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

[The Gleam]

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...



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...

OK, I'm on board with this too- and ironically posted nearly an identical pitch elsewhere in another thread about asking the hypothetical and plausible/probable to invite research and conjure answers - we NEED to - so long as they would just admit to any original intent that failed, and not put a spin on that failure as the original plan all along.

I'm OK with smoke and mirrors so long as one admits to that is what's being used to deliver a good show; don't hide behind a curtain and yell "ignore that man over there!"

What comes to mind in that regard?

Prop 47. A horrible failure, and yet they won't admit it - they just keep endorsing and ammending it, with altruisms of "oh, but we actually meant this - yes, if we do THIS it will surely make our original great plan even greater!"

Where else have you heard that before?

Where else do they keep playing the Goldilocks of plans?

"The original plan failed, oh but this plan, this new plan, will make our original plan even that much better, so we have GOT TO pass this new plan, which was our original plan all along!"

Sound familiar?

That would be each and every Anti-2nd Amendment legislation sold as a "Gun Safety Law".

---

[sigfan91]

Let's try a completely outlandish, convoluted conspiracy theory.

Trump set this up as a poison pill for the democrats.

This is 4D chess stuff, guys. Trump knew this vaccine wouldn't work, but he pushed it anyways. He knew democrats would be against it as long as he's president. If he were to be re-elected, the democrats would hold this up and he could tell the American people that democrats were trying to kill them. If he were to lose the election, which happened, the democrats would jump on this already-made vaccine that he knew wouldn't work. The democrats would push for this like there's no tomorrow and try to take credit. But wait a few years and this would come back to haunt them. The American people would blame democrats for pushing this snake oil. Trump knew his base would reject this quackery, thus unaffected. The democrats, however, would be the biggest group of lab rats in history. And they have no one to blame but themselves.

See, another "what if...." that's a completely off-the-wall crazy conspiracy theory that's plausible, but very unlikely. No one can plan for so many variables in life.

Military always teaches simple battle plans. Don't complicate things. Because the best battle plan falls apart after the first shot is fired.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Saw on CNN. You have a better chance of surviving covid if you are vaccinated. 25X better odds than an unvaxed person. But what do those numbers look like?

Odds of not dying from covid if you are vaxed........ 99.999%
Odds of not dying from covid if you are NOT vaxed..99.974%

So getting vaxed gives you a 0.024% better odds of surviving covid over an unvaxed person. And this is from CNN trying to push and scare people into taking the vax.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

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.

You (and others) are so stuck on my being 'wrong' that you aren't grasping what I'm saying. You accuse me of things I didn't say, of backpedaling excuses, of 'selling something,' overly complicating things, smoke & mirrors, etc.; with some seemingly determined to make me out to be another 'enemy of the state' or 'shill' for those you wish to hold accountable. Yet, once again, you make my case for me.

Remember, the premises of my theory are simple...

• A 'medical elite' (which include Fauci) are in pursuit of an "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral," something they've openly claimed to be their objective over the last 40 years; i.e., nothing 'secret' or 'obscure' about it.
• Part of that pursuit involved gain-of-function research, an useful, but highly risky methodology in the development of vaccines, treatments, and other countermeasures.
• An enhanced version of coronavirus stemming from that gain-of-function research got loose from the lab, creating a pandemic.
• The pandemic was seen as either an opportunity to field test vaccines/treatments they currently have or, for some in the medical industry, the politicians, and the media, the vaccines/treatments were seen as (either through their own knowledge or via persuasion or both), potentially, the 'best' available countermeasures at the moment.

In other words, COVID-19 and its variants is a tertiary concern and always has been. The "original plan" had almost nothing to do with the virus that is now loose on the World. Instead, to them, it may not have been a propitious accident, but it's not an opportunity which is going to be wasted. Put another way, while it most likely wasn't planned, you don't let the opportunity for an 'ideal case study' pass you by if you can help it.

The problem here is that you and others are so set on making Fauci out to be the reincarnation of Josef Mengele, the Left being psychopathic murderers with intent (on a number of levels), and feeding off conspiracy theories that you fail to grasp the 'simpler theory' that...

In pursuit of something they've been after for over 4 decades, an accident happened, and they are now 'field testing' those methods they have come to feel most advantageous to achieving that 'something.'

