Self reported, basically none of the 1,000 worldwide out of hundreds of millions of actual vaccinations found to be causally linked to the vaccine after investigation.
Keep fear mongering.
You ignore the last part of what I said. At this point, after several phases of human clinical trials, and plenty of evidence from women who got pregnant during those trials, women who got pregnant with actual COVID19, etc... and with the duration of actual vaccinations etc... now we actually have plenty of data to say that there isn't any additional risk.
You can lie about that if you want, but it is what it is. We're no longer in pre-market testing, nor going by guidelines written before the clinical testing even started.
Because that's not warning you not to take it. That's standard operating procedure for clinical testing for something like this. This was documentation setting out what the guidelines would be for the clinical testing. You start out being as cautious as possible and then slowly expand the size and makeup of the pool of people you're testing. If someone becomes pregnant inadvertently during the testing, that becomes additional data, but they don't want to take the risk until they know more. This is correlated with other data from people who have the actual illness and how it affects their pregnancy etc... and all of this is built up going forward until they feel they are confident enough to say that it's safe for those women as well.
This isn't Pfizer saying pregnant women can't have the vaccine, and at this point we know more than enough to know there's no additional risk.
VAERS is self reported, and when actually investigated they find no causal links.
Just because someone happens to die around the same time they got a vaccine, out of hundreds of millions of people getting them, doesn't mean that it was the vaccine that caused it.
I don't think the vaccines should be mandatory. What I do think is that all this fear mongering about them changing your DNA or killing you range from painfully ignorant to downright lies.
Because that person specifically claimed that PFIZER THEMSELVES MADE THE STATEMENT you DUMBFUCK.
Why does Phizer vaccine warn of no procreating from time of first dose to a month after second dose?
So I want to see the source that backs up his claim, that PFIZER said it, not someone else. So OBVIOUSLY it needs to be a Pfizer source, you FUCKING IMBECILE.
It's a statement that is equally valid for any group. Whether or not one deems it "racist" because it prefers one's own racial group is like saying that it's a bad thing that one prefers one's own family over that of someone else. All people are expected to value their own family over someone else's family. It's perfectly natural and expected. But when you extend that to your extended family, your "racial group" or the larger genetic population you come from, suddenly it's some malignant trait.
Thus racism used to more accurately be described as ascribing inherent superiority to someone based on race alone. For example that any white person was inherently better than any black person on account of race alone, and it was statements like these that were echoed by the founders of the confederacy in the US when they made statements like this:
[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
That was made by the Vice President of the Confederacy 2 weeks before the outbreak of the Civil War.
But simply having an in-group preference for your own kin, and having it be stronger in relation to how close that relation is, does not mean that you think any individual from your own in group must be smarter, or more moral, or stronger than any individual from one of the other groups. It's simply that on a general basis you wish to work to the benefit of your own group first, or that you prefer to be around people from your own group.
So would I have a problem with
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for black children."
or
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Asian children."
or
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for native American children."
?
No. They're all perfectly valid arguments for those within those groups wishing to preserve their own people, and potentially their languages, culture, history, etc... but specifically at the most basic level, the very survival of their species at all.
No healthy group should wish to be driven to functional extinction, to remain at best as nothing more than a few remnant bits of DNA in the genomes of the people who conquered you through reproductive attrition, like the Neanderthal are today... existing as nothing more than 2 or 3 percent of the genomes of non-African humans.
Where we run into problems is when one group starts colonizing another group and outbreeding them. So people had a right to push back when Europeans were colonizing their lands and wiping out their people.
But the situation we're in today is completely the opposite, with the only countries being systematically invaded by millions of people per year being the homelands of whites and the world leading countries they created. ONLY whites. Not Latinos, not Asians, not the Middle East, not Africa (except by the Chinese.)
But nobody in the west is pushing for or defending the mass colonization of anyone else, or claiming that any other countries need to be diversified (although we're starting to see the left rumble about Japan, as it's a prime example of a beautiful homogeneous society with almost zero crime as a result of their homogeneity and culture. And since ethnonationalists point to Japan as an example of why it's a good thing, the left is starting to want to destroy Japan with multiculturalism now...)
But generally speaking, only whites are held up as an example of a people who owe it to the rest of the world to allow themselves to be invaded and outbred, wiped from history. Nobody else faces remotely the level of pressure to not only allow it, but to help facilitate it, pay for it, welcome it, etc. To put our heads on the chopping block and beg for the axe to drop to pay for some ancestral sin.
It's not where I got it from, nor where it originated, but it was popularized by its later connection to Discworld. :) (I've unfortunately never read those books.)
The "lie-to-children" concept was first discussed by scientist Jack Cohen and mathematician Ian Stewart in the 1994 book The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World. They further elaborated upon their views in their coauthored 1997 book Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind. The concept gained greater exposure when they collaborated with popular author Terry Pratchett, discussing "lies-to-children" in the book The Science of Discworld (1999).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
Very interesting concept. Worth reading.
Since you're apparently too lazy to spend 5 seconds looking for yourself...
