Covid Vaccines... Designed To Prevent Death — Not Infection

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Have there been any indications of that?

Well... I haven't been vaccinated for COVID at this point. That should be an indication that I've got enough sense not to be 'treated' for something I don't have; particularly when there is growing evidence that the 'treatment' only lasts so long and doesn't prevent me from contracting and spreading the disease.

Oh... Wait. That puts me in the same league as some here?

Uh... Maybe that's not a good indication after all?

[SPUTTER]

I pray to the Lord that I'm just wearing a tinfoil hat because the signs (not just about Covid) are all there. There are things happening in this country that I could never in my wildest dreams thought could come true.

[sigfan91]

May I ask, how does a "therapeutic" help us achieve herd immunity?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

May I ask, how does a "therapeutic" help us achieve herd immunity?

Remember, if my hypothesis is true, they aren't after "herd immunity" from COVID so much as an "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral." As such, assuming that this is all part of a much larger effort in 'research/experimentation,' then you can see the 'telegraphing' going on via NIAID back in May of last year... Developing Therapeutics and Vaccines for Coronaviruses...

...NIAID has also supported the clinical testing of two promising antibody-based therapeutics, which prevent the virus from infecting and entering cells...

In other words, what if the focus of Fauci and the pharmaceutical industry is and has been, not on prevention, but on treatment all along?

[The Gleam]

No. There is just no way to put a reverse spin on the original spin, no matter how much flowery jargon and lily gilding one conjures, without the entire mess coming off as bullcrap.

Because all this doubletalk Michael Jackson moonwalkback of "oh, but we actually meant..." is exactly that; people will see through it, for what it is, and the longer this goes on, the more it will be revealed that the COVID pseudo-vaccines are anemic nonsense.

And the more they can push it on to the healthier side of the population, who would have only realized mild to NO symptoms from contracting COVID anyway, without being pseudo-vaccinated, the more they can say "see, our vaccines are working - they kept your symptoms mild and you didn't die".

Fancy sugar pills, with a government backed marketing campaign, steeped and mulled in social-engineering, with censorship of anyone questioning the efficacy of the product and what are clearly large cracks in the facade, a drug corporation's wetdream come true.

--

[The Gleam]

In other words, what if.....

And that phrase there is the kind of stuck in the mud, throw it in reverse, propaganda nonsense I'm talking about above, the likes of which haven't been seen since the oligarchy spew coming out of the Kremlin during the rein of the USSR.

[sigfan91]

Remember, if my hypothesis is true, they aren't after "herd immunity" from COVID so much as an "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral." As such, assuming that this is all part of a much larger effort in 'research/experimentation,' then you can see the 'telegraphing' going on via NIAID back in May of last year... Developing Therapeutics and Vaccines for Coronaviruses...



In other words, what if the focus of Fauci and the pharmaceutical industry is and has been, not on prevention, but on treatment all along?

What if this is just a money grab by politicians, the big pharmas and MSM?

Lots of "what ifs...." Sometimes "Occam's razor" really is true.

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable.

It's the same thing with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Some believe WTC was an inside job by GW Bush (whom they considered to be an imbecile) to launch a war to benefit his oil buddies and finish the job his daddy didn't finish. Somehow this person with the intelligence of a toddler was able to concoct a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people to place demolition charges in multiple large buildings without any information leaking out, without any witnesses, with everything perfectly timed including the hijack of 4 jetliners.

Is that more believable than some terrorists got lucky and was able to fly 2 jets into WTC?

I'm gonna go with the least complicated plan. Government thought the vaccine would work to provide IMMUNITY. It didn't work as advertised. So now they're spinning in damage control mode.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

And that phrase there is the kind of stuck in the mud, throw it in reverse, propaganda nonsense I'm talking about above, the likes of which haven't been seen since the oligarchy spew coming out of the Kremlin during the rein of the USSR.

