What are your thoughts on the vaccine?

dprdypr said:
the problem is both sides have their choice of medical experts, data points etc. thus both sides think the other side is in a echo chamber of disinformation, that masquerades as science.
No, they don’t. It makes no sense to talk about two sides. One “side” has literally every reputable scientific and medical organization in the world on it.

The other is talk radio blowhards, cranks, outliers and — to be blunt — conspiracy theorists and frauds.
dprdypr said:
you don't convince people even if they're wrong by calling them names, being hostile or treating them as 2nd class citizens etc. yet both sides have a majoity doing this to each other.
People’s lives are at stake. Hundreds of thousands died completely unnecessarily in the United States (as compared to the death toll in most other western countries) because of disinformation, pseudoscience and appallingly anti-science leadership.
dprdypr said:
i don't know how you solve for something when both sides are convinced they are correct and so few people are willing to discuss the opposing position without immediately shooting it down.
This isn’t difficult. You don’t get to choose your own opinion on science: meaningful results are based in evidence, which is continually being refined and replicated.

If you don’t have any, or don’t have a genuine clue how to interpret what is out there, or are echoing the views of people with no credibility or credentials, you aren’t a different side. You are a danger to the public health, are literally complicit in people dying, and you should have the sense to shut up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drifter, tiny, ThePaddedTurtle and 1 other person
dprdypr said:
its why media & health authorities flip flopping on positions often especially earlier in the pandemic are a bad idea.
I dont understand why everyone is always so hung up on experts maintaining one position and one position only. As with most things in science, the health experts base their decisions and policies on the best available data at that time. As more data, studies, findings, and facts come to light, policy is updated and can in fact change to reflect the new information.

extreme example; Once upon a time, it was considered good practice to bleed people to cure disease. then we learned. now we dont bleed people any more, our understanding was updated, and our "position" was updated as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePaddedTurtle and sinceiwassmall
BengieG said:
And it takes a special kind of naivety to blindly accept what the media it pumping out.
It also takes a special kind of naivety to blindly accept what the "experts" on facebook, youtube, and twitter are pumping out. Especially when they have a direct and substantial benefit from generating traffic and followers.

I'm not trying to defend media outlets either, and I do believe the U.S. specifically (and other countries to a lesser extent) have issues with news media being very biased.

However, much like "vaccines cause autism", much of the fearmongering and opposition toward vaccines are generated by a very small group of individuals (learned about the disinformation dozen in this thread.. https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen).

I am not, nor will I ever be an expert on vaccines. I leave that to the individuals whom literally spend their lives doing that research. But I will accept the findings of those individuals, and choose to trust them over blindly accepting the spew put forth on social media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinceiwassmall and ThePaddedTurtle
aydensboy said:
extreme example; Once upon a time, it was considered good practice to bleed people to cure disease. then we learned. now we dont bleed people any more, our understanding was updated, and our "position" was updated as well.

I get your point, an extreme interesting example, I liked it.
The "experts" are still learning and the politicians (on both sides) are still pushing agendas.
 
Funny thing about science. It celebrates being wrong as a chance to get closer to being right.

Best analogy is a clock that gets closer to being right every day, vs an opinion seeking understanding (like ”all-natural”) being a stopped clock that’s occasionally right. It’s hard to refute the fact that the science clock is always objectively imprecise, but the opinion clock is only occasionally ”right”.

Of course, science has been grievously wrong on many occasions, but it’s a price paid to get closer to the truth, and ethics is our guide to reduce that harm.

We understand why bloodletting isn’t the solution, but we understand why leeches are still a viable treatment in certain, narrowly defined cases where you need to prevent blood clotting in a localized area.

Yep… leeches are approved medical devices… and that’s totally fine because the science supports the result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drifter and sinceiwassmall
BengieG said:
And it takes a special kind of naivety to blindly accept what the media it pumping out. The vaccine is either good or not has yet to be determined considering the survival rate is still over 97% of the infected, ( not hospitalized ) ( there is a difference) the ones passing away have underlying conditions and the vaccine is still under emergency usage and has not yet to be proven ( by the cdc) to be effective after the 3 month period. So i think you better back the hell off of your denial and ignorance statement and wake the hell up.. It is not your place to place judgement on who chose to or not to get vaccinated. Feel free to state your peace but don't cast judgement. You are in a different country with different laws. so mind your own.
Remember there is a difference between 'survival' and 'completely f---ed up in a permanent way by this'. Otherwise fully healthy people are dying (not just those with underlying conditions), and among survivors there are instances of people no longer able to live ordinary lives, having such bad blood clots they lose limbs or require major organ transplants, and a whole host of other side effects.

Emergency usage authorization and effectiveness after three months doesn't take a lot of data to understand that it works to an incredible degree. Infection rates among the vaccinated are extremely low and the overwhelming majority who do get infected get mild symptoms not requiring hospitalization. Considering vaccination started at the beginning of the year (I got mine on April 6 and May 4), there's enough vaccinated early at the start of the year to be able to show effectiveness beyond three months.
dprdypr said:
the problem is both sides have their choice of medical experts, data points etc. thus both sides think the other side is in a echo chamber of disinformation, that masquerades as science.

you don't convince people even if they're wrong by calling them names, being hostile or treating them as 2nd class citizens etc. yet both sides have a majoity doing this to each other.

its why health passports are a bad idea, its why media & health authorities flip flopping on positions often especially earlier in the pandemic are a bad idea.

i don't know how you solve for something when both sides are convinced they are correct and so few people are willing to discuss the opposing position without immediately shooting it down.
The difference is that one side has a hand picked group of medical experts who are a tiny minority making claims that can usually be debunked and the data that they are cherry-picking is usually badly distorted. Case in point is the claim the vaccine has led to thousands of deaths made by some people out there. The data they cite comes from VAERS (vaccine adverse effects reporting system). If you read the information there, any serious adverse event (death is listed as one of these) is required to be reported regardless of causality. That says that if someone receives the vaccine and is then someone takes a gun and shoots them in the head and kills them, they must be reported to the VAERS database. It's a serious adverse event after receiving the vaccine, healthcare providers are required to report it even though it is obvious it is not related to the vaccine.

As for 'health authorities flip flopping on positions often especially earlier in the pandemic', many people have already pointed out that science does not immediately have a full understanding of things, especially early on! The end difference (especially now that we have a vaccine) is that the massively overwhelming majority of healthcare providers trust the vaccine and recommend getting it.

The problem is that some people believe that just because they have an opinion on a matter that their view is just as valid as anyone else's. When the opinion is based on false pretenses, all that 'discussing the opposing position' does for someone trying to correct the erroneous opinion is waste time and energy. I'm an electronics engineer with nearly three decades of experience, if someone were to come to me and give me their opinion that a circuit should be designed per their viewpoint, I won't even take the time to discuss it with them. They are not an expert and just because they don't believe someone who is is an expert does not make their opinion valid at any level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drifter, tiny and sinceiwassmall
dprdypr said:
i don't know how you solve for something when both sides are convinced they are correct and so few people are willing to discuss the opposing position without immediately shooting it down.
I'd suggest asking your doctor. They know your medical history and can tell you what is best for you. Or take a trip to the nearest hospital and ask doctors there about the vaccine. They can tell you how many patients have the vaccine and what effects the vaccine has produced in their patients. Bypass the media entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePaddedTurtle
aydensboy said:
I dont understand why everyone is always so hung up on experts maintaining one position and one position only. As with most things in science, the health experts base their decisions and policies on the best available data at that time. As more data, studies, findings, and facts come to light, policy is updated and can in fact change to reflect the new information.
the problem i see with that is lots of the flip flopping early on was because data that is now OK was dismissed as unhinged conspiracies because tribalism.

people are picking and choosing what data is the "best available data at that time" and that only changes with a narrative change or if something comes out that is to big for MSM/their chosen experts to ignore.

its not the only issue but its not as simple as consensus changed with the data, thus opinions changed.

personally i recommend people ask their Dr. because they will know your specific medical history and if they trust them and make a choice based on that and ignore the tribalism, if your worried about mRNA Astrazenica isn't mRNA based.

if your worried about health passports and Gov't overreach too bad cause the elites are keeping us serfs fighting with each other over these other points rather than fighting against encroaching authoritarianism
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ThePaddedTurtle
OK now that I am caught back up (I hadn't gotten notification of new posts here for some reason, and there were enough of them!)
Just to restart (in case anyone forgot) I am fully vaxed and wish more would get it -
Now to quote and respond to every single one will take hours, so I am just going to generally blanket all I just read, and maybe (not sure) add things not bought up:

