Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:40:54 UTC No. 16222361

>>16222339
There are two mRNA vaccines in the US, which vaccine does that refer to specifically?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:41:18 UTC No. 16222363

vaxfags BTFO

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:53:28 UTC No. 16222383

>>16222361
i think it's based on them not providing immunity, therefore none of them are vaccines

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:56:09 UTC No. 16222391

>>16222383
That is a retardedly strict definition of vaccine. Fundamentalists in court, I guess.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:58:13 UTC No. 16222397

>>16222391
I know you'll wondering about others as well, so here it is

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:58:20 UTC No. 16222398

>>16222339
Doesn't do anything for those of us who lost our jobs for not getting the shots. It won't even make it more difficult for the government to do the same thing again as they just do it, have the media and tech companies help them control debate again, and then let it wind through the courts until there's a decision against them long after the damage has already been done.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:58:27 UTC No. 16222399

>>16222391
Most vaccines give a general immunity, yes they aren't 100% effective but nearly so. Covid shot isn't a vaccine because it never provides immunity, it's always 0% effective.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:08:54 UTC No. 16222423

>>16222399
>but nearly so
No. Doubly so because the resistance they provide declines in virtually all cases. Hence needing regular boosters, in the case of flu, annually.

sage at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:16:49 UTC No. 16222442

>>16222423
You're either disingenuous or a retard. The flu shot needs "boosters" because which of the hundreds of flu variants will be present for any given flu season is unknown, and so we vaccinate against our best guess. The effectiveness doesn't decline, it's just a distinct flu every year.
A better comparison would be tetanus shots, but they last decades at least

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:17:20 UTC No. 16222444

>We note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs’ allegations will prove true. But “[w]hether an action ‘can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say.’”
tl;dr they found jack shit except that it's a matter to be argued in court.

On a completely unrelated note, until the advent of mRNA vaccines and their entry into the popular consciousness, they would not have been considered vaccines conceptually. It was just easier to people to call em that when they came out than clarify what they were/invent a new term, so the definition expanded.

Likewise, on a related note, the term "mRNA" doesn't even fucking appear in the decision, and it would apply to all COVID vaccines, including the traditional ones.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:19:09 UTC No. 16222450

>>16222442
>The effectiveness doesn't decline, it's just a distinct flu every year
It isn't. In fact the Spanish Flu is still kicking around if you want to get technical. On a related note, mutation is a reason for decline in effectiveness.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:19:36 UTC No. 16222452

>>16222442
>a shill is lying
color me shocked

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:20:10 UTC No. 16222454

>>16222442
>A better comparison would be tetanus shots, but they last decades at least
You're supposed to get those shots every 5-10 years.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:21:51 UTC No. 16222456

>>16222444
People playing fast and loose with language is how you ended up with isolation and quarantine being conflated too. People just didn't give a shit.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:24:28 UTC No. 16222460

>>16222423
Like the other guy said, you are being disingenuous again. The fact that the resistance may decline over time has nothing to do with the fact that on the whole they do grant a immunity, a thing which a covid shot simply doesn't do.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:42:55 UTC No. 16222498

>>16222391
I think "fundamentalist" applies better to the people pushing the pandemic hysterics

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:43:11 UTC No. 16222500

>>16222391
It isn't about what you call it. The whole rationale behind being able to force vaccinations (or any other intervention) is based on the effect of reducing the spread of the disease to other people.
Regardless of whether or not the covid jabs actually reduced the spread, it was never shown that they do.
There's two ways you could show this:
1) Prove that the vaccinated get infected less
2) Prove that the infected vaccinated infect others less
Number 1 is probably easier to test so that is the standard.
The original pfizer trial had a flaw that didn't allow this aspect to be assessed. They only tested people for infection if they showed symptoms. This meant there was possibly the same number of infected people in each arm and the treatment arm just had suppressed symptoms.
An easy/obvious fix could have been to also do randomized covid tests for each arm to capture the rate of the infamous asymptomatic cases we had heard about since the beginning of the pandemic.
It's weird that they didn't try to measure the asymptomatics (if you believe they were actually seeking the truth). It makes sense if they knew it would likely diminish the measured efficacy.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:59:42 UTC No. 16222535

>>16222460
>a thing which a covid shot simply doesn't do.
Except it does if we're defining immunity as resistance to infection, which we must be since no vaccine provides 100% immunity.

