Will You Take The Vaccine?

Are you going to take the corona virus vaccine?

  • No.

  • Yes.


Results are only viewable after voting.

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
the only person i know that actually died from it was my step-brother's father-in-law - and that was really early into it - like last May - he was in his late 60s and im not sure if he had any under-lying issues - not that im aware of anyway

everybody else, they had it, it was mild, and it was gone in a few days - no lasting remnants sticking around or long-term issues either

so it's worse than the flu but only a little bit - and that's my own personal assessment - so again, im not too overly concerned about it where i think i should gamble on an adverse reaction from a new mRNA shot that's still in the experimental phase - obviously, as i stated earlier, some additives have caused me issues before, and im not doing it again - plus i still think the jury is out on these shots overall

you can hate me for that, wish ill will on me, call me trumper/republican all you want, even tho its got zero to do with politics, call me an idiot, brainless, whatever - none of it matters, i just still don't care what you think of me for that - and i never will care what anybody thinks - im not gonna be pressured into anything i dont feel comfortable with....and thats that

now go get your shots if you want - or don't - just don't be mad at me for it - i won't call you any names for your view and your decision either way



can you please tell us more about how you dont care what we think
 

HaroldRocks

Well-Known Member
Hey by all means don't get vaccinated yourself for whatever reasons, just STFU and keep it to yourself, because when you spout about it on here you look like a fool who can't think straight. If you and your kind become an issue it will be dealt with one way or another, but for now with a planet unvaccinated, you are low down on the priority list and most will end up infected and thus immunized. Either way yer immunized, though one way has several orders of magnitude more risk than the other.
Why should i STFU? why don't you? i mean wtf dude....

Me and "my kind" are healthier than you think...you think we should all follow everything blindly without question?

there's way way way more people that haven't been infected than their are that have been....so how will most of us end up infected anyway by that logic? that's about the most illogical statement you've made so far....i mean you're so smart, but where's the math skills, genius?
 

HaroldRocks

Well-Known Member
145 total votes

95 are getting the shot

50 are not getting the shot

and im here representing the other 49 (they locked Diaz out so now i gotta represent his vote too otherwise id say 48 )

they're not gonna argue with you believers - you're die-hards for the shot - all of you - expect for me and the silent 34.5%
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
the only person i know that actually died from it was my step-brother's father-in-law - and that was really early into it - like last May - he was in his late 60s and im not sure if he had any under-lying issues - not that im aware of anyway

everybody else, they had it, it was mild, and it was gone in a few days - no lasting remnants sticking around or long-term issues either

so it's worse than the flu but only a little bit - and that's my own personal assessment - so again, im not too overly concerned about it where i think i should gamble on an adverse reaction from a new mRNA shot that's still in the experimental phase - obviously, as i stated earlier, some additives have caused me issues before, and im not doing it again - plus i still think the jury is out on these shots overall

you can hate me for that, wish ill will on me, call me trumper/republican all you want, even tho its got zero to do with politics, call me an idiot, brainless, whatever - none of it matters, i just still don't care what you think of me for that - and i never will care what anybody thinks - im not gonna be pressured into anything i dont feel comfortable with....and thats that

now go get your shots if you want - or don't - just don't be mad at me for it - i won't call you any names for your view and your decision either way



Yep we figured you'd get around to the pro pandemic line. Ya know I really do think you are a Trumper, despite your protestations, I see too much rightwing propaganda in your posts, too much of their and Trump's bullshit.

"so it's worse than the flu but only a little bit" proves you are an idiot, so do 600,000 dead Americans. Yer just a troll playing games or a genuine moron, take yer pick. In any case we don't have many Trumpers around any more and the acrimony has faded a bit for some folks. They now appear as confused anti vaccers or frightened pro pandemic sheep, like you. It's also good to post useful accurate information to the threads and guys like you cause it to happen.

There will be lot's of unvaccinated, mostly around the world and in the immediate vicinity of North America. Canada will have 700 million doses to give away in a few months and America will be giving away much more than that. If people like you become an issue you will be dealt with and only represent a small minority. One way or another America will be between 75 and 80% covered by fall, through forcing many of the reluctant to do it for travel, entertainment, employment and medical insurance clauses. If you don't present an health and safety issue you will be more of less free to get sick and even die, but don't expect the rest of Americans to foot the bill.

