FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole ?
Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck no, they can keep their vaids to themselves!" I think that you mis-spelled "covaids". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know " Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? " It's a choice for each individual to make to get vaxed or not dosnt alter anything for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? " same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation." If they started talking about vaccinations I’d think this meet isn’t going very well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation." But how would you know they weren't just telling you what you wanted to hear. eg I could say, no I've not been vaxed when I had been, how could you prove it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation. If they started talking about vaccinations I’d think this meet isn’t going very well." This!!! Vaccination is not usually a conversation opener. Maybe it is. Maybe that would improve my chances…!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity!" Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? " I think an extremely small minority wouldn't because i have seen profiles stating they won't meet unvaxxed members,not many though,plus they may have changed they opinion now. Also,I notice some members do state that they double jabbed and boosted,I don't know why they'd state that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people." An excellent summary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vaccination is not usually a conversation opener." This. How you run your body is your business. But if you get in my face with a rant (either way) when we’ve just met, then you’re likely to fail the Loony Test and get swerved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Presuming everyone has responsible sex and uses condoms what's exactly the issue ? " Those spike proteins are tricksy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? " It's not something I would even think to ask or expect to come up in conversation. If my vaccination status is so important to them we're unlikely to be compatible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? It's not something I would even think to ask or expect to come up in conversation. If my vaccination status is so important to them we're unlikely to be compatible. " This  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. "Haha,well it is fact,the term antivaxxer was around long before covid existed. It's easy to fool someone but not as easy to convince someone they've been fooled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If unvaxed people in real life are like certain people on here, no I wouldn't have sex with them. (But that's because they'd be too busy furiously researching TaxiUKBrexitGrandpa101s youtube series on the links between Convid, the scamdemic, lizard people & the faked moon landings.)" The fact that people have to link legitimate concerns to lizard people and faked moon landings says you have zero argument against legit concerns. Have the jabs caused death? Yes they have, have they caused injuries, again yes! that is without a doubt fact. Now it's up to the beloved science that you all love to worship when it suits you to determine how much injury and death these have caused. The vaccine zealots are just as bad in thise case as those who spout ridiculous shit about 5g. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If unvaxed people in real life are like certain people on here, no I wouldn't have sex with them. (But that's because they'd be too busy furiously researching TaxiUKBrexitGrandpa101s youtube series on the links between Convid, the scamdemic, lizard people & the faked moon landings.)The fact that people have to link legitimate concerns to lizard people and faked moon landings says you have zero argument against legit concerns. Have the jabs caused death? Yes they have, have they caused injuries, again yes! that is without a doubt fact. Now it's up to the beloved science that you all love to worship when it suits you to determine how much injury and death these have caused. The vaccine zealots are just as bad in thise case as those who spout ridiculous shit about 5g." That proves it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If unvaxed people in real life are like certain people on here, no I wouldn't have sex with them. (But that's because they'd be too busy furiously researching TaxiUKBrexitGrandpa101s youtube series on the links between Convid, the scamdemic, lizard people & the faked moon landings.)The fact that people have to link legitimate concerns to lizard people and faked moon landings says you have zero argument against legit concerns. Have the jabs caused death? Yes they have, have they caused injuries, again yes! that is without a doubt fact. Now it's up to the beloved science that you all love to worship when it suits you to determine how much injury and death these have caused. The vaccine zealots are just as bad in thise case as those who spout ridiculous shit about 5g. That proves it!" proves what !- | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If unvaxed people in real life are like certain people on here, no I wouldn't have sex with them. (But that's because they'd be too busy furiously researching TaxiUKBrexitGrandpa101s youtube series on the links between Convid, the scamdemic, lizard people & the faked moon landings.)The fact that people have to link legitimate concerns to lizard people and faked moon landings says you have zero argument against legit concerns. Have the jabs caused death? Yes they have, have they caused injuries, again yes! that is without a doubt fact. Now it's up to the beloved science that you all love to worship when it suits you to determine how much injury and death these have caused. The vaccine zealots are just as bad in thise case as those who spout ridiculous shit about 5g. That proves it! proves what !-" Something about lizard people, probably. Who knows? