First a trickle....Now a flood

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, you are ignoring my questions. You just keep making the assertions and do not back them up with any real argument or facts. 

What my own quote? Give it to me. 

You are playing some silly game of absolutes, as if "they" said the vaccines was literally 100% exactly as perfectly safe as any other vaccine, when that is not what was said generally speaking by the scientific community or government health entities. The argument generally was that vaccines are "safe" and this vaccine did go through testing. To that point, the one being made, is that this vaccine was safe like the others. 

And guess what... it was and is. 

The vast vast vast majority of folks had no issues. Those who did were minor and quickly recovered. 

AND YOU STILL HAVE YET TO DEFINE THIS RISK THAT YOU THINK THEY KNEW BEFORE OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BEFORE

 

 

No, you have not. 

What risks? What risks? What risks?

 

 

That quote does not say:

"They knew at the time that was not accurate, the mNRA vaccines were a new technology with many untested elements and they were NOT known to be as safe as existing vaccines. At the time they knew there could be many unknown risks or effects "

Not one of your questions has been ignored. Literally every single thing you have said or asked has been responded to in detail

My last reply to you had your quote in it in its entirety. It's on the same page as you're reading right now. And yet once again having had it hand fed to you you're Asking for it yet again

Pathetic. You've been hanging around the liberals too long

There's no game of absolutes. The quote you provided which I have quoted you again on directly above specifically notes that this is no different than any other type of vaccine as far as risk and I have provided further quotes which even hammer that home further that have been given by Tam and Justin Trudeau

 

I am beyond disappointed in you. Your stupidity and your answers and your Reliance on cheap empathetic debate techniques is another disappointment.

And you cowardly run away from the quotes I've provided you with even though they were quotes that you provided to begin with

 

Again, this is a simple fact and I've proven it over and over again, mNRA vaccines were not well tested and had many unknown risks at the time of covid, they had not been released for use yet, the gov't knew that there was a strong possibility of unknown risks and side effects, they presented it as the same risk OR LESS as regular vaccines which was untrue.

 

Copart, and go sit in your corner and think about what you've done. Your arguments sound less intelligent than robosmiths I don't know how you allowed yourself to get to that point. Asking repetitively for information that's been given to you again and again? What the hell's the matter with you boy?

[User]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Not one of your questions has been ignored. Literally every single thing you have said or asked has been responded to in detail

Define the risk... the risk... what risk?!?!?!

ROFL

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There's no game of absolutes. The quote you provided which I have quoted you again on directly above specifically notes that this is no different than any other type of vaccine as far as risk and I have provided further quotes which even hammer that home further that have been given by Tam and Justin Trudeau

Except, no where does it say "no different."

Those are your words. 

The point of that quote and article was that they did in fact say there were risks... which disproved your original assertion here. 

 

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Again, this is a simple fact and I've proven it over and over again, mNRA vaccines were not well tested and had many unknown risks at the time of covid, they had not been released for use yet, the gov't knew that there was a strong possibility of unknown risks and side effects, they presented it as the same risk OR LESS as regular vaccines which was untrue.

What risks?

What risks did they know that they were supposed to have warned you about?

Where did they say "same" as in the exact same?

 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Define the risk... the risk... what risk?!?!?!

As I have said to you multiple times the problem is they couldn't. They knew there was a high probability of unknown risks which they couldn't define. They knew that this was different than a regular vaccine. Yet they suggested the risk was no different than a regular vaccine knowing that they could not define the risks with the knowledge they had at the time

You're literally making the point. They did not know the risks yet they suggested that the risks were the same as any other vaccine

We now know that the risks are higher but that's not relevant. At the time they knew that the risks were undefined and yet presented it as a defined risk

12 minutes ago, User said:

Except, no where does it say "no different."

The point is it doesn't say different. It lumps all the vaccines together and doesn't differentiate therefore Indicating they are the same

This has been pointed out a dozen times to you already yet you keep repeating the same lies over and over and over as if it hadn't been

14 minutes ago, User said:

The point of that quote and article was that they did in fact say there were risks

And the point was that they underplayed the risks by claiming the risks were the same as the risks of any vaccine

 

14 minutes ago, User said:

Except, no where does it say "no different."