As more Americans are immunized they will care less about what you do as long as they feel protected.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
there's way way way more people that haven't been infected than their are that have been....so how will most of us end up infected anyway by that logic? that's about the most illogical statement you've made so far....i mean you're so smart, but where's the math skills, genius?
You will eventually be protected by herd immunity, but you folks are your worse enemy and will delay herd immunity by months, months in which you can be infected. Even after America achieves herd immunity there will be plenty of the unvaccinated dying of covid. The more people who are immunized the safer you'll be, numbers are not required in this case, common sense is though. The herd immunity percentage is uncertain and varies with the R0, which varies with the variants, as does virulence. With the original wild strain the experts thought herd immunity was in the 75% range, with new more contagious variants herd immunity is believe to be in the low 80% range.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
145 total votes

95 are getting the shot

50 are not getting the shot

and im here representing the other 49 (they locked Diaz out so now i gotta represent his vote too otherwise id say 48 )

they're not gonna argue with you believers - you're die-hards for the shot - all of you - expect for me and the silent 34.5%
So we are to carry the rest of you?
 

HaroldRocks

Well-Known Member
You will eventually be protected by herd immunity, but you folks are your worse enemy and will delay herd immunity by months, months in which you can be infected. Even after America achieves herd immunity there will be plenty of the unvaccinated dying of covid. The more people who are immunized the safer you'll be, numbers are not required in this case, common sense is though. The herd immunity percentage is uncertain and varies with the R0, which varies with the variants, as does virulence. With the original wild strain the experts thought herd immunity was in the 75% range, with new more contagious variants herd immunity is believe to be in the low 80% range.

but you don't know that for a fact - but you think you do - it's still not a vaccine - just gene therapy - experimental too
 

printer

Well-Known Member
but you don't know that for a fact - but you think you do - it's still not a vaccine - just gene therapy - experimental too
So How does a vaccine using a portion of the virus different as compared to the RNA "Gene Therapy"? Oh right, instead of shooting the person with a large chunk of the virus they are shot up with just a snippet.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
but you don't know that for a fact - but you think you do - it's still not a vaccine - just gene therapy - experimental too
oh look, a retard read some stupid shit on facebook and is now lecturing us about a vaccine that millions are taking without any ill effects and a 100% covid survival rate

stupid bitch thinks his crying n a pot website will reverse the evidence w esee with our own eyes.
 

HaroldRocks

Well-Known Member
Could mRNA Vaccines Permanently Alter DNA? Recent Science Suggests They Might.

Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.
Over the past year, it would be all but impossible for Americans not to notice the media’s decision to make vaccines the dominant COVID narrative, rushing to do so even before any coronavirus-attributed deaths occurred.


The media’s slanted coverage has provided a particularly fruitful public relations boost for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines — decades in the making but never approved for human use — helping to usher the experimental technology closer to the regulatory finish line.


Under ordinary circumstances, the body makes (“transcribes”) mRNA from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus. The mRNA then travels out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it provides instructions about which proteins to make.

By comparison, mRNA vaccines send their chemically synthesized mRNA payload (bundled with spike protein-manufacturing instructions) directly into the cytoplasm.


According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mRNA vaccine scientists, the buck then stops there — mRNA vaccines “do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way,” the CDC says. The CDC asserts first, that the mRNA cannot enter the cell’s nucleus (where DNA resides), and second, that the cell — Mission-Impossible-style — “gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”


A December preprint about SARS-CoV-2, by scientists at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), produced findings about wild coronavirus that raise questions about how viral RNA operates.


The scientists conducted the analysis because they were “puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone.”


Their key findings were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 RNAs “can be reverse transcribed in human cells,” “these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed” (a phenomenon called “retro-integration”) — and there are viable cellular pathways to explain how this happens.


According to Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Doug Corrigan, these important findings (which run contrary to “current biological dogma”) belong to the category of “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened.”


The findings of the Harvard and MIT researchers also put the CDC’s assumptions about mRNA vaccines on shakier ground, according to Corrigan. In fact, a month before the Harvard-MIT preprint appeared, Corrigan had already written a blog outlining possible mechanisms and pathways whereby mRNA vaccines could produce the identical phenomenon.


In a second blog post, written after the preprint came out, Corrigan emphasized that the Harvard-MIT findings about coronavirus RNA have major implications for mRNA vaccines — a fact he describes as “the big elephant in the room.” While not claiming that vaccine RNA will necessarily behave in the same way as coronavirus RNA — that is, permanently altering genomic DNA — Corrigan believes that the possibility exists and deserves close scrutiny.


