Vaccination logical inconsistencies and arguments

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
Apologies in advance for starting a new thread if not appropriate to do so, but I thought this might actually be helpful for some.

Despite my best efforts, I still find myself arguing with people about the hoax and trying to convince them.

What I'm looking for here is a list of all of the inconsistencies of the hoax and clear reasoned arguments that hi-light these inconsistencies in the brains of NPCs.
Though I shouldn't, I still find myself trying to convince these people.

I'll start with two:

Assertion: You need to be vaccinated to protect me.
Response: Are you vaccinated? If yes, then you shouldn't be worried about me. If you're implying that you can catch covid from me even though you are vaccinated, then this implies that I could catch covid somewhere even though I was vaccinated also, and then we could both be vaccinated but I could just pass it to you now anyway. You're basically saying that the vaccination is meaningless.

Assertion: The vaccines are safe and efficient and are not experimental.
Response: If mRNA technology is safe and efficient and the jab is safe and efficient, then how come no other vaccination or drug that uses this technology has been approved before? If the technology is as safe and efficient as you claim, how come there isn't a proliferation of medications using this technology? If the reason why we haven't seen any other drug using this technology before is the uncertainty around mRNA, then allowing these vaccinations to be used without going through the full normal approval process is literally the definition of experimenting. You can't have it both ways and say that the jab is safe and efficient and at the same time explain why we haven't had any other drug previously that used this technology actually be approved. Likewise, you can't say that the reason the jab is the first to use mRNA is because this is a novel technology and then at the same time claim that allowing this to be used without the standard multi-year testing and approval process isn't experimenting.
 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
Assertion: The vaccines are safe and efficient and are not experimental.
Response: If mRNA technology is safe and efficient and the jab is safe and efficient, then how come no other vaccination or drug that uses this technology has been approved before? If the technology is as safe and efficient as you claim, how come there isn't a proliferation of medications using this technology? If the reason why we haven't seen any other drug using this technology before is the uncertainty around mRNA, then allowing these vaccinations to be used without going through the full normal approval process is literally the definition of experimenting. You can't have it both ways and say that the jab is safe and efficient and at the same time explain why we haven't had any other drug previously that used this technology actually be approved. Likewise, you can't say that the reason the jab is the first to use mRNA is because this is a novel technology and then at the same time claim that allowing this to be used without the standard multi-year testing and approval process isn't experimenting.
[/QUOTE]

If they start to argue you can send them a link to their various authoritative news source (NBC):

choice quotes:

"For decades, vaccine researchers have been enchanted and frustrated with the promise of messenger RNA. The tiny snippets of genetic code are essential in telling cells to build proteins, a basic part of human physiology β€” and key to unleashing the immune system.

But they've been hard to tame, at least until the coronavirus spurred a global race to create a vaccine."

Now, both Pfizer and Moderna are testing their separate vaccine candidates that use messenger RNA, or mRNA, to trigger the immune system to produce protective antibodies without using actual bits of the virus. If the experimental coronavirus vaccines win approval from the Food and Drug Administration, they will be the first-ever authorized vaccines that use mRNA β€” a development that would not only turn the tide in this pandemic but could also unlock an entirely new line of vaccines against a variety of viruses.

The two experimental vaccines have some key differences that will likely affect who they are administered to and how they are distributed. But experts say promising early results from both camps could be a boon for the technology, which had made progress over nearly three decades but was long thought to be something of a pipe dream.

β€œThis was a brand new platform,” Dr. Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said. β€œThere were a lot of people who were skeptical that an mRNA vaccine would work. Scientifically, it makes sense, but there’s no mRNA vaccine out there that has been approved yet.”
 

Jjames

Unreconstructed
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
11,405 USA vax related deaths in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) data base as of July 16, 2021. A CDC whistle blower filed a Fed lawsuit alleging that the data bases she wrote algorithms for showed 46,000 vax caused deaths in the USA already.

1627554956300.png
 
Last edited:

CryptWorld

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
Prior to the vaccine being rolled out I thought it would be incredibly easy to argue against. "It's new technology, and it's barely been tested." I'm still amazed that they've managed to pivot away from this concern.

I think it's because they've turned it into an emotional argument, which is the clever psychology they've employed from the start. It wasn't "stay home, protect yourself", it was "stay home, protect others". With the vaccine it's still "protect others", even though it doesn't protect yourself or others. They're obviously well aware how people love to virtue signal regardless of facts, so they've used this to their advantage.

I've not yet had to argue the vaccine, but if I did, I'd still stick with the argument above. The person you're arguing against will no doubt attempt to steer it towards emotion, so you'll have to steer it back towards logic. However, a good example of something that combines logic and emotion is Thalidomide. I imagine it will be quite hard for them to keep the argument going on an emotional level when you start to discuss babies with birth defects because of lack of testing for a drug. I've mentally tried to preempt what they'd say to this, and I imagine they'd say something like "well, science has improved a lot since then." To that I'd say time in the 1950s is the same as time today.

