Any Anti Vaxxers on here who do not want to take the COVID vaccine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are almost no people who are broadly anti-vaccine. There are many well informed people who are generally pro-vaccine but who have concerns about safety and efficacy claims by manufacturers and friends.

Vaccine technology is potentially very helpful. Unfortunately, all good things can be manipulated for evil goals.

All human endeavors are imperfect. Even “experts” make mistakes. We’ve seen plenty of them during this pandemic.

Vaccine history has plenty of examples of mistakes and shady activities --or worse.

In the 1940s and 1950s polio caused much fear in the public. Did this make people less careful about accepting a new vaccine? Sadly the initial Salk vaccine was a disaster.


Learn about the issues with the original DTP pertussus vaccine.

In the 1980s there were so many vaccine injury lawsuits caused by DPT vaccines that Congress gave vaccine makers legal immunity protection.

While it was reasonable to provide vaccine manufactures some legal protection, some people think the extreme protection removed the biggest incentive for manufacturers to make vaccines safer and more effective. They benefit financially from vaccines that are less effective and less safe!

Subsequently the number of vaccines in the childhood program exploded, including the total dose of mercury in the vaccine program. Mercury is used as a preservative, not for improved effectiveness.

It was later determined that the amount of mercury in the 1990s vaccine program well exceeded EPA and other safety guidelines.

The unpublished, first version of the CDC’s Verstraeten study of mercury in vaccines suggested that infants who received the highest amounts of mercury from receiving many vaccines had a much higher risk of autism, ADD, tics and other health problems.

The documentary movie, Trace Amounts, interviews university professors and other experts who explain the ramifications of mercury in the 1990s vaccine program. The 20 minute segment starting at 22 minutes provide the basics, including a short interview with a U of Washington researcher who showed the effects of vaccine-mercury on the brains of monkeys.

They gradually eliminated the vast majority of the mercury from the childhood vaccine program but around the same time–circa 2003–the CDC started to recommend a flu vaccine for pregnant women. Many or most of those vaccines contained the cost-saving mercury as a preservative instead of the readily available mercury free version. So kids were getting their first dose of mercury in the womb : (

continued…
 
…continued

A senior researcher at the CDC , Dr Thompson, came out as a whistleblower to admit fraud in an MMR vaccine study. He claims they were ordered to destroy evidence. There was little coverage of the whistleblower.


I think J. Gerberding was leading the CDC during some of the crooked activities there. This is a disgusting list of issues. Gerberding later left the CDC for a high level job at vaccine manufacturer, Merck. Was the fox guarding the hen house?

More recently a long-time NIH researcher came out as a whistleblower about corruption there. She worked under Dr. Fauci who she describes in a very dark way. Instead of the whistleblower’s claims being well investigated they are being censored by some major media orgs. The org lead by Robert Kennedy Jr explains more about Dr Mikovits.

Dr. Joseph Mercola reminds us that development of safe and effective coronavirus vaccines “has proven very difficult over the past 30 years…”

The activities of the org lead by Bill Gates resulted in many injured children in Inda from the polio vaccines. Do we really want him vaccinating the world for coronavirus?

Remember there is much money at stake. Dr. Mercola reports that two Moderna executives cashed in $25 million when stock prices rose immediately following the announcement that its COVID-19 phase 1 trial showed promising results…Stock dropped within days, as critics pointed out the results were likely misrepresented and actually quite alarming…

The US National Catholic Bioethics Center presents some guidance about vaccine related ethics.

If you only get your medical news from orgs that are supported by Big Pharma you will be surprised to hear the view of a French professor who has served both the WHO and French government about vaccines. He thinks currently available treatments for COVID-19 are so effective that “there is little need for a vaccine.”

