh, I feel like I'm gonna regret asking about his but: what? What are you talking about? (and please provide some sources)

"No Regerts" -Gert Boyle Tattoo advertisement for Columbia Sportswear

https://calmatters.org/education/2024/06/covid-vaccine-mandate-schools/

Read it for yourself. Here is the Primary Source Document:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf

Thank you. But, tbh, I feel like there will be regerts as the url for the primary source document contains the word Opinion.

It is a Legal Opinion expressed. Did somebody take a legal opinion as medical science, or discredit the Legal Opinion based upon using the legal word, opinion. These two judges expressed a legal opinion on the ability to file a lawsuit based on the legal premise that a "vaccine" at minimum,
1) keep people from acquiring a disease, and
2) stop transmission to other people.

One may understand that in this case, it is these 2 judges legal opinion that the Medical Science demonstrates that
The mRna booster juice does neither

There has never been a vaccine that promised and delivered either of those things.

Not one.

If either one of those justices had taken 20 seconds to do any research on efficacy rates of vaccines, they would have learned a lot.

Well, really ?
Goodness the premise is sufferable with absolutes. "never" , "promised", and "Not one."
Are you so certain?

If you'd like to wax mathematical and statistical, then now at least we're getting to the crux
intersection of medical science and mathematics. Not the "make it up as we go along" CDC during the pandemic,
sky is falling, acorn on the head, cold and flu virus; however deadly, or not so deadly...

I'd not suggest bolstering out the hubris, in regards to the 2 justices and their research.
But, hey, to each their own. I can't stop you, and certainly would not get in your way.
One portends to know their stuff without any apparent credentials, and speak for the justices, as if you're the end all, be all authority yourself. This is silly. What anyone could learn from reading what is purported to be factual, in the purple bar above is folly.

This is basic, and you are attempting to make it out to be complex.
Do go on with the relationship between CowPox and SmallPox vaccines some more...

Am I certain that there has not been a vaccine that has been 100% effective, and prevented someone from spreading it if they've had a breakthrough case?

Yes.

The most cursory of reading will reveal this to you. Maybe you should spend some time reading about the efficacy rate of the original smallpox vaccine, and compare it to the modern smallpox vaccine. You'll get to learn what breakthrough cases are.

There's literally decades upon decade worth of research for you to read through.

Let's just pause and reflect for a moment, long enough to recognize:

Covid-19 SARS Cold & Flu Virus, where you can get a combo with your annual flu shot at the local Shopping Mall Pharmacy from someone that doesn't even have the 6wks training of a CNA, let alone a Registered Nurse,

...is no Small Pox epidemic.

How do you explain Harvard University Medical School Professor,
Martin Kulldorff, MD and what happened to him within the last 4 years?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlwqqgYAyZs

Is that the same guy who tried to claim that the flu was deadlier than covid in an error-laden essay?

That would explain any sort of professional shunning. you can't put out work that is deadass wrong and expect to maintain any sort of position.

How do you account for the eradication of Small Pox and Polio ?

What are you even referring to regarding "is that the same guy"
Could you consider sharing a link to an article or a speech on youtube
to support such a claim that you generalize here?

If you're not happy with Pharmacists being able to administer vaccines and other shots, you should contact your state legislature as they're the ones who controll that.

And Measels isn't Small Pox. Nor is Mumps or Rubella. Or Dengue Fever. Or Hepititus A.

And yet we have vaccines for all of those and more, all with varying degrees of efficacy.

And these 2 justices opining that a lawsuit can be brought because the covid vaccine isn't 100% is wildly uninformed. No vaccine has offered that.

Pharmacists have credentialed education, and licenses to practice doling out medicine.
They rarely are the ones that administer flu and covid vaccines.
Store Clerks that work for them do administer the action,
with very little education and minimal required training.

Of these other diseases you list, which ones can a person go down to the mall and get administered in a Pharmacy?
Why is that?

So, since your so wildly informed, do explain how mRna experimental technology is a vaccine ?
Many are using this terminology, interchangeably.

Is calling the mRna technology a vaccine,
necessary for it to be widely accepted?

So... yeah. The covid vaccines weren't "downgraded" because a court's opinion about the word vaccine. I also agree with the dissenting opinion that this is absolutely pointless as the policy of conditional employment regarding the vaccine is no longer in effect.

It seems a wee bit axe-grindy, to be honest.

But it all hinges around the 2 justices opinion about that vaccines need to stop the transmission of the disease if the vaccinated person has a breakthrough case. I wondered if there was a definition of the word vaccine that included that requirement. I didn't find one.

Hint: Maybe instead of a definition, take a look at the word origin.

Just a suggestion. Moo says the cow.

If a need to stop the transmission of a disease is not the goal,
what necessitates a vaccine at all ?

How do you account for the eradication of Small Pox and Polio ?

Moo says the smallpox vaccine has a 95% efficacy rate The MMR (measels) vaccine is 97% effective.

There has never been a 100% effective vaccine. There has never been a vaccine that stops you from infecting someone else if you get infected. There will never be a 100% effective vaccine. There will never be a vaccine that stops you from infecting someone else if you get sick.

The opinion as issued by the court is trash.

Who said there has been a 100% effective vaccine efficacy rate?

This is grasping at straws...
and your opinion about the courts opinion being trash is reciprocal

It's literally a numbers game. But let's setup an unreal scenario. Imagine that there are 1000 people in the world. And that there can only be 1000 people in the world. As soon as one of those 1000 die, a new human emerges to take their place.

Now imagine there's a disease that kills 30% of them every year, and they never get natural immunization to it. So, even if you had it before, you can get it again and it can still kill you.

So, that's 300 people a year, every year.

Then, suddenly someone develops a vaccine. But it only offers 95% efficacy- meaning that if they vaccinate 1000 people 5% of them will still get sick and die.

Now, they quickly vaccinate 1000 people, and sure enough, some of them get sick and die. But this time it was only 50 of them! 5%!

50 new humans emerge. All 50 are immediately vaccinated. 95% of them don't get sick. 5% do and die- that's 2.5%. We'll round up for 3. 3 people die.

3 new humans arrive. All 3 are immediately vaccinated. 1 dies (cause we're rounding up). That new human is immediately vaccinated.

No one gets sick. No one dies. The disease has no new hosts.

The disease has been eradicated.

That's how we got rid of small pox. We started in 1957 and the last case was in 1975 for variola major and 1977 for variola minor.