Except it does say that it's the same as any vaccine. Which indicates that it's no different. If I say something is the same then I am specifically indicating that it is not substantially different. But it was substantially different. In fact mNRA Treatment is so different that it really is difficult to even call it a vaccine

15 minutes ago, User said:

What risks?

Good question. They didn't know. Yet they suggested they did

 

Kid you have lost this so hard it's embarrassing. This isn't even a debate anymore this is just you flailing around like the robot from lost in space and looking like a twat.

The government severely underplayed the risks which were unknown at the time. They did so in the quote I provided, they did so in the quote you provided. They suggested the risks were the same as any other vaccine and so small as to be discounted. They said this knowing that they were unaware of what the risks would be.

I don't even know why you're trying to defend this so much. This is so blatantly obvious that it's not even funny. It wasn't even my initial point, my initial point was that people already felt the government was lying to them about the risks and they also felt the government wouldn't stand by them should the risks prove to be worse than originally thought and that this is a bad thing because it will affect how people view vaccines should this kind of thing happen again

And I'm 100% right and you shouldn't be arguing it because it is so obviously true. For some reason you're absolutely bound and determined to defend Trudeau's government, one of the most lying governments in the history of man, and suggest that they were 100% upfront and honest when that is clearly not the case.

Get your head out of your ass. The government downplayed the risk and it shouldn't have. Now the government isn't standing beside people who trusted them and are suffering as a result. These are bad things

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As I have said to you multiple times the problem is they couldn't. They knew there was a high probability of unknown risks which they couldn't define.

No, the problem is that you keep saying they knew there were risks, and YOU can't define what risks they were supposed to warn people about. 

I have clearly shown they said there were risks. YOU are the one who keeps saying they knew there were more they should have informed on and YOU can't define what that was. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're literally making the point. They did not know the risks yet they suggested that the risks were the same as any other vaccine

You keep changing your language... now it is "suggested."

Listen, there is no "they" as if it were some single monolothic entity. There is the general scientific community, the World Health Organization, government health organizations, politicians, leaders, etc... 

You are still playing this game "same as" as if it was some absolute comparison to any other vaccine....

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We now know that the risks are higher but that's not relevant. At the time they knew that the risks were undefined and yet presented it as a defined risk

So... you say they are supposed to have informed you of the risks, that you now say they can't define.

What was this "defined" risk you claim it was presented as? Lets see this argument of yours cite something. 

Show us where they said they knew ALL the risks and they were clearly defined and there could be no other risk. 

You can't because that was never the general position from any of those organizations or the community. 

The quotes I provided show you are wrong. They talk about risk in general. 
 

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The point is it doesn't say different. It lumps all the vaccines together and doesn't differentiate therefore Indicating they are the same

LOL, the point is you  are full of shit. The quote did not lump all the vaccines together. That is your full of shit comment. 

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

his has been pointed out a dozen times to you already yet you keep repeating the same lies over and over and over as if it hadn't been

What lie(s) am I repeating? What makes them a lie?

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And the point was that they underplayed the risks by claiming the risks were the same as the risks of any vaccine

That is your false characterization of things. 
 

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Except it does say that it's the same as any vaccine. Which indicates that it's no different. If I say something is the same then I am specifically indicating that it is not substantially different. But it was substantially different. In fact mNRA Treatment is so different that it really is difficult to even call it a vaccine

Nowhere in that quote or article does it say that it's the same as any vaccine. Again, you are full of shit. 

What was said, is that vaccines in general have risk, so this one does too. 

"Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions."

 

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Good question. They didn't know. Yet they suggested they did

You are the one who said it. 

 

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The government severely underplayed the risks which were unknown at the time.

What risks did they underplay? How?

[User]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For some reason you're absolutely bound and determined to defend Trudeau's government

Lovely strawman you have there. I am pointing out the lies and dishonesty you and the anti-vax conspiracy mongers here push. 

Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here?

