To vacc or not to vacc?

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Been watching America's Got Talent tonight. Really loved a Filipinos couple who did an acrobatic/dance routine. Anyway, saw a new commercial pushing for the jab. . . Their stance was 3 different things could factor into how you well you do with Covid. First was Asthma, I can see that, but #2 was depression. . . I yelled F'ing Liars! Sorry I missed the 3rd.
 
Nobody here even mentions covid. Except at the hospital, no one wears masks. My husband went to pick up contrast for my scans and they didn't bat an eye at him without a mask, but they did want me to at my appointment.

But it's strange to me that there are places where people are still making a big deal out of it when we're pretty much just back to life here.
 
Do No Harm does not apply to the medical field anymore. I am going to stay away from as much processed foods as possible. Lots of canned green beans are on my menu. I have lots of saved seeds so I don't have to worry that they are spiking them.
 

Attachments

  • 20230130_142531.png
    20230130_142531.png
    507.1 KB · Views: 0
Do No Harm does not apply to the medical field anymore. I am going to stay away from as much processed foods as possible. Lots of canned green beans are on my menu. I have lots of saved seeds so I don't have to worry that they are spiking them.
 
https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-s...ong-about-coivd-it-cost-lives-opinion-1776630

It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives​

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.
 
DrHenley said:
https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-s...ong-about-coivd-it-cost-lives-opinion-1776630

It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives​

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.
Click to expand...

It's a start, but:

"Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream."

Yuck. The guy still sounds like a pompous a**.
 
They, the MSM, are slowly beginning to release a bit of truth to the sheeple. They will always call the brave doctors, who stood up against this planned pandemic and MURDER, conspiracy theorists! None of the alphabet agencies can be trusted Ever again!!! We know their plan to kill as many of us as possible.

Frankly, I’m seriously starting to consider the safety of store bought food. It is beginning to look like the animal feed is being tainted.
 
Last edited:
GeorgiaPeachie said:
They, the MSM, are slowly beginning to release a bit of truth to the sheeple. They will always call the brave doctors, who stood up against this planned pandemic and MURDER, conspiracy theorists! None of the alphabet agencies can be trusted Ever again!!! We know their plan to kill as many of us as possible.

Frankly, I’m seriously starting to consider the safety of store bought food. It is beginning to look like the animal feed is being tainted.
Click to expand...

No food can be truly safe. That's why, even though I did not get any jabs, I take the protocols as if I did. We may be getting it in our food and of course from shedding.
 
processed food which is what canned food is should be okay in small amounts, its the continued use that builds up the contaminants like chemicals and additives, we try not to use anything with Palm Oil in it as that is a known carcinigenic , fresh food is always better but unless you grow it yourself that can be full of chemicals too especially if grown by the monocropping method.
 
Survivor_316 said:
I don't trust any processed foods. The stuff they allow in already is shocking.

BigPaul, you've got a tiny less of a worry in the UK about some of the carcinogens that we have allowed in here, but I'm sure there are still plenty more.

PP, I agree. We need detox!
Click to expand...
we have different food and animal laws over here but I still wouldnt want to eat a diet that is wholly canned food, as it is the wife and I eat maybe 1 small can of food a week in the summer, maybe 2 a week in the winter- we can tell by how many cans we put out for recycling.
 
Last edited:
Proud Prepper said:
No food can be truly safe. That's why, even though I did not get any jabs, I take the protocols as if I did. We may be getting it in our food and of course from shedding.
Click to expand...

I am going back on NAC and adding Bromelain too. When speaking with my surgeon I found out he takes bromelain and NAC. Did I tell you he is also a prepper?! His nurse too! They both have good size homesteads. He left a large blue city more than 10 years ago and escaped to these mountains. Loves it here.
 
https://brownstone.org/articles/how-the-unvaccinated-got-it-right/A ton of information and cogent arguments about how the pro-vaxxers got it dead wrong.