I only brought up decline to reinforce the point that it's all relative in terms of disease and how long it's been since vaccination. A recent tetanus vaccine will protect more than a recent covid vaccine, but an older one won't necessarily. There's no definitional standard for how well a vaccine must protect against infection and how quickly that protection can decline.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:01:16 UTC No. 16222540

>>16222444
It was easier for the government since there was already plenty of laws and case law regarding vaccines. Introducing an entirely new category of treatment would have been much easier to be opposed in court and much more difficult for anyone to mandate. They also couldn't get away with conflating people who were against the mandates with those who oppose vaccines in general.
Words matter and words having definitions is required to have a legal system. Courts do recognize that definitions can drift over time but that's organically through cultural drift and not because someone wanted to get their way so they changed the definition to allow it.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:02:49 UTC No. 16222546

>>16222500
You forgot
>3) Prove being symptomatic increases your infectivity
which is trivial.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:09:45 UTC No. 16222556

>>16222500
>2) Prove that the infected vaccinated infect others less
they do if they don't go around sneezing/coughing everywhere and leaving snot trails on everything they touch, no?
just as this anon points out:
>>16222546

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:13:48 UTC No. 16222562

>>16222444
Some traditional ones just wrap the mRNA in a nice package. There is some unintentional slight of hand here I think though. It is likely that because some traditional vaccines carry attenuated, weakened, or inactives virus that they could also be included. The gene building blocks are identical in class though different in origin, artificial versus natural or modified. Another interesting thing is the assertion of mitigating symptoms and preventing spread. It is very likely no vaccine meets this requirement as they aren't correctly tested to meet it - just as they aren't tested to meet public safety requirements.
There is going to be more to this story. Obviously an appeal, but in terms of big pharma, these are the last products they want to be tested in Supreme Court or otherwise. They may lie down to save their larger interest for a case that could be more convincing.
The problem is when they lie down, there will be challenges from those states which implement vaccine policies for school.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:14:34 UTC No. 16222563

>>16222540
The legal definition of vaccine (vis a vis the US government, although I concede it's completely possible this could vary), which is what would be at issue in the context of government COVID response, was not in line with the medical/general definition of vaccine.

"Vaccine" as a legal term DID apply to the covid jabs and it wasn't some post hawk bullshit since the term hasn't been changed since 2013.

Save your conspiracy bullshit for your fiction writing.

>Vaccine The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases.
Not, infections, not spread, not made using the component of a disease vector. Anything you take to keep from developing symptoms counts. It's overly broad and completely out of step with vaccines as a medical term, but that's the way it is.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:15:45 UTC No. 16222568

>>16222546
This is not trivial in the long term.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:17:29 UTC No. 16222576

>>16222444
Personally, and I know it's not THE definition, obviously, but a vaccine is something that prevents me from getting sic, independently of me getting infected or not, or transmitting it or not. That's irrelevant on my personal level.

I don't understand why be so demanding with something that is preventive against illness.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:19:45 UTC No. 16222580

>>16222576
In other words, preventive medicine prevents illness. That's why I follow it. Transmission, infected, those are completely secondary and separate matters. They are but added bonuses if they too are achievable, but not fundamental, I feel.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:29:23 UTC No. 16222610

>>16222580
At this very moment, your bodies are "infected" with beneficial bacteria, all over. They are in your bloodstream, right now, and you do not give a shit about them, neither does your immune system.
Neither do you care if others are infected or not

If a vaccine produces that same effect, I am fine with it as a first objective.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:56:33 UTC No. 16223045

>>16222546
If symptomatics are only a small % of all infected and asymptomatic infectivity isn't negligible then that is not enough to inform policy. You would really need the numbers for everything.
It also isn't trivial since overtly sick people can choose to self-isolate and other people tend to avoid the overtly sick.

Many STDs spread like crazy because they are asymptomatic or have delayed symptoms. These characteristics lead the infected to keep engaging in risky behavior when they shouldn't, not get tested when they should, and evade their partner's discernment.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:06:41 UTC No. 16223215

>>16223045
>overtly sick people can choose to self-isolate
Motherfucker, overtly sick people didn't even choose to wear face masks.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:16:47 UTC No. 16223242

Dude, it's 2024. You lost. Billions of people got the vaccine, millions of lives were saved and mass deaths because of the vaccine did not occur.