However sadly there is little discussion of those interventions that are supported by a growing list of studies

The list of studies supporting the use of the safe, inexpensive, old medication Ivermectin is becoming impressive. One Australian professor thinks it is almost a cure when started in the early days of symptoms and given with zinc and antibiotic.

continued…
 
Last edited:
…continued

One of the leaders of E. Virgina Medical School explains an impressive list of Ivermectin studies for COVID in this clip. He seems to agree with the Australian professor. In that video he also presents their protocols for outpatients and hospitalized patients. I highly recommend that you check out Dr Marik and his associates especially since mainstream medicine offers strangely little for outpatients.

The list of vitamin D related COVID studies is impressive. For example a small study in Spain reported that vitamin D (calcifediol) almost eliminated the need for ICU admission in hospitalized patients. Yet half of the untreated patients required ICU and a few of them died. They have a large, 1000 person followup RCT planned.

Before the availability of the polio vaccine doctors were allowed to make the polio diagnosis rather easily. After the vaccine became available the guidance changed making it harder to make the diagnosis. This and other administrative changes likely contributed to a lower polio rate.

I think something similar is being done with COVID. The labs are using deceptive standards for the PCR test. This is causing a huge number of false-positives. I bet after the vaccine becomes available they will tighten the standards used by labs resulting in a steep drop in so called “cases.” They will then pretend that the vaccine is responsible for the decline in cases and so needs to be mandatory for everyone.

I presented a list of information on the deceptive PCR tests in this discussion, including information from Harvard, Oxford and elsewhere.

A Portugese court made a recent decision based on latest data about PCR tests.

The court determined that…" if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the U.S.), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”


Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.

I am healthy, not elderly, not deficient in vitamin D and not likely deficient in vitamin C, zinc, sulfur, selenium and other nutrients required for a healthy immune system. I rarely get more than a very mild cold. My very low risk of a bad outcome does not justify the risk of an experimental vaccine. .
 
Prayers for an ethical way to be developed to vaccinate us for COVID (and all other vaccines)
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
The term “anti-vaxxer” is a phrase used to write off those who have any questions or concerns about vaccines as crazy conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...
A person with concerns about safety of a vaccine developed in 12 months should not be called an anti-vaxxer. A person who takes the general position that they and their children will not be vaccinated against childhood diseases for fear of adverse affects (concealed from us) is very likely an anti-vaxxer.
 
I understand and support anyone that wants to wait and see on the Covid vaccines. I’m more than willing to be an early test case!

The vaccines will be slowly rolled out…being offered to medical personnel first, then the immune compromised that qualify. There will also be production limitations…you don’t produce millions of vaccine overnight.

By the time it becomes available to the general public, we will have good data on any short term side effects. Long term will have to wait and see. There’s no way around it.

While these vaccines seem rushed, no steps were skipped. Instead of doing specific studies one after the other, they shortened the time by doing them concurrently. No steps were left out.

If too many of the general population refuse vaccination it creates the situation where herd immunity will be greatly prolonged and defeats the whole purpose of vaccinating so I’m assuming that with its release, many questions will be answered to ease fears as much as possible.

We also may have to face social regulations where you can refuse the vaccine but children won’t be allowed in schools or jobs will require it. International travel may require proof of immunization before being allowed entry into certain countries. Some may have to choose between keeping their jobs or taking the shot. That will be an individuals decision though we’ll hear plenty of griping, I’m sure.

I’m anxious to take the shot(s). It’s predicted that two will be required…an initial vaccination and a booster a month later for the full effect. I’m in! I want to be able to mingle in crowds again and socialize with family and friends without living in fear of being high risk. YMMV.
 
I one word, no.
I will not.
But for those who wish to?
I pry thee well…
 
Pattylt said:
Some may have to choose between keeping their jobs or taking the shot. That will be an individuals decision though we’ll hear plenty of griping, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
This won’t be over and done. There will be many court battles over this.
Pattylt said:
I want to be able to mingle in crowds again and socialize with family and friends without living in fear of being high risk.
Click to expand...
Assuming you get it immediately, you still shouldn’t do that. We still don’t know how well it will work over a large group of people.
 