Unfortunately - unvaccinated people actually do pose a risk to those that are - mainly because they offer the virus a easy host leading to mutations (evolution). This is way we even have the delta variant now, eventually those mutations will (if that keeps up) be to such an extent that the current vaccines will no longer be effective.
HOWEVER the very idea of in anyway restricting the unvaccinated I can not go for, and besides requires those not medically treating that person for anything to access medical information (that is exactly what a vaccine card, or even a test result is), and the way things are happening, not only are they not treating anything - they are not even in the medical field, or insurance industry, so really non of their business - PERIOD.
Yes you need to convince WAY more to get it - but you need to do it without invading any sort of privacy where there is no inherited need to know (ie hospitals, doctors, ex. are fine - bars, restaurant, Gyms, ex. are NOT). It is also everyone's responsibility (Vaxed or not) to keep in mind some are not - some of those do have a good reason - as in a medical one. That is why even though I haven't actually HAD to in months (not that anyone was checking, purely honor system, so no gripe) I still kept using the masks most of the time (exceptions being sitting down to eat, ex. - before vaxed that was only to go.).
In regard to those that are vaxed, and get COVID anyway - the fact is that is way less likely - and when it does happen, they tend to not get as sick - way less likely to end up in the hospital, and those that still do - extremely unlikely they will die from it.
Either way though, government mandates (weather Federal, State, or local) other than to prevent spread WHEN THE SPREAD IS HUGE just plain should not be. BUT everyone that is not vaxed also needs to keep in mind that they are part of the reason everyone is still dealing with COVID - and yes it can be basically eliminated, but that requires cutting off good hosts, and reducing spread as much as possible (ie Vaccines, and masks).
What I really find most disturbing however - the fact that everyone seems to think of stopping the spread only in terms of their particular part of the world, right there - if that thinking continues, no you will not ever be rid of it! You have got to look at it on a global scale - because in effect, the way people can, and do travel the world anymore - if a significant number of people in the poorest nation there is are still at risk, the whole world is. So it truly is the world's responsibility to see to it even they have access to the vaccine.

I likely left quite a bit out - but that should be plenty for now...
 
I just spent a fair bit of time putting a post to my brother-in-law on Facebook regarding why an employer may very well be within their rights to mandate a vaccine for employees or it may be legal for the government to mandate vaccines (both situations with some exceptions). I was very pleasantly surprised that he was willing to review the judgments and information regarding health and safety both for the public at large and in the workplace. I can respect anyone who says they do not want to be forced to take the vaccine, but that respect disappears when they refuse to accept the consequences of their decision.

Case law regarding government mandates on vaccinations was established in 1905 in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, where Jacobson refused to get the smallpox vaccine required by Cambridge city ordinance in the middle of a smallpox outbreak. The case went to SCOTUS who upheld the fine and ordinance. Fortunately, due to the vaccination push against smallpox, it has been eradicated among the human population and nobody is required to get the smallpox vaccine anymore.

As for employers requiring vaccination, the arguments fall in the same background as requiring health and safety training and following said health and safety protocols. I have yet to hear somebody argue that employers cannot terminate employment of those people who refuse to follow requirements for safety, such as following established safety procedures for operating a particular piece of machinery. The vaccination mandates are simply part and parcel with the requirements on employers to provide a safe and healthy working environment. Which one should be held up: the lawsuit from employees refusing to get vaccinated or the lawsuit from the employees who got vaccinated but are being forced to work with someone who could potentially expose them to a deadly disease?

I will be open and honest here--I lose all respect for someone who tries to use crazy conspiracy theories to justify their position on this, more so when they politicize those arguments. I hold in the highest regard someone who is willing to review the background behind these decisions, the case law recognizing them, and the overall science for all of these and then adjust their position as they have educated themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePaddedTurtle and sinceiwassmall
AnalogRTO said:
I just spent a fair bit of time putting a post to my brother-in-law on Facebook regarding why an employer may very well be within their rights to mandate a vaccine for employees or it may be legal for the government to mandate vaccines (both situations with some exceptions). I was very pleasantly surprised that he was willing to review the judgments and information regarding health and safety both for the public at large and in the workplace. I can respect anyone who says they do not want to be forced to take the vaccine, but that respect disappears when they refuse to accept the consequences of their decision.

