UJRefugees.net

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:26 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:18 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:54 pm Complete and utter bullshit. They have no way of knowing that

don't they know that all you have to do is find one soccer player that died within a few months of getting a booster and you prove the whole thing was a hoax?

Isn't that how you determine, potentially, long term affects of a drug? Isn't that why you wait 5 to 10 years for testing. I mean how do they figure its the drug or if it's just something random. Also, do you feel bloodclots would appear right away? Wouldn't you think it would, in some people at least, take a few months?

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:44 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:26 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:18 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:54 pm Complete and utter bullshit. They have no way of knowing that

don't they know that all you have to do is find one soccer player that died within a few months of getting a booster and you prove the whole thing was a hoax?

Isn't that how you determine, potentially, long term affects of a drug? Isn't that why you wait 5 to 10 years for testing. I mean how do they figure its the drug or if it's just something random. Also, do you feel bloodclots would appear right away? Wouldn't you think it would, in some people at least, take a few months?

if they had just randomly added some chemicals into a beaker and shook them up and started injecting then I would say that would be too much risk to take. But, some really smart people on the subject, came together and decided based on the best science they had and the quickest trials they could develop, that they could put the risk level at one that was acceptable based on the severity of the damage the disease was doing at the time. And, in hindsight, i would say they were absolutely correct and the entire process was a smashing success.

Antknot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:52 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:44 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:26 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:18 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:54 pm Complete and utter bullshit. They have no way of knowing that

don't they know that all you have to do is find one soccer player that died within a few months of getting a booster and you prove the whole thing was a hoax?

Isn't that how you determine, potentially, long term affects of a drug? Isn't that why you wait 5 to 10 years for testing. I mean how do they figure its the drug or if it's just something random. Also, do you feel bloodclots would appear right away? Wouldn't you think it would, in some people at least, take a few months?

if they had just randomly added some chemicals into a beaker and shook them up and started injecting then I would say that would be too much risk to take. But, some really smart people on the subject, came together and decided based on the best science they had and the quickest trials they could develop, that they could put the risk level at one that was acceptable based on the severity of the damage the disease was doing at the time. And, in hindsight, i would say they were absolutely correct and the entire process was a smashing success.

How did those "really smart people" determine what the effects be 5 or 10 years down the road?

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:02 pm

Antknot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:52 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:44 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:26 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:18 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:54 pm Complete and utter bullshit. They have no way of knowing that

don't they know that all you have to do is find one soccer player that died within a few months of getting a booster and you prove the whole thing was a hoax?

Isn't that how you determine, potentially, long term affects of a drug? Isn't that why you wait 5 to 10 years for testing. I mean how do they figure its the drug or if it's just something random. Also, do you feel bloodclots would appear right away? Wouldn't you think it would, in some people at least, take a few months?

if they had just randomly added some chemicals into a beaker and shook them up and started injecting then I would say that would be too much risk to take. But, some really smart people on the subject, came together and decided based on the best science they had and the quickest trials they could develop, that they could put the risk level at one that was acceptable based on the severity of the damage the disease was doing at the time. And, in hindsight, i would say they were absolutely correct and the entire process was a smashing success.

How did those "really smart people" determine what the effects be 5 or 10 years down the road?

They would have had to make educated guesses, wouldn't you think? how do you determine how long it will take you to get somewhere you have never been before? I mean, you can't actually know until you make the trip yourself. But you can probably get a pretty good estimate based on a few things that you know about going places.

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:02 pm

Antknot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:52 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:44 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:26 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:18 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:54 pm Complete and utter bullshit. They have no way of knowing that

don't they know that all you have to do is find one soccer player that died within a few months of getting a booster and you prove the whole thing was a hoax?

Isn't that how you determine, potentially, long term affects of a drug? Isn't that why you wait 5 to 10 years for testing. I mean how do they figure its the drug or if it's just something random. Also, do you feel bloodclots would appear right away? Wouldn't you think it would, in some people at least, take a few months?

if they had just randomly added some chemicals into a beaker and shook them up and started injecting then I would say that would be too much risk to take. But, some really smart people on the subject, came together and decided based on the best science they had and the quickest trials they could develop, that they could put the risk level at one that was acceptable based on the severity of the damage the disease was doing at the time. And, in hindsight, i would say they were absolutely correct and the entire process was a smashing success.

How did those "really smart people" determine what the effects be 5 or 10 years down the road?

They would have had to make educated guesses, wouldn't you think? how do you determine how long it will take you to get somewhere you have never been before? I mean, you can't actually know until you make the trip yourself. But you can probably get a pretty good estimate based on a few things that you know about going places.

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:14 am So....guessing. and you can't understand why some people question it. Ok.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:18 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:14 am So....guessing. and you can't understand why some people question it. Ok.

we are over 2 years into the "long term" effects. What is your time line before you are willing to say you were wrong? 5 years? 10? I mean its a test sample of billions of people.