Because that is Goddesses. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, User said:

Lovely strawman you have there.

Don't Use words if you don't know what they mean

Quote

I am pointing out the lies and dishonesty you and the anti-vax conspiracy mongers here push. 

I'm not anti-vax. It appears to be an assumption on your part. In fact I am vaxed and double boosted. I'm in a high-risk group I took a look at the information that was available and determined that in my opinion my risk of covid injury was higher than the unknown risks of the vaccine but I was well aware that I could turn out to be wrong. Even with the new information that we have i would probably get vaxxed again in the same circumstances ,as i'm more likely to suffer serious harm from covid due to preexisitng conditions such as diabetes. 

And I was aware of the fact the gov't wasn't being honest because I did my own research and realized the government wasn't being honest at the time. But came to the conclusion that of the two risks covid was the greater for me.

 

Quote

Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here?

My angle here as everywhere is the truth. I explore the truth regardless of political agenda.

It is a true statement that the risks of the vaccine were not properly explained to the public both in Canada and in America. I suspect everywhere else as well but to be honest I haven't fully looked at what the public was told in other countries so I can only speak to those two.

It is also a true statement that the government is failing to live up to its duty to care for those who were negatively affected by the vaccine who took it believing it was safe. And we still have people suffering 'long covid'. 

And the whole point here was that is extremely bad. When you lie about the dangers and then double down by not taking care of those who were harmed as a result of the dangers then the next time you want people to believe you and get vaccines you run the risk of a much higher lack of cooperation

So my point isn't anything about being vaxxed or unvaxed, my point is that the government should have been more honest with people about the vaccine and it's dangers and they should be far more aggressive to stand beside those people financially who were harmed by taking a drug that the government told them to.

That would likely prevent problems in the future. That is my angle
 

Quote

Because that is Goddesses. 

I am not here to judge or make statement on goddesses position.

It is absolutely true that the vaccine turned out to be far more risky than originally thought. That is not a shock or a surprise, and even I who took the vaccine expected as much. All i'm saying is they should have been more honest about it and let people make decisions with more complete knowledge. Not everyone is as adept or inclined to do their own research as i am

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Don't Use words if you don't know what they mean

I do. Nowhere has my position been to defend the Trudeau government. 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm not anti-vax. It appears to be an assumption on your part.

"Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here?" <- This is called a question. 

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And I was aware of the fact the gov't wasn't being honest because I did my own research and realized the government wasn't being honest at the time. But came to the conclusion that of the two risks covid was the greater for me.

Glad you are not an anti-vaxxer. So... what were the two risks? What was the lie?

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is a true statement that the risks of the vaccine were not properly explained to the public both in Canada and in America. I suspect everywhere else as well but to be honest I haven't fully looked at what the public was told in other countries so I can only speak to those two.

What risks?

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And the whole point here was that is extremely bad.

No, your point started with this false statement, that you have long run away from. We have clearly established the government was willing to admit there was risk. 

"Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"
 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So my point isn't anything about being vaxxed or unvaxed, my point is that the government should have been more honest with people about the vaccine and it's dangers and they should be far more aggressive to stand beside those people financially who were harmed by taking a drug that the government told them to.

What dangers?

 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is absolutely true that the vaccine turned out to be far more risky than originally thought.

Far more risky. Define far. What is it you think the risk was that was explained and how did it turn out to be "far" more risky?


 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, User said:

Glad you are not an anti-vaxxer. So... what were the two risks? What was the lie?

Been over that a trillion times. I'm not repeating myself again and again and again. 

If you're too much of a coward to address what i've already clearly said on that subject then go change your diapers and find someone to debate about whether cyclops or wolverine would win ffs. 

3 hours ago, User said:

What risks?

Been answered 100 times now, you're in full on coward mode, running and hiding from what i said and just repeating yourself.

