International Man takes 217 covid vaccines, anti-vax conspirators cry their eyes out

[Levi_]

So taking 217 doses of something that could be fatal on 1 is irrelevant?

Why'd you make this thread then ?

Of course it is irrelevant. You realize that meds and vaccines have different purposes and mechanisms, right? It could NOT be fatal on 1 dose of fentanyl unless you overdosed or had some kind of reaction.

The amount of hysteria around these vaccines absolutely makes people look stupid when this sort of thing comes out (along with all of the research). You will have a hard time making the case that this is a deadly toxic vaccine if someone can take it that many times. It's not as meaningful obviously as a large study, but it does make anti-vaxxers look like retards.

 

[TheSlothMan]

My grandma smoked everyday of her life and lived until 98. Therefore, smoking=not bad for health. Science!!!

So, on this evil Covid vaccine that kills people all over the place- apparently not. You can spin all of the conspiracy theories you want, but a vaccine that was taken by the same man 217 times in 29 months without developing side effects or any kind of bodily harm? Nonharmful I'm afraid.

I can't wait to see the funny crazy responses that anti-vax weirdos will come up with to explain this one.

Edit: This was not a science experiment; the guy took the shots illegally and doctors asked to study him after the fact when they heard about it in the media.

Man who got 200+ COVID shots had no side effects: Study

A 62-year-old man received 217 COVID-19 shots in 29 months and had no adverse reactions but nearly the same immunity, according to study in The Lancet.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

 

[mkess101]

The pharmacies where he went documented the shots; it isn't in question even if you don't want to believe it.

Post #58 I quote the actual study that says the majority of the alleged shots were "self reported". That's literally in the study you posted LMAO.

 

[Anewt]

You will have a hard time making the case that this is a deadly toxic vaccine if someone can take it that many times.

No. Because despite you saying it's irrelevant...
There's literally thousands of deadly toxins / chemicals/ drugs that people can take hundreds of times.

That everyone knows is toxic and potentially deadly

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

So, on this evil Covid vaccine that kills people all over the place- apparently not. You can spin all of the conspiracy theories you want, but a vaccine that was taken by the same man 217 times in 29 months without developing side effects or any kind of bodily harm? Nonharmful I'm afraid.

I can't wait to see the funny crazy responses that anti-vax weirdos will come up with to explain this one.

Edit: This was not a science experiment; the guy took the shots illegally and doctors asked to study him after the fact when they heard about it in the media.

Man who got 200+ COVID shots had no side effects: Study

A 62-year-old man received 217 COVID-19 shots in 29 months and had no adverse reactions but nearly the same immunity, according to study in The Lancet.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

Doubt.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

I'm afraid a guy taking 217 vaccines means a lot. If the vaccine is toxic or troubling like people claim, no one can take it 217 times.

Thats because no real person did.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

imagine trusting the pharmaceutical industry lol
the programming is wild these days. sheep everywhere.

 

[Snubnoze707]

A vaccine is just an immune boost to help fight a disease. Nothing more.

That is what they changed the definition to. It has always been something more than just that.

A vaccine historically is something that contains the antigen in a weakened form to illicit an immune response against the actual virus.

These mRNA treatments do not give you the antigen, they give you lipid nanoparticles that contain messenger RNA. The lipid nanoparticles enter your own cell and the mRNA travels to the ribosomes and tell them to start creating spike proteins on your own cell that replicate the ones found on SARS-Covi-2, which then illicit an immune response to those spike proteins on your cell.

These are not the same treatments.

The issue with the later is that for one, you aren't putting up an immune response against the entire virus, only the spike proteins, leaving you with weaker immunity. Second and more importantly these spike proteins create inflammation in your body, which is fine if this happens in your arm muscle tissue, but per Pfizers own clinical trials they have shown that the lipid nanoparticles have SYSTEMIC DISTRIBUTION in the body, which means they can travel to your heart, brain, testicles, ovaries, and they even found it in bone marrow. When inflammation happens in those areas that's when you get into trouble and when people get injured.

 

[Snubnoze707]

The COVID vaccines have been administered over 1 billion times throughout the world. Given that amount of variables (ie., people) yes, there is going to be a very small percentage who don't tolerate the vaccines well. However given the number of shots administered vs those who didn't tolerate it well, it makes the COVID vaccine safety profile very good, better than something as benign as aspirin.

VAERS reporting went though the roof like no other vaccine in the history of vaccines, and that is when adjusting for the increase in uptake, so you can't use the excuse that theirs more injuries because their is more people taking it.

It's safety profile is horrible, and it doesn't pass risk benefit analysis for the overwhelming majority of the population.

 

[surgeyou1]

imagine trusting the pharmaceutical industry lol
the programming is wild these days. sheep everywhere.

Imaging trusting.

Sheep everywhere. Don't trust anyone. Not even yourself.

 

[RoastBeast]

Trying hard to convince yourself that vaccines are the scary dangerous things in the face of massive research and people taking 217 doses with no harm? That is an irrelevant comparison BTW.

Massive research? The covid vaccine had about the least amount of research of any vaccine ever. You know vaccines are normally researched for years before they are deemed safe, right? It's not possible to do a long term covid vaccine study in 6 months, but that's all the time they had to get that thing out to the public.

There's a reason why the pharma manufactures are immune to lawsuits when it comes to the covid vaccine and that's because they didn't have enough time to truly deem it safe.