The below is also a good chart, showing just how ridiculous this vaccine being released within 6 months actually is:

 

OrdinaryJewishFellow

Well-known member
Cave Beast
β°β˜•
Prior to the vaccine being rolled out I thought it would be incredibly easy to argue against. "It's new technology, and it's barely been tested." I'm still amazed that they've managed to pivot away from this concern.

I think it's because they've turned it into an emotional argument, which is the clever psychology they've employed from the start. It wasn't "stay home, protect yourself", it was "stay home, protect others". With the vaccine it's still "protect others", even though it doesn't protect yourself or others. They're obviously well aware how people love to virtue signal regardless of facts, so they've used this to their advantage.

I've not yet had to argue the vaccine, but if I did, I'd still stick with the argument above. The person you're arguing against will no doubt attempt to steer it towards emotion, so you'll have to steer it back towards logic. However, a good example of something that combines logic and emotion is Thalidomide. I imagine it will be quite hard for them to keep the argument going on an emotional level when you start to discuss babies with birth defects because of lack of testing for a drug. I've mentally tried to preempt what they'd say to this, and I imagine they'd say something like "well, science has improved a lot since then." To that I'd say time in the 1950s is the same as time today.

The below is also a good chart, showing just how ridiculous this vaccine being released within 6 months actually is:

I prefer pointing out that in the 30 years since the invention of mRNA vaccines, not once has one been approved for human use. "Too dangerous"
 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
Assertion: You need to trust the medical science.
Response: The number of drugs and medications that were approved by the FDA via after the standard multi-year testing and approval process but were then rapidly withdrawn after deaths is huge. We trusted the "medical science" with those and what was the outcome? And this was after the full standard multi-year testing and approval process. In some cases these drugs were pulled where the number of deaths or serious cases < 100. We now have literally 1000s of VAERS reports and the covid jab is still going.

 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
Assertion: You need to trust the medical science.
Response: The number of drugs and medications that were approved by the FDA via after the standard multi-year testing and approval process but were then rapidly withdrawn after deaths is huge. We trusted the "medical science" with those and what was the outcome? And this was after the full standard multi-year testing and approval process. In some cases these drugs were pulled where the number of deaths or serious cases < 100. We now have literally 1000s of VAERS reports and the covid jab is still going.

An example, from the link above:

"In 1996 the FDA approved dexfenfluramine, a derivative of fenfluramine, marketed as Redux by Wyeth, also as a diet drug. Its adverse side effects when combined with phentermine would mirror those of fenfluramine.

Over their time on the market, 6 millionπŸ™„ Americans took either Fen-Phen or Redux.

But gradually, as the FDA said in its withdrawal announcement, it became clear that these drugs were doing people's hearts no good at all.

In July of 1997, the Mayo Clinic reported 24 cases of heart valve problems in women who took the Fen-Phen combination. Turns out the FDA had received nine similar reports, and requested all physicians to report any other cases. The lawsuits began within weeks.

In a short time, the FDA had 66 more reports of heart valve issues correlated with Fen-Phen, plus reports of the issue in patients taking only fenfluramine or dexfenfluramine in isolation.

Soon doctors who had run echocardiograms on these patients, testing the functioning of the heart valves, and found that 30% had abnormal echocardiograms, even though they were asymptomatic.

The FDA had all the information it needed

Michael A. Friedman, M.D., the Lead Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, said, "These findings call for prompt action. The data we have obtained indicate that fenfluramine, and the chemically closely related dexfenfluramine, present an unacceptable risk at this time to patients who take them.”

Fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine were recalled in September of 1997, although phentermine was allowed to stay on the market."
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Escaped True Master
I prefer pointing out that in the 30 years since the invention of mRNA vaccines, not once has one been approved for human use. "Too dangerous"
I have been seeing propganda touting the raft of new MRNA VACCINES in the pipeline for eczema to cancer.

Jew man has figured it all out!

Until they didn't
 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
My body my choice.
It's a slogan good enough for murdering unborn children so it's good enough to refuse experimental injections.
They always counter that one with "a baby inside me has not impact on society at large but you need to vaccinate to protect others".
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Escaped True Master
They always counter that one with "a baby inside me has not impact on society at large but you need to vaccinate to protect others".
They conveniently forget the destruction of family and pandemic mental health issues related to murdering children.
It impacts us all on a monumental scale.

Jews convinced them otherwise
 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
They conveniently forget the destruction of family and pandemic mental health issues related to murdering children.
It impacts us all on a monumental scale.

Jews convinced them otherwise
Pretty much spot on...

