Vaccines and Medicines made from fetal tissue

Discussion in 'Family, Relationships, and Single Life' started by bwallac2335, Oct 10, 2020.

  1. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    735
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    Well, look at it this way: by not getting vaccinated, my wife and I are freeing up vaccines for other people so they can get it more quickly. That isn't selfish, is it? :cool: We're selflessly shouldering the personal risk while helping others reduce their own risk in our place. :)

    But I ask people to consider how, for example, a flu vaccine works. People who get the vaccine can (and do) still catch influenza, even the strains of influenza that the shot was created to target. And people who've been vaccinated against flu can still transmit it to others, even when they don't personally become symptomatic. Those are the facts, as observed over decades. Yet these self-anointed "experts" like Fauci and Tedros are telling us that we all need to take their magic elixir because that is the only thing that will stop Covid in its tracks; once they've vaccinated nearly everyone, the Covid virus will dwindle away and we'll all be fine. Yet that is not how it works. Viruses still float around and people still get sick from them... even the people who took the vaccine. Why are people so gullible to believe that this virus will behave differently from influenza and other similar viruses? Covid is much more similar to influenza than to polio, so there's no way we can get 2 or 3 shots and call it "done."

    However, assuming for the sake of discussion that the vaccine is effective at preventing one from catching or transmitting this disease, once they have vaccinated nearly everyone else, Covid would be no longer be getting spread around in the population, and therefore the small number of people who didn't get the vaccine would be inconsequential to the outcome. So my wife and I can let the other 99% take the shots without us endangering anyone by our decision to not take them.

    Meanwhile, the "experts" are adamantly disregarding (and even forbidding use of) any medicines that have shown themselves in clinical use or limited studies to be beneficial at reducing or preventing illness from this virus. There must be a reason why all those alleged 'good samaritans', who claim to have our best health interests at heart, will not entertain even the mere possibility that an alternative exists to mass vaccination. To find the reason, follow the money trail...........
     
  2. PDL

    PDL Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    179
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    Please cite a source where it has been claimed the vaccine will be a panacea as you have said people like Fauci and Tedros claim.


    No one claims vaccines are 100% effective. If we are talking about flu it is true that being vaccinated does not mean you will not get flu. What it does mean is that your risk of getting flu is lower, if you do get flu the disease may not be as severe, you are less likely to develop the complications of flu, and if you do they are likely to be less severe.


    The problem is that if you and your wife do not have the vaccine you think everyone else will. Indeed, far too many people think selfishly like you and that decreases the chances of herd immunity developing. No one claims the vaccines will eradicate SARS-CoV-2. We have to accept it is with us for good now unless it mutates in a way that makes it far less contagious or far less severe. That chance is remotely small. Vaccine reduces the number of people with the disease, it reduces the burden of the disease and it helps to protect those people who would probably want to be vaccinated but cannot be. It is highly likely that it will be necessary for there to be an annual COVID-19 vaccination programme as there is an annual flu one.


    Too many people are finding pathetic excuses, not based on objective fact, for not having vaccines. Many are based on conspiracy theories. Measles is a nasty disease that kills children every year and many who survive are left with disabilities, e.g. blindness, deafness. In the UK the incidence of measles was low, few children had the disease and none died from it. By 2016 the UK had been declared free of measles. Then along came Andrew Wakefield and his lies. The uptake of measles vaccine significantly dropped and in 2019 the UK's measles-free status was revoked by the WHO. Once again, because of a conspiracy theory, British children are at risk of measles, death and disability.
     
  3. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    735
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    I understand that you feel strongly about this. Don't we all! :yes: Each human individual has (or should have) responsibility and control over his or her own body, but not over the bodies of others. My wife and I do not feel that getting the vaccine is in our own best interest. However, if at some time my wife and I become convinced that being vaccinated truly will provide a definite and quantifiable measure of safety for other people, we very well could decide to take the shots. Until then, we are obligated to do what we feel is best in light of the current hyper level of fear and hysteria surrounding Covid-19.

    2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
     
  4. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    735
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    PDL, I don't want to get into a big argument over vaccinations with you. But on a side matter, I'd like to comment that your mention of Andrew Wakefield sparked some interest. I was not at all familiar with the name or with what his involvement has been. So I did a little searching and reading about him. It certainly appears that all of the mainstream media is dead-certain that he perpetrated a falsehood in exchange for money (although no evidence of a money trail or other hard evidence is offered). And it appears that people who actually know Wakefield personally think he is honest and above-board.

    I don't know about you, but I have always liked to root for underdogs. In my mind, Wakefield is a classic underdog. He is one lone man of limited financial means and is beset on all sides, deserted by all but those who know him best, and accused of sleazy wrongdoing. His accusers include a multi-billion-per-year vaccine formulation industry. This industry enjoys absolute immunity from lawsuits and prosecutions in the US for any wrongdoing in connection with their vaccine products. (In theory, they literally and intentionally could add a sterilizing agent, a mind-altering drug, or even cyanide without fear of legal consequences. Not saying they would, but their legal protections are that extreme!) Thus, they do not have the usual business incentives to act completely responsibly and to avoid taking chances with possible side effects of their vaccines. But they do have a vested interest in promoting the (alleged) safety of all vaccinations and they have the deep pockets to vigorously pursue their goals. Plus, now they are collecting your tax payments and mine for their efforts to produce a Covid vaccine in record time without the usual animal trials and so on; they are harvesting billions from our governments (that's your money and mine) to get product out the door as fast as possible.