It's akin to "alleged" in news reports. If it isn't proven, yet, in court, then it's only "alleged."

When I ask - "In other words, what if the focus of Fauci and the pharmaceutical industry is and has been, not on prevention, but on treatment all along?" - It is roughly equivalent to your: "...what are clearly large cracks in the facade, a drug corporation's wetdream come true."

Which provides them more opportunity to pursue an "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral" and access to continuing funding streams... preventive vaccines or on-going treatments?

Which argument is more likely to be listened to, one that is based on documented evidence and is phrased reasonably, but cautiously or one which is full of invective, epithet, and emotion?

This is the mistake many are making in this thread and many others. Simply because one doesn't "get down in the gutter and spew", doesn't mean they are defending Fauci, et al. We all get the frustration. But, that doesn't mean emotion is going to carry the day.

[SPUTTER]

What if this is just a money grab by politicians, the big pharmas and MSM?

Lots of "what ifs...." Sometimes "Occam's razor" really is true.



It's the same thing with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Some believe WTC was an inside job by GW Bush (whom they considered to be an imbecile) to launch a war to benefit his oil buddies and finish the job his daddy didn't finish. Somehow this person with the intelligence of a toddler was able to concoct a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people to place demolition charges in multiple large buildings without any information leaking out, without any witnesses, with everything perfectly timed including the hijack of 4 jetliners.

Is that more believable than some terrorists got lucky and was able to fly 2 jets into WTC?

I'm gonna go with the least complicated plan. Government thought the vaccine would work to provide IMMUNITY. It didn't work as advertised. So now they're spinning in damage control mode.

There's no way their intentions were good. There were plenty of safe and effective options available to deal with the pandemic. But they not only dismissed these options, they censored anyone from talking about. Several experts that understand vaccines have said mass vaccination, during a pandemic with an experimental injection is reckless and could be catastrophic. They were sounding the alarm before this began and they were attacked and censored.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...I'm gonna go with the least complicated plan. Government thought the vaccine would work to provide IMMUNITY. It didn't work as advertised. So now they're spinning in damage control mode.

One of the primary 'weaknesses' with Occam's Razor is that it risks oversimplification.

It's not that "Government thought," but that "those in Government were persuaded" that the vaccines being proffered would provide preventive protection.

Now that it's not working in that way, politicians are doing what politicians do... CYA. Part of political CYA is asking questions and that's what you see from Rand Paul vis a vis eliciting testimony from Fauci. Fauci is doing his own CYA. It's precisely what I was getting at with...

...That narrative meant one thing to the medical elite. It meant something different to the politicians and was filtered through that lens when the narrative for public consumption was crafted. The media filtered it through their own prism and the public used colloquial understandings to 'hear' what was being said and, as I've noted, colloquial and scientific 'fact/definition' are not always (in fact, can rarely be) interchangeable. Yet, politicians, the media, and even many public health officials have been using them 'interchangeably' in an effort to push various narratives in a manner not only 'marketable' to the public, but so the public might comprehend. It's precisely why Fauci says something and, when 'called' on it, he 'hides' behind the 'scientific definition,' claiming what we understood based on what he said isn't what he meant...

The question then becomes who persuaded the politicians and why? Was it ALL about money or was it about more than JUST money? Remember, for a 'zealot,' money is a means to an end. Just like the 9/11 attack wasn't just an 'isolated incident' or one-off.

Bear in mind that Occam's Razor isn't about "the simplest theory you can understand." It's about "simpler theories." Mine is actually quite simple, even if it is broader in scope than "the drug companies are evil" and "Fauci is a pawn of the drug companies."

If you (and others) are troubled by the "What If's," you need to get hold of the concept that ALL knowledge begins with a question, no matter how primitively formed or based. Likewise, as attorneys will mention, sometimes you can't prove things with actual 'evidence,' but if you introduce the question to the minds of the jury and let them pursue their own thinking based on that question rather than simply having the opposing side's narrative dictating the parameters for their thinking...

