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

[CaptainPrudeman]

Barring a severe lack of education on what the vaccine actually is, I can’t see why anyone would not want to take it. There’s absolutely no chance for severe, long-term side effects because nothing in the vaccine sticks around for very long and the end products are things we’d have in our bodies anyway. If you’re unsure about this vaccine, don’t be. mRNA vaccines are pretty much the safest vaccines that could exist.

 

[Annie]

Praying for your husband-- to both Peeps and @Jeanne_S

 

[Jeanne_S]

Thanks,Annie!

 

[pnewton]

That’s not what I said.I addressed the issue regarding Biden…

You factually, grammatically, did not address Biden. You may have meant to, but you did not mention Biden. You used the pronoun “that” with no other antecedent than my post mention three different men as the only possible antecedent. The posts are still there for verification.

Yes, I really think the three men will get the vaccine and not fake it. Two were president when there was some integrity still attached to the office. I would trust Bush and Obama at least not to lie about what they are doing. There simply is no reason to lie about it.

 

[Jeanne_S]

You’re kidding,right? Your trust that these guys aren’t pulling a fast one is misguided.

 

[pnewton]

There simply is no reason to lie about it.

As of yet, I do not see any reason for such deep cynicism, reasons which are part of reason, and being reasonable.

 

[Joegrane]

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.

While that seems to be a reasonable position, there is some new study data suggesting those parents have reasons to be concerned about the safety of the current vaccine schedule.

A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health finds that UNVACCINATED children are far healthier than vaccinated children. As the rate of vaccination increases, so does chronic health issues such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, respiratory infections, eczema and a host of other health problems. … The research followed 3,300 pediatric patients for ten years and was conducted at Integrative Pediatric, a pediatrics practice in Oregon run by Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.

Ten year study shows that UNVACCINATED are far healthier than their vaccinated peers who suffer from more respiratory infections, asthma, allergies, etc. – NaturalNews.com

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) refuse to conduct any study comparing the unvaccinated child to his/her peers. While HHS is legally obligated to conduct safety studies every two years and report...

www.naturalnews.com

This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers (Mawson, 2017; Hooker and Miller, 2020) that compare the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children.

Groundbreaking Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Vaccinated Children

This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers that compare the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children. These studies suggest we have long underestimated the scope of vaccine harms, and that the epidemic of chronic illness in children is hardly...

childrenshealthdefense.org

We all know that every medical intervention will cause unwanted side effects in at least a few people. We need accurate, honest data in order to make good decisions about the risk-reward balance.

Furthermore, we need honest, good science about alternatives to vaccines, especially for those with a history of vaccine adverse reactions.

There seems to be a strong effort to conceal the data about COVID related studies.

Med school profs Dr Kory and Dr Marik present the seemingly impressive study data about the safe, old parasite medication Ivermectin.

Marik and Kory are leaders of the Front Linc Covid Critical Care Association.

Home

FLCCC is The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Dedicated to COVID prevention & treatment, empowering individuals for better health.

covid19criticalcare.com

The FLCCA’s protocols for outpatients and others with Covid.
https://covexit.com/us-health-autho...-early-treatment-of-covid-19-with-ivermectin/

I suspect corporate media sponsored by Big Pharma is not covering the available treatments for Covid in order to improve sales of the hastily tested vaccines.

Don’t expect to hear anything from Fauci and friends at the NIH who stand to gain from their financial stake in the Moderna vaccine.

New Docs: NIH Owns Half of Moderna Vaccine • Children's Health Defense

Remember, if the vaccine causes far more side effects than expected like the original polio vaccine the vax manufacturers have some protection from liability.

 

[Joegrane]

what happens if too few (whatever that number may be) get vaccinated?

This is a very important part of the vax salesman’s pitch, including their trolls in our group.

I highly recommend this virtual debate between Dr Fauci and Dr Chris Martenson based on Fauci’s performance at the US Congress. Martenson is essentially accusing Fauci of deceiving us about so called “herd immunity.” Martenson cites papers suggesting that herd immunity will be more complex with SARS2 and less reliant on vaccine-related immunity.

Martenson presents study data here.

 

[Rau]

the current vaccine schedule.

What is the “current vaccine schedule”? Does this mean the set of vaccines prescribed or recommended for children growing up?

The more important comparison is between health outcomes in a world with vaccines versus those in a world without them.

 

[redcatholic]

Earlier in the thread I said I may or may not. I’ve decided I won’t. I was under the impression that it would be available to all. Then I find out they are just starting trials on children, that food allergies present problems, and the efficacy and length of the vaccine is not really known. No thanks, I’ll be sitting this out for a year or two. Here’s hoping 30 percent of people don’t make my same choice!

 

[MNathaniel]

I can’t see why anyone would not want to take it. There’s absolutely no chance for severe, long-term side effects because nothing in the vaccine sticks around for very long and the end products are things we’d have in our bodies anyway. If you’re unsure about this vaccine, don’t be.

With respect, I don’t think we should go beyond what the actual vaccine producers say about their own product. The other day I read their official product monograph that “The safety evaluation of participants in Study 2 is still ongoing” and that, for example,

No [drug] interaction studies have been performed.

Reproduction and developmental toxicology studies in animals have not been completed.

The safety and efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in pregnant women have not yet
been established.

The safety and efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in children under 16 years of age
have not yet been established.

It is unknown whether Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is excreted in human milk. A risk to
the newborns/infants cannot be excluded.

and under “SERIOUS WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS” they can at most say:

At the time of authorization, there are no known serious warnings or precautions associated
with this product.

I get that persons with specialized knowledge about whatever mRNA vaccines are, may feel heightened confidence and assume that the language used in the monograph is merely to cover the rear ends of the scientists involved. And sure, rear-end-covering will be a significant part of it, and the scientists involved may feel privately convinced that safety is adequately established for all populations, or excretion through breast milk is excluded, or there will never be a serious warning or precaution associated with this product.

But there’s a reason the scientific method, and government health authority standards, don’t allow them to say that before they’ve proved it.

And in the meantime, I think it’s fair enough for an average Joe to be as “unsure about this vaccine” as the product monograph is. Not to mention that this has not been a year (or recent few years) in which authority figures have earned the trust of regular people. There are all sorts of reasons a person may choose not to step forward early, and I firmly believe no one should be forced to submit to an injection of a rushed-through substance whose testing is yet incomplete, from authority figures they distrust, against their will.

That said, after reading the monograph I did come to a conclusion in my own life. Which is that if I start spending more time around the pregnant (or trying-for-pregnancy) women in my life, then to spare them the possible risks from the vaccine (and to spare them from anxiety about others not surrounding them with herd immunity), I’d choose to receive the vaccine myself. I’m not planning for pregnancy in the near future, and women I know are. Better my body than theirs, if something goes wrong. But this should be my own choice, not something forced on me (or forced on others).