No one is saying the shots are a death sentence but they are certainly more dangerous for you than covid is if you are not elderly, overweight or have a host of comorbidities.

Your logic is the same as saying that you've smoked for 30 years and don't have cancer, therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer. You really need to up your game here if you think this guy sticking himself with a vaccine 217 times proves anything about the safety and efficacy of the shot.

 

[Snubnoze707]

There were posters on here who legit claimed 50% of the people who took the vaccine would be dead in 4 years. Must be close to 4 years at this point. What happened?

Heart disease has increased dramatically and excess deaths are still way over the norm is what happened.

 

[Cajun]

That is what they changed the definition to. It has always been something more than just that.

A vaccine historically is something that contains the antigen in a weakened form to illicit an immune response against the actual virus.

These mRNA treatments do not give you the antigen, they give you lipid nanoparticles that contain messenger RNA. The lipid nanoparticles enter your own cell and the mRNA travels to the ribosomes and tell them to start creating spike proteins on your own cell that replicate the ones found on SARS-Covi-2, which then illicit an immune response to those spike proteins on your cell.

These are not the same treatments.

The issue with the later is that for one, you aren't putting up an immune response against the entire virus, only the spike proteins, leaving you with weaker immunity. Second and more importantly these spike proteins create inflammation in your body, which is fine if this happens in your arm muscle tissue, but per Pfizers own clinical trials they have shown that the lipid nanoparticles have SYSTEMIC DISTRIBUTION in the body, which means they can travel to your heart, brain, testicles, ovaries, and they even found it in bone marrow. When inflammation happens in those areas that's when you get into trouble and when people get injured.

mRna vaccines have been a thing for years. Believe rabies vaccine and maybe another. I used her-2 peptides in a truncated influenza virus to deliver for cancer treatment. At heart the whole basal def is increasing immunity against something. It was called a vaccine even in the case of the cancer one even though that's not a foreign body. Ultimately, the body reads these foreign peptides on the surface of cells and thus recognizes them as foreign and creates a response. Of the number of people vaccinated vs numbers negatively affected, I would guess uts not much different

 

[Yehudim]

 

[helltoupee]

VAERS reporting went though the roof like no other vaccine in the history of vaccines, and that is when adjusting for the increase in uptake, so you can't use the excuse that theirs more injuries because their is more people taking it.

It's safety profile is horrible, and it doesn't pass risk benefit analysis for the overwhelming majority of the population.

I don't profess to know much about VAERS, but if the COVID vaccine is as dangerous as you contend, why do they have the following on the front page of their website?

"As of October 2023, there are three COVID-19 vaccines recommended for use in the United States to protect against COVID-19 disease. These vaccines are monitored by VAERS and several other vaccine safety monitoring systems as part of the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history. This continuous, robust safety monitoring helps keep COVID-19 vaccines safe and helps ensure the benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh any risks."

I would contend that "reporting went through the roof" because this is the first epidemic where the majority of people have access to the Internet and making such reports. However, first we must quantify what "through the roof" even means. Are you saying that the number of people who had the COVID vaccine and experienced problems outweighs the number of people who took it without issue?

 

[lifelessheap]

A vaccine is just an immune boost to help fight a disease. Nothing more.

So water, vitamin c, a good night of rest and sunshine are vaccines?

 

[Snubnoze707]

mRna vaccines have been a thing for years. Believe rabies vaccine and maybe another. I used her-2 peptides in a truncated influenza virus to deliver for cancer treatment. At heart the whole basal def is increasing immunity against something. It was called a vaccine even in the case of the cancer one even though that's not a foreign body. Ultimately, the body reads these foreign peptides on the surface of cells and thus recognizes them as foreign and creates a response. Of the number of people vaccinated vs numbers negatively affected, I would guess uts not much different

Simply increasing immunity is such a sloppy loose definition. Do you consider Vitamin D a vaccine?

The definition was in fact changed with the rollout of this treatment specifically. That's not really debatable.

 

[44nutman]

The definition was in fact changed with the rollout of this treatment specifically. That's not really debatable.

Operation WarpSpeed, Thanks Trump!

 

[PhitePhan]

Simply increasing immunity is such a sloppy loose definition. Do you consider Vitamin D a vaccine?

The definition was in fact changed with the rollout of this treatment specifically. That's not really debatable.

“A large systematic review (of 10,933 subjects) showed that vitamin D supplementation (both D2 as D3) was protective against acute respiratory tract infections in a 25-(OH)D3 deficient population, especially in those receiving daily or weekly supplementation [101].”

Vitamin D is a vaccine confirmed!

 

[PhitePhan]

I don't profess to know much about VAERS, but if the COVID vaccine is as dangerous as you contend, why do they have the following on the front page of their website?

"As of October 2023, there are three COVID-19 vaccines recommended for use in the United States to protect against COVID-19 disease. These vaccines are monitored by VAERS and several other vaccine safety monitoring systems as part of the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history. This continuous, robust safety monitoring helps keep COVID-19 vaccines safe and helps ensure the benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh any risks."

I would contend that "reporting went through the roof" because this is the first epidemic where the majority of people have access to the Internet and making such reports. However, first we must quantify what "through the roof" even means. Are you saying that the number of people who had the COVID vaccine and experienced problems outweighs the number of people who took it without issue?

Without very close monitoring- the type that should be done in a tightly controlled clinical study- adverse events are severely underreported.

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.

VAERS - Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data