I put together some "executive summary" bullet points extracted from the article:
  1. the “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine” or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this “vaccine.” population) was not in the group.
  2. Data that did not support COVID policies were actively and massively suppressed.
  3. Simple analyses of even the early available data showed that the establishment was prepared to do much more harm in terms of human rights and spending public resources to prevent a COVID death than any other kind of death.
  4. Fear had clearly generated a health panic and a moral panic, or mass formation psychosis. That brought into play many very strong cognitive biases and natural human tendencies against rationality and proportionality.
  5. The companies responsible for manufacturing and ultimately profiting from the “vaccination” were given legal immunity. Why would a government do that if it really believed that the “vaccine” was safe and wanted to instill confidence in it?
  6. If the “vaccine”-sceptical were wrong, there would still have been two good reasons not to suppress their data or views. First, we are a liberal democracy that values free speech as a fundamental right and second, their data and arguments could be shown to be fallacious.
  7. The PCR test was held up as the “gold standard” diagnostic test for COVID. A moment’s reading about how the PCR test works indicates that it is no such thing.
  8. To generalize the last point, a supposedly conclusive claim by someone who demonstrably cannot justify their claim should be discounted. In the case of the COVID pandemic, almost all people who acted as if the “vaccine” was safe and effective had no physical or informational evidence for the claims of safety and efficacy beyond the supposed authority of other people who made them.
  9. Given all of the above, a serious person at least had to keep an eye out for published safety and efficacy data as the pandemic proceeded. Pfizer’s Six-month Safety and Efficacy Study was notable. The very large number of its authors was remarkable and their summary claim was that the tested vaccine was effective and safe. The data in the paper showed more deaths per head in the “vaccinated” group than “unvaccinated” group.
  10. As time went on, it became very clear that some of the informational claims that had been made to convince people to get “vaccinated,” especially by politicians and media commentators, were false.
  11. What was the new science that explained why, for the first time in history, a “vaccine” would be more effective than natural exposure and consequent immunity? Why the urgency to get a person who has had COVID and now has some immunity to get “vaccinated” after the fact?
  12. The overall political and cultural context in which the entire discourse on “vaccination” was being conducted was such that the evidential bar for the safety and efficacy of the “vaccine” was raised yet further while our ability to determine whether that bar had been met was reduced.
  13. Regarding analytics, precision is not accuracy. Indeed, in contexts of great uncertainty and complexity, precision is negatively correlated with accuracy. (A more precise claim is less likely to be correct.) Much of the COVID panic began with modeling. Modeling is dangerous inasmuch as it puts numbers on things; numbers are precise; and precision gives an illusion of accuracy – but under great uncertainty and complexity, model outputs are dominated by the uncertainties on the input variables that have very wide (and unknown) ranges and the multiple assumptions that themselves warrant only low confidence. Therefore, any claimed precision of a model’s output is bogus and the apparent accuracy is only and entirely that – apparent.
  14. An honest approach to data on COVID and policy development would have driven the urgent development of a system to collect accurate data on COVID infections and the outcomes of COVID patients. Instead, the powers that be did the very opposite, making policy decisions that knowingly reduced the accuracy of collected data in a way that would serve their political purposes.
  15. The dishonesty of the pro-“vaccine” side was revealed by the repeated changes of official definitions of clinical terms like “vaccine” whose (scientific) definitions have been fixed for generations (as they must be if science is to do its work accurately: definitions of scientific terms can change, but only when our understanding of their referents changes). Why was the government changing the meanings of words rather than simply telling the truth using the same words they had been using from the beginning?
  16. Whatever the risks associated with a COVID infection on the one hand, and the “vaccine” on the other, the “vaccination” policy enabled massive human rights violations.
 
Robinjopo1 said:
Do No Harm does not apply to the medical field anymore. I am going to stay away from as much processed foods as possible. Lots of canned green beans are on my menu. I have lots of saved seeds so I don't have to worry that they are spiking them.
Click to expand...
"Do no harm" was originally a Pagan motto, like everything else pre organised religion its been requisitioned .
 
bigpaul said:
"Do no harm" was originally a Pagan motto, like everything else pre organised religion its been requisitioned .
Click to expand...
It's from the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take (Hippocrates, who came up with the original oath, was an Ancient Greek). The oath in its original form also forbids a physician from performing an abortion, euthanasia, or assisting suicide. They have gutted the oath in most modern medical schools and turned it into a "woke" oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Well Hello!
Replies
14
Views
933
JimCosta
JimCosta
M
6 year old dies from Covid
Replies
0
Views
678
Maudite
M
DrJenner
Video by Dr. Ryan Cole
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
DrJenner
DrJenner
R
Arkansas Intelligence Summary 28 FEB 2022
Replies
1
Views
762
randomuser
R
Danil54grl
This AI tool can predict who will die from COVID-19
Replies
0
Views
573
Danil54grl
Danil54grl

Latest posts

Back
Top