In Corrigan’s view, the preprint’s contribution is that it “validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable.”

Reverse transcription


As the phrase “reverse transcription” implies, the DNA-to-mRNA pathway is not always a one-way street. Enzymes called reverse transcriptases can also convert RNA into DNA, allowing the latter to be integrated into the DNA in the cell nucleus.


Nor is reverse transcription uncommon. Geneticists report that “Over 40% of mammalian genomes comprise the products of reverse transcription.”


The preliminary evidence cited by the Harvard-MIT researchers indicates that endogenous reverse transcriptase enzymes may facilitate reverse transcription of coronavirus RNAs and trigger their integration into the human genome.


The authors suggest that while the clinical consequences require further study, detrimental effects are a distinct possibility and — depending on the integrated viral fragments’ “insertion sites in the human genome” and an individual’s underlying health status — could include “a more severe immune response … such as a ‘cytokine storm’ or auto-immune reactions.”


In 2012, a study suggested that viral genome integration could “lead to drastic consequences for the host cell, including gene disruption, insertional mutagenesis and cell death.”
 

HaroldRocks

Well-Known Member
Corrigan makes a point of saying that the pathways hypothesized to facilitate retro-integration of viral — or vaccine — RNA into DNA “are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level.”


Even so, the preprint’s discussion of reverse transcription and genome integration elicited a maelstrom of negative comments from readers unwilling to rethink biological dogma, some of whom even advocated for retraction (though preprints are, by definition, unpublished) on the grounds that “conspiracy theorists … will take this paper to ‘proof’ that mRNA vaccines can in fact alter your genetic code.”


More thoughtful readers agreed with Corrigan that the paper raises important questions. For example, one reader stated that confirmatory evidence is lacking “to show that the spike protein only is expressed for a short amount of time (say 1-3 days) after vaccination,” adding, “We think that this is the case, but there is no evidence for that.”


In fact, just how long the vaccines’ synthetic mRNA — and thus the instructions for cells to keep manufacturing spike protein — persist inside the cells is an open question.


Ordinarily, RNA is a “notoriously fragile” and unstable molecule. According to scientists, “this fragility is true of the mRNA of any living thing, whether it belongs to a plant, bacteria, virus or human.”


But the synthetic mRNA in the COVID vaccines is a different story. In fact, the step that ultimately allowed scientists and vaccine manufacturers to resolve their decades-long mRNA vaccine impasse was when they figured out how to chemically modify mRNA to increase its stability and longevity — in other words, produce RNA “that hangs around in the cell much longer than viral RNA, or even RNA that our cell normally produces for normal protein production.”


It is anyone’s guess what the synthetic mRNA is doing while it is “hanging around,” but Corrigan speculates that its enhanced longevity raises the probability of it “being converted over into DNA.”


Moreover, because the vaccine mRNA is also engineered to be more efficient at being translated into protein, “negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.”


Dollar signs


Corrigan acknowledges that some people may dismiss his warnings, saying “If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?”


He has a ready and compelling response:


“[T]here’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening.”


Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude seems to be that the “race to get the public vaccinated” justifies taking these extra risks.


In mid-November, after the Jerusalem Post told readers that “when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects,” an Israeli hospital director argued that it’s not worth waiting two more years to ferret out mRNA vaccines’ “unique and unknown risks” or potential long-term effects.


In the U.S., enthusiasm for mRNA technology is similarly unfettered. Just a few days after the CDC released updated data showing that more than 2,200 deaths of individuals who had received either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines had been reported as of Mar. 26 , The Atlantic praised the technology, suggesting that the “ingenious” synthetic mRNA technology behind Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID vaccines represented a “breakthrough” that could “change the world.”


Rather than dismiss the prospect of retro-integration of foreign DNA as a “conspiracy theory,” scientists should be conducting studies with the mRNA-vaccinated to assess actual risks.


For example, Corrigan believes that while in vitro data in human cell lines (one of the data sources examined by the Harvard-MIT researchers) offer “air tight” results, there is still a need to conclusively demonstrate real-life genomic alteration through “PCR, DNA sequencing or Southern Blot … on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients” — and vaccinated individuals.


Yet instead of addressing these research gaps, companies are salivating over the potential to use human-edited mRNA to “commandeer our cellular machinery” and “make just about any protein under the sun.”


