That's more where I stand. The risk to people under retirement age is extremely minimal. Vaccines should be going to the elderly, and health care workers (as they generally are I believe.) Locking down the entire society for the sake of a fraction of the community is just not sensible.
I know vaccines are not without their risks, however extremely rare. It's a choice families need to make for themselves, and I hope they do it based on sound science rather than fringe quackery and misinformed fear mongering.
For me the issue is that my wife is around 20 weeks pregnant with our twins, and I do not want to risk her getting sick and losing them, so I'll probably be getting the vaccine when it becomes available to help serve as a buffer between her and the outside world. (And I am not willing to risk giving her the vaccine directly. Well founded or not, even the rumors of miscarriages caused by the vaccine are enough to make me avoid it. She can stay holed up in this house for three months. :P The rest of us around her will get vaccinated.)
Similar for our parents who are in the high risk age range etc. Even if they don't get vaccinated (no idea if they will or not), we don't want to risk exposing them if we need to come in contact with them.
I was skeptical of these new vaccines as well, primarily simply because of how they were rushed through. Not because I'm skeptical of vaccines in general. But understanding the science behind mRNA vaccines really helped ease that anxiety, in part because I'm already a genetic genealogist and evolutionary biology enthusiast, so I was reasonably familiar with genetics, cellular function, etc.
Wilks won a Darwin Award and the world is a better place now.
That's true... a lot of diaspora Jews, like those in the US, don't really support Israel itself (or don't support Zionism etc.)
They see Israel as an evil and brutal ethnostate that oppresses and mass murders the innocent Palestinians for no reason etc.
BDS BDS etc...
Probably like many whites today who hate Poland, Hungary etc for standing up for their people, history, and culture.
Just because you're part of an ethnic group doesn't mean you necessarily share all the same values, beliefs, etc.
hahaha... you summed it up quite well. :)
It means that you're about 95% less likely to get it. (94.1% for one of them, and 95% for the other.)
That's after the initial shot and the booster a month later.
What I meant though by "how it works" is to actually explain what the mRNA itself actually does, as a LOT of people incorrect fear that it alters our DNA. That's the main point I've been explaining to people to assuage their fears.
I'm not speaking to the reality of the pandemic itself, which is vastly overblown and being leveraged by the left as a massive authoritarian power grab... or of the motivations for the financiers behind the vaccine makers, etc...
I'm speaking merely of the science behind how the vaccines themselves actually work.
I hate to see the latter getting thrown out with the former like the proverbial baby with the bath water. :P
Yeah, I notice that by the immediate 7 downvotes for a well explained, sincere comment comment. :P
Doesn't reflect well on those doing the downvoting. *sigh*
You can lead a horse to water, as they say...
I can't help people who want to remain ignorant and wrong. I can only put it out there.
I very clearly just explained how it is one, by definition, and how that doctor, in his own words, which I quoted, are very clearly and unequivocally WRONG.
If you can't understand any of that, that's not my problem and doesn't change the facts.
You realize there are TWO just here in the US, right? Moderna and Pfizer?
And you realize that there are multiple others, for example for flu strains, already passed Phase 1 human trials, which they passed with flying colors.
This technology has been in development for years now.
The statistics on murder rates, interracial violence rates, rape, violent crime, e.t.c would all STRONGLY disagree with mister Devoe there as to whom the real greatest risk to this country is.
It's not even close.
I don't like bringing attention to myself. The last few days I've mostly just focused on trying to explain to people on Gab how mRNA vaccines actually work.
Just left a large comment here on P.W on the same topic.
But I appreciate the positive feedback. :)
It is a vaccine. I'm sorry if you don't understand why.
Let me try to sum up the 4 main types of vaccines in use today, and reiterate how they all achieve the same end result, getting your body to recognize a foreign protein that is part of the invading virus in order to build an immunity to it so that when a real living example tries to invade your body, it recognizes it and reacts before it can gain a foothold and make you sick.
Here's a tl;dr summary... :P
The point of all of these is to trigger the immune response. They just differ in how they cause that reaction.
-
Throw in the whole original virus with some tweaks so you don't get sick, but enough to trigger the immune system.
-
Throw in just a tiny harmless piece of the virus, just enough to train your immune system.
