Spartanmack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 17,454
It was funny.
So is bringing up that (in most people? all? many?) prior infections provide more protection than a vaccine, as an argument against just getting the damn vaccine like hundreds of millions of people have.
also funny is calling the vaccines "untested" ... granted Big Pharma doesn't have the best track record in terms of putting people before profits, but like even they aren't going to be going around mixing random chemicals together like mad scientists and injecting those in millions of Americans without SOME trials before them.
two straw man arguments in one post. you're on a roll.
It's an argument for people with prior infections to not get the vaccine, not an argument against just anyone not getting it. People who hadn't recovered should go through the process of getting the necessary information to decide for themselves, like just about everyone in this conversation (except you) did. What's funny is sheep like you who grandstand and hurl ad hominem at everyone who doesn't get the vaccine because the AMA endorses it - without knowing anything about the AMA. That's pretty funny.
And these vaccines are untested - they haven't been through nearly the same rigorous trials that prior approved vaccines went through. And if you understood how those trials work, you'd know that these vaccines never would have been approved. They're actually not approved, they have emergency use authorization and that hasn't changed, nor do the billionaire pharmaceutical oligarchs whose boots you lick want it to change because emergency use authorization shields them from liability for all the harm and deaths the vaccines cause. But you don't understand any of this, you have the "authority" of the AMA (which actually has no authority and does no actual research) to justify your ignorance.
Last edited: