Minute 16. Do you want us to believe people like this Joe is representative for the scientists that (mRNA hesitant) people listen to as a source of info? Antivaxxer you were when you were not fully vaccinated. Just a term yo polarize. Is this science? People who don't take the vaccine are not scared for the disease, the opposite, we all got fearmongering and those people didn't fear it. 24 times more adverse reactions per 100.000 mRNA compared to normal vaccines (264 vs 11). That is to be feared, a completely new platform to make vaccines. Only approved under emergency. The study by the pharmaceutical companies was very bad. Below 60 barely chance to die, not more than influenza, and correct me if I am wrong, they didn't test it on above 60. Also the vaccine that was rolled out was made in another way than in the trials. Talk about the DNA ( yes DNA) in the vaccine to be injected. WHO needs to address this, you scientists need to address this, imho.
It is not just anti-vaxxers that are the problem it those who are aggressively anti-science. We need to actively counter this destructive movement. I recommend the book "The Rise of Anti-science" by Dr Peter J. Hotez, where he explains the problem and advocates a solution.
When something prevents disease that may just mean that that something has the effect of covering up original symptoms. You may still be "infected" because the root cause of the disease was ignored therefore the disease is still present in the body and whatever caused the original symptoms has not been addressed, and the "vaccine" adds a new assault to the body that complicates things.
There's also this one reason why people should get vaccinated against sexually transmitted diseases: sadly, not all sexual contact is consensual. It can happen to anyone regardless of age, social status or any other factor.
Yikes, makes me even more vaccine hesitant. Because of people like Vincent, not only am I now anti-vaccine, but will not vaccinate my pets...thank you for your service!!!
This author is not portraying the outcomes in accordance with scientific method. Ask this guy… why he did not cite research or results, subject to: 1: controls for un-vaxxed 2: comparison between intro of the Covid Event (2-weeks to flatten the curve) 2020 March vs 2021 March with the introduction of the synthetic mRNA injections. The problem is that he knows better and has the skills to present the data in accordance with established scientific procedures. So why doesn’t he??
Thank you very much; after all the information and misinformation about Covid vaccines, this really helps!
Which misinformation, for or against? Misinformation about stoping transmission and protecting others? Not really a true vaccine?
Whose misinformation, for or against?
Minute 16. Do you want us to believe people like this Joe is representative for the scientists that (mRNA hesitant) people listen to as a source of info? Antivaxxer you were when you were not fully vaccinated. Just a term yo polarize. Is this science? People who don't take the vaccine are not scared for the disease, the opposite, we all got fearmongering and those people didn't fear it. 24 times more adverse reactions per 100.000 mRNA compared to normal vaccines (264 vs 11). That is to be feared, a completely new platform to make vaccines. Only approved under emergency. The study by the pharmaceutical companies was very bad. Below 60 barely chance to die, not more than influenza, and correct me if I am wrong, they didn't test it on above 60. Also the vaccine that was rolled out was made in another way than in the trials. Talk about the DNA ( yes DNA) in the vaccine to be injected. WHO needs to address this, you scientists need to address this, imho.
24:54 This is the first time I have heard what happened about myocarditis etc. Thank you for explaining this.
Brilliant intro to vaccines! Even I understood quite a bit!!! I'm putting links to it on my Twitter/X.
It is not just anti-vaxxers that are the problem it those who are aggressively anti-science.
We need to actively counter this destructive movement. I recommend the book "The Rise of Anti-science" by Dr Peter J. Hotez, where he explains the problem and advocates a solution.
When something prevents disease that may just mean that that something has the effect of covering up original symptoms. You may still be "infected" because the root cause of the disease was ignored therefore the disease is still present in the body and whatever caused the original symptoms has not been addressed, and the "vaccine" adds a new assault to the body that complicates things.
There's also this one reason why people should get vaccinated against sexually transmitted diseases: sadly, not all sexual contact is consensual. It can happen to anyone regardless of age, social status or any other factor.
Exactly. It's sad, but it's reality.
Previous video This guy said all CHICKENS NATURALLY hv Leukemia cancer. HE said it’s OK to eat it ! Now Dey say get a Vaccine$$ lolol
Yikes, makes me even more vaccine hesitant. Because of people like Vincent, not only am I now anti-vaccine, but will not vaccinate my pets...thank you for your service!!!
Let's hope pets stay well away from you
lol
This author is not portraying the outcomes in accordance with scientific method.
Ask this guy… why he did not cite research or results, subject to:
1: controls for un-vaxxed
2: comparison between intro of the Covid Event (2-weeks to flatten the curve) 2020 March vs 2021 March with the introduction of the synthetic mRNA injections.
The problem is that he knows better and has the skills to present the data in accordance with established scientific procedures.
So why doesn’t he??
What do you mean controls for "un (sic) vaxxed"? Everyone who was unvaxed was the control.
Yeah what do you mean by control for unvaxed?
@@Sceince01 Control is the group you compare the results with.
@@W_Bin I know , I am not criticizing you I am asking the OP the same question you did.
Every single vaccine has had a control group .