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't saw anyone link lizard people to covid in any thread on here. Yet it's the go to insult to try and diminish anything and anyone who goes against the view that the vaccines aren't all that great. I thought the conspiracy "nuts" were supposed to be showing the cult like behavior. All hail our lord and savior Pfizer!" The vaccines are simply vaccines. People can read up on how they work from a trusted source if they wish. I always recommend that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation." Not sure anyone has asked me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? " Seriously, does it matter any more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation." Really, because no one ever lies on Fab eh  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have sex with someone unvaccinated with a condom" And if they were vaccinated, would you not bother with a condom? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact people even ask this question just shows how stupid some people are. "Yep, completely devoid of critical thinking skills, knowledge and rationality. Moronic thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have sex with someone unvaccinated with a condom And if they were vaccinated, would you not bother with a condom?" I practice safe sex so regardless if they're were vaccinated or not I wear a condom and yes I would have sex with someone unvaccinated bareback (depending on their STI results being negative of course) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d have sex with anyone, I’m not fussy " Pulse optional? lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d have sex with anyone, I’m not fussy Pulse optional? lol" Any holes a goal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d have sex with anyone, I’m not fussy Pulse optional? lol Any holes a goal " Wish I hadn't asked now lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people." Very well said  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Presuming everyone has responsible sex and uses condoms what's exactly the issue ? " I know that some would argue the vaccine is no protection against covid but i feel obliged to inform you that there is no debate about condoms … they definitely aren’t  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation.Not sure anyone has asked me " I would imagine for most it comes down to a values thing. As many have said they don’t go around asking are you vaccinated but if it cane up in conversation or they were clear anti vax in forum posts it might sway your opinion A bit like i don’t ask people if they are racist or homophobic before i meet them, having sex with them wouldn’t make me catch it, but if i happened to witness it , it likely would make me think differently of them and be a turn off | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation.Not sure anyone has asked me I would imagine for most it comes down to a values thing. As many have said they don’t go around asking are you vaccinated but if it cane up in conversation or they were clear anti vax in forum posts it might sway your opinion A bit like i don’t ask people if they are racist or homophobic before i meet them, having sex with them wouldn’t make me catch it, but if i happened to witness it , it likely would make me think differently of them and be a turn off " Theres a difference between being anti covid vaccine, and being 'anti vax'. Regardless, if either position swayed people away from meeting someone then thats a pretty pathetic state of affairs to be honest. Akin to not meeting someone because they wear blue socks on a Tuesday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation.Not sure anyone has asked me I would imagine for most it comes down to a values thing. As many have said they don’t go around asking are you vaccinated but if it cane up in conversation or they were clear anti vax in forum posts it might sway your opinion A bit like i don’t ask people if they are racist or homophobic before i meet them, having sex with them wouldn’t make me catch it, but if i happened to witness it , it likely would make me think differently of them and be a turn off Theres a difference between being anti covid vaccine, and being 'anti vax'. Regardless, if either position swayed people away from meeting someone then thats a pretty pathetic state of affairs to be honest. Akin to not meeting someone because they wear blue socks on a Tuesday " Its not really , everyone has their own place on a spectrum and range of values and they are completely entitled to to decide to meet other people depending on where they see them on those spectrums Some dont meet blondes, some dont meet people who go to gang bangs, some dont meet tories , some dont meet people who cheat The list goes on and people can have whatever reasons they like for thinking you wouldn’t be compatible for a meet , including your stance in a covid vaccine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation.Not sure anyone has asked me I would imagine for most it comes down to a values thing. As many have said they don’t go around asking are you vaccinated but if it cane up in conversation or they were clear anti vax in forum posts it might sway your opinion A bit like i don’t ask people if they are racist or homophobic before i meet them, having sex with them wouldn’t make me catch it, but if i happened to witness it , it likely would make me think differently of them and be a turn off Theres a difference between being anti covid vaccine, and being 'anti vax'. Regardless, if either position swayed people away from meeting someone then thats a pretty pathetic state of affairs to be honest. Akin to not meeting someone because they wear blue socks on a Tuesday Its not really , everyone has their own place on a spectrum and range of values and they are completely entitled to to decide to meet other people depending on where they see them on those spectrums Some dont meet blondes, some dont meet people who go to gang bangs, some dont meet tories , some dont meet people who