3 hours ago, User said:

Far more risky. Define far.

far

/fär/

"Far" is a versatile word used primarily as an adverb or adjective to indicate a significant distance in space or time, or a high degree of measurement. [1, 2]

Common Meanings & Examples

1. Distance in Space or Time (Adverb / Adjective) [1]

• Meaning: At, to, or from a great distance.
• Examples: We didn't hike far. We live far from the city center. The far side of the moon. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Extent or Degree (Adverb)

• Meaning: To an advanced point, or "much" and "considerably".
• Examples: This approach is far better than the old one. She will go far in her career. [1, 2, 3]

Common Idioms and Phrases

• So far: Up to this point. ("So far, everything is going well.")
• By far: By a large margin or amount. ("She is by far the best student.")
• As far as: To the extent that. ("As far as I know, the store is closed.") [1, 2]

Related Grammar Forms

When comparing distances, "far" has irregular forms: [1, 2]

• Further / Farther: Used to indicate a greater distance (e.g., "We need to drive farther.")
• Furthest / Farthest: The maximum distance (e.g., "Who ran the farthest?") [1, 2, 3]
  far

  /fär/
  "Far" is a versatile word used primarily as an adverb or adjective to indicate a significant distance in space or time, or a high degree of measurement. [1, 2]
  Common Meanings & Examples
  1. Distance in Space or Time (Adverb / Adjective) [1]
  • Meaning: At, to, or from a great distance.
  • Examples: We didn't hike far. We live far from the city center. The far side of the moon. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  2. Extent or Degree (Adverb)
  • Meaning: To an advanced point, or "much" and "considerably".
  • Examples: This approach is far better than the old one. She will go far in her career. [1, 2, 3]
  Common Idioms and Phrases
  • So far: Up to this point. ("So far, everything is going well.")
  • By far: By a large margin or amount. ("She is by far the best student.")
  • As far as: To the extent that. ("As far as I know, the store is closed.") [1, 2]
  Related Grammar Forms
  When comparing distances, "far" has irregular forms: [1, 2]
  • Further / Farther: Used to indicate a greater distance (e.g., "We need to drive farther.")
  • Furthest / Farthest: The maximum distance (e.g., "Who ran the farthest?") [1, 2, 3]
  • '

   

  It's a three letter word and you needed it explained to you.  Shameful. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Been over that a trillion times. I'm not repeating myself again and again and again. 

If you're too much of a coward to address what i've already clearly said on that subject then go change your diapers and find someone to debate about whether cyclops or wolverine would win ffs. 

No, you just jump all over the place from one assertion to the next. When I challenge and question you, then you do crap like this. 
 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Been answered 100 times now, you're in full on coward mode, running and hiding from what i said and just repeating yourself.

LOL, you have certainly avoided the question a lot. 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's a three letter word and you needed it explained to you.  Shameful. 

Speaking of being a coward... here you are acting like one. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

No, you just jump all over the place from one assertion to the next. When I challenge and question you, then you do crap like this. 
 

LOL, you have certainly avoided the question a lot. 

Speaking of being a coward... here you are acting like one. 

I have said the same thing repetitively every single post for about three pages now. There is no jumping in the slightest

Let's do it again. Your own source shows that they indicated it was the same level of threat as any other vaccine, at the time they were aware that this was not supported by the evidence they had and it misled the public

It is bad to miss the public but compounding this they did not stand behind people who believed them and then were hurt by the vaccines

That is a bad thing to do.

That is the same message in every single post I have made since the very beginning, there is no jumping, there's no goal post moving, there is no deviation, that's what I have said

3 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, you have certainly avoided the question a lot.

Answered it every single time, just getting sick of it. What a pathetic little liberal twat you're turning out to be

3 minutes ago, User said:

Speaking of being a coward...

Yes I'm speaking about it and you're doing it. Did you want to cry a little more, did you want to go and take the time to change your diapers and come back and try again? You're going to lose any respect you had from anybody on this forum. Robo smith is a better debater than you are right now

[User]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I have said the same thing repetitively every single post for about three pages now. There is no jumping in the slightest

Let's do it again. Your own source shows that they indicated it was the same level of threat as any other vaccine, at the time they were aware that this was not supported by the evidence they had and it misled the public

LOL, now you use the word "indicated!"

