rattlesnake

It would have been so much worse for these guys without the jabs… Best to laugh about it indeed, "can't fix stupid" is what the Science crew used to repeat incessantly Can't say I disagree.

How many Covid vaccines have you had?

How many Covid vaccines have you had?

How many Covid vaccines have you had?

The TV is the single most effective indoctrination tool ever made.

Interesting insights.

Perhaps the ultimate ninja level is to be inclined to bury the hatchet (shuriken) with those who are worth it

Thanks, he seems to have made a full recovery, thankfully.

The mRNA issue is separate from other vaccinations, though the Covid fiasco lead lots of people to question – and ultimately lose faith in – vaccination as a whole (I am one of them). Dr. Palevsky warned in 2021 that this episode would probably deal a fatal blow to the vaccination industry.

A lot of people took the vaccine because they believed it would stop them from catching Covid, just as all other vaccines had beforehand. My dad was one of them and he even mentioned the polio vaccine – as most boomers did – to justify his stance. After his third shot (which made him unwell for several months), he actually told me I was right, as what happened was not what he had been sold on. I think this is a valid piece of anecdotal evidence as my dad is not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination. So your son is vaccinated against Covid? I'm just curious to know where various people stand on this – for example, I know people who took the shot themselves but drew the line at their kids. Which brings us back to the initial issue: the "misinformation peddlers", often qualified doctors, who spoke out (usually in reasonable terms) against these failures should not have been silenced, threatened and smeared. And those who believed "factchecker.org" and the like shoud realise that they were manipulated.

Biden, Rachel Walensky, Fauci, Rachel Maddow and many more all pushed the message that "the virus stops at every vaccinated person" and it had a great impact on collective perception from the get-go. But they were used as basis for the previously discussed coercion. And they were challenged by several doctors, who were smeared and lost a large part of their income and status. A unilateral stance was adopted and pushed aggressively, with no room for nuance or contradiction – this would already be ethically questionable if the stance has turned out to be the right one, but that isn't even the case. It's more than the odd adverse event here and there. It's significant, and that is why Dr. Redfield now refuses to administer the mRNA shot. His status gives an additional aura of credibility to concerns which have been voiced by numerous health professionals for four years. It's time for the truth to come out, I hope RFK will be the catalysing agent for this.

Do you think it was ethical to have been put in that position? It seems that you would have taken the vaccine in any case, and that's fine, freedom of choice is essential, but don't you find it disturbing to think that you couldn't have refused if you had wanted to?

Yeah and beyond the theoretical debates, it had pervasive repercussions in the real world, I mean I remember this guy I knew in Thailand who didn't want to take the jab and was basically faced with the choice to either do it or lose his job. A long term expat with a wife and kids here, what was he supposed to do? He reluctantly went and did it. That's just wrong.

I personally believe that good, honest people own up to their mistakes – I try to do it myself where possible, and overcome the barriers of ego, confirmation bias, etc. I'm curious to see who, among those who initially condoned what happened in 2021-2022, is willing to demonstrate what I consider to be highly valuable traits: humility and honesty.

This would be a valid take if the initial principle edicted – that the vaccine stops transmisson and has no problematic side effects – had been true. But it isn't the case, as Dr. Redfield himself readily admits (kudos to him for having the humility and intellectual integrity to do that, as these are traits so many people cruelly lack, as is still demonstrated on this forum). And it's not as if the world was discovering these issues now, they have been known for years, albeit confined to the limits of "conspiracy theory". That's the thing, this information was actually known in 2021. When you have the ex-CDC Director, who pushed this vaccine on people in the beginning, now saying what Robert Malone, Sherri Tenpenny or Peter McCullough were saying in 2021, it raises deep, fundamental questions: if these "crazy, dangerous conspiracy theorists and misinformation peddlers" turn out to have been at least partially right, what does it say? About about the political and media apparatus, the power of the pharmaceutical industry over them, the numerous influence peddling schemes which prevent the truth from coming out at all costs, regardless of the consequences (as we are seeing now, with public trust in the authorities being at an all-time low)? And how did we get to the point where people so blindly trust, follow and obey the authorities and media to the point that no amount of rational argumentation or factual demonstrations can have them consider at any point that the "conspiracy theorists" just might be right? Very important questions which can't remain unaddressed.

It's not emotive language, it's the textbook definition. "Take the jab or lose your job" is coercion. The emotive language was heard when people screamed at other people for not wearing a mask, or when political leaders and the media said that the unvaccinated were immature, selfish idiots.

Exactly, and preferably before the vast majority of the population is coerced into taking an experimental medical procedure.

It's all very nice to use this reasonable, mitigating language now that the dust has settled, but at the time, if concentration camps had been opened and the unvaxxed deported to them, most people, including here, would have accepted and even encouraged it: This isn't only an issue about how authorities should react to health crises, it's about mass psychology and how ordinary people can be led to support and do nefarious things. If anything, those who supported this should reflect on their interpretative framework and beliefs, and analyse the critical failings which allowed them to hold such harmful and shameful positions.