cheat The list goes on and people can have whatever reasons they like for thinking you wouldn’t be compatible for a meet , including your stance in a covid vaccine " Yes, they can of course. Nobody is disputing that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? It's not something I would even think to ask or expect to come up in conversation. If my vaccination status is so important to them we're unlikely to be compatible. " Exactly this, my vaccination status, dietary requirements, religion ect aren't really topics that come up while planning a meet, if the other party push the issue then to be honest we won't be compatible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". Perfectly put. Unfortunately the BBC don't help. People protesting about being injured and now being called anti vaxxers lol. They took the vaccine shot. How are they anti vaxxers? They just need help/support for the various reactions... "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation. If they started talking about vaccinations I’d think this meet isn’t going very well." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people." Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks.. "So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated??? I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it. It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses. And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated. Works both ways | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? " Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Presuming everyone has responsible sex and uses condoms what's exactly the issue ? " Condoms and face masks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed " Pretty sure that's not true...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed " What the fuck?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed " WTAF??? Even if it was true, this is no different from spiking someone drink! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed " I hope this isn’t the case it would mean a lot of people unwillingly knowing have been a exposed to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation." No it would be all the metal in the room sticking to them now they have become magnetised by the vaccine of course! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed " I thought it passed the spunk protein on and the unspunked become spunked.
That's why I double bag little Winston. I'm not stupid.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? Yes because it passes the spike protein on and the unvaxxed become vaxxed Pretty sure that's not true......" Really ? That's pretty much what the antivaxxers experts say in YouTube... You mean antivaxxers lie | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people." This...exactly this. And it never ceases to amaze us how many people were taken in by the language. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks.. "There was some unvaxxed people pressurising others not to get the vaccine I agree,however,most unvaxxed i knew including myself did not try to sway people from getting vaccinated,we were pro choice,your body your choice...its a shame us "antivaxxers" weren't given the same treatment. You just tarnished all unvaxxed with the same brush. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways "The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time. "You seem to have gone off on a tangent. The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it. We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time. You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant. They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes. And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic. Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that!" Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No way would I have unprotected sex with a vaccinated person, the spike proteins that have been proven to accumulated in the ovaries and testies from the vaccinated are enough to say no thanks" I have some things in my time but the mind boggles at this. Can you give a quick explanation how this happens? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No way would I have unprotected sex with a vaccinated person, the spike proteins that have been proven to accumulated in the ovaries and testies from the vaccinated are enough to say no thanks" “Proven” Citations please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nuts to all this serious chat, what's everyone's favorite Mr blobby moments? " That bit where Mr Blobby got a vaccine then ended up with all these yellow spots all over him! Then his voice went all strange & his balance got fucked up too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Agree perfectly put " (I'm guessing that wasn't in response to my Blobby post lol.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No way would I have unprotected sex with a vaccinated person, the spike proteins that have been proven to accumulated in the ovaries and testies from the vaccinated are enough to say no thanks" Utter nonsense. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No way would I have unprotected sex with a vaccinated person, the spike proteins that have been proven to accumulated in the ovaries and testies from the vaccinated are enough to say no thanks" Do the spikey proteins hurt? This is very worrying. It hasn't been on the news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No way would I have unprotected sex with a vaccinated person, the spike proteins that have been proven to accumulated in the ovaries and testies from the vaccinated are enough to say no thanks" So what do they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that! Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. " There are a national shortage of employees so no shortage of job opportunities. If you work in close proximity to vulnerable groups then I believe it was right to expect you to get vaccinated or have a change of career. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it.
