Do you trust the co-vid19 vaccine ?

[beertoll]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

Hunter gatherer Agafya Lykova is now 74 for most part lived alone in russian wilderness alone, immune to Lyme disease.....
https://youtu.be/BFK3DJ7Kn6s
She is smiling happy content.

That is a very bad "proof" to use. All of her siblings died at the age of around 40.

After having visitors who delivered "a very bad cough".

Exactly, they have died from totally preventable causes that are considered trivial in the modern world. And in the good old days, a bad cough could decimate a village.

Thank you for bringing an example where 4 out of 5 people died when the death was 100% preventable. And you should be thankful for modern medicine that you don't have to worry about dying from a bad cough.

[1714630316]

1714630316

[1714630316]

1714630316

[1714630316]

1714630316

[tvbcof]

...

There is a lot of "probably" and "perhaps" and not much actual information. There is no credible information about them "... relatively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's."

Here is an excerpt from National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) article:

During the Paleolithic era, human life expectancy was only 33 years—roughly half of what it is today. We owe our more extended lives in part to better hygiene, medicines, and more plentiful foods. Yet some people aspire to return to that earlier era, at least at dinnertime.

https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/collection/detail.html?case_id=752&id=752

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp, but from wikipedia:

  "Longevity, maximum lifespan, and life expectancy are not synonyms."

Just a quick scan and saw this article near the top of my search.  Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

So is modern society more beneficial for health and longevity than, say, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle?  To help gain an answer to this question, scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate).  It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood (Kanazawa, 2008).

[beertoll]

...

There is a lot of "probably" and "perhaps" and not much actual information. There is no credible information about them "... relatively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's."

Here is an excerpt from National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) article:

During the Paleolithic era, human life expectancy was only 33 years—roughly half of what it is today. We owe our more extended lives in part to better hygiene, medicines, and more plentiful foods. Yet some people aspire to return to that earlier era, at least at dinnertime.

https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/collection/detail.html?case_id=752&id=752

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp, but from wikipedia:

  "Longevity, maximum lifespan, and life expectancy are not synonyms."

Just a quick scan and saw this article near the top of my search.  Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

So is modern society more beneficial for health and longevity than, say, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle?  To help gain an answer to this question, scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate).  It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood (Kanazawa, 2008).

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp

I read everything you wrote and based on that I concluded that you are not fit to estimate my level of intelligence.


This essay by an unknown author that you posted also mentioned this:

According to historical mortality levels from the Encyclopaedia of Population (2003), average life expectancy for prehistoric humans was estimated at just 20 – 35 years;

And then the unknown author continues to guess and speculate using words like "might have", "probably" and so on.

Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

That site is a personal blog for making money on ads. This "source" also has an article about "Godlike Power and Monster Malevolence: Mishipizheu of Lake Superior". I'm sure it is also full of facts.

This is the problem with your "quick scans" through unverified and non-reputable sources. You will continue to confirm your bias in the following decades as well by hearing what you want to hear from unknown authors. Your opinions are unlikely to change, you will not consider information that doesn't confirm your biases.

[tvbcof]

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp

I read everything you wrote and based on that I concluded that you are not fit to estimate my level of intelligence.

Yup.  I guessed right.

Poor fella.  You really want to be smart don't you?  People who are intellectually challenged, or just beginners, can get sensitive in this way.  I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

This essay by an unknown author that you posted also mentioned this:

According to historical mortality levels from the Encyclopaedia of Population (2003), average life expectancy for prehistoric humans was estimated at just 20 – 35 years;

And then the unknown author continues to guess and speculate using words like "might have", "probably" and so on.

Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

That site is a personal blog for making money on ads. This "source" also has an article about "Godlike Power and Monster Malevolence: Mishipizheu of Lake Superior". I'm sure it is also full of facts.

This is the problem with your "quick scans" through unverified and non-reputable sources. You will continue to confirm your bias in the following decades as well by hearing what you want to hear from unknown authors. Your opinions are unlikely to change, you will not consider information that doesn't confirm your biases.

The article had footnotes, and (Kanazawa 2008) seems to be this:

  https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-ii-life-expectancy

Personally I feel like Psychology Today is probably just another scientism rag (of the type that the Left wing intelligentsia considers the word of God), but this is a relatively unimportant topic and there is not a lot of reason to fabricate things.

Buy hey, if, for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think that all cavemen dropped dead at or before age 30, be my guest.

[beertoll]

Yup.  I guessed right.
Poor fella.  You really want to be smart don't you?

You guessed wrong. I said that you aren't fit to estimate my intelligence implying that you are an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Stop guessing and make your assumptions based on facts.