Whether those methods actually work in the case of COVID is a secondary, not primary, concern in the grand scheme of things. It's not necessarily based on nefarious intent. I'm sure they HOPE things work out; not only for the sake of those impacted, but for the sake of their continuing research. The primary concern, however, is exactly what we're seeing... data collection on effectiveness, side effects, efficacy to variants, short-/medium-/long-term effects, etc. Once again, that doesn't have to require pathological intent. It depends on what you see as the "Greater Good." In other words, a prophylaxis treatment used against COVID is not the same thing as a prophylaxis treatment for COVID specifically. (Just like Hydroxychloroquine and other drugs aren't COVID-specific drugs either.)

Insofar as "the risks," once again, they were never 'blind' to them and no one has ever really claimed they were. That's not how things work. The basis is a "risk/benefit analysis." As has been repeatedly pointed out, in the past, when the potential benefits were seen to outweigh the risks and the "go ahead" was given, if the negative outcomes became too pronounced, the process ground to a halt and a new analysis was performed based on the new evidence of 'risk.'

What the media and the medical elite have been doing is creating a narrative that such is precisely what they have been doing with their "pauses" on things like the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines. What many question (with some legitimacy) is whether the 'risk' now equals or outweighs the potential benefit. Part of THAT has to do with a decreasing confidence in the 'benefits' due to a perceived lack of preventive attributes.

Right now, they still feel they can 'hide' or 'stand' behind numbers. Such represents a "hope" as much as empiricism; i.e., an hope that their efforts over the last 40 years haven't led them to an impasse in terms of their quest. Yet, as we know, those numbers are increasingly being called into question empirically and intuitively. In a very real sense, we are reaching a point where their 'data collection' is going to have to be turned into an actual effort directed at COVID specifically. Whether that sounds worse than the overly simplistic "they are evil and are in it for the money/power" will depend on how committed you are to your own premises.

In a nutshell, I don't believe the current pandemic is sourced in "evil intent;" just 'bad decisions' made in the interest of something which has proven to be more akin to a McGuffin than an actual "Holy Grail." But, as we often note, the 'cover up' is usually worse than the 'crime' and I certainly feel that there are things for which, ahem, 'certain parties' need to be held accountable.

[SPUTTER]

It's fairly clear what's going here after an unprecedented 12k deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries have occurred from these shots, and not only does it continue, it's being forced down people throats. The intent is obvious.

[the_tunaman]

Saw on CNN. You have a better chance of surviving covid if you are vaccinated. 25X better odds than an unvaxed person. But what do those numbers look like?

Odds of not dying from covid if you are vaxed........ 99.999%
Odds of not dying from covid if you are NOT vaxed..99.974%

So getting vaxed gives you a 0.024% better odds of surviving covid over an unvaxed person. And this is from CNN trying to push and scare people into taking the vax.

[sd_shooter]

<snip>
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.

Yes, this is what I think as well. "Vaccine" always means something that primarily provides immunity for a long time - at least a year, and typically 10y to life. If it was originally sold as something that would only help for a couple months while requiring continued masking not even the leftists sheeple would take it.

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.

That's true as well. MSM and the various government bureaucracies have always been good at obfuscating and during the Trump years they went into overdrive. The amount of censorship during the covid era is staggering. Open discussion is not allowed and contrary opinions are snuffed out immediately. This fact alone should make everyone think twice about the vax mandates.

The theory that the shots were intended to be a treatment for COVID-19 is just ridiculous. <snip>

Yup, if this were the case we'd have something for the other corona viruses. Do we have treatments (ie. faux vaccines) for them? The premise of this thread if false.

Let's try a completely outlandish, convoluted conspiracy theory.

Trump set this up as a poison pill for the democrats.

This is 4D chess stuff, guys. <snip>

I used to think that Trump was playing 4D chess but none of that stuff panned out. Covid and the various reactions to it are way beyond anything directly related to Trump. Trump's presidency may have been a catalyst for all the "Great Reset" plans to be initiated but I doubt he could have created a plan to put the brakes on it. All the world's Trillionaires are aligned against him and they're ultimately the ones controlling the Dem party.

It's fairly clear what's going here after an unprecedented 12k deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries have occurred from these shots, and not only does it continue, it's being forced down people throats. The intent is obvious.