-
Throw in a tiny piece of code to make the tiny piece of the virus to trigger the immune system (mRNA) - or - Throw in a tiny piece of code to make the tiny piece of code that makes the tiny piece of the virus to trigger the immune system (DNA Plasmid). (Neither change your DNA.)
-
Throw in a different basically harmless virus that has its DNA altered to make the mRNA in point 3 above. Doesn't change your DNA, doesn't reproduce, but also boosts your immune response.
All of these use a part of the original virus to train your immune system. How that protein is exposed to your immune system is the only difference.
The guy in the video saying it's not a vaccine is frankly an idiot.
Let's break down WHY he's a retard, shall we?
He says that it's not a vaccine because it is "a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator."
He also claims that there is a legal definition of "vaccine." The definition I'm seeing most referenced legally is as follows;
"Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity."
Which he claims the mRNA vaccine doesn't match.
Now, let's break down his 2 major errors here.
First, his claim that the mRNA vaccine stimulates the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.
It does not. Why? Let's look at the definition of a pathogen.
"a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease."
The mRNA vaccine contains none of these things, nor creates any of these things.
In cellular function, we have genes in our DNA which encode proteins used to build other things in our body, and they do this by creating little pieces of messenger RNA that move from the nucleus of the cell, where our DNA is, into the cytoplasm of the cell outside the nucleus, where ribosomes read those little mRNA snippets and build little chains of amino acids out of the instructions, which then fold into the final protein.
In the case of these mRNA vaccines, that little snip of temporary mRNA that is used to build the protein and then degrades and is reabsorbed by the cell, is coded to specifically build a single piece of one of the spike proteins on the outside of the coronavirus. The protein by itself being totally useless and nonfunctional, but being enough to teach your immune system what to look for so that when the real whole virus shows up, it will recognize it by the protein in the spike and attack it before it starts spreading in our body and making us sick.
That leads us back to the legal definition of a vaccine.
"Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity."
What is an antigen?
"a toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies."
In this case the single protein out of the spike from the surface of the coronavirus. That protein is the antigen. The foreign substance that is enough to induce the immune response in the body and create the learned immunity to the real virus should it show up in the future. Exactly as the definition says.
Not a pathogen, an antigen.
As noted in point 1, most vaccines would just find a way to kill the whole virus and just jam the whole virus in you. A much more difficult and potentially risky venture than just precisely creating a tiny little snippet of a temporary messenger code that tells your ribosome to make copies of a single targeted protein in order to precisely train your immune system what to look for without all the added risk of other toxins, improperly attenuated viruses, etc.
If there is any part of this you don't understand, please ask.
This guy is a quack who is making patently false claims about what vaccines are and how mRNA vaccines actually work.
No idea. Real patriots don't watch commie propaganda. :)
It's weird to me because I happen to be an atheist, and I watched the encroachment of woke ideology into the atheist community really start ramping up around 13 years ago... 2008-ish.
It started with feminists invading the CFI groups I was in in Canada (I'm not Canadian, but joined the groups on Facebook etc with a number of my Canadian friends I'd made online.)
You saw a lot of it leveraging things like atheist opposition to Christianity to get atheists to support pro-LGBT activism at the time, because Christians were often doctrinally opposed to LGBT.
Then I saw increasing pushes for a more "big tent" approach to atheism, to promoting the idea that atheists needed to get more involved in social advocacy, ostensibly under the guise of doing something more positive, improving the image of atheists, giving our lives more purpose, etc.
Increasingly this meant suppressing actual debates, because arguing was hurting people's feelings and might turn people away...
This was coupled with a massive push toward feminist promotion. Increasingly trying to find ways to appeal to women, increase the number of women speakers, leadership roles, etc... and to make new rules to make them feel more welcome.
This kind of move into these groups and slowly shifting their normal conversations, their purpose, their rules etc... it then spread into tech conferences, with feminists demanding new rules there to control speech, demand more women speakers, ban "booth babes" as sexist, etc...
Then came gaming conventions and game development in general.
Around this time, around 5 years into this progression, you had Trayvon Martin and the Black Lives Matter movement hit the stage.