Case law regarding government mandates on vaccinations was established in 1905 in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, where Jacobson refused to get the smallpox vaccine required by Cambridge city ordinance in the middle of a smallpox outbreak. The case went to SCOTUS who upheld the fine and ordinance. Fortunately, due to the vaccination push against smallpox, it has been eradicated among the human population and nobody is required to get the smallpox vaccine anymore.

As for employers requiring vaccination, the arguments fall in the same background as requiring health and safety training and following said health and safety protocols. I have yet to hear somebody argue that employers cannot terminate employment of those people who refuse to follow requirements for safety, such as following established safety procedures for operating a particular piece of machinery. The vaccination mandates are simply part and parcel with the requirements on employers to provide a safe and healthy working environment. Which one should be held up: the lawsuit from employees refusing to get vaccinated or the lawsuit from the employees who got vaccinated but are being forced to work with someone who could potentially expose them to a deadly disease?

I will be open and honest here--I lose all respect for someone who tries to use crazy conspiracy theories to justify their position on this, more so when they politicize those arguments. I hold in the highest regard someone who is willing to review the background behind these decisions, the case law recognizing them, and the overall science for all of these and then adjust their position as they have educated themselves.
Actually, that is interesting.
My stance has nothing to do with president, law, ex. however. More to privacy concerns, and personal responsibility, a swell as (sill sort of privacy, but in a whole different class) government intrusion in to private matters (weather federal, state, or local) - there was far to much of that pre-covid - and now for sure worse. That does not excuse people from being reasonable however - and either way - the sure do need to consider the consequences of their actions (or more like in-action in this case). I also do not support drug testing by anyone other than treating medical professionals - however if that practice stopped that would not excuse the responsibility from the person that chooses to to put himself as well as others at risk by using machinery while under the influence - and if there is an accident where that is the suspected cause, I can bend and say a actual intoxication test is fine - just not a general what is there, because that actually reveals a lot that is not, and may never effect anyone other than that person, but for sure does violate that persons privacy. In that particular case, just to pass one, you need to declare any prescribed medications, and that allows a check to see what that medication is most commonly used to treat, this reveals more information.
Now yes a vaccine is way different in nature, but still the same basic idea. So I guess my real point is maintain privacy, but along with that comes responsibility as well.
I did choose to get vaccinated, but do not feel that is anyone's business as far as proving it, other than mine and treating medical professionals. Now sure there are a lot of valid arguements either way on that one. But I personally always do come down on the side of privacy - but as stated - that does not mean ignore everything and do whatever - in fact just the opposite - it put the full responsibility on each individual, and that is exactly where it belongs - more so now than the case you stated. Why? - Because now people are more educated in, well, pretty much everything, and information is much easier to obtain, so there is basically no excuse not to have access to it. Even if you are too lazy to look things up yourself, and do not trust the "media" - there is also way more access to your own doctors (whom you should trust, and if you don't it's time for a new one!) and they have access to all the current info - but if for some reason they do feel they don't know enough to answer your questions at that time, they definitely can find out, and/or refer you to someone that can. And that is not limited to COVID and that vaccine, it's anything medical really.
 
DOUBLE STANDARD

1. Before covid was a thing parents used to complain about other parents who refused to vaccinate their kids. Parents would say "keep unvaccinated kids out of school, its selfish and unsafe"

2. Today we have these same adults refusing to get vaccinated for themselves, so entitled that they can return to work and mingle with the general population unvaccinated.

