Why are people deemed intelligent enough to have a discussion with doctors about all kinds of drugs to treat everything from the heartbreak of psoriasis to ulcerative colitis to Crohn’s Disease to psoriatic arthritis to whatever but are viewed as less than minimally intelligent if they ask questions about Wuflu vaccines?
This train of thought got started because of an ad that interrupted my TV viewing and told me that I could simply talk to my doctor about the drug for ulcerative colitis. At the end of the ad there was an extensive list of potential side-effects ranging from a stuffy nose to rapidly progressing cancer (or something like that).
BUT. If somebody dares to ask about side-effects of one or all of the three Wuflu vaccines they are denigrated, excoriated, scolded, laughed at, and shunned.
The social take is that intelligent, caring, moral people get the Wuflu vaccine without asking any questions and completely trusting the experts. Only uneducated, mind-controlled rubes would dare question the experts on the effectiveness or potential harmful side-effects of a Wuflu vaccine.
BUT. If someone says that they’d like to look into one of the drugs advertised on TV they’ll likely be scolded, denigrated, excoriated, laughed at, and maybe shunned (for being foolish enough to fall for one of those ads).
Intelligent, caring, moral people understand that those ads are just pushed by Big Pharma who have no interest whatsoever in your health and wellbeing. Why the hell would anybody even consider one of those drugs? Have they seen the side effects?
So, which is it?
Those people who question the Wuflu vaccine…are they asking credible, reasonable questions about a vaccine that has not undergone any long-term trials? Are they asking credible, reasonable questions about potential side effects? Or are they uneducated, mind-controlled rubes who don’t understand that we have no business questioning the experts?
This is a multiple choice question. Pick one and explain your answer.
I vote for “they are asking credible, reasonable questions.” Here’s my explanation:
When a drug or product claims it is “98% effective” or “95% of people using today’s trendy product saw improvement in one week” I just laugh. I am one of those people who, almost routinely, falls into the 2% or 5% of people for whom the worse side effects show up. I’m in the 2% for whom the product is either completely ineffective, or worse, counter-effective. There are very valid reasons for every individual to question the impact of any drug or product on their lives before trying it out.
So, when you say nobody has to worry about any side effects of any of the three Wuflu vaccines, I just laugh.
Have you seen the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports? The side effects can be nasty at best, and life-changing or even life-threatening at worst (Guillain-Barré syndrome, blood clots, heart problems).
Why is anybody an uneducated, mind-controlled rube for asking questions about any of these vaccines? Why is everyone expected to accept these unquestioningly, but something that is going to control whatever else, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, etc., should be questioned closely?
I know that many people are going to suggest that those who don’t want the vaccine until further information comes out, or don’t want it at all, are callous and uncaring because, after all, this is a PANDEMIC, DAMMIT! Have some concern for your fellow human beings! This is not your individual medical issue. This concerns ALL OF US!
Yep. And you’re asking those who are unvaccinated to put a virtually unknown compound into their systems. A compound which has very little to no information on possible side-effects beyond, oh, you’ll feel some flu-like symptoms for a couple days. So, you are perfectly happy to sacrifice your fellow citizens, your fellow human beings, to Guillain-Barré syndrome, deadly blood clots, heart problems so that you, who are vaccinated already, can feel better about…what? Your decision? Others? What are you worried about?
If the vaccine works, why are you pushing everybody to get it? If it works, you are immune, right? Or, as the experts now tell us, you are going to get a milder case. Okay. Fine. How does somebody else’s decision affect you? Please tell me. They’re the ones who stand a greater chance of getting a worse case. What are you worried about?
If the vaccine doesn’t work (as might be indicated by the panicked response to those who announce that they don’t want it), why are you pushing everybody to get it? Where’s the benefit from a vaccine that doesn’t work?
If you’re vaccinated against the measles and you come into contact with somebody suffering from measles…you won’t get it! That’s the whole point of a vaccine.
If you believe the vaccine is effective, and you got it…WHY ARE YOU WORRIED? Unless you are uncertain that it actually works and you’re pushing others to get it so that you feel better about your decision.
So, are people allowed to question potential side effects or not? Can people question long term effects or not? Can people question experts or not?
If your answer to ANY of the above questions is no…please explain your answer. If your answer is yes, then please explain why you are willing to segregate people based on whether or not they got vaccinated.
Class dismissed. Now go out there and question authority.
Image by Darko Stojanovic from Pixabay
An additional worry with the VAERS–
several doctors flatly stated that they were not reporting side-effects.
They need to lose their license.
Yeah, saw something about that. Hopefully, enough are actually holding to their oath to do no harm that they are reporting side-effects.
VAERS doesn’t need to be reported by doctors. It can be reported by anyone. This is one of these problems with the database. No one”investigated”the claims of reactions. If you self report a reaction, the fixture will get an inquiry, but if they elect to ignore the inquiry, nothing happens.
Thanks for the clarification.
Also:
Imagine a 70-year old woman with a history of A-fib and mild high blood pressure, found dead in her bed one morning. She lives alone, got the jab the morning before, and apparently felt fine (no calls to doctors, etc.) Does her data enter the system?
Now imagine a similar woman who has family who check on her regularly, one of whom stays current on published studies. The woman decides to get the clotshot, because the hospitals within driving range have a “kill the patient” CDC protocol in place for Wuflu ER admits, and the “unvaxxed” all have the CCPox because the cycles on the PCR test are cranked to eleventy.