People who are intellectually challenged, or just beginners, can get sensitive in this way.

I totally agree with you on that one.

Buy hey, if, for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think that all cavemen dropped dead at or before age 30, be my guest.

You claimed that people are better off without modern medicine, like cavemen. I showed you scientific resources that state that Paleolithic era men lived a short life (and your response is, "for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think..."). I'm always open to new information but you send links to weird sites with opinions and stories about dragons. The reference link in that article explains the meaning of life expectancy and NOTHING else.

I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'. You were in this debate alone, no one argued with you about that. My graph showed the life expectancy for the modern era, I shared the life expectancy for Paleolithic era and the drastic difference between them. Why are you even pushing this? Do you want a cookie for understanding the difference between meanings? Go get one and don't bring the terms up again.

Their life expectancy was short, their lifespan was short. Their life was short. 4 of their 10 children would die at birth. 4 of the remaining would not survive until the teenage years. The survivors would perish from diseases and injuries in their 20-30s.

[Ultegra134]

Yup.  I guessed right.
Poor fella.  You really want to be smart don't you?

You guessed wrong. I said that you aren't fit to estimate my intelligence implying that you are an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Stop guessing and make your assumptions based on facts.

People who are intellectually challenged, or just beginners, can get sensitive in this way.

I totally agree with you on that one.

Buy hey, if, for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think that all cavemen dropped dead at or before age 30, be my guest.

You claimed that people are better off without modern medicine, like cavemen. I showed you scientific resources that state that Paleolithic era men lived a short life (and your response is, "for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think..."). I'm always open to new information but you send links to weird sites with opinions and stories about dragons. The reference link in that article explains the meaning of life expectancy and NOTHING else.

I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'. You were in this debate alone, no one argued with you about that. My graph showed the life expectancy for the modern era, I shared the life expectancy for Paleolithic era and the drastic difference between them. Why are you even pushing this? Do you want a cookie for understanding the difference between meanings? Go get one and don't bring the terms up again.

Their life expectancy was short, their lifespan was short. Their life was short. 4 of their 10 children would die at birth. 4 of the remaining would not survive until the teenage years. The survivors would perish from diseases and injuries in their 20-30s.

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

[tvbcof]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

The above user is to stupid to realize that his 'argument', or whatever it is, is not even relevant to the discussion going on.

He's also to lazy to point to any examples of his accusations of course.

[beertoll]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

The above user is to stupid to realize that his 'argument', or whatever it is, is not even relevant to the discussion going on.

He's also to lazy to point to any examples of his accusations of course.

You must be kidding me... The examples of the accusations are in the last 30 posts in this thread. You are either post your own opinions based on "decades of your own knowledge" or posting links to personal blogs where people write what they think is true based on the pieces of information they liked on the internet. No references to research or any kind of verified sources.

[fastlight]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

The above user is to stupid to realize that his 'argument', or whatever it is, is not even relevant to the discussion going on.

He's also to lazy to point to any examples of his accusations of course.

to glorious ignore button... don't worry, he is in a big office with a lot of little keyboard slave like him, trying to fuck our health, for a few nikels a day... don't even care or mention such biowaste > ignore. they will respawn.

[tvbcof]

...
I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'.
....

I never mentioned anything about 'life expectancy' nor did I imply it.  But over and over again you keep bringing it up because you think it is some attack on something I said, or you just want to flap your gums and it is the most scienc-ee word you know.

Here's what is actually happening in your pea-sized brain albeit at a subconscious level which is why I'll do you a solid and help bring it to your attention:

You have been programmed to believe that everyone will drop dead before age thirty unless they have modern pharma drugs.  That's what billions of dollars of advertizing and 'investment' into state funded schools buy them.

You are so indoctrinated you will go rabid-dog style and start chewing on anything you perceive as being a threat to your cyber-sponsors in big pharma.  Constantly going back to 'life expectancy' in spite of it not even being relevant is equivalent to the rabid dog attacking a tire instead of an actual animal.  Amusing to watch at least.  I've seen it on the internets before of course, but some of you noobs on this forum really take it to an extreme level lately.  It's at least a glass half full that you guys are going to be sterilized or killed by the 'vaccine' where 'my type' is more likely to make it through to the other side.  I mean, I think you guys are pretty much damaged beyond hope of repair.