All this had also already been building on a very slowly building background murmur of defense of Islam after 9/11, with progressives defending Muslims as "brown people" who were unfairly discriminated against... "not all Muslims" etc... but this was a slow build over almost a decade before it really started ramping up alongside BLM etc... "racial justice" and promoting the interests of black and brown people, utterly irrespective of, and often in complete denial of the actual character, actions, or beliefs of the individuals in question.
This led to a fracture in the atheist community between the more objectively minded and libertarian folks who only happened to be atheist because reason and evidence on that particular question had led them to that conclusion, and who might have otherwise been Republicans, gun owners, not fans of gay marriage, sex changes, or believing that there were zero differences between men and women etc.
The infighting was brutal and led to massive rifts, many of the non-lefty or non-activist atheists simply moved away from the "atheist movement" and stopped participating in atheist groups or advocacy and just focused on their own lives, while the "woke" atheists grew more vocal and increasingly aligned with the socialists, antifa, BLM, LGBTQIA+, feminists, etc.
Around this time was also the rise of "deplatforming" and increasing violence on college and university campuses... again something I saw actually start in Canada before really ramping up in the US.
I had seen the pro-Islam and pro-Muslim sentiment building for years, but did not see any real anti-Jewish sentiment until much more recently, with a prime example being the organizers of the Women's March, with Linda Sarsour being perhaps the most well known, and their signs with women wrapped in American Flag Hijabs as a symbol of female empowerment.
The records of their antisemitic statements and actions really kind of blew the lid off a growing rumble that had been spreading through the movement and had been growing more open in the Labour Movement in the UK for a few years already.
I think that generally brings us to the working memory of most involved here today. I might be a little rough on the exact dates etc, but that's the general timeline as I remember it.
It's bizarre to me because I always though the commies would love the Jews, since many early commies were Jewish, the Nazis persecuted the Jews, etc...
I wonder if the anti-Jewish sentiment is a byproduct of the woke left's (suicidally stupid and self contradictory) embrace of Islam and mass migration into the west? Or their associated infatuation with Palestine?
I've never really dug into it because I avoid antifa hives like the plague.
A good portion of them, since they felt that Trump was an honorary Jew, promoting Israeli/Jewish interests, especially with Kushner having a lot of power.
But a lot of them were just hardcore free speech advocates. While this site may not have been their preference, I figure that a lot might have wandered over here and are now trying to shift the consensus over here to more align with their views on things like the JQ etc. Just a guess. I never really got into all that nonsense about feuds between sites or cared at all about various usernames etc.
In fact while I did hang out on voat a decent amount, I actually never really got into minds or gab early on precisely because they had that same kind of wild west feel to them. Too much noise and not enough signal for me. But voat was a nice way to get a slightly less raucous peek at the cutting edge of the dark underbelly of the right wing side of the web. (without having to see all the gore and CP etc on places like 4chan, /b/, /pol/ etc...)
With the increasingly draconian actions of the left, it's left me little choice but to start more fully utilizing these "alt tech" platforms, noise be damned. Noise is preferable to curated totalitarianism, communism, fascism under the guide of benevolence, etc.
I thought that bill was appalling, then I saw what they wanted to do with guns and ammo... then I saw the TIME magazine article...
I seriously think there is no limit to their lust for power and corruption or their willingness to say it to our faces now. :( None.
Please keep up the good work. I fought some holocaust deniers myself on here yesterday.
Bear in mind that recently voat.co shut down, which left a lot of more ardent racists semi-homeless. I think this happened around a week and a half before January 6th.
So you may actually be seeing more racists and antisemites who aren't lefties or glowies or shills, but are actual racists.
I know it's like 6 of one or half a dozen of the other, but I think the distinction matters.
Pay attention, shit for brains.
I am not a national socialist or a Nazi. I do not want national socialism, which is in fact different from the Nazi party specifically. I believe I have stated this already, which at this point makes you a willful LIAR. Please stop lying.
That said;
While many national socialist parties were in some way related to the Nazis, a number exist that aren't, because the Nazi party had a lot of specific ideas unique to itself, which aren't inherent to national socialism in general.
Even the early German National Socialist movements had major internal arguments, for example between Nazism and Strasserism. (The latter having more in common with Marxism in regards to class struggle, and opposition to capital, founding their antisemitism less on the ethnic grounds that Hitler favored, and more on economic grounds as bankers etc. But I digress...)