I'm not saying one is right or wrong, it's just funny how opinions change when its your body and not someone elses.
 
nwm said:
Actually, that is interesting.
My stance has nothing to do with president, law, ex. however. More to privacy concerns, and personal responsibility, a swell as (sill sort of privacy, but in a whole different class) government intrusion in to private matters (weather federal, state, or local) - there was far to much of that pre-covid - and now for sure worse. That does not excuse people from being reasonable however - and either way - the sure do need to consider the consequences of their actions (or more like in-action in this case). I also do not support drug testing by anyone other than treating medical professionals - however if that practice stopped that would not excuse the responsibility from the person that chooses to to put himself as well as others at risk by using machinery while under the influence - and if there is an accident where that is the suspected cause, I can bend and say a actual intoxication test is fine - just not a general what is there, because that actually reveals a lot that is not, and may never effect anyone other than that person, but for sure does violate that persons privacy. In that particular case, just to pass one, you need to declare any prescribed medications, and that allows a check to see what that medication is most commonly used to treat, this reveals more information.
Now yes a vaccine is way different in nature, but still the same basic idea. So I guess my real point is maintain privacy, but along with that comes responsibility as well.
I did choose to get vaccinated, but do not feel that is anyone's business as far as proving it, other than mine and treating medical professionals. Now sure there are a lot of valid arguements either way on that one. But I personally always do come down on the side of privacy - but as stated - that does not mean ignore everything and do whatever - in fact just the opposite - it put the full responsibility on each individual, and that is exactly where it belongs - more so now than the case you stated. Why? - Because now people are more educated in, well, pretty much everything, and information is much easier to obtain, so there is basically no excuse not to have access to it. Even if you are too lazy to look things up yourself, and do not trust the "media" - there is also way more access to your own doctors (whom you should trust, and if you don't it's time for a new one!) and they have access to all the current info - but if for some reason they do feel they don't know enough to answer your questions at that time, they definitely can find out, and/or refer you to someone that can. And that is not limited to COVID and that vaccine, it's anything medical really.
I’m guessing it says right on your driver’s license whether you need to wear glasses to drive, or have any other health-based restrictions. I’m guessing many of us wear a Medic-Alert or similar bracelet showing an allergy (like penicillin) or an illness (like diabetes or heart disease) that requires special consideration. I’m guessing lots of us are carrying a card that says we’re an organ donor and something that has our blood type on it in case we get injured.

I doubt any of us have ever been troubled by these things at all.

I think the privacy questions involved in proof-of-vaccine-status are at best exaggerated. The public safety interest is overwhelming, the legal question in the US is clear from Jacobson (the case referred to above), and I have no concerns about carrying such a card myself at all.

Every proposal I’ve seen for vaccine-related identification would give those who have a legitimate medical reason for an exemption the same status as anyone who is double vaxxed. The point is, no one has a right to endanger other people’s health in public places for no justifiable medical reason.

If you can’t see without your glasses, you don’t get to drive. If you’re carrying Ebola or COVID, you don’t get to get on a plane. If you won’t wash your hands, you don’t get to work in a kitchen. If you treat these fairly obvious public health and safety rules as violations of your freedom, you get arrested, because people you’re affecting have a right to be protected from that kind of reckless selfishness.
 
sinceiwassmall said:
I’m guessing it says right on your driver’s license whether you need to wear glasses to drive, or have any other health-based restrictions. I’m guessing many of us wear a Medic-Alert or similar bracelet showing an allergy (like penicillin) or an illness (like diabetes or heart disease) that requires special consideration. I’m guessing lots of us are carrying a card that says we’re an organ donor and something that has our blood type on it in case we get injured.

I doubt any of us have ever been troubled by these things at all.

I think the privacy questions involved in proof-of-vaccine-status are at best exaggerated. The public safety interest is overwhelming, the legal question in the US is clear from Jacobson (the case referred to above), and I have no concerns about carrying such a card myself at all.

Every proposal I’ve seen for vaccine-related identification would give those who have a legitimate medical reason for an exemption the same status as anyone who is double vaxxed. The point is, no one has a right to endanger other people’s health in public places for no justifiable medical reason.