It's a power grab. Certainly far removed from actual science and medicine. My doctor friends tell me the same thing but they are all up the creek if they disobey because their licenses will get pulled.

[SPUTTER]

I have to say that's quite a theory you got there Trapped, because the "field testing" can ultimately end up in every person that took the shot dying within a short time. I'm positive that the people who initiated this policy of mass vaccination with an unproven technology knew the risk. That only leads me to believe that the intent was malevolent given the fact that there were safe alternatives available that they chose to suppress.

[Sousuke]

Saw on CNN. You have a better chance of surviving covid if you are vaccinated. 25X better odds than an unvaxed person. But what do those numbers look like?

Odds of not dying from covid if you are vaxed........ 99.999%
Odds of not dying from covid if you are NOT vaxed..99.974%

So getting vaxed gives you a 0.024% better odds of surviving covid over an unvaxed person. And this is from CNN trying to push and scare people into taking the vax.

Which is why the vaccine might be a logical choice for many, because those numbers above are a population average I presume.

For instance if you look at ages you'll get a greater impact.

For 50 to 54 year olds its 0.36% chance of fatality
Up to 74.5 its 2.17% etc., up to 84 it starts hitting 5%

[SPUTTER]

I used to think that Trump was playing 4D chess but none of that stuff panned out. Covid and the various reactions to it are way beyond anything directly related to Trump. Trump's presidency may have been a catalyst for all the "Great Reset" plans to be initiated but I doubt he could have created a plan to put the brakes on it. All the world's Trillionaires are aligned against him and they're ultimately the ones controlling the Dem party.

I've always wondered who told Trump about HCQ because I know that wasn't something he thought up himself. He was touting that early on.

[spectralhunter]

I have to say that's quite a theory you got there Trapped, because the "field testing" can ultimately end up in every person that took the shot dying within a short time. I'm positive that the people who initiated this policy of mass vaccination with an unproven technology knew the risk. That only leads me to believe that the intent was malevolent given the fact that there were safe alternatives available that they chose to suppress.

[sd_shooter]

Benefits:
- It might reduce severe symptoms

Costs:
- Potential nerve damage, Bell's Palsy
- Potential blood clots
- Potential Enlarged Heart
- Potential ADE
- Potential sterility in women
- Potential loss of pregnancy
- Potential Guillain-Barre syndrome

Sounds great, where do I get my "free" shot?!!

[five.five-six]

Benefits:
- It might reduce severe symptoms

Costs:
- Potential nerve damage, Bell's Palsy
- Potential blood clots
- Potential Enlarged Heart
- Potential ADE
- Potential sterility in women
- Potential loss of pregnancy
- Potential Guillain-Barre syndrome

Sounds great, where do I get my "free" shot?!!

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I have to say that's quite a theory you got there Trapped, because the "field testing" can ultimately end up in every person that took the shot dying within a short time. I'm positive that the people who initiated this policy of mass vaccination with an unproven technology knew the risk. That only leads me to believe that the intent was malevolent given the fact that there were safe alternatives available that they chose to suppress.

I’m also having to side with this more. If the vaccine was a test for an universal cure, that’s utterly evil. It was sold as a vaccine for covid. You take the average person and no one would say they thought the vaccine was a field test for universal vaccines.

It’s a bit disingenuous to say that it really wasn’t about stopping covid specifically.

All that’s happening is a coverup. It’s pretty clear. Although I still think the vaccines still offer benefits to certain groups...

You guys keep 'interpreting' what I'm saying and coming up with something I didn't say.

They aren't field testing an actual "universal vaccine" or "universal anti-viral." That is what they are pursuing as the 'Holy Grail' or pot of gold. Note what I said...

...Whether those methods actually work in the case of COVID is a secondary, not primary, concern in the grand scheme of things. It's not necessarily based on nefarious intent. I'm sure they HOPE things work out; not only for the sake of those impacted, but for the sake of their continuing research. The primary concern, however, is exactly what we're seeing... data collection on effectiveness, side effects, efficacy to variants, short-/medium-/long-term effects, etc. Once again, that doesn't have to require pathological intent. It depends on what you see as the "Greater Good." In other words, a prophylaxis treatment used against COVID is not the same thing as a prophylaxis treatment for COVID specifically. (Just like Hydroxychloroquine and other drugs aren't COVID-specific drugs either.)...