[franky1]

more like tvbcof thinks people are programmed to die before 50 if they have a vaccine..

yet history proves tvbcof wrong.
before vaccines were even a thing average life span was 50
after vaccines became the norm.. life spans averaged 82

even now countries that dont do regular vaccinations still have lifespans of average 50
vs all the countries that do do vaccines.

the reason is that diseases do kill people. .. its why they are defined as diseases!!! and not just temporary irritations
vaccines stop/reduce diseases to small percentage levels. and in many cases eradicate it

vaccines are not the major cause of death. and have never been the causes of death.
quite the opposite disease with no vaccination leads to high causes of death

EG how many people die of polio after having a polio vaccine
vs
how many people die of polio before vaccines were a thing

[beertoll]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

I don't usually argue on the internet and I understand that there is almost no chance to change people's minds if they believe in conspiracies. And I'm not trying to win an argument with him. The goal of my posts is to dilute the load of crap they post with links to reputable sources. I hope to minimize their impact on people who are uncertain about vaccines.

My mother has a friend like who doesn't shut up about big pharma and the government that has the sole purpose to get them in some way. Because of that friend, my mother was hesitant about vaccines and it took me an effort to convince her.

But luckily she did it in time because the friend with whom she was often around got Covid and ended up in hospital. My mother didn't contract the virus. With her respiratory problems, it would be disastrous. It is unfortunate what happened with her friend but on the other hand, after seeing what her friend went through - she is not hesitant now to get a booster shot if required.


People are "woke" while nothing bad is happing to them. When the disaster strikes in their family - it is too late, and they are left with regret and self-blame.

[BADecker]

Do I trust the Covid vaccine? Of course I do! I trust it to kill people after turning them into superspreaders.


CDC confesses: Vaccines are failing, the vaxxed can be super-spreaders, demands return to mask mandates for everyone, including the vaxxed

Via the words of the CDC’s own director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the official narrative on vaccines and covid has just self-destructed. While in March of this year, Walenksy had publicly promised that vaccinated people could not spread the virus and infect others, this week she publicly stated that vaccines are failing, and that vaccinated people may now carry higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, contributing to the spread of covid.

Even Yahoo News, which typically shills for Big Pharma, could not sugarcoat the devastating narrative shift, reporting:

The CDC updated its guidelines on Tuesday to recommend masks indoors, even for vaccinated people.
The Delta variant makes it easier for vaccinated people to transmit the virus, the CDC said.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected with Delta may have similar viral loads.

USA Today was so alarmed by the CDC confession that they tried to memory hole their own reporting which cited NBC News. In a panic, USA Today scrubbed this sentence from their story:

NBC News, citing unnamed officials aware of the decision, reported it comes after new data suggests vaccinated individuals could have higher levels of virus and infect others amid the surge of cases driven by the delta variant of the coronavirus.

The CDC is currently hiding these data from the public, by the way, most likely because they know that once the data are revealed, any remaining shred of their pro-vaccine narrative will spontaneously collapse.

CDC “confession” just obliterated all the promises made to the vaccinated… now they are slowly realizing they’re the doomed super-spreaders

In making these public statements, the CDC just admitted that the entire promise that vaccinated people were immune to covid and couldn’t spread it to others just unraveled. Immediately, the CDC demanded that the entire nation revert to neanderthal mask mandates, even for those who have been “fully vaccinated.”

It begs the question: If the answer isn’t vaccines but rather just wearing masks, then why does America need the CDC in the first place? And since masks actually don’t work to block viral particles that are orders of magnitude smaller than the gaps in the mask threads, then how can masks stop them?

And if vaccines aren’t working, then what’s the use of vaccine passports?

...

[tvbcof]

...
The goal of my posts is to dilute the load of crap they post with links to reputable sources.
...

Lol.  You posted like one link about 'life expectancy' which wasn't even part of any conversation.

I posted a fair number of links, then, since you were apparently to ignorant to know what a footnote is, I followed a footnote for you so you could find the source article in Psychology Today.  Then you said that Psychology Today is a 'private blog.'

I'm sure your performance has convinced a lot of people (albeit mostly functionally retarded ones.)  Keep up the great work!

[beertoll]

...
I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'.
....

I never mentioned anything about 'life expectancy' nor did I imply it.  But over and over again you keep bringing it up because you think it is some attack on something I said, or you just want to flap your gums and it is the most scienc-ee word you know.

I never mentioned anything about 'life expectancy' nor did I imply it.

Oh man, I hope you realize that we just go back and read what you wrote. This is your quote.

I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

Doesn't matter. It is not important. Like everything you say.

You have been programmed to believe that everyone will drop dead before age thirty unless they have modern pharma drugs.  That's what billions of dollars of advertizing and 'investment' into state funded schools buy them.