Here are some of the totally unrelated to Nazism national socialist movements:
- Ba'ath Party, an Arab national-socialist party in Iraq and Syria
- Czech National Social Party, founded in Austria-Hungary in 1898 as a centre-left party advocating Czech independence
- National-Social Association, a small centre-left Christian liberalism party in Germany
- National Socialist Party (Philippines), political party in the Philippines in 1935
- National Socialist Party (UK), a breakaway group from the British Socialist Party formed in 1916
- Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (National Socialist Party), a small socialist party in Bangladesh
- National Socialist Council of Nagaland, a Maoist insurgent group in India
- National Socialist Party of Tripura, a party advocating Tripuri self-determination in India
Some of these existed long before the creation of Nazism or the Nazi party, that Nazi party and its ideology being created as a subset of the ideological umbrella of socialism, with national socialism one subset under that, with Nazism specifically one further subset under that.
Contrast this with International Socialism;
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (Socialism itself, as formed by Marx etc... was inherently international and revolutionary. National socialism was formulated specifically as a counter to the international aspect, predated Nazism specifically, and has a number of other incarnations both before and after Nazism which are unrelated to Nazism specifically, which includes various aspects specific to Hitler, Germany, the German people specifically, etc.)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism as another aspect of that...
International socialism itself also having numerous strains, etc.
Again, I'm not a socialist, I don't favor socialism, I'm not a Nazi, and I don't favor Nazism.
I was pointing out that IF one were to be a socialist, or ally oneself with socialists, then doing so with national socialists would be preferable to international socialists, and that specifically siding with the Nazis would have been preferable to siding with the Communists.
Pointing out one being less bad than the other doesn't mean I am one or the other, or advocate for one or the other to the exclusion of OTHER BETTER ALTERNATIVES.
If you still can't wrap your little head around these distinctions at this point, or are unwilling to stop lying through your teeth, there's little else I can say to change that.
Which white people did Hitler himself kill, or direct his military to kill?
People who were trying to completely wipe out his country and his people? His people already desperately trying to recover from the last attempt to wipe them from history, while communist hordes marched from the east, with many already within the proverbial walls working to destroy them from within?
So he fights a war back against this aggression and ends up getting a bunch of his people killed who would have been killed anyway by the Russian hordes marching west, who had thankfully been stalled by Poland, giving Europe enough time to prepare?
Yeah, sorry, you have a shit argument.
Better to die fighting for your survival than die a cowards death and allow your entire nation and people to be destroyed by the enemy. They were right to fight.
It's also childish to believe that the Nazis started the war for no reason. Again, it's like kicking a dog repeatedly and then blaming it when it bites you.
There were decades of events that led to the war. Concerted efforts to destroy Germany and the German people. Split up their land, cut apart their people, try to wipe them out, and then have the communists flooding in trying to stage a revolution, with Antifa pulling the same violence in the streets they do in the US today, etc... plenty of things that served as catalysts.
But I suppose someone who makes as childish and oversimplified and falsely equivocated arguments as you just wouldn't care about any of that now would you?
*sigh*
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
And so on.
Maybe educate yourself the slightest bit before spouting off like a poorly informed petulant child here who refuses to be reasonable to acknowledge what's being said.
Not a Nazi, don't like Nazis. I'm just not stupid enough to refuse to distinguish between two very different ideologies and recognize that one is indeed worse than the other.
Your argument is about as stupid as saying that there's no difference between Christianity and Islam because both are Abrahamic religions.
I'm certainly not a believer, but I'd rather be on Gab with the Christians than on Twitter with the commies.
It does bug me a little bit how the site is pretty overtly Christian, but if that's what it takes to get a free speech platform, that's fine by me.
Except that I actually quoted you the definitions, which you can actually go independently verify. And you can actually look up what mRNA actually does, etc.
It's not hard to verify that that doctor is clearly wrong, and that you are in error for repeating and spreading his provably incorrect misinformation.
Don't be lazy. And if you won't hopefully at least anyone else here will actually look for themselves.
(Which might be hard since ignorant fucktards just downvoted my comment a bunch because science is scary to idiots apparently.)