If you can’t see without your glasses, you don’t get to drive. If you’re carrying Ebola or COVID, you don’t get to get on a plane. If you won’t wash your hands, you don’t get to work in a kitchen. If you treat these fairly obvious public health and safety rules as violations of your freedom, you get arrested, because people you’re affecting have a right to be protected from that kind of reckless selfishness.
Oh I see the your point (and in case you missed it - I AM fully vaxed, have been for months) but maybe not all - a lot of that there is alturnitives to. In my case I don't drive anyway - haven't for years - and yes mainly because of sight, but honestly don't know if there test says it's fine or not, just I don't trust it, so didn't bother (again personal responsibility). I also have been avoiding commercial air travel for years because of other things I don't like - but the restriction you mentioned there only applies to commercial flight - there is always the option of hiring a private pilot who doesn't care if you want to bad enough (although I can't imagine why you would want to go anywhere really if you are sick let alone by air, unless it's to get treatment - and if needed there are other ways in place, but yes there are times you carry, but not sick yourself) Hands and working with food, again plain stupid - don't see why anyone would - but in any case, sure you see signs all over in places like that, but no one actually checks, they just assume you are not an idiot - and if you are, and someone gets sick because of it, you are surely liable for it.
There are actually lots of things that could effect other peoples health/safety that no one actually checks for - but if you choose to ignore, your responsibility if anything happens as a result.
Now obviously I would highly recommend everyone that can, without medical reason not to, go ahead and get it - those that don't yes are obligated (morally) to be even more cautious because of that choice. But when it comes to others knowing about it, that do not have an immediate need to know (in that case medical professionals engaged in treatment) I just have a huge issue with.
Pre-COVID there already was too much privacy gone (always have, that I can remember, come down on the side of privacy - might be one or two exceptions) - and that is the main thing I have always wanted to see restored - to the point you had it WELL before I was even here. Just always was one of my main gripes in general - and now you want more. That I can remember, there was never enough - and plenty of times avoided things to keep that (including things I was in compliance with anyway), so no real change here, and I somehow doubt COVID will be the last here.
But despite all that - I really do get the knee-jerk reaction - but still figure you need more privacy than you had pre-COVID not less - but also if anything does happen because someone didn't do something - it's on them.
Either way, this is something you sure could go back and forth about forever, I know that much. I know the idea is to balance both, but I really don't see how you can. No matter what or how you do it, someone is not going to be happy. But I personally just am not willing to give up anymore regardless of why - you had too much to start with. And really I want some of that back - in fact a good bit of it.
But no argument the you should get the thing (and I have) - it's the asking to show medical info to non medical, or non-treating medical personnel is where I have the issue. (any medical information).
Now I do have a slight bend, you likely will like - as far as schools (at least lower that collage) I'll hand you that with no argument - there though it is a bit of a different story.
 
What I see as an issue with most of the people who refuse to get vaccinated is that they argue they are being stripped of their right to liberty by being forced to take the vaccine. The simple fact is that I have not heard of any case where a fully functioning adult is forced in the physical sense to receive the vaccine--nobody is out there holding someone down while someone else shoves a needle in their arm. There is coercion in the sense that some employers are requiring it is a condition of employment and governmental bodies are considering mandating it (medical and religious exemptions given, following standard practice already established). People are free to make the choice to not get the vaccine. The biggest total issue is that the people who don't want to get vaccinated want there to be zero consequences of their decisions.

There are many good arguments I have seen come down on this being mandated/required. As I pointed out above, employers can require it the same they require safety protocols and training. When it comes to a government mandate, I thought about this much the same as seatbelt laws for cars. There is nobody physically forcing you to put your seatbelt on every time you get in a car and you have the right to refuse to use one. However, there are consequences of not following the government mandate to do so. The mandate is in place because of the overall efficacy of seatbelts and how much they lower the risk of death.

Again, the problem isn't with people who just don't want to get the vaccine, it's that they want there to be no consequences to the decision they make. I can respect someone who refuses to get the vaccine by personal choice and is openly willing to accept the repercussions of that decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinceiwassmall
If the vaccine is safe, why do the makers have immunity to any liability ? I am vaccinated myself, but find this to be an issue, specially when people get fascistic about others choices to take or not take the vaccine. I don't care if this pisses you off or makes me practically a Nazi or whatever garbage insult that the authoritarian crowd comes up with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OriginalWetone
also for those that cannot take the vaccine, please look into the research on Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Do not take anything without your doctors approval though.
 
babyann said:
Once we can all get vaccinated then I am going to have a rule; if you have no medical reasons for not taking a vaccine, then don’t come in my house.
Would the 'vaccine' not being a real vaccine be reason enough? Asking for a friend.
 
OriginalWetone said:
Would the 'vaccine' not being a real vaccine be reason enough? Asking for a friend.
I don’t think your “friend” knows a single thing about the subject. Whatever “they” are reading that said that is some pretty embarrassing nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nwm and ThePaddedTurtle
Back
Top