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:29 am

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:18 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:14 am So....guessing. and you can't understand why some people question it. Ok.

we are over 2 years into the "long term" effects. What is your time line before you are willing to say you were wrong? 5 years? 10? I mean its a test sample of billions of people.

I was wrong about what? I just got my booster in November. But that is now. When it started, there was a guessed unknown that you just admitted to. There wasn't billions. So why wouldn't there be concerns? And long term affects are generally 5 to 10 years. It doesn't matter if you gave 1 or 10 trillion, the unknown of 5 to 10 years is still unknown. Now you're just making up shit. At least sound reasonable when you're trying to vilify millions of people.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:11 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:29 am

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:18 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:14 am So....guessing. and you can't understand why some people question it. Ok.

we are over 2 years into the "long term" effects. What is your time line before you are willing to say you were wrong? 5 years? 10? I mean its a test sample of billions of people.

I was wrong about what? I just got my booster in November. But that is now. When it started, there was a guessed unknown that you just admitted to. There wasn't billions. So why wouldn't there be concerns? And long term affects are generally 5 to 10 years. It doesn't matter if you gave 1 or 10 trillion, the unknown of 5 to 10 years is still unknown. Now you're just making up shit. At least sound reasonable when you're trying to vilify millions of people.

villify? surely you understand that there are always unknowns. Hell, they didn't know if the surface of the moon would support a landing craft until they landed on it and found out. But they had made their best educated guess of how it would work and they were right. There are literally uncountable examples of people having to make educated assumptions about things in order to solve them. You must know that. But for some reason (*politics*) you have to make this one sound as if some lab guys just started throwing darts at a board and decided on some random cure. The truth is that the science they used to create it was solid and obviously beyond your limited comprehension skills.

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:40 pm Yes, I understand there are unknowns, which is why I understand why people hesitate to take it. And not vilify them as you did/do. It's not hard to get that. But even as you say it, out loud, it still manages to go over your head. You keep attempting to argue that I am against it, which is pointless and off topic. It also makes you look dumb as shit. But I'm guessing that's the look you're going for, because you continue to do it.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:52 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:40 pm Yes, I understand there are unknowns, which is why I understand why people hesitate to take it. And not vilify them as you did/do. It's not hard to get that. But even as you say it, out loud, it still manages to go over your head. You keep attempting to argue that I am against it, which is pointless and off topic. It also makes you look dumb as shit. But I'm guessing that's the look you're going for, because you continue to do it.

is this you trolling or pretending to be people that think something that you don't think or taking a position that you don't have but for some reason you feel the need to defend the position that you disagree with? come on, sybil. which is it?

BigRedRetard wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:34 pm No boosters for me. I will just keep going to the gym.

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:22 pm

BigRedRetard wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:34 pm No boosters for me. I will just keep going to the gym.

This

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:45 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:22 pm

BigRedRetard wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:34 pm No boosters for me. I will just keep going to the gym.

This

I have 3 employees out (same family) with something. Something really bad, like several days sick. Its either the flu or covid. Body aches, fever, no energy. They might each miss a week of work before its over. None of them are vaccinated.

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:48 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:45 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:22 pm

BigRedRetard wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:34 pm No boosters for me. I will just keep going to the gym.

This

I have 3 employees out (same family) with something. Something really bad, like several days sick. Its either the flu or covid. Body aches, fever, no energy. They might each miss a week of work before its over. None of them are vaccinated.

And still, there’s no evidence that the vaccines would’ve helped

Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 11:57 pm ^anti vaxx nutter.

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:30 am anti vaxx nutter said what?

Animal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:30 am anti vaxx nutter said what?

saltydog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:51 pm RIP "Diamond" of Diamond and Silk.

I'm sure the GOP/MAGA anti-vaxx constituency will be all over this with grief and solidarity.

Nevermind, Silk is on social media using the death as a grift for more financial support. The grift never ends....

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:17 pm

saltydog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:51 pm RIP "Diamond" of Diamond and Silk.

I'm sure the GOP/MAGA anti-vaxx constituency will be all over this with grief and solidarity.

Nevermind, Silk is on social media using the death as a grift for more financial support. The grift never ends....

So they are using her death as a "grift" and you're using it as a tool to down conservatives in a vitriolic way.....lol. ok skeeter

saltydog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:26 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:17 pm

saltydog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:51 pm RIP "Diamond" of Diamond and Silk.

I'm sure the GOP/MAGA anti-vaxx constituency will be all over this with grief and solidarity.

Nevermind, Silk is on social media using the death as a grift for more financial support. The grift never ends....

So they are using her death as a "grift" and you're using it as a tool to down conservatives in a vitriolic way.....lol. ok skeeter

My "grift" as you call it doesn't benefit me financially. There's a difference, but you won't see it that way.