I would rather take my chances with a vaccine than COVID. I know COVID kills, spreads easily and may have long term health consequences even if you do not become very ill.

At least I cannot spread a vaccine to someone like I could spread COVID to my mother.
 
That’s partly my thinking, too. Of course I can’t get the shot and immediately mingle, especially if it’s a two dose vaccine. But, I’ll know there is light at the end of the tunnel!

Not only am I and my husband high risk, my future son in law is a liver transplant on immunotherapy. He’s already asked his liver specialist and he qualifies and will get it among the first go around!

I’m glad to take the risk of the vaccine vs Covid. I’ll do it for humanity! :hugs:
 
I don’t want to take it because the vaccine has not gone through many trials. I definitely would not subject my children to be guinea pigs for a vaccine for a virus that (judging by statistics) they would survive.
 
Last edited:
So far I don’t plan on taking it. The only reason I would consider it is if my job required it in order to return to the office. I hate working from home enough that I would probably risk it. But that’s unlikely to happen. My guess is, once they begin vaccinating the general public, the covid numbers will naturally go down, and they will reopen at that point.
 
I won’t take it until it’s proven safe. I don’t even take the usual flu vaccine and have rarely had the flu over the years.
 
To all those who say “I won’t take it until many millions of others take it first”, how do you feel about benefitting from the risk that others take? Those who take the vaccine are doing it as much for those who don’t take it as they are doing it for themselves. To put it another way, suppose you worked at the CDC and were charged with deciding if the vaccine is safe and effective. Would you withhold approval of the vaccine until you yourself were willing to take it? Or would you approve it and then wait for millions of people to take it first before considering if you would take it?

Or, to put it a third way, do you want the CDC to withhold approval until you would be willing to be the first in the general public to take it? Or would secretly like to see the vaccine approved so others can test it for you on themselves?
 
Last edited:
Over here you have families who are on a family tax benefit to help with the cost of raising children on a low incomes ,including schooling them,…for those that don’t wish to have their children vaccinated it is heavily reduced(at one stage I was cautious about one of the vaccines as there was report of possible infertility ,premature menopause in girls)
So I am very concerned while vaccines may not be made ‘mandatory’ over here,if people don’t take it then their government help will be cut out.That is a reality.And it will be forcing unemployed or those economically disadvantaged ,single parents, the vulnerable to have the injection .There will be no choice for them.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
To all those who say “I won’t take it until many millions of others take it first”, how do you feel about benefitting from the risk that others take? Those who take the vaccine are doing it as much for those who don’t take it as they are doing it for themselves. To put it another way, suppose you worked at the CDC and were charged with deciding if the vaccine is safe and effective. Would you withhold approval of the vaccine until you yourself were willing to take it? Or would you approve it and then wait for millions of people to take it first before considering if you would take it?
Click to expand...
Being the one giving approval eliminates one of my concerns - namely that the process is being rushed to get things back to normal ASAP.

However, the potential of medium to long term effects still exists, and there is really nothing that can be done about that until it’s been publically available for a while.

I will say if there were no ethical concerns and I felt I was high risk for Covid (or spreading it), I would be more likely to take it. However I live on my own and can work from home so I consider myself low risk for spreading it (only when I go grocery shopping), and given my history feel that I would most likely have a mild case if I did get Covid. Short of a mandate requiring the vaccine to do something I really want to do or need to do I’ll let others test it for me.
 
BigBoom said:
If the vaccine uses fetal cell lines, I won’t be taking it.
Click to expand...
It isn’t, in spite of the miss-information provided by one bishop. Two of the vaccines being tested in Europe have used fetal cell tissue. Neither Pfizer nor Moderna have taken that route in creation; they came at it from an RNA approach - completely different.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
To all those who say “I won’t take it until many millions of others take it first”, how do you feel about benefitting from the risk that others take?
Click to expand...
TBF, we already are the beneficiaries of safe technologies now because others used and were injured by them then.

What I would never do is force another person or guilt them into injecting something into their body
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top