Most shit-tier liberal women will tell you that the destruction of the family must happen because "patriarchy" and mental health issues only happen because some people think abortion is bad.
 

bean_ shooter

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
They always counter that one with "a baby inside me has not impact on society at large but you need to vaccinate to protect others".
I appreciate what you are trying to do here but we learned years ago that feelings don't care about logic.
These people made their choice and will not be convinced it was wrong.
All we can do is say "No" and watch as the vaxxed die off.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Escaped True Master
watch as the vaxxed die off.
If VAERS is correct in numbers of related deaths, how long can that damn hold back?

How long can the machine hold back a "die off" either it's not happening as VAERS is reporting?

I'm not wishing a die off...but I'm wishing a die off to prove my position.

Nothing else can stop these maniacs.
 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
If VAERS is correct in numbers of related deaths, how long can that damn hold back?

How long can the machine hold back a "die off" either it's not happening as VAERS is reporting?

I'm not wishing a die off...but I'm wishing a die off to prove my position.

Nothing else can stop these maniacs.
Ahhh yes, VAERS..... It does seem to be slightly inconvenient for them at the moment...

But Isn't another budget fight coming up?

My bet is that any day now the Republicans will demand that "wasteful VAERS be switched off to save tax-payer funds" and put forward a bill to have funding for it cut, the Dems will put on a show of "fighting for transparency", and then the Republicans will conviently win and make a song and dance (asking for donations, of course) to their base about "conservative fiscal values and look how well we negotiated with the Demonrats"!!
 

bean_ shooter

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
If VAERS is correct in numbers of related deaths, how long can that damn hold back?

How long can the machine hold back a "die off" either it's not happening as VAERS is reporting?

I'm not wishing a die off...but I'm wishing a die off to prove my position.

Nothing else can stop these maniacs.
Lots will die soon after getting it but those numbers can be manipulated and not reported so that most people will not know about it.
The real crime will be all the vaxxed that have a lifetime of medical complications that require expensive treatments.
Basically the "medical" industrial complex just made their own golden goose.
 

TTG

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Assertion: You need to be vaccinated to protect me.
Response: Are you vaccinated? If yes, then you shouldn't be worried about me. If you're implying that you can catch covid from me even though you are vaccinated, then this implies that I could catch covid somewhere even though I was vaccinated also, and then we could both be vaccinated but I could just pass it to you now anyway. You're basically saying that the vaccination is meaningless.
"if you're not vaccinated then COVID is gonna mutate in you and become super deadly and kill us all you Nazi scum"
 

JCEEZEE

It's getting harder and harder to be good goy πŸ₯΄
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
"if you're not vaccinated then COVID is gonna mutate in you and become super deadly and kill us all you Nazi scum"
Sure, however according to this:

E7U9wm5XoAMB1yf.jpg

It's the vaccinated who have higher levels of virus, and therefore represent more fertile ground for mutations.
 

FreeY

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Assertion: You're an anti vaxxer, a selfish threat that keeps us in lockdown etc etc...

Response: No. I've had all the usual childhood vaccines plus would certainly consider those recommended for foreign travel. I'm not a guinea pig for untested genetic manipulation the dangers of which are only just becoming clear.
 

Aryan Uprising

Corona Criminal
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Assertion: You need to be vaccinated to protect me.
Response: Are you vaccinated? If yes, then you shouldn't be worried about me. If you're implying that you can catch covid from me even though you are vaccinated...
Invalid straw man argument. You are making the wild assumption that the vaxx either does not work at all, or works 100%. Don't get into any arguments with pro-vaxxers taking this position.

The actual pro-vaxx position is that the vaxx is mostly effective, say 80%, at both reducing transmission and death/serious injury. It therefore follows that unvaxxed people can harm vaxxed people by greater transmission of the corona; even the vaxxed have some risk of death or injury, albeit much reduced, therefore the unvaxxed are foolish/ selfish/ hazardous to society.

Now, make an argument against that, not your straw man.
 

TTG

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
If you didn't understand, my posts are mocking the idea you can talk rational points with these people or most people in general.
 

Blackbeard

Lord of the Gulf Stream
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Invalid straw man argument. You are making the wild assumption that the vaxx either does not work at all, or works 100%. Don't get into any arguments with pro-vaxxers taking this position.

The actual pro-vaxx position is that the vaxx is mostly effective, say 80%, at both reducing transmission and death/serious injury. It therefore follows that unvaxxed people can harm vaxxed people by greater transmission of the corona; even the vaxxed have some risk of death or injury, albeit much reduced, therefore the unvaxxed are foolish/ selfish/ hazardous to society.

Now, make an argument against that, not your straw man.
Not having the vaxx at all has been PROVEN to be 99.5% effective at completely avoiding, not just reducing, death.
 
Top