In the same breath, you say you are not jumping around. OMG

Do you even realize what you are doing, or is it really just pathological?

What evidence did "they" have that showed it was more than it was that they then misled the public?
 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is the same message in every single post I have made since the very beginning, there is no jumping, there's no goal post moving, there is no deviation, that's what I have said

No, as I have pointed out repeatedly now, this was the first shit thing you said, that you have run away from admitting you were wrong about:
"Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"
 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Answered it every single time, just getting sick of it. What a pathetic little liberal twat you're turning out to be

You respond, you do not actually directly answer. Calling me names and acting like the petulant child you are doesn't change the facts. 
 

 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes I'm speaking about it and you're doing it. Did you want to cry a little more, did you want to go and take the time to change your diapers and come back and try again? You're going to lose any respect you had from anybody on this forum. Robo smith is a better debater than you are right now

You were the one who came here to cry and spread lies. I am calling you out. 

Edited Friday at 11:12 PM by User

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

LOL, now you use the word "indicated!"

In the same breath, you say you are not jumping around. OMG

The word is perfectly fine you lying sack of shit

2 hours ago, User said:

Do you even realize what you are doing, or is it really just pathological?

Oh dear. You seem to be having a mental breakdown. Now you're imagining weird little things in your head and can't even address the point.

Go ahead and run like a coward little boy.

[User]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The word is perfectly fine you lying sack of shit

The point was you keep changing your assertion. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh dear. You seem to be having a mental breakdown. Now you're imagining weird little things in your head and can't even address the point.

Go ahead and run like a coward little boy.

So… pathological liar then?

You are the one who ignored most of the last post I made. Then you call me a coward? 

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, User said:

The point was you keep changing your assertion. 
 

So… pathological liar then?

You are the one who ignored most of the last post I made. Then you call me a coward? 

My assertion has remained the same since the very beginning and remains the same now. There hasn't been even the tiniest tiniest bit of change or variation.

The government did not substantially warn people about the risks in any meaningful way. They went on to fail to stand behind people who were hurt taking the vaccine they demanded people take

Completely simple. Easily verified. That's it.

Now let's recap your argument:

[Goddess]

21 hours ago, User said:

This is a bad case of correlation != causation. 

 

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, User said:

What risks did they know that they were supposed to have warned you about?

Governments, including Canada, signed a contract with Pfizer.  That contract, which I've posted here, specifically said there were unknown risks associated with the shots because they were not subjected to the usual testing.  They were not tested for transmission, not tested for carcinogenicity, not tested for future fertility issues.  There were already known problems with both mRNA technology and the LNP delivery system.  Those problems were not and still haven't been resolved.

That was NOT communicated to the public.

Even before the rollout, it was known that the risk factors for covid were mainly for the very elderly, the morbidly obese and those who were already dying.

That was NOT communicated to the public.

Instead, the public was told that EVERYBODY was at risk and that the injections were safe and would prevent you from getting covid. This was an absolute lie.  And they knew it.

For quite a long time, the public was told there was no such thing as natural immunity from covid and that herd immunity could ONLY be achieved by everybody injecting.

That was not only a lie, it is blatantly un-scientific.  We've known about natural immunity from respiratory viruses for centuries.  We've also known that mass injecting DURING a pandemic is the worst thing you can do.  It drives faster variant mutations, which is exactly what we saw happen.  

The public should have been told "Here is an injection that will not prevent you from getting covid.  It MAY decrease symptoms, but we do not know because it hasn't been tested for that.  Please discuss your personal risk factors (age, general health) with your doctor and make a decision on whether injecting an experimental substance is right for you."

That is not what happened and you know it.

You know you were lied to, you fell for it hook, line and sinker and now you're trying to justify why you allowed yourself to be so manipulated and lied to.

 

[Goddess]

19 hours ago, User said:

Glad you are not an anti-vaxxer.

FYI, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, either.

I took 2 1/2 years off work to travel the world and got all the shots I felt I needed to protect myself in certain environments.  I researched them, I talked to my doctor.  

I take my health seriously, I always have.  I know my general state of health, which tells me what I'm at risk for.  I trust my body, I trust my immune system.