You are so indoctrinated you will go rabid-dog style and start chewing on anything you perceive as being a threat to your cyber-sponsors in big pharma.  Constantly going back to 'life expectancy' in spite of it not even being relevant is equivalent to the rabid dog attacking a tire instead of an actual animal.  Amusing to watch at least.  I've seen it on the internets before of course, but some of you noobs on this forum really take it to an extreme level lately.  It's at least a glass half full that you guys are going to be sterilized or killed by the 'vaccine' where 'my type' is more likely to make it through to the other side.  I mean, I think you guys are pretty much damaged beyond hope of repair.

Since we are psychologists now, let me evaluate you.

You have low trust in others and have a stronger need to feel special. You think that everyone else is sheep and only you have the true knowledge about health, politics, economics, and life in general (although you are a blue-collar worker and don't have formal education in any field and yet you consider yourself a specialist in a multitude of fields). You are an anti-authority person and with your paranoid and suspicious thinking, you see meaningful patterns where none exist. Does not matter what organizations do, they do it only to harm YOU in any way they can. There is no other reason for their existence.

[beertoll]

Lol.  You posted like one link about 'life expectancy' which wasn't even part of any conversation.

This just proves that you don't read anything that other people post and are not interested in any other information besides what is already in your head.

You just dump your word diarrhea here.

[beertoll]

Do I trust the Covid vaccine? Of course I do! I trust it to kill people after turning them into superspreaders.


CDC confesses: Vaccines are failing, the vaxxed can be super-spreaders, demands return to mask mandates for everyone, including the vaxxed

Attention: The above link is a shit-site made specifically to confirm conspiracy theorists' biases.

Anatomy of a Disinformation Empire: Investigating NaturalNews - https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/investigating-natural-news/
This report presents the findings of an extensive investigation into a network of domains connected to NaturalNews, a US-based commercial enterprise
and website promoting conspiracy theories and disinformation.

Wikipedia: Natural News is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience and far-right extremism.

Facebook has banned this conspiracy site twice. But its content can still sneak back on.

Natural News went from selling cheesy kale chips to peddling far-right prophecies, racking up millions of Facebook followers along the way.

[franky1]

publicly stated that vaccines are failing, and that vaccinated people may now carry higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, contributing to the spread of covid.


The CDC updated its guidelines on Tuesday to recommend masks indoors, even for vaccinated people.
The Delta variant makes it easier for vaccinated people to transmit the virus, the CDC said.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected with Delta may have similar viral loads.

nope
firstly your conspiracy sites summary is wrong.
the vaccine does not cause more viral loads than a unvaxxed person.

what you find out if you actually cared/bothered to learn about the truth.. heck even learning commons sense would help you.. here il use simple numbers for your simple mind to understand

is that if someone unvaxxed passed say 100,000,000 particles of the alpha strain
is that if someone unvaxxed would pass 200,000,000 particles of the delta strain
(^ no respect for personal space, no social distancing, no mask)

and same situation but with a vaccined person
is that if someone vaxxed would pass say 5,000,000 particles of the alpha strain
is that if someone vaxxed would pass 10,000,000 particles of the delta strain
(^ no respect for personal space, no social distancing, no mask)


now unvaxxed people that respect personal space and follow the 2 metre rule.
mean they only pass 2,000,000 particles of alpha instead of 100mill particles if they didnt respect personal space(4mill particles with social distance instead of 200m of delta)

now unvaxxed people that respect personal space and follow the 2 metre rule and wear a cloth mask.
mean they only pass 1,400,000 particles of alpha instead of 100mill particles if they didnt respect personal space and didnt wear a mask(2.8mill of delta if they wore a cloth mask vs 200m delta without mask/distancing)

now unvaxxed people that respect personal space and follow the 2 metre rule and wear a surgical mask.
mean they only pass 600,000 particles of alpha instead of 100mill particles if they didnt respect personal space and didnt wear a mask(1.2m of delta instead of 200m without mask/social distancing)

so in comparison..
if the vaxxed done social distance
that 10mill delta becomes 100,000
if they wore a surgical mask thats then further reduced to 30,000



if a vaccinated person then went back to normal living habits of not social distancing. no mask. they could pass 10mill..
still alot less than if they didnt get a vaccine and went back to normal living.(200million)

the conspiracy blog is trying compare socially distancing and mask wearing unvaxxed numbers.. to back to usual unmasked non distance respecting vaxxed.

its got nothing to do with the vaccine causing more viral load. its about the lack of social distancing/lack of mask that vaxxed people can do.
but all in all its still alot lower then the ignorant unvaxxed who disrespect others by not distancing/not masking up

vaccines do not create a forcefield/shield to prevent infection. a vaccine trains body to fight the virus quick and limit/prevent the disease in the person and reduce/prevent the symptoms.. and reduce/prevent the viral load they pass on

by fighting it quick.... not by having some star trek forcefield bubble that keeps viruses away


in short..
badecker as a person that hates social distancing rule and hates masks.. he would be passing around 200mill particles of delta when he gets it and pretends its of no problem and no need to change habits

but someone vaxxed that wants the same normal living will only be passing around 10mill.
if the vaxxed continued respecting personal space and wore a mask it could be as low as 30k

in both cases less than unvaxxed personal space disrespecting badecker

[BADecker]

publicly stated that vaccines are failing, and that vaccinated people may now carry higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, contributing to the spread of covid.