Right now, they still feel they can 'hide' or 'stand' behind numbers. Such represents a "hope" as much as empiricism; i.e., an hope that their efforts over the last 40 years haven't led them to an impasse in terms of their quest. Yet, as we know, those numbers are increasingly being called into question empirically and intuitively. In a very real sense, we are reaching a point where their 'data collection' is going to have to be turned into an actual effort directed at COVID specifically. Whether that sounds worse than the overly simplistic "they are evil and are in it for the money/power" will depend on how committed you are to your own premises...

What they are 'testing' is the efficacy of where they are currently at. If it works as they HOPE, it's an indication that they are on the right track in their research efforts. Given that the COVID virus was PART of that research, it's reasonable to assume they had 'expectations' that there would be some effectiveness. As has been established, "some" is the key word. There has been (or claimed to be) SOME effectiveness in terms of lessening the symptoms and, thus, lowering the hospitalization and mortality rates. What we know (or think we know) is that the jury is still out on the accuracy of that assessment/claim.

More directly, I never said that it "wasn’t about stopping covid specifically." I said, in the grand scheme of things, stopping COVID wasn't the primary goal. Remember, I specifically said...

The pandemic was seen as either an opportunity to field test vaccines/treatments they currently have or, for some in the medical industry, the politicians, and the media, the vaccines/treatments were seen as (either through their own knowledge or via persuasion or both), potentially, the 'best' available countermeasures at the moment.

Just as with military weapons/ammunition and how we 'supply' what are 'new' variants to a given side in a conflict to 'field test' them in a 'real world scenario,' it's not about "let's see how many will die because they don't work." It's about, in the grand scheme, making sure or gaining a level of confidence that they DO work as intended before relying on them to defend yourself. In a sense, YOU guys are the ones arguing that they KNEW all along that this stuff doesn't work and are therefore EVIL individuals. (As I noted, it will depend on how committed you are to your own premises and as I have maintained all along, I don't see so much nefarious intent involved as I do 'poor decision making.')

Now that we (and they) are realizing the point they were at in their research isn't as 'advanced' as they thought/hoped it was and their 'treatment' isn't as efficacious as they anticipated in relation to the COVID virus, they have had to 'buy time' to more directly focus on COVID specifically. That is most likely why you have a prophylaxis treatment in the form of 'vaccines' that, as the OP article notes, were "Designed To Prevent Death — Not Infection." It's why you now have the FDA 'approving' other treatments, including treatments which, heretofore, they denied having evidence of working.

As I said...

In a nutshell, I don't believe the current pandemic is sourced in "evil intent;" just 'bad decisions' made in the interest of something which has proven to be more akin to a McGuffin than an actual "Holy Grail." But, as we often note, the 'cover up' is usually worse than the 'crime' and I certainly feel that there are things for which, ahem, 'certain parties' need to be held accountable.

You can read 'bad decisions' as including 'ill-advised' in the sense of being a bit too optimistic in their risk/benefit analyses. The fact that they are now practicing CYA and such is costing lives, crippling economies, etc., not to mention delaying actual treatments specifically focused on the current virus rather than an 'hoped for,' all-purpose, anti-viral as it currently exists (and has probably demonstrated a certain level of effectiveness in a lab), is where the actual 'nefariousness' comes into play. I suspect this is a major part of the frustration for the legitimate doctors who have tried to push alternative treatments which, in their first-hand experience, were proving themselves to be 'successful' or more so than what was being 'approved' for use.

[LBDamned]

Which is why the vaccine might be a logical choice for many, because those numbers above are a population average I presume.

For instance if you look at ages you'll get a greater impact.

For 50 to 54 year olds its 0.36% chance of fatality
Up to 74.5 its 2.17% etc., up to 84 it starts hitting 5%

Existing health plays a big role too... the reason older are higher risk is because more of them aren't as healthy as younger- but that doesn't mean all older aren't healthy.

this is why it is a personal choice. The 'one size fits all' tactic is bullchit.

Having that been said - none of this overreaction is about the illness anyway... but Americans love drama and covid brought plenty of it... its absolutely not ending anytime soon.