    In short, these pharma corporations accuse Wakefield of having disregarded safety for the sake of profit, when in reality the corporations have every incentive to be doing the same. I don't think there are any people who can say, "I have known this corporation for years and I can vouch for its honesty and integrity." But there are people who say that about Wakefield. Wakefield doesn't have the money to pay journalists to write favorable articles and to pay giant media outlets to publish them. He doesn't have the money to incentivize patients' families to stick to the facts, although the corporations certainly could scatter some discreet incentives for those families to say things that discredit Wakefield. Wakefield doesn't have money to sponsor larger studies on the subject, but the corporations have plenty of money to finance studies so long as they are confident of what those studies will conclude.

    Can you see why I root for the underdog once again?

    By the way, Bill Gates owns substantial holdings in several firms that formulate vaccines. One of the US companies of which he holds a stake has developed a vaccine delivery system that deposits a scannable, trackable identifier (unique for each recipient) just below the skin. If paired with the new 5G towers being rushed into position all over the world, recipients of such a vaccine will soon be trackable in their movements no matter where they go. This technology is capable of also interfacing with a cashless monetary system; a scannable subdermal ID in a convenient location such as the hand or forehead would enable easy payments and withdrawals from one's bank account. All income and payments would be easily trackable and taxable by the government. Unfortunately, if a person were in some way deemed non-compliant or non-conforming by a goverment agency or employee, the person's ability to make or receive payments could easily be cut off (either temporarily until compliance is restored, or else permanently). This is beyond Orwellian; it is potentially apocalyptic.

    Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
    Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
    Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
    Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.


    We might be quite close to the Second Advent. The technology is here... technology that could enable events to literally take place, despite the fact that the church for 2,000 years could not conceive of any way possible for the events to be literal, and so they have long been interpreted symbolically instead.

    Maybe I'm wrong. But then again, maybe not. The thing is, I see the current vaccine push, along with the concomitant argument that individualism should be given up for the good of the collective, as a means of conditioning the populace to be ready for the soon-coming rollout of the 'mark of the beast.' Since my eternal soul is more far more important than this temporal existence, I am inclined toward caution. So I hope you won't think I'm being selfish if I 'push back' against a rising tide that I suspect may soon sweep away most of mankind toward the gates of perdition.
     
  5. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    735
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    An idea has been advanced (not just here, I've seen it elsewhere as well) that a Christian who fails to get the Covid vaccine is not walking in love and is therefore selfish and disobedient. Is this a valid idea? I'd like to share some thoughts.

    The possibility exists that an unvaccinated person might transmit the virus to a person who consequently dies from it. It is far from probability; it's only a possibility. First, the chance that any given unvaccinated person will catch the virus is fairly small. Second, the chance that he will transmit it to someone who will die from it is also small. Combining these two possibilities statistically, the chance overall might be 1 in 1,000 or less. On top of this, we have been explicitly told by health authorities that being vaccinated is no guarantee of preventing transmittal of the virus. So the question is: does obedience to God in our love walk compel us to take actions to avoid remote possibilities?

    Let's look at some other examples that might apply. The lifetime chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 106. Are we selfish to drive automobiles, since we might cause a crash that kills someone? Does obedience to God call on us to forego driving?

    For those who believe in man-made global warming and who further believe that man will kill millions of people in future generations due to man-made climate change, is it selfish to purchase nonessential items which required the production of CO2 for their manufacture and/or transport? Does our love walk compel us to get rid of our pets, so as to reduce production of both CO2 and methane? And (once again) what about those petrol-powered engines? For that matter, since nearly all electricity generation currently is accomplished by burning fossil fuels and producing CO2, does love compel us to stop using lights, climate control, electric vehicles, and so on?

    Every day, hundreds if not thousands of people die from malnutrition. For the Christian who has plenty, does our love walk compel us to sell all that we own to provide food for the needy? Are we selfish for keeping some money and property to ourselves, when we could save lives by divesting? Note that the likelihood of death resulting from our property retention might be considerably more likely than the likelihood resulting from driving (let alone from not vaccinating), so this example might not be in the same league as the other two situations; yet we all continue to own property and (at least try) to have some savings in the bank. How disobedient to God are we being when we do this?

    I'm trying to put things into proper perspective, relative to one another. How big a moral problem is it when someone decides that the risk of non-vaccination for Covid is minimal enough that the possible personal risk of vaccine side effects (be it slight) outweighs the risk to others?
     
  6. PDL

    PDL Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    179
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    Rexlion I am now convinced that you believe conspiracy theories that lack any evidence. You seem only to have read anything supporting Wakefield. You do not appear to have read anything objective about his flawed research. When I read that you believe the nonsense about Bill Gates and vaccines implanting tracking devices I was almost literally rolling about of the floor laughing.

    I am no longer going to engage with you. I have long known one cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

    I shall pray that your wife, people you love and you do not die from COVID-19 or suffer long-term disabilities from it. I believe prayer is all that is left to help you.
     
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    735
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican Christian
    I thank you for your prayers and I welcome them. Especially if you're praying that the Lord will bless us with an abundance of wisdom and knowledge; we can always benefit from more of those.

    To clarify, though, I never said that the current vaccines include tracking tech. I said that the technology has been developed, it exists, and it could conceivably be used via subdermal injection in the near future. And I related that the concept might tie in to scripture. I do not believe that people will be given subdermal trackers 'unawares,' however; it seems much more probable that people will be told what it is and what it does before they get it. I'm not sure why anyone would be terribly skeptical that such a method might be employed in the coming years, since governments are strongly motivated to track all monetary transactions for taxation purposes. And some governments, like China, are greatly motivated to track the very movements of their citizens to ensure that they do not exhibit 'incorrect' ideologies or actions. For that matter, can't you imagine governments promoting universal tracking in order to do thorough 'contact tracing' for possible virus exposure and to make sure that exposed persons remain in isolation? (I fear that some segments of the population might rise up and demand that all persons be tracked!) O_o