Edited: 2021-12-11 06:33:42
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34636873/
Book your seats ..... stand in line .....
And round up your children .... Oh, don't worry, the state will do that for you !
On 2021-12-11 05:52:36 Johnny English said:
After the limited efficacy coupled by the deaths and side effects caused by the synthetic mRNA covid "vaccine" and record profits for the vaccine manufacturers, Moderna have proudly announced that they are busy with Phase 1 trials of the new blockbuster range of mRNA vaccines, this one for the common flu.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34636873/
Book your seats ..... stand in line .....
And round up your children .... Oh, don't worry, the state will do that for you !
Hahahaha Johnny English surely you must be referring to another sovereign entity and not South Africa? This state does fucking nothing for their citizenry other than push us further down the path of abject poverty and social destruction whilst digitally vibing on the sidelines, feathering their own nests. They couldn't organize a pissup in a brewery let alone round up the children - the esteemed DSAC minister is a splendid case in point. If one was to check wiki for an example of "useless cunt who shouldn't be a government minister" Nathi Mthethwa would be on the list. So Johnny I think you are jesting us here.
Edited: 2021-12-11 08:28:52
Fasten your seat belt, after the mRNA vaccine for the common cold, they and their cohorts will start producing mRNA vaccines for other "illnesses".
These medical criminals must be rubbing their hands in glee and anticipation.
And no need to be concerned at our incompetent govt. the submissive way parents are behaving, they'll willingly drag off their kids to the injection stations
On 2021-12-10 23:54:50 oraljim said:
On 2021-12-10 23:29:43 JP82 said: So when I say "Let's do X", and you respond with "We can't, its a violation of individual rights" it is absolutely appropriate for me to say "individual rights are limited on a daily basis" whether or not you originally used the phrase "limiting people's rights".
Gosh, you really don't get it do you? There is a difference between "rational curtailing of rights" and "violation of rights". Let's try this for size.
Case 1: You are granted the right to say anything you want, at any time, subject to some basic limitations. You can't slander or libel someone, you can't incite to violence etc, but by default, 99.999% of the time for a normal member of society, you are free to say whatever you want. That is a rational curtailing of basic rights.
Case 2: In the name of "keeping people safe", based only on the most flimsy (to date) and even disputed claims of SOME, but not all scientists, we hereby MANDATE that you put Substance X into you body and carry around the consequences of that for the rest of your life. If you don't do it we will be encouraging under severe threats, if we can't actively force you, to take some medicine that has only existed for 13 months, with limited CLINICAL (not statistical) proof of its efficacy. That is a violation of the sovereignty of your own body.
Do I *REALLY* have to explain that those two positions are NOT equivalent and that the philosophical motivation for case 1 is individual rights and for case 2 is group rights? If I don't then what the hell are we arguing about?
Ok. Well we can put "nuance" into the same box of things that oraljim doesn't understand alongside analogies. The question, on any given issue, isn't is there a difference between limiting rights and violating them, it's where does the line lie.
And the answer is almost always where the exercise of your freedoms infringes on others - say what you want, up to the point that it causes harm to others.
The same applies to vaccines. You can choose not to get them, but by doing so you put others at risk.
It's actually quite similar to what's happened with smoking, once we realised that your smoking harms others we said, you can do it but not you have to go over there away from people so others don't suffer the consequences of your choices. That's what's happening with vaccines- you can choose not to get them but not in a way that potentially harms others and that means staying away from them entirely.
(Finally you talk about arguing in bad faith and then you charactise the evidence for vaccines like that? Lol. I guess we can put all of science in that same box)
Edited: 2021-12-11 09:19:30
On 2021-12-11 08:59:12 AnthonyEdwards said:
Did you guys find a cure yet with all these discussions?
Yes, large doses of Vitamin C.
Dr Frederick Robert Klenner MD,
Fellow of the American Association for Advancement of Science, Fellow & Diplomate of the International College of Applied Nutrition, Fellow of the Royal Society of Health, Fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians, Fellow of the American College of Angiology, Founder & Fellow of the American Geriatrics Society and Honorary Fellow of the International Academy of Preventative Medicine said,
"When proper amounts of Vitamin C are used, it will destroy all virus'.
He also stated that "Vitamin C is the safest substance available to a physician".
He emphasised that small amounts of ascorbate do not work.
But Klenner did warn that "physicians would rather see their patients die than use ascorbic acid because in their finite minds, it exists only as a vitamin."
On 2021-12-09 14:02:24 wild_one said:
wish I could say the feeling is mutual , but I can't, your type is a dime a dozen , uninformed , ignorant , arrogant and always the last to realize they have been duped
Aah. Make a sentence containing the words "pot" and "kettle". Also, you need to ask for a refund from the school of ready wit and repartee. Or did you miss the course due to illness?
When you can't argue the facts, attack, disparage and insult. Worked for the Donald and many others throughout history.
Debating with you and JE is like a battle of wits with unarmed men!
On 2021-12-11 08:29:11 JP82 said:
On 2021-12-10 23:54:50 oraljim said: On 2021-12-10 23:29:43 JP82 said: So when I say "Let's do X", and you respond with "We can't, its a violation of individual rights" it is absolutely appropriate for me to say "individual rights are limited on a daily basis" whether or not you originally used the phrase "limiting people's rights".
Gosh, you really don't get it do you? There is a difference between "rational curtailing of rights" and "violation of rights". Let's try this for size.
Case 1: You are granted the right to say anything you want, at any time, subject to some basic limitations. You can't slander or libel someone, you can't incite to violence etc, but by default, 99.999% of the time for a normal member of society, you are free to say whatever you want. That is a rational curtailing of basic rights.
Case 2: In the name of "keeping people safe", based only on the most flimsy (to date) and even disputed claims of SOME, but not all scientists, we hereby MANDATE that you put Substance X into you body and carry around the consequences of that for the rest of your life. If you don't do it we will be encouraging under severe threats, if we can't actively force you, to take some medicine that has only existed for 13 months, with limited CLINICAL (not statistical) proof of its efficacy. That is a violation of the sovereignty of your own body.
Do I *REALLY* have to explain that those two positions are NOT equivalent and that the philosophical motivation for case 1 is individual rights and for case 2 is group rights? If I don't then what the hell are we arguing about?
Ok. Well we can put "nuance" into the same box of things that oraljim doesn't understand alongside analogies. The question, on any given issue, isn't is there a difference between limiting rights and violating them, it's where does the line lie.
And the answer is almost always where the exercise of your freedoms infringes on others - say what you want, up to the point that it causes harm to others.
The same applies to vaccines. You can choose not to get them, but by doing so you put others at risk.
It's actually quite similar to what's happened with smoking, once we realised that your smoking harms others we said, you can do it but not you have to go over there away from people so others don't suffer the consequences of your choices. That's what's happening with vaccines- you can choose not to get them but not in a way that potentially harms others and that means staying away from them entirely.
(Finally you talk about arguing in bad faith and then you charactise the evidence for vaccines like that? Lol. I guess we can put all of science in that same box)
JP82, you have hit the nail spot on all the time. The risk is the mutation of the virus into something more serious than the current virus and the current vaccines will not be able to stop it. The rights of society to be safer against a more dangerous mutated virus vs the rights of the individual not taking the vaccine. Omicron is already a mutation, thank goodness it seems to be less fatal at least at this point, the point is the current vaccines do not stop it and breakthrough invections are highly likely although all scientific evidence shows that it's even higher amongst the unvaccinated especially the under 12-year-old population. Unfortunately, you can take a horse to the water but you can not make it drink.
Reply
Legend
Hover mouse over icons for description