Holy shit, the cope of you idiots is profound. You're still shoveling misinformation. Dumbfucks.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:37:41 UTC No. 16223297

>>16222361
They aren't vaccines

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:38:46 UTC No. 16223300

>>16222391
>Fundamentalists
>9th circuit
lol

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:09:19 UTC No. 16223364

>>16222339
i think the ruling is dumb but im worried that picrel accurately predicted the rapid mutation following a low-efficacy vaccine

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:12:59 UTC No. 16223483

>>16223045
>If symptomatics are only a small % of all infected and asymptomatic infectivity isn't negligible then that is not enough to inform policy.
No. It is. Policy just needs a rational basis for existing. Less people getting sick is a rational basis. There's not some magic minimum threshold that must be achieved in terms of reducing spread that's required before government can implement regulations relating to pandemics.

Rational basis is an INCREDIBLY lenient standard. If A is remotely connected to B then it can count as a rational basis for B.

🗑️ bodhi at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:22:59 UTC No. 16224078

>>16223242
lol @ vaxxed nigger cattle

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:02:39 UTC No. 16224206

>>16223364
>i think the ruling is dumb
It's not. They just ruled a lawsuit can go forward. It's not a finding of fact, let alone a final ruling. Hence the "at this stage" part. Plaintiffs get the benefit of the doubt for anything that can be hashed out in court. This is the pre-weighing evidence phase where they're just looking at if this would be an appropriate matter to be heard if the claims made by the plaintiffs were true.

*THEY STILL HAVE TO PROVE THEM TRUE IN COURT!* (which they won't)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:07:14 UTC No. 16224210

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:07:48 UTC No. 16224211

>>16223483
>Less people getting sick is a rational basis.
To compel someone to get vaccinated, you really need to SHOW that it helps others. People are free to gamble with their own health. People do not have a right to get others sick.
>There's not some magic minimum threshold that must be achieved in terms of reducing spread that's required before government can implement regulations relating to pandemics.
Yes there is. Obviously 0% spread reduction is a lower bound for the "magic minimum". If studies showed a particular intervention did nothing to reduce spread then it would rejected.

>>16223242
>and mass deaths because of the vaccine did not occur
That is still yet to be determined because the deaths may be delayed (if the vax caused heart damage or increased cancer risk).
There may also be signals in the data that indicate mass deaths already did happen.
There was a huge increased risk of covid shortly after getting the first dose. Due to how deaths were coded, these would appear as unvaccinated covid deaths. See pic

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:32:20 UTC No. 16224230

>>16222444
Checked
>>16222456
Or how people conflated the pandemic and the lockdowns. People died from the pandemic, but people also died from lockdowns. Try to explain that nuance and watch the NPCs rage

🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) 'kneel' at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:36:13 UTC No. 16224233

>>16224230
You did this to yourself bro.

We'd have a much better time if we all made peace.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:37:14 UTC No. 16224235

>>16222391
This is completely false. Many vaccines, including the vaccines for smallpox, measles, polio, whooping cough, etc, confer sterilising immunity.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/there-are-vaccines-and-there-are-vaccines

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:47:49 UTC No. 16224252

>>16224211
>People are free to gamble with their own health.
No? See: Seatbelt laws and just a metric shitton of other regulations. Government has an interest in keeping people healthy and productive.

Also, the premise we were operating under was it helps a % of others. You can't just fucking change the argument because you already fucking conceded the point.

>Yes there is. Obviously 0% spread reduction
Wasn't a thing no matter how much you want it to have been.
>If studies showed a particular intervention did nothing to reduce spread then it would rejected.
Which they didn't.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:54:41 UTC No. 16224257

>>16224235
Motherfucker, I've HAD WHOOPING COUGH AFTER GETTING VACCINATED. Lost a semester of college because of it between the quarantine and the ensuing bronchitis. People will just spout any old bullshit in this thread. The jab lasts 3-5 years. If you're lucky (I wasn't).