The CDC updated its guidelines on Tuesday to recommend masks indoors, even for vaccinated people.
The Delta variant makes it easier for vaccinated people to transmit the virus, the CDC said.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected with Delta may have similar viral loads.

nope
firstly your conspiracy sites summary is wrong.
the vaccine does not cause more viral loads than a unvaxxed person.

what you find out if you actually cared/bothered to learn about the truth.. heck even learning commons sense would help you

is that if someone unvaxxed passed say 100,000,000 particles of the alpha strain
is that if someone unvaxxed would pass 200,000,000 particles of the delta strain
(^ no respect for personal space, no social distancing, no mask)

and same situation but with a vaccined person
is that if someone vaxxed would pass say 5,000,000 particles of the alpha strain
is that if someone vaxxed would pass 10,000,000 particles of the delta strain
(^ no respect for personal space, no social distancing, no mask)


now unvaxxed people that respect personal space and follow the 2 metre rule.
mean they only pass 2,000,000 particles of alpha instead of 100mill particles if they didnt respect personal space(4mill particles with social distance instead of 200m of delta)

now unvaxxed people that respect personal space and follow the 2 metre rule and wear a cloth mask.
mean they only pass 1,400,000 particles of alpha instead of 100mill particles if they didnt respect personal space and didnt wear a mask(2.8mill of delta if they wore a cloth mask vs 200m delta without mask/distancing)

now unvaxxed people that respect personal space and follow the 2 metre rule and wear a surgical mask.
mean they only pass 600,000 particles of alpha instead of 100mill particles if they didnt respect personal space and didnt wear a mask(1.2m of delta instead of 200m without mask/social distancing)

so in comparison..
if the vaxxed done social distance
that 10mill delta becomes 100,000
if they wore a surgical mask thats then further reduced to 30,000



if a vaccinated person then went back to normal living habits of not social distancing. no mask. they could pass 10mill..
still alot less than if they didnt get a vaccine.(200million)

the conspiracy blog is trying compare socially distancing and mask wearing unvaxxed numbers.. to back to usual unmasked non distance respecting vaxxed.

its got nothing to do with the vaccine causing more viral load. its about the lack of social distancing/lack of mask that vaxxed people can do.
but all in all its still alot lower then the ignorant unvaxxed who disrespect others by not distancing/not masking up

vaccines do not create a forcefield/shield to prevent infection. a vaccine trains body to fight the virus quick and limit/prevent the disease in the person and reduce/prevent the symptoms.. and reduce/prevent the viral load they pass on

by fighting it quick.... not by having some star trek forcefield bubble that keeps viruses away

Thanks for inventing the way things work. Yours in contrast with the links to medical stuff... which I posted.

Do I trust the Covid vaccine? Of course I do! I trust it to kill people after turning them into superspreaders.


CDC confesses: Vaccines are failing, the vaxxed can be super-spreaders, demands return to mask mandates for everyone, including the vaxxed

Attention: The above link is a shit-site made specifically to confirm conspiracy theorists' biases.

Anatomy of a Disinformation Empire: Investigating NaturalNews - https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/investigating-natural-news/
This report presents the findings of an extensive investigation into a network of domains connected to NaturalNews, a US-based commercial enterprise
and website promoting conspiracy theories and disinformation.

Wikipedia: Natural News is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience and far-right extremism.

Facebook has banned this conspiracy site twice. But its content can still sneak back on.

Natural News went from selling cheesy kale chips to peddling far-right prophecies, racking up millions of Facebook followers along the way.

But you didn't follow their links to see that they are talking about what is happening. I think that we are all beginning to see that Facebook, Youtube, twitter sometimes, and most of the long-standing news agencies are the real conspiracy sites.

This is fun.

[franky1]

Thanks for inventing the way things work. Yours in contrast with the links to medical stuff... which I posted.
This is fun.

you posted a conspiracy site. that misquoted a yahoo site. which took a out of contect extract of a cdc statement

sorry badecker that is not "medical stuff"
your natural news has totally twisted, ignored and then made a opinion piece based on their bias. not based on medical stuff