What I am for is full information.  I am for people being able to make their own decisions on what medical interventions that do or do not take.

Trudeau is a complete lunatic.  There is no way I was going to let that id10t take control of my health, which I have spent almost 60 years protecting on my own, thank you very much.

You let a part-time drama teacher take over your medical decisions.

And you think I'm the loony.  🙄

Edited Saturday at 03:18 PM by Goddess

[Goddess]

If you want to know what was and wasn't known about mRNA tech before the injections were rolled out to the public, this 👇 is a great start.

David Speicher is a Canadian molecular virologist and was the one who discovered the DNA contamination in them.

The Empirical Reality: How to Calmly Communicate the Science of modRNA Injections

For instance, they had known coagulation risks.  Scientists who pointed this out at the time were vilified and silenced.  then 2 of the 4 mandated injections were removed from market for coagulation issues.  So.  Just sayin'.

Same for the IgG4 class switch and immune exhaustion.  Known risk.  Before they rolled out.

Was the public informed?

No.  In fact, they were outright lied to about the risks of blood clotting, IgG4 class switching and the damage to immune system.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

David Speicher is a Canadian molecular virologist and was the one who discovered the DNA contamination in them.

I covered this before when it first came out, but, in a nutshell:

Pfizer vials had 371–1,548 ng of residual plasmid DNA per dose.

Moderna 1,130–6,280 ng.

That’s up to 627 times over the FDA’s 10 ng limit.

Some lots had 1.60 × 10^11 DNA fragments per dose, including SV40 promoter pieces. After the third shot, spike-specific IgG4 jumped from 0.04% to 19.27% in studies, basically switching the immune system into tolerance mode.

So basically, it’s lab data showing these shots were contaminated way beyond safety limits and altered immune responses in ways regulators still refuse to properly address. 

[Goddess]

[Goddess]

You can laugh all you want.

I'm not anti-vax.

I'm anti mRNA.  It was not ready for human use.  It's still not.

Very promising tech, but not ready yet.

[User]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

My assertion has remained the same since the very beginning and remains the same now. There hasn't been even the tiniest tiniest bit of change or variation.

LOL, sure... the last couple of pages show otherwise. 

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The government did not substantially warn people about the risks in any meaningful way.

So, now you go back to the beginning. OK, once again, I already showed you how the government warned people about the risks. Then you cried that it was the media who didn't... then I showed you they did. Every step of the way, I have responded to your BS with actual facts. I challenge your assertions, ask you to back up your meaningless subjective drivel, and you run like a coward. 

This was the post where I showed you the government website as well as an official government statement early on:
 

Then, after you cried about it not being the media, here is the post where I showed you a quote from the media:

 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

You can laugh all you want.

I'm not anti-vax.

I'm anti mRNA.  It was not ready for human use.  It's still not.

Very promising tech, but not ready yet.

Sure... you already forgot your nonsense about the Polio vaccine?

You forget this little gem?

"About what......5000 children?  Tragic yes, every child death is tragic.  But that was the problem vaccines were going to solve. Over 70 shots per year now, given to newborn babies. To prevent 5000 deaths.  More children die from other causes per year."

So, what vaccines do you support then? What vaccinations have you gotten?

You listed the whole chart of childhood vaccines to question them, these were generalized comments against vaccines in general you made recently:

"You can take your seatbelt off when you're not driving.  You can never un-vaccinate yourself."

"Do you expect to go through life never getting any disease?  Is that the goal here?

Do you know how many children died of childhood diseases before vaccines?  Here's a chart for you (US CDC data):"

That was before you proceeded to push the surface level deep ignorant talking points from the anti-vax crowd against Polio vaccine. 

So, please tell me again, how you are not anti-vax?

 

[User]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

You let a part-time drama teacher take over your medical decisions.

And you think I'm the loony.  🙄

Once again, you have to make up crap to argue against I have not said. I have repeatedly said here that I opposed the COVID vaccine mandate. Yet you still keep arguing as if I supported that. 

Will you ever stop with this dishonesty?