We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time.
You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant.
They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes.
And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic.
Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority!". How would one go about testing the effectiveness against transmission? Did you expect Pfizer to deliberately infect 100’s of people with a potentially fatal disease and then put them controlled environments exposing thousands to see how many more get infected. What a dumb argument! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that! Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. There are a national shortage of employees so no shortage of job opportunities. If you work in close proximity to vulnerable groups then I believe it was right to expect you to get vaccinated or have a change of career. " Even though the vaccine only ever reduced sickness as opposed to transmission? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that! Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. There are a national shortage of employees so no shortage of job opportunities. If you work in close proximity to vulnerable groups then I believe it was right to expect you to get vaccinated or have a change of career. Even though the vaccine only ever reduced sickness as opposed to transmission? " Does it not, care to point me to evidence that supports your belief? The quote wildly circulated by those opposed to vaccination is the Phizer exec who said something along the lines of “we haven't tested reduction in transmission” That is rather different from proof that the vaccines do not reduce transmission. Indeed it is rather difficult to prove effect on transmission without deliberately infecting test subjects and exposing a large number other test subject to the infected in a controlled environment that replicates real world exposure. The transmission rate is really quite low so for statically valid data the number of replications and people you would have to intentionally infect or expose would be very high. So high I believe that the probably of fatalities occurring within one’s test subjects would be almost certain… My hypotheses would be far fewer copies of a virus will be made in (and therefore shed from) a body with an immune system that is quick to respond and counter a pathogen than one in which the virus gets a foothold. The virus in the environment the more opportunity there is for it to find a new susceptible host. To put it another way, being vaccinated means you are less likely to become infected, knowingly or unknowingly. If you are not infected you can not transmit it on to anyone else. Vaccination efforts for other diseases have been very successful though the combination of individual protection and the resulting reduced prevalence of the pathogen within the population. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No way would I have unprotected sex with a vaccinated person, the spike proteins that have been proven to accumulated in the ovaries and testies from the vaccinated are enough to say no thanks" I have questions..... Are either of you/which of you/both of you vaccinated? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that! Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. There are a national shortage of employees so no shortage of job opportunities. If you work in close proximity to vulnerable groups then I believe it was right to expect you to get vaccinated or have a change of career. " Why should they have lost their jobs? I know people who have worked in care for 30+ years and dedicated their lives to their jobs, but for their own reasons did not want to take the vacinne, therfore lost their jobs!!!! The vacinne DID NOT stop transmission, so absolutely no needs for people who didn't want to have it, regardless of their jobs, to be forced to have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it.
We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time.
You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant.
They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes.
And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic.
Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority!.
How would one go about testing the effectiveness against transmission? Did you expect Pfizer to deliberately infect 100’s of people with a potentially fatal disease and then put them controlled environments exposing thousands to see how many more get infected. What a dumb argument!"Didn't the government do just that in April 2021? Held events to see how many people would test positive following no social distancing or mask wearing at said evenets. And let's not forget they allowed Cheltenham and many other events to go ahead in March 2021, super spreaders I believe they called them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it.
We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time.
You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant.
They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes.
And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic.
Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority!.
How would one go about testing the effectiveness against transmission? Did you expect Pfizer to deliberately infect 100’s of people with a potentially fatal disease and then put them controlled environments exposing thousands to see how many more get infected. What a dumb argument!
Didn't the government do just that in April 2021? Held events to see how many people would test positive following no social distancing or mask wearing at said evenets.
And let's not forget they allowed Cheltenham and many other events to go ahead in March 2021, super spreaders I believe they called them.