Her family insist she get a blood pressure cuff and learn how to use it and that she talk to her doctor and get a supply of something like coumadin.
Just like the other hypothetical old lady, she gets the jab in the AM, drives home, and by dinner time feels fine. Her family call and nag her, so she checks: Systolic pressure at ~155. Hmmm.. Later at bedtime: 175. Then 185. She takes the Coumadin and continues to self monitor. By the early AM she stabilizes at ~145. All the time “she felt fine”.
According to anecdotal evidence (the old lady talking to her cardiologist) several other A-fib patients had issues within a day or two after getting the jab; one had to be hospitalized after crashing in the doc’s office.
Three guesses whether even the second old lady’s incident was properly investigated. Or if heart patients are warned about mitigating possible side effects of the therapy drug.
As ever, the coverup points to the crime, and makes the knockon effects worse.
The latest claim seems to be that, although the “vaccine” doesn’t keep you from becoming infected nor from spreading the virus, it’ll suppress the symptoms.
Great. So instead of feeling sick and staying home, you can blithely go about your business as an asymptomatic carrier. Way to protect others and stop the virus!
Next up: mandatory vaccination, plus mandatory frequent testing to make sure the duly vaccinated aren’t unknowingly spreading the Pestilence. Oh, and mandatory quarantine (with requirements that are entirely unrealistic for ordinary people) for anyone who tests positive.
Ya know…I didn’t even think about the possibility that milder cases means we go back to the usual “I can power through this cold” bullshit. You’re right…that’s going to be interesting.
I do hope that the mask thing continues in our society for people who are actually nasty sick! You have a cold where you’re blowing stuff all over, please cover your mouth and nose!
It’s one of only two good things I see coming out of this dempanic.
(The other is that we seem to be digging deeper than ever before into how viruses operate and how the body deals with them. We’re learning some good stuff that will help down the road if we can ever de-politicize it all.)
Thank you so much Prof Ornery and Sarah Hoyt for some sanity in this insane wilderness. Will the world ever be sane again? ??
Thanks for thinking I’m sane! lol
To get back to some semblance of world sanity, we have to keep pushing back against the insane narrative. Keep questioning “authority”. Don’t give up!
The fig leaf most of the vaccine Karens you rail against is “but in those cases you are not infecting anyone else”
So in any of these, what seem to be reasonable “rants” that has to be addressed by examples of individuals making these decisions with their doctors.
Exactly. That’s what vaccines do…protect the recipient from infection by others. So, to insist, force, someone to get the vaccine DOES NOT offer any further protection to the already vaccinated…assuming the vaccine works.
That’s not quite correct. There is no vaccine that is 100% effective. This one is probably closer to 75% in real world activity. So if there is less virus around because more people are vaccinated, there is less risk of the vaccinated getting exposed and finding it they are one of the 25% that are still vulnerable. The concept of herd immunity. There is benefit to the vaccinated. The question is always a trade off. How much is the increased safety for you worth in loss of freedom for him?
From what I can see, increased safety for “just one person” is totally worth complete loss of freedom for all others. But then….I’m ornery and cynical.
But my point is that this is a logically debatable pros and cons argument. TANSTAAFL. Raspberries to all the people who don’t understand that.
*”That’s not quite correct. There is no vaccine that is 100% effective. This one is probably closer to 75% in real world activity. So if there is less virus around because more people are vaccinated, there is less risk of the vaccinated getting exposed and finding it they are one of the 25% that are still vulnerable”
.
.
I recommend defining “effective” or else using specific terms like “sterilizing” or “leaky”
.
.
Injections that merely lessen the severity of a disease are called “therapies”. My gamma globulin shot + chloroquine when I go to visit family in Brasil are not ” vaccinations” even though gg is safe and effective in preventing or limiting severe disease.
.
.
I can call a zebra a donkey all day long, but what actually happens if I try to saddle, bridle, and ride it will not be pretty.
.
.
*Apologies for the wall of text. Some sites do not do paragraphs, and I do not know how to recognize this.
Why are people deemed intelligent enough to have a discussion with doctors about all kinds of drugs to treat everything
Because they really don’t want you giving any pushback on those things. They want you to listen to your doctor, after you’ve tried to encourage him to prescribe you their medicine.
or worse, counter-effective
I love the anti-depressants with a side effect of “suicidal thoughts”. Ummmmm… “counter-effective” would be a good word for that….
etc., should be questioned closely?
Again, that’s not what they’re asking you to do. They want you to “talk” to your doctor about maybe prescribing it. Then they expect you to shut up and listen to the expert, especially when he poo-poos your concerns about side effects.
They don’t want you questioning him or her closely. Not at all.
you come into contact with somebody suffering from measles
I suggested from about the first month, when the French doctors came out with their initial study on HCQ (because it was used for SARS1), that we should do the old-style “measles party” where we get a bunch of people in a space with some infected folks, then send them home with quarantine instructions if ANY symptoms turn up, and a package of HCQ, zinc, and ZPack to use at the first sign of symptoms. Then a vaccine would be marginal once it was developed, because we’d have general herd immunity.
But I don’t wear a white coat at work, so I’m not an expert.
Agreed. We are systematically destroying the efficacy of these pseudo-vaxes for the most vulnerable, whose risk/reward calculations favor trying them – even with yearly “boosters” rejiggered to the evolving virus.
.
Even as we lock down on both diagnosis and treatment protocols guaranteed to overwhelm our ICUs and make it more likely that those admitted die there.