Look at the thread's title for a friendly reminder of the nature of this particular discussion: "Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial", i.e. the notion that the Covid-19 mRNA shots cause harm and that said harm is not recognised for a variety of reasons. Dr. Redfield's testimony is particularly relevant, because he ticks all the boxes with regards to qualifications, credibility and relevance which are so cherished by the proponents of the "safe and effective" side of the debate, and because the non-fulfillment of these criteria is so often used as a basis to preemptively dismiss any challenges to this purported safety and effectiveness. Another reason why his statements are compelling is that he was initially pro-Covid vaccine, as shown in this source from 2021: "What was most important to me was seeing one individual after another embrace the vaccine with confidence," Redfield said. "I want to encourage all Marylanders and all Americans to embrace vaccines with confidence and not leave it on the shelf." https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-update-march-2-maryland-governor-larry-hogan/35694418 Fast forward to 2024, and this is what Dr. Redfield said on these products which he had initially supported, based on his empirical experience and expert insights: Senator Johnson: "But again, this part of the Pfizer studies, so they knew that the liquid nanoparticle was designed to permeate difficult barriers. Correct?" Dr. Redfield: "Correct." Senator Johnson: "It crosses the blood-brain barrier. Correct?" Dr. Redfield: "Correct." Senator Johnson: "What happens when you have a nanoparticle biodistributing – and let's say this mRNA attaches to a heart muscle: it injects itself into the cells, causes that heart muscle cell to produce a Spike protein, correct? Which is toxic to the body, and then what does the body do?" Dr. Redfield: "It has a very strong pro-inflammatory response, which is problematic. Again, I think, senator, what you're getting at, which I am 100% agreeing with you, is I think there was not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of the vaccines. And I do think there were inappropriate decisions by some to try to underreport any side effects because they argued it would make the public less likely to get vaccinated. I think the biggest mistake was to mandate these vaccines, they should never have been mandated, it should have been open to personal choice. They don't prevent infection, they do have side effects." https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html In this statement, Dr. Redfield is simply saying what I (and several others here) have been saying from the beginning, particularly during the crisis years of 2021-2022, which triggered a lot of hostility. The prevailing sentiment at the time was that any challenge to the blanket, unilateral "safe and effective" mantra (and everything it entailed) was dangerous antivax, non-scientific quackery and that those saying it were societal enemies. My question to you is are you now able to take a reasonable step back and do what Dr. Redfield has done, which is acknowledge this was a mistake? Below is what you said in 2022 regarding those expressing skepticism towards mRNA. Would you still say this today?

False equivalence, genders are natural, vaccines are man-made.

It's harmless joshing, which you would easily recognise if you took yourself a little less seriously.

Okay, so let's go back to Dr. Redfield, who, according to your criteria, is fully qualified and credible with regards to the Covid vaccines and their effectiveness (or lack thereof). This is the last thing you said about him, in thread Anti-vaxers relying on discredited doctor's claims about COVID vaccines... again!, on May 15: However, while Dr. Redfield has raised concerns about vaccine side effects, there is no verifiable evidence that he has claimed "Long Covid" is a cover-up for mRNA vaccine injuries. Reports making such claims often originate from sources that may not adhere to rigorous journalistic standards. Mainstream scientific consensus maintains that Long Covid is a legitimate condition resulting from COVID-19 infection, characterised by a range of symptoms persisting after the acute phase of the illness. In summary, Dr. Redfield has voiced concerns about vaccine mandates and the need for transparency regarding vaccine side effects. However, attributing statements to him that Long Covid is a cover-up for vaccine injuries lacks substantiation from credible sources. At the time, you did not address my reply to this post of yours in that thread. I am adding it below for your convenience, and ask you, in the name of your rigorous scientific criteria, to kindly give your opinion clearly regarding Dr. Redfield's statements: 46:40: "I don't think the vaccine industry should have immunity. I think they should have responsibility like any other manufacturer of any other product for their product and I'm particularly concerned about this now because, you know, my clinical practice right now which I'm still in two half days a week, is largely Covid and Long Covid, but among my, quote, "Long Covid" patients are people that don't have long covid but they have mRNA vaccine injury, right, and there's not a clear path for them to have their injury recognized…" Now put this into perspective with what he stated during a Senate hearing last year: he does not administer the mRNA shots in his own practice because he believes the Spike proteins they contain are “toxic to the body” and "the mRNA was persisting much longer than it should" in some patients. He confirmed it crosses the blood-brain barrier and that the jabs don't prevent infection and have side effects which were hidden by the authorities. https://rumble.com/v56ws2r-sen.-ron-johnson-with-cdc-former-cdc-director-dr.-robert-redfield.html

Debatable. [I am not "bothering you", just don't answer this and everything will be OK]

You mean "why are you asking me a question?". Because this is a public forum, the essential function of which is to enable and promote interaction between different parties.

Indeed, but when the "bad genes" trope is brought up, it typically prevails. I've seen it in a few cases over time – for exmple, a guy I know, in his late 40s, got stomach cancer a couple of years ago and the main takeaway among the community was "he has a favourable terrain", "it's in his family", etc. Other factors, such as a certain controversial medical intervention which he was influenced into accepting the year before his diagnosis, are not even in the "potential cause" zone.