-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/ - "Results of the first phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA" (as anti-tumor treatment) - 2008
-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19305626 - "mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials" - May 2019
-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/ - "Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial" - July 2017
-
https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-additional-positive-phase-1-data - "Moderna Announces Additional Positive Phase 1 Data from Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Vaccine (mRNA-1647) and First Participant Dosed in Phase 2 Study" - January 2020
And from https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243 ;
-
Recent improvements in mRNA vaccines act to increase protein translation, modulate innate and adaptive immunogenicity and improve delivery.
-
mRNA vaccines have elicited potent immunity against infectious disease targets in animal models of influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus and others, especially in recent years, using lipid-encapsulated or naked forms of sequence-optimized mRNA.
-
Diverse approaches to mRNA cancer vaccines, including dendritic cell vaccines and various types of directly injectable mRNA, have been employed in numerous cancer clinical trials, with some promising results showing antigen-specific T cell responses and prolonged disease-free survival in some cases.
And so on.
You willfully ignorant fuck.
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
I would like you to clearly explain to me what is wrong with that statement. Don't avoid it, please justify precisely why that is a bad statement.
Thank you.
Are you looking at the projections rather than the current? The math shows that the population in 2000 was just over a billion people of European descent. It projects that decline outward to 2050, then 2100, and then red line for 2150.
Whites will be a total minority in the United States before 2050. Similar is happening in Western Europe.
So I don't have a hard time believing what it shows, but I would also like to see specific sources. Information like this should not be presented without clear evidence to support it or it makes it too easy for our enemies to dismiss.
Reverse image search shows nothing but random clipart websites listing this under conspiracy theory. That's not helpful.
I think you mistyped 14, but if that's what it takes, then yes.
It's bad enough that I write things like "cytoplasm (soup filling the cell outside the nucleus)" etc... and even that is probably too complicated for most people... like who even knows when you say "ribosome (enzyme)" what either is? How far do you dumb things down? That's the problem we face when having to make "lies to children" to try to make something like this understandable to people who have basically no understanding of cellular anatomy and function or the vocabulary involved.
From what I've seen you know more about it than I do, but I try to at least break it down in a simple enough way to make it clear that there's no point at which the DNA is changed or even touched during the process. It's not "gene therapy", that the vaccine doesn't create a "pathogen", but rather only a single protein (antigen) etc... and explain what the difference is. It IS a vaccine by every credible definition I've seen, as I said before.
People get really pissed about it, but I think it's important to keep trying to get the info out there.
The answers aren't hard to find with quick google searches, but people are getting their information almost exclusively from social media memes from people who have no idea what they're talking about. They haven't made any effort to inform themselves.
And whenever they find an argument on social media that sounds compelling, or "more scientific", they share that even more because it makes it less likely that someone else who is moderately informed will be able to adequately address it.
(Like "but what about reverse transcriptase!" etc. I think the pregnancy one is another one because a few articles mention either specific things like cleaving sites etc... and they think that they're similar enough that the immune system will attack women's uteruses or prevent pregnancy etc. Most people, even somewhat informed people, aren't knowledgeable enough on genetic mechanisms or terminology to really understand or answer those questions.)
Multiple mRNA vaccines had gone through multiple stages of successful human clinical trials, over the course of more than a dozen years, even before the COVID19 vaccines. (Themselves built on over 30 years of research into mRNA vaccines.)
The covid vaccines also went through human and animal trials, while at an accelerated pace.
As for pregnant women, the function of the immune system against the virus is no different than against the vaccine which creates only one part of the virus, both invoking the same immune response, if not a broader one from the virus itself as your body would be responding to more proteins than just that of the one from the spike created by the mRNA vaccine.
https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-do-not-make-women-infertile-153550
In short, they studied the effects of the immune response on pregnant women who were infected by the actual virus and how the immune system and antibodies responded to the specific protein people claim to be worried about in pregnancy and found no effect. No difference.
The people making these comparisons about proteins tend to do so out of ignorance from what I've seen, not understanding that sharing a few "letters" of code (a few of the same amino acids) is incredibly common and not the deciding factor of how the immune system responds to them, as it is more about the shape of a protein that matters, as the chain of amino acids (of which there are only around 20) can be hundreds or thousands of amino acids long, and then folds into a specific complex 3D shape, and that shape is very important into how other things respond to the protein, because they have to fit together like a specific lock and key, not just share some of the same amino acids.
And all the studies have shown that they are so different that they don't react the same way and there's no additional risk from your immune system for pregnant women etc.
Total LIE. Multiple mRNA vaccines had made it through multiple phases of human testing before the COVID19 vaccines. They just hadn't gone to market yet.
Do ANY fucking research before asserting wildly false bullshit.
Thanks.
Source for that claim? Specifically from Pfizer. Not someone's blog or some third party opinion piece.
I'm open to valid criticism, but almost everything I've seen has been wildly false. Flat out lies about altering DNA etc. It gets irritating because people want to hate the vaccine, so they share the misinformation like wildfire, and when someone pushes back, they lash out and downvote the shit out of it because they want to reaffirm their own ignorant fears.