A March 10 press release pronouncing mRNA vaccines the clear winners of the COVID-19 vaccine race noted that all major pharmaceutical companies are now “testing out the [mRNA] technology by entering into license agreements and/or collaboration with well-established RNA companies.”


In old Disney cartoons, viewers often witnessed Donald Duck’s rich uncle, Scrooge McDuck’s, “bulging eyes [turn] into oversized Vegas slot machine dollar signs” when contemplating opportunities to increase his already immense wealth.


Judging by pharmaceutical company executives’ willingness to overlook mRNA vaccines’ long-term — and possibly multigenerational — risks, they must be similarly entranced by dollar-sign visions of a never-ending pipeline of “plug and play” mRNA products.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
dumb bitch, your ignore button is broken

but way to cite as experts a bunch of people who are urging retards like you to get the vaccine

You're too fucking stupid to exist
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Could mRNA Vaccines Permanently Alter DNA? Recent Science Suggests They Might.

Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.
Over the past year, it would be all but impossible for Americans not to notice the media’s decision to make vaccines the dominant COVID narrative, rushing to do so even before any coronavirus-attributed deaths occurred.


The media’s slanted coverage has provided a particularly fruitful public relations boost for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines — decades in the making but never approved for human use — helping to usher the experimental technology closer to the regulatory finish line.


Under ordinary circumstances, the body makes (“transcribes”) mRNA from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus. The mRNA then travels out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it provides instructions about which proteins to make.

By comparison, mRNA vaccines send their chemically synthesized mRNA payload (bundled with spike protein-manufacturing instructions) directly into the cytoplasm.


According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mRNA vaccine scientists, the buck then stops there — mRNA vaccines “do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way,” the CDC says. The CDC asserts first, that the mRNA cannot enter the cell’s nucleus (where DNA resides), and second, that the cell — Mission-Impossible-style — “gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”


A December preprint about SARS-CoV-2, by scientists at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), produced findings about wild coronavirus that raise questions about how viral RNA operates.


The scientists conducted the analysis because they were “puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone.”


Their key findings were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 RNAs “can be reverse transcribed in human cells,” “these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed” (a phenomenon called “retro-integration”) — and there are viable cellular pathways to explain how this happens.


According to Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Doug Corrigan, these important findings (which run contrary to “current biological dogma”) belong to the category of “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened.”


The findings of the Harvard and MIT researchers also put the CDC’s assumptions about mRNA vaccines on shakier ground, according to Corrigan. In fact, a month before the Harvard-MIT preprint appeared, Corrigan had already written a blog outlining possible mechanisms and pathways whereby mRNA vaccines could produce the identical phenomenon.


In a second blog post, written after the preprint came out, Corrigan emphasized that the Harvard-MIT findings about coronavirus RNA have major implications for mRNA vaccines — a fact he describes as “the big elephant in the room.” While not claiming that vaccine RNA will necessarily behave in the same way as coronavirus RNA — that is, permanently altering genomic DNA — Corrigan believes that the possibility exists and deserves close scrutiny.


In Corrigan’s view, the preprint’s contribution is that it “validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable.”

Reverse transcription


As the phrase “reverse transcription” implies, the DNA-to-mRNA pathway is not always a one-way street. Enzymes called reverse transcriptases can also convert RNA into DNA, allowing the latter to be integrated into the DNA in the cell nucleus.


Nor is reverse transcription uncommon. Geneticists report that “Over 40% of mammalian genomes comprise the products of reverse transcription.”


The preliminary evidence cited by the Harvard-MIT researchers indicates that endogenous reverse transcriptase enzymes may facilitate reverse transcription of coronavirus RNAs and trigger their integration into the human genome.


The authors suggest that while the clinical consequences require further study, detrimental effects are a distinct possibility and — depending on the integrated viral fragments’ “insertion sites in the human genome” and an individual’s underlying health status — could include “a more severe immune response … such as a ‘cytokine storm’ or auto-immune reactions.”


In 2012, a study suggested that viral genome integration could “lead to drastic consequences for the host cell, including gene disruption, insertional mutagenesis and cell death.”
Not even close to a reliable source of information, it's just some guy's fucking blog
1618100283210.png
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
He must have committed a TOS I didn't see, that's the only reason to get turtled, suspended or banned. Apparently spewing bullshit is not enough, cause you're still here.
 
Top