[SPUTTER]

The theory that the shots were intended to be a treatment for COVID-19 is just ridiculous. First off, the technology has never been approved for use in humans or animals despite years of research. Second, we know for a fact that this "treatment" is injuring and killing people. Third, we are still learning what the long term side effects are which can be very serious as experts have warned. That's not a treatment nor are these people that stupid to understand the risks they were unleashing on the public.

[Sgt. J Beezy]

Uh... What part of that is contrary to what I've been saying for some time now?

Rather than disputing me, what you need to do is wrap your heads around the idea that these are not preventive vaccines and are, instead, prophylaxis treatments. They are much like the "flu vaccines" (something I've said is another misuse of the term 'vaccine' if you read the links presented in the OP) in that they do not eradicate the virus and only meet the 'technical' definition of 'vaccine' (assuming you accept the medical caveats) but not the colloquial. Combining elements from the first two links in the OP...



That was posted days before the OP article came out.

In other words, you are arguing what I have already presented as if it's something I don't know and/or am 'hiding.' Neither is the case.

Uh... Let's just say that if you don't want these "huge walls of text," then you'd better start clicking the provided links to statements already made and information already presented. Otherwise, 'accusing' me of being deceptive and not knowing what I'm talking about, even if just by inference, isn't going to 'win' the argument for you or undermine my 'credibility' or take away from my argument.

You are delusional


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LBDamned]

I pray to the Lord that I'm just wearing a tinfoil hat because the signs (not just about Covid) are all there. There are things happening in this country that I could never in my wildest dreams thought could come true.

Yep, I'm seeing signs of it too...

[sigfan91]

One of the primary 'weaknesses' with Occam's Razor is that it risks oversimplification.

It's not that "Government thought," but that "those in Government were persuaded" that the vaccines being proffered would provide preventive protection.

Now that it's not working in that way, politicians are doing what politicians do... CYA. Part of political CYA is asking questions and that's what you see from Rand Paul vis a vis eliciting testimony from Fauci. Fauci is doing his own CYA. It's precisely what I was getting at with...

I agree with your analysis.

[The Gleam]

It's akin to "alleged" in news reports. If it isn't proven, yet, in court, then it's only "alleged."

When I ask - "In other words, what if the focus of Fauci and the pharmaceutical industry is and has been, not on prevention, but on treatment all along?" - It is roughly equivalent to your: "...what are clearly large cracks in the facade, a drug corporation's wetdream come true."

Which provides them more opportunity to pursue an "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral" and access to continuing funding streams... preventive vaccines or on-going treatments?

Which argument is more likely to be listened to, one that is based on documented evidence and is phrased reasonably, but cautiously or one which is full of invective, epithet, and emotion?

This is the mistake many are making in this thread and many others. Simply because one doesn't "get down in the gutter and spew", doesn't mean they are defending Fauci, et al. We all get the frustration. But, that doesn't mean emotion is going to carry the day.

But that is not how you are framing it: you are selling the idea, as they are too, propping up a persuasive tool to gloss over their original intent of the vaccine, to bolster the failed plan in a way to say "oh, no, that was never REALLY the plan, but secretly we actually had this other plan that was not a failure at all, and what we told you before was really just to sell the idea so we could get our anemic plan out there, because had we tried selling our intended halfassed plan, NOBODY would have gotten the vaccine, and we couldn't have reaped a fast easy profit from government funding.

And to be clear, that actually sounds worse; even more shallow and crappy than if you, and they, just admit that their original plan failed.

By NOT doing that, by digging this ridiculous hole of a shoddy way around their mea culpa, you, and them, are creating a GREATER distrust for the vaccines than there would have been otherwise.

You're actually making it worse with the back-peddle excuses.

How YOU don't see that is beyond anyone's guess. Or maybe you do - but don't pitch it as a salve or save utility being the real bargain all along


---