"Well government are not scientific researchers so no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that! Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. There are a national shortage of employees so no shortage of job opportunities. If you work in close proximity to vulnerable groups then I believe it was right to expect you to get vaccinated or have a change of career. Why should they have lost their jobs? I know people who have worked in care for 30+ years and dedicated their lives to their jobs, but for their own reasons did not want to take the vacinne, therfore lost their jobs!!!! The vacinne DID NOT stop transmission, so absolutely no needs for people who didn't want to have it, regardless of their jobs, to be forced to have it." I’m not sure what a vacinne is? The vaccines (plural) do stop transmission! Unfortunately they do not provide 100% protection but those who are vaccinated are less likely to be infected and you can’t transmit a disease you are not infected by. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and people always did have a choice, your own decision is evidence of that! Many people didn't have a choice!!!! Otherwise they would have lost their jobs. There are a national shortage of employees so no shortage of job opportunities. If you work in close proximity to vulnerable groups then I believe it was right to expect you to get vaccinated or have a change of career. Why should they have lost their jobs? I know people who have worked in care for 30+ years and dedicated their lives to their jobs, but for their own reasons did not want to take the vacinne, therfore lost their jobs!!!! The vacinne DID NOT stop transmission, so absolutely no needs for people who didn't want to have it, regardless of their jobs, to be forced to have it. I’m not sure what a vacinne is? The vaccines (plural) do stop transmission! Unfortunately they do not provide 100% protection but those who are vaccinated are less likely to be infected and you can’t transmit a disease you are not infected by. " We obviously have different views, which is absolutely fine. I'll agree to disagree and leave it there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" and you can’t transmit a disease you are not infected by. " You can, and even if you were infected, you could be asymptomatic with it none the less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it.
We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time.
You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant.
They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes.
And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic.
Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority!.
How would one go about testing the effectiveness against transmission? Did you expect Pfizer to deliberately infect 100’s of people with a potentially fatal disease and then put them controlled environments exposing thousands to see how many more get infected. What a dumb argument!"It doesn't matter how they go about it,that's what trials are for,the point is they never stated that it didn't stop transmission,but your government spent millions on advertisements everywhere saying "don't get it for you,get it for others" which clearly is fake advertisement because Pfizer did not test for transmission. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Presuming everyone has responsible sex and uses condoms what's exactly the issue ? " I thought you could catch Covid by kissing ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it.
We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time.
You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant.
They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes.
And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic.
Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority!.
How would one go about testing the effectiveness against transmission? Did you expect Pfizer to deliberately infect 100’s of people with a potentially fatal disease and then put them controlled environments exposing thousands to see how many more get infected. What a dumb argument!
It doesn't matter how they go about it,that's what trials are for,the point is they never stated that it didn't stop transmission,but your government spent millions on advertisements everywhere saying "don't get it for you,get it for others" which clearly is fake advertisement because Pfizer did not test for transmission."I guess because you've taken the words of a quote out of context that you're anti vax ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity! Someone who's unvaxxed against covid is not an "antivaxxer". "Antivaxxer" was used by the media and powers that be to demonise people who wouldn't get the covid vaccine. An antivaxxer is someone who's against all vaccines,most people who were unvaccinated against covid were not against all vaccines. "Antivaxxer" was used to create division and guilt trip people into getting the vaccination...to pressurise people. Meanwhile even before they got labelled antivaxxers, be they anti covid vaccination or anti all vaccination, they were out pressurising vulnerable people into not getting vaccinated.. The division was there before any name was assigned to it! If it offends you so perhaps it would be helpful if those pro vaccination but anti covid vaccination invent a new term to separate themselves from the full quacks..
So you believe that all people who decided not to have the covid vacinnes were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated???
I'm not vacinnated, but I didn't pressurise any of my family members or friends not to get it.
It was THEIR decision to make, nobody elses.
And let's not forget the pressure the governement, and many others put on absolutely everyone, even children, to get vacinnated.
Works both ways
The government was under scientific advice that vaccination was the right option. As such the health authorities had a duty of care to implement as complete a vaccination program as reasonably possible. You might not believe or trust the system but government has certain responsibilities and duties. So no, it doesn’t work both ways. Whatever government does, it will never please everyone, on this issue it displeases you. In the eyes of most voters encouraging high vaccine uptake was the right thing so do, at least based on what was known at the time.