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:10:50 UTC No. 16224262

>>16224252
>Seatbelt laws
Don't apply when you are on your own property.
Somehow the government's interest in people's health only applies when they are on public roads?
Seatbelt laws are dubious and you know it. The only reason courts don't do anything to overturn them is because it would be an admission of guilt for the government and would be a pain in the ass from everyone who got a seatbelt violation in the past.
>change the argument
Where?
>Wasn't a thing no matter how much you want it to have been.
It obviously is a thing because you feel the need to point out the lack of studies
>Which they didn't

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:00:08 UTC No. 16224427

>"bad illness here now, new, bad"
>mmm
>"but new treatment too, brand new"
>already? too soon, grug not trust
Turns out Grug was right, always trust your gut

The End

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:03:08 UTC No. 16224432

>>16224211
Nobody is compelled to a medical treatment to protect others. Not how that works. You are a fucking monkey.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:22:21 UTC No. 16224462

>>16224262
>Don't apply when you are on your own property.
Neither did literally any fucking government action related to COVID.
>Seatbelt laws are dubious and you know it.
Lol. Lmao even.
>It obviously is a thing because you feel the need to point out the lack of studies
I didn't say there was a lack of studies. I said there was a lack of studies proving your claim.

>Where?
>that is not enough to inform policy.
In connection to
>3) Prove being symptomatic increases your infectivity
You accepted the premise. Your claim was that the premise wasn't enough to inform policy, not that it wasn't true. You can't backtrack because you fucked up.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:23:22 UTC No. 16224464

>>16224432
>Nobody is compelled to a medical treatment to protect others.
Carrying a child to term and then birthing them?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:15:02 UTC No. 16224855

>>16224464
tits or gtfo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:27:38 UTC No. 16224897

>>16222391
Fuck off you stupid ignorant idiot. You should be in Guantanamo getting beaten every day. That is what you deserve, you traitor piece of shit.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:49:05 UTC No. 16224947

>>16222391
>>16222397
>>16222423
>>16222442
>>16222450
>>16222454
>>16222535
>>16222556
>>16222568
>>16222610
>>16223242
>>16223364
>>16224211
>>16224252
>>16224462
>>16224464

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:20:46 UTC No. 16225048

>>16222339
>Taking plaintiff's allegations as true at this stage of the litigation
Sounds like the court is not actually agreeing with them. In litigation, motions to dismiss like this are basically saying "Even if everything the plaintiff says is true, he would still lose because the law is against him."
The 9th Circuit isn't saying that plaintiff is right, just that *IF* the plaintiff is right, he could win the case and therefore the case shouldn't be thrown out yet

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:40:39 UTC No. 16225080

>>16224947
This.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:16:47 UTC No. 16226106

ITT: people who claim to be science specialists suddenly anoint themselves legal experts

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:19:56 UTC No. 16226614

>>16222398
You can litigate with precedent now.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 02:30:57 UTC No. 16227830

>>16222339
If they weren't vaccines then what were they?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 02:38:38 UTC No. 16227838

>>16227830
1. Legally they were vaccines.
2. This has literally fuck all to do with whether or not they were vaccines.
3. OP sucks cock.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:02:25 UTC No. 16227857

massachusettes v jacobson was overturned anyways. why are they citing 120 year old trash?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:10:53 UTC No. 16227866

>>16227838
>1. Legally they were vaccines.
no they weren't
you don't know the law better than a federal circuit court judge, you only presume that you do because you have a personality disorder

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:52:33 UTC No. 16227903

>>16227866
>you don't know the law better than a federal circuit court judge
Didn't claim to. However I do know how to read better than you, and I looked up this ruling and it's just allowing this case to proceed to trial where the facts of the case can be argued.
>https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf

As for the legal definition of vaccine
>26 USC § 4132(a)(2)
>The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases.
Now, let's go over the various COVID vaccines
>any substance
check
>designed
check
>to be administered
check
>to a human being
check
>for the prevention of 1 or more diseases
check

They could literally make you more likely to get COVID and give you autism, AIDS, cancer, and transmissible spongiform encephalopathy and they'd still legally be vaccines. Which is to say both you and the OP suck cocks.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:53:55 UTC No. 16227905

No, no, no! I said the science is key to a happy society!.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:55:23 UTC No. 16229196

>>16227903

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:01:01 UTC No. 16229213

>>16227903
>prevention of 1 or more diseases
Guess not a vax because it doesn't prevent anything.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:36:19 UTC No. 16230367

>>16222500
IIRC the vaccine does little to reduce spread but greatly reduces deaths

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:41:00 UTC No. 16230376

>>16227903
>>for the prevention of 1 or more diseases
>check
Uh no chud, the science changed, the shots don't prevent the disease they just reduce severity of symptoms, maybe.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:23:45 UTC No. 16230436

>>16229213
At issue is what it's designed/administered for. The law makes no mention of what it does.