The problem is that the illness is far more dangerous than the vaccine, even if we did ascribe all the current claimed deaths to the vaccine directly rather than coincidental deaths that happened to occur within a window of time around when a person got the vaccine.
So I'm more open to people having questions about the pregnancy concern, or the mortality rate and whether there are causal links involved...
But I'm not sympathetic to people stupidly screaming that it alters your DNA and isn't a vaccine. You have to have done zero research to make stupid claims like that, and Katie is a fucking journalist. She should know better. And if she can't wrap her head around the science, then she should defer to those who actually do understand it and not try to contradict the numerous scientists across a slew of countries who have been working on mRNA vaccines for over 30 fucking years, have independently verified this virus multiple times, the multiple phases of very successful human testing on top of the animal testing, etc.
What part of your brain can't differentiate between stupid people overhyping the threat posed by the virus from the actual scientific facts about the vaccine itself?
You can completely agree that the government are idiots, lying about the threat, and exploiting it for their own benefit, while still understanding that the vaccine works, doesn't alter your DNA, or any of the other ignorant fear mongering being pushed about it.
They're two different things.
It's like arguing that nuclear energy doesn't work because some bad politicians used the bombs in a way people didn't like. The science and the civil application are separate issues involving largely separate groups of people with separate standards, goals, etc.
Handouts, a way to get on welfare, the government dole, etc.
People get into the military in the US largely as a way to escape poverty, get a paycheck, and have lifetime benefits after they serve a couple years.
No she doesn't. This is stupid. The mRNA doesn't go in the nucleus, never touches or even reads, much less writes to your DNA. Nothing is changed.
It's a temporary messenger that is read by the ribosomes to make a chain of amino acids that fold into a specific protein. The whole process of which is incredibly tightly regulated by the cell not to do anything else. Once the mRNA is read, it dissolved. The only thing left is the single protein that doesn't do anything at all, and serves as nothing more than a trainer for your immune system to recognize it again if/when it shows up on the spike of a coronavirus if you get infected, allowing your immune system to more quickly recognize it and mount an immune response before you get sick.
That's it.
Any of this other ignorant fear mongering about gene therapy or changing your genes or setting you up for some future attack etc are all FUCKING STUPID and wholly bereft of any foundation in factual reality.
It is a vaccine by every definition I've seen. Old, new, legal, etc.
Don't post stupid shit.
Thank you, I cannot tell you how tired I am of seeing these same old lies repeated over and over again lately. Came here to fire off a rant and was happy to see you'd done an excellent job addressing it already.
Yeah, how dare people actually be educated and not post ignorant and wildly false bullshit.
How dare they.
Probably due to the massive decline in testosterone in western men coinciding with the rise in women around them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/?sh=7bf4ffa68b7f
As men keep growing increasingly feminized on average, along with the increased kowtowing to cultural Marxist ideology, feminism, increased influence of women in politics, etc... it should come as no surprise that we would see men also behaving increasingly like women, both because they themselves are less masculine, and because they are increasingly afraid to upset the women around them and the neurotic left in general, lest they be "canceled" (fired, threatened, families attacked etc.)
Dump both Pepsi and Coke. They're both totally sold out to the racist woke extremists. Look for some other brands to support, as long as they aren't pushing this far left cultural Marxism on us or their employees. I don't care what they feel personally, so long as they aren't using their company as a tool to push that ideology on anyone else. Sell us our soda/pop or whatever you want to call it and keep your socio-political ideology to yourself.
That's fine. My wife isn't getting vaccinated either (she's 22 weeks pregnant with twins right now.)
It's enough that those of us around her get vaccinated.
I'm not trying to force people to get it, or condemn people for reasonable skepticism etc.
I'm condemning the people claiming this is not a vaccine, that it edits your DNA, that it's killing people left and right, that it's some kind of government conspiracy to sterilize the planet etc...
When in reality it seems to be a perfectly reasonable vaccine built on decades of serious and careful research around the world that has already saved tons of lives in uses like cancer treatment etc.
People are going down the rabbit hole and pushing wildly false fear mongering. That's my issue.
People having a problem with the government, with lockdowns, with mandated vaccines, etc... those are separate issues and should not be confused with the actual medical and scientific background of the vaccines themselves.
We should be able to make these choices for ourselves, but I would hope that we are making them based on more sound research and sources and not fringe scientifically illiterate fear mongering, or fringe antivax quacks on social media and blogs etc.
"It's not a vaccine! It edits your DNA to create the pathogen! Pfizer even says that pregnant women shouldn't get it! It's setting us up for population control and future worse diseases that the global elite are planning!"
That's the stuff I have a problem with.
Not "I'm concerned because I heard there was a similarity between the protein made by the vaccine and a protein that is involved in pregnancy, so I'm worried about getting this (as a woman) or getting it for my wife/daughter/etc (as a man)" or "I don't really understand the whole mRNA thing and it sounds like genetics and I'm worried it will change my mind, so I'm uncomfortable getting it without knowing more about it and feeling safe."
That's perfectly reasonable.
See the difference?