You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The poster I replied to insinuated that everyone unvaccinated were pressurising vulnerable people to not get vacinnated. I merely stated that a lot of people, including the government, vilified anyone who did not want to take the vacinne. So my comment "it works both ways" is valid, as people who weren't vaccinated were pressurised constantly to get the vacinne. I have two family members who didn't want to have the vacinne but felt they had to because they were told they would lose their jobs if they didn't get it.
We all have our own opinions of everything Covid related, based on our own circumstances and the family and friends we had around us at the time.
You say the governement were following scientific advice? Pfizer has openly admitted their vacinne was not tested against transmission. The government repeatedly changed their moto to suit; get vacinnated to protect your family, friends and colleagues. Get vacinnated if you want to travel. Get vacinnated if you want to go to a restaurant.
They knew it didn't stop transmission, so why push so hard? Tantamount to blackm%*l in our eyes.
And let's not forget it didn't stop them partying when we were only allowed out of our house for an hours exercise a day, unless of course you were, like us, people who still had to work throughout the pandemic.
Think you'll find what the government did displeased an awful lot of people, so please do single us out, we're not in the minority!.
How would one go about testing the effectiveness against transmission? Did you expect Pfizer to deliberately infect 100’s of people with a potentially fatal disease and then put them controlled environments exposing thousands to see how many more get infected. What a dumb argument!
It doesn't matter how they go about it,that's what trials are for,the point is they never stated that it didn't stop transmission,but your government spent millions on advertisements everywhere saying "don't get it for you,get it for others" which clearly is fake advertisement because Pfizer did not test for transmission.
I guess because you've taken the words of a quote out of context that you're anti vax ?"I'm not anti-vax pal,that would indicate that I'm against all vaccines...which I'm not,but I have explained this higher up in the quote,you either haven't took it on board or you flat out refuse to which means you're brainwashed. Also,did your government not promote that slogan "dont get it for yourself,get it for others" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not going be on the news as then people wouldn't take it, spike proteins attach themselves to our cells opening up the flood gates for cancers, free radicals etc. This is not a vaccine but an mrna injection recoding our dna. The main stream news is not showing the data on young healthy althetes dying around the world, at present there is roughly 3000 excess deaths a week occurring in the UK alone with many European countries reporting the same but no one in government wants to talk about the massive elephant in the room (vaccine)our nhs is struggling with the vaccinated becoming ill not the unvaccinated. "
Utter nonsense. On every level.
Winston
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not going be on the news as then people wouldn't take it, spike proteins attach themselves to our cells opening up the flood gates for cancers, free radicals etc. This is not a vaccine but an mrna injection recoding our dna. The main stream news is not showing the data on young healthy althetes dying around the world, at present there is roughly 3000 excess deaths a week occurring in the UK alone with many European countries reporting the same but no one in government wants to talk about the massive elephant in the room (vaccine)our nhs is struggling with the vaccinated becoming ill not the unvaccinated. " Citations, papers, journal articles?? Any reputable sources for any of this? No? You've obviously attended Facebook University. Or was it YouTube Polytechnic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? " how could you tell if they had been jabbed or not,,, the jabbed ones dont chance colour for pink to bright red | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? how could you tell if they had been jabbed or not,,, the jabbed ones dont chance colour for pink to bright red "No but maybe purple in a few months though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My own research and nothing to do with Facebook or YouTube as they censor the truth, by all means don't believe me but one day you will have no choice but to believe, turn bbc off for a while and start having a look around yourself lol" As previously requested, do you have any citations, papers, journal articles or reputable sources for where you did your own research? I'd certainly like to read it. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't know how you would know. I wouldn't be particularly turned on if I found out they were a conspiracy theorist though. I dont talk politics, religion and conspiracies with meets as it can turn me off quicker then a light switch "That is why I like a lots off oral play. To keep all mouth busy enough to don’t talk to much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not here to spoon feed the brain dead information, especially when the information they get is only from the main stream media that are paid to regurgitate what the government, Bill Gates and the WEF pay them to publish. If you believe a virus that has a 99.7 per cent survival rate is going to kill you and you need an unlicensed poison put in your body, well I do sometimes agree with their depopulation plan. Look a little further than the end of your nose and connect the dots. As for citations etc all platforms including Google censor the truth as again they are paid to do so. " Bravo,perfectly put. But it won't work,they too brainwashed on here,even when I've presented facts via links in other threads that nobody can get away from,the doubters disappear from the thread,now they either don't want to check to be proved wrong or they checked and don't want to admit they've been fooled. Some are too far gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would vaxed pepole have sex with un vaxed pepole or the other way round ? It's not something I would even think to ask or expect to come up in conversation. If my vaccination status is so important to them we're unlikely to be compatible. This "Agree. Overthinkers aint gonna make fun swingers IMO | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would you ever know? same as vegans, antivaxxers will normally tell you at the first opportunity!" It’s a red flag for me. Not that someone hasn’t been vaccinated , that’s of little interest or importance to me But if they’re gonna make a point to tell me and then likely start taking about 5G or lizards, they ain’t for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support " One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. " So on the .gov.uk website it stated that "the covid virus was not high risk". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not here to spoon feed the brain dead information, especially when the information they get is only from the main stream media that are paid to regurgitate what the government, Bill Gates and the WEF pay them to publish. If you believe a virus that has a 99.7 per cent survival rate is going to kill you and you need an unlicensed poison put in your body, well I do sometimes agree with their depopulation plan. Look a little further than the end of your nose and connect the dots. As for citations etc all platforms including Google censor the truth as again they are paid to do so. " Where do you get your citations/information from? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where do you get your citations/information from? Winston " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where do you get your citations/information from? Winston "It's only the 3rd time I've asked.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube " I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. " It doesn't make it right either! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. " Youd agree that it doesn't make it right either though, yes? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. Youd agree that it doesn't make it right either though, yes? Winston " I'm not the one throwing the insults around about YouTube "research" but yes, I'd agree that. Turns out even "official" information we were told was correct was also wrong though, supposedly from the people "following the science". Which in itself is a ridiculous phrase. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. " You could have been buggered though if some fecker had deliberately loaded up a car video that gave you all the wrong info. There would be nothing to stop me for instance making some video about a "miracle additive" to put in your petrol that would "improve engine efficiency". I could make it look really convincing if I put a bit of money into it, and give it a load of fake reviews and shit. Say how this is stuff the oil industry doesn't want you to know about. By the time people's engines start seizing up I could have fucked off with the £10 million that I'd made. Yup, just because something is on youtube it doesn't make it wrong. But also absolutely any scammer can load stuff up there, there is zero fact checking by the youtube corporation. It is totally your responsibility to do your fact checking, not by looking at other youtube channels, but by comparing the claims made against proper reputable sources that are acknowledged my the majority of human beings, and against your own sense of the reality of the universe! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How would anyone know Just a wild guess, but I would assume it would be via the means of a conversation." But, but people fib | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. So on the .gov.uk website it stated that "the covid virus was not high risk". " https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. You could have been buggered though if some fecker had deliberately loaded up a car video that gave you all the wrong info. There would be nothing to stop me for instance making some video about a "miracle additive" to put in your petrol that would "improve engine efficiency". I could make it look really convincing if I put a bit of money into it, and give it a load of fake reviews and shit. Say how this is stuff the oil industry doesn't want you to know about. By the time people's engines start seizing up I could have fucked off with the £10 million that I'd made. Yup, just because something is on youtube it doesn't make it wrong. But also absolutely any scammer can load stuff up there, there is zero fact checking by the youtube corporation. It is totally your responsibility to do your fact checking, not by looking at other youtube channels, but by comparing the claims made against proper reputable sources that are acknowledged my the majority of human beings, and against your own sense of the reality of the universe!" This. ^^^ Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. So on the .gov.uk website it stated that "the covid virus was not high risk". https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID." I