I'd tell you to learn to read, but I pointed that out in the post you're responding to, so you're a lost cause.
>They could literally make you more likely to get COVID

>>16230376
See above

Also
>the shots don't prevent the disease they just reduce severity of symptoms
Diseases are collections of symptoms. That's the difference between COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2.

And, again, all of this is irrelevant because the court didn't find shit.

>>16229196
I'm not a federal law specialist. I'm just literate.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:47:11 UTC No. 16230488

>>16222339
You are retarded

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 04:13:47 UTC No. 16231740

>>16230488
why so upset?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:52:20 UTC No. 16232986

>>16230436
You have no idea what you're talking about

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:59:41 UTC No. 16233174

>>16230367
Which makes it an individual personal choice that doesn't impact society.
>But unhealthy people do impact society
When HFCS, seed oils, and Taco Bell are banned, come talk to me about forced injections to save people from their own choices.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 05:31:33 UTC No. 16234021

>>16233174
Taco Bell wouldn't be unhealthy if HFCS & sneed oils were banned

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:04:20 UTC No. 16234430

Here's what a vaccine is for me:

1) will I get sick? No. 1/2 down
2) will I be symptomatic and sneeze/cough, leave snot everywhere through my fingertips? No. 2/2 down

Done, vaccine successful. All else is technical bullshitting.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:05:36 UTC No. 16234434

>>16224947
still right!
>>16222610

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:14:07 UTC No. 16235066

>>16234021
USA was packed to the gills with fast food places in the 1950s and earlier and there was no obesity issues back then. The issue only cropped up after government backed scientists took over control of the food supply.
Another big stab in the back from the toxic demons who pretentiously call themselves the scientific community

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 07:29:29 UTC No. 16235873

>>16235066
yep, it wasn't until "science" took over the food supply that HFCS and carcinogenic sneed oils became such a big part of what passes for food.
nice job science, way to go.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 02:43:38 UTC No. 16237258

>>16222339
uh-oh vaxsisters, were we hornswoggled?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:45:38 UTC No. 16237315

>>16232986
[citation needed]

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:04:05 UTC No. 16238219

>>16237315
none is needed, you're an idiot

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:09:13 UTC No. 16238789

>>16222339
everyone over 100 IQ already knew that

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:24:51 UTC No. 16238809

>>16238789
Never heard of midwits? They love the Science Juice injections.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:26:07 UTC No. 16238812

>>16238789
<80 and >130 knew it

Everyone else fell for the trick

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:27:43 UTC No. 16238814

>>16238219
I accept your concession.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:07:54 UTC No. 16239007

>>16222339
Statement: The Covid vaccines were ineffective at halting the spread of Covid-19
Truth rating: Mostly False
Explanation: the mRNA “vaccines” are not in fact vaccines at all. Checkmate

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:24:06 UTC No. 16239018

>>16227838
>>16227866
legally, it's not going to matter if they were vaccines or not.

>for the prevention of 1 or more diseases
Ah yes, it's "designed" to prevent the disease the same way AA is "designed" to "prevent" alcoholism (the "disease"). The only question is where is the clot shot that makes me not want to drink Baileys?

>>16229213
It "prevents" it by excusing ridiculous measures that allow geomancing polarized human debris into doing whatever you want. Including wearing masks that also don't prevent the disease.

>>16237315
>but can you quantify that?
The most redflag bot post.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:36:07 UTC No. 16239025

MAJOR HAPPENING

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:37:42 UTC No. 16239026

>>16239018
>but can you quantify that?
I wasn't asking you to quantify jack or shit. You're a fuckwit. I was asking you to provide literally any source that backs your dumbass up, you illiterate fucknugget.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:43:52 UTC No. 16239033

>>16239026
Just so you're aware/remember you are basically asking others to provide proof of your own intelligence in this context. Sorry I can't help you, as I don't have any proof of your intelligence.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:16:07 UTC No. 16239344

>>16222500
>The whole rationale behind being able to force vaccinations (or any other intervention) is based on the effect of reducing the spread of the disease to other people.
This reasoning sounds like a trap. It sounds like it's being argued (in a backhanded way) that IF an intervention actually is effective, they should be allowed to force it on people.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:17:08 UTC No. 16239347

>>16233174
Should we force people to take injections that apparently work "for the greater good?"

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:23:28 UTC No. 16239353

>>16222391
Hey. Name one time the rabies vaccine failed when applied before symptoms.