Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has not been a single poster who has been against personal choice for adults to get the vaccine.
On the other hand, there is a multitude of posters who advocate for forced vaccinations for all, cheer the government vaccinating children against parent's wishes and who hope the unvaccinated drop dead tomorrow.
And personally, the vast majority of people in my circle (including the 100 year old mother of a friend) who have gotten covid over the last year and half, have no long term effects and compared it to the annual flu.
This is it. Boom!
The post of the year. I'd rep ya again, but it won't let me...
This is the stance of all of us that have cautioned about the virus - but repeatedly say that it should be up the individual. Only, those individuals should have ALL the facts - not 25% of the facts because the other 75% is being hidden or lied about
I think it takes a long time, unfortunately, for the verification. The database looks for patterns and then people take that data and further study. We won't get anything fast.
And as I said, I understand the caution. Hell, I didn't take a flu shot until I was 55 years old. I am just trying to weigh random reactions posted (not yet proven), side effects, etc, against my age and my likelihood of suffering terribly should I get the virus. My 62 y/o cousin got COVID in March and spent 4 months in the the hospital and a step-down facility before she finally got out (and she was not better when she got out). Personally, I've just seen a disturbing trend of illness with the virus in my family and acquaintances. Rarely did any of them have a "mild" illness in my view.
I fully support anyone's choice to take the shots to protect themselves, even if that means voluntary boosters.
I'm on this thread because I have concerns about safety, but mostly because I don't believe in mandating, shaming, or pressuring people to take them. The shots should be 100% free choice--no carrots, and no sticks.
I also agree with another poster who said they are more like 'mitigative injections.' If they don't stop the spread, or reduce it by a certain number, they are really individual therapeutic or preventative measures.
I'm familiar with VAERS. My husband reported his allergic reaction to the Moderna shot. A few months later they contacted him to verify the lot number. While anything has room for abuse, I don't see a vast conspiracy of VAERS bots. The information is verifiable, and it is a crime to file a false report. I think the government is capable of sorting the real from the fake, if they are paying close enough attention.
I still can't see going ahead with boosters until they've resolved the issues that are coming up on VAERS, and in the general public.
Everyone keeps saying VAERS isn't verified, yet when will they be verified? When can we expect transparency? After the fifth mandated booster?
Sorry to hear about your husband.
And yes, that is what many of us keep saying, yet the same crew discount us for saying it. VAERs cannot be discounted as irrelevant. Not at the reported numbers.
You know what's strange? As soon as all the data came out (on a large scale) that the vaccines were never meant to stop covid in it's tracks, that vaccinated people still contracted AND spread covid and that the CDC was telling everyone (no matter what their vax status) to put the masks back on - federal and local governments and numerous private businesses decide to mandate vaccines for all employees.
If I were a more cynical person I would think the goal wasn't to stop the pandemic, it was just to create a populace that was a bigger revenue stream for Big Pharma.
As far as the 'it's the unvaccinated responsible for the variants and surge" narrative goes, why hasn't the flip side of that been discussed (main stream wise)? Isn't it just as likely (maybe more so) that the surge is the result of the CDC telling the vaccinated to throw away their masks? Why would the masked unvaccinated be responsible? I'm thinking the CDC jumped the gun and is now covering their tracks. Even now that they are admitting the vaxed have a high viral load and can spread the disease, they will quietly end that sentence with "but the unvaccinated are still our number one concern/target".
I'm familiar with VAERS. My husband reported his allergic reaction to the Moderna shot. A few months later they contacted him to verify the lot number. While anything has room for abuse, I don't see a vast conspiracy of VAERS bots. The information is verifiable, and it is a crime to file a false report. I think the government is capable of sorting the real from the fake, if they are paying close enough attention.
I still can't see going ahead with boosters until they've resolved the issues that are coming up on VAERS, and in the general public.
Everyone keeps saying VAERS isn't verified, yet when will they be verified? When can we expect transparency? After the fifth mandated booster?
Depends what you mean by verified. Like in your husbands case they verified the Lot #. That doesn't mean anything in particular unless they have a huge number of cases from that lot number which might indicate some tainting of that lot.
They could verify everything about a report of a heart attack or stroke and not have a clue whether or not the vaccine caused it. It will only be when they accumulate enough data to compare known death rates of heart attacks and strokes to the same rates after vaccines started.
I can't imagine that releasing that data weekly or monthly would be useful to the average person.
There is so much gaslighting going on it’s crazy. I had never heard anyone say, until today that we always knew efficacy would drop dramatically by the six month mark.
It’s been less than a week since people started saying, “we always knew that the vaccine only prevented severe cases, but did not stop transmission.” If people always knew that to be true then why on earth were they pushing for herd immunity and for everyone to get the vaccine to protect others when that can’t work if the vaccine does not prevent transmission.
It makes no sense.
Well, there's something WE always knew and never hid.
Polio vax took 7 years to develop and many people died from the first batch which was contaminated with "live" vaccine instead of the actual Salk vaccine (which was not a live vaccine).
No one wants to get sick - people have reason to be leary of how quickly this vax came about.
Contamination is not the same as something not working.
Any drug, no matter how effective, could be contaminated during the manufacturing or delivery process.
The VAERS reports are self reported and not verified although they are eventually investigated if legitimate. There's already been scam posters in the VAERS database and they do try to get those out of there. I'm not saying that the reporting system is all full of lies, it's not. But it's a reporting system and anyone can put anything in there. No one should be using VAERS to make a decision about vaccination because none of what it's there has yet to be verified.
From CDC the limitations are:
If you look up any vaccine in VAERS you would never take another one in your life. Tetanus? Forget it.
But honestly I understand hesitancy. I get that you would want to be more cautious and not do another. I feel pretty confident so I will get a booster when it's available. I will read studies and confirmed, vaccine-related injuries and make my decision based on that. I won't use VAERS though.
On the subject of the booster, I wonder if it's a different formula then what's on the street now. On one hand, the manufacturers say their vaccines are very effective against the new variants (they shy away from saying if the booster is because the vaccines just run out of gas at 6 months or whether the booster is tweaked for Delta). If there is no change in the formula, what would stop a person from just getting back in line at the CVS for a third shot of the same stuff?
Depends what you mean by verified. Like in your husbands case they verified the Lot #. That doesn't mean anything in particular unless they have a huge number of cases from that lot number which might indicate some tainting of that lot.
They could verify everything about a report of a heart attack or stroke and not have a clue whether or not the vaccine caused it. It will only be when they accumulate enough data to compare known death rates of heart attacks and strokes to the same rates after vaccines started.
I can't imagine that releasing that data weekly or monthly would be useful to the average person.
It is certainly better than letting thousands of reports just hang there, with the public not knowing what to make of them. While at the same time, some of us have friends and family members with very concerning reactions. We are still told, 'no evidence the vaccine caused it.'
At the very least, while the public awaits a full understanding of vaccine harm, they should STOP mandating.
For example, if they KNOW the vaccines cause myocarditis in young people, and universities mandate them, they are dooming a certain number of young people to heart problems. When they could just...oh I don't know...let them choose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