can guarantee that you have no idea about the information you have just copied and pasted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID." so what's your opinion and interpretation of the above, remember that this is almost 3 years after the date of the article you cut and pasted. Are you aware of the requirements for an HCID classification ? Can you explain the difference between HCID and Pandemic ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. So on the .gov.uk website it stated that "the covid virus was not high risk". https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID. I can guarantee that you have no idea about the information you have just copied and pasted." I did copy and paste it to prove its what the government was saying. Why do you feel the need to try and put me down?....is it so you don't have to acknowledge the above?,a kind of detraction? I understand it perfectly,but let's say I didn't,its still there in black and white on Gov.uk website....you can't get away from that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. So on the .gov.uk website it stated that "the covid virus was not high risk". https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID. I can guarantee that you have no idea about the information you have just copied and pasted. I did copy and paste it to prove its what the government was saying. Why do you feel the need to try and put me down?....is it so you don't have to acknowledge the above?,a kind of detraction? I understand it perfectly,but let's say I didn't,its still there in black and white on Gov.uk website....you can't get away from that." That is fine but I wouldn't just copy and paste something without understanding be able to defend my position if questioned about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID. so what's your opinion and interpretation of the above, remember that this is almost 3 years after the date of the article you cut and pasted. Are you aware of the requirements for an HCID classification ? Can you explain the difference between HCID and Pandemic ?" If you actually go on the link I pasted then you'll see it has been updated in 2023 and still the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least we're trying to spread the word, being doing so for 3 years now taken many knocks in doing so and if I can't wake them up to the fact their being killed off well I rest my case with my comment about depopulation. Thanks for your support One of my friends on here was banned from the forums for putting fact based information on here. The links my friend put on were all from gov.uk,about how many double vaxxed were dying,how pcr tests are basically not that accurate,and also that the covid virus was not high risk,my friend put the gov.uk links on and then was banned,we know who'll have got him banned,there's a core group of 4 to 5 who can't take it when the actual facts are put on for all to check,they can't take being wrong. So on the .gov.uk website it stated that "the covid virus was not high risk". https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs. The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase. The ACDP is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID. I can guarantee that you have no idea about the information you have just copied and pasted. I did copy and paste it to prove its what the government was saying. Why do you feel the need to try and put me down?....is it so you don't have to acknowledge the above?,a kind of detraction? I understand it perfectly,but let's say I didn't,its still there in black and white on Gov.uk website....you can't get away from that. That is fine but I wouldn't just copy and paste something without understanding be able to defend my position if questioned about it." I understand it,but why do I have to defend my position,just read it,I shouldn't have to explain,I put it on for people to read,hence the link. You're clearly just wanting me to explain and you'll be looking to trip me up somewhere,to belittle me so to speak,the facts are there...just read them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You tube I just changed some parts on my car using YouTube videos. Just cause something is on YouTube doesn't make it wrong. You could have been buggered though if some fecker had deliberately loaded up a car video that gave you all the wrong info. There would be nothing to stop me for instance making some video about a "miracle additive" to put in your petrol that would "improve engine efficiency". I could make it look really convincing if I put a bit of money into it, and give it a load of fake reviews and shit. Say how this is stuff the oil industry doesn't want you to know about. By the time people's engines start seizing up I could have fucked off with the £10 million that I'd made. Yup, just because something is on youtube it doesn't make it wrong. But also absolutely any scammer can load stuff up there, there is zero fact checking by the youtube corporation. It is totally your responsibility to do your fact checking, not by looking at other youtube channels, but by comparing the claims made against proper reputable sources that are acknowledged my the majority of human beings, and against your own sense of the reality of the universe!" Oh you mean sorta like Pfizer have done with the vaccine that does nothing 
That was a joke BTW, before I get 12 posts from the vaccine police telling me why I'm wrong.
I didn't claim all content on youtube was legit either, so save the essays. I'm also not the one using it as some sort of punchline to mock others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
