Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Mistakes of AntiVaxxers

I came across the following post from a determined anti-vaxxer:

My immediate thought was, what an idiot!

Shafan is a hyrax, not a rabbit!

Joking aside, there are serious mistakes being made here. First is that nobody is being asked to be a guinea-pig/ rabbit/ hyrax. Over a million people have already received the Pfizer vaccine. The guinea-pig stage is over.

Is it possible that the vaccine has unknown long-term harmful effects? Sure, it's possible. But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is: Given the harm that coronavirus is continuing to cause around the world, would it be better if people took the vaccine? And the answer to that question is certainly yes.

There a further important point to consider. There were some people that were guinea-pigs. They received the very first vaccines. And they chose to be guinea-pigs. It wasn't because they were scared of Covid - they were not in high-risk categories. It was because they recognized that taking this unknown personal risk would be of tremendous benefit to mankind as a whole.

Don't just consider whether the vaccine is good for you. Consider society at large. Most of us don't risk our lives in army service. This is something very simply that we can and should do for the benefit of society.


  1. Here in London the most Charedi rabonim are ominously silent on whether to take the vaccine or not, or whether to wear masks despite London entering the most stringent tier of lockdown.

    As long as it's the Goyim who thought up the idea, they will oppose it.

    1. Pfizer is run by Jews. Albert Bourla = Jewish. Mikael Dolsten = Jewish.
      The inventor over at Moderna? Tal Zaks

    2. Which Bibi claims as a reason Israel got so many doses.

  2. I'm not an anti vaxxer at all. But I have a serious question here. How can one be sure that this vaccine has no serious long term effects, seeing that it has only been tested for less than a year. For example, could this vaccine affect fertility?

    1. Anything is "possible." But there is no biological mechanism by which this vaccine would affect fertility. OTOH, Covid-19 is already known to cause long-term physical and cognitive damage in many people who get it.

    2. Those are good questions - and the scientists who researched the vaccination have written detailed responses. Have you spoken to any experts in the field or read any of their reports?

      A question is only a compelling reason not to do something if no one is able to answer it - this question has been discussed at length by the experts.

    3. The techniques used to create and deliver the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are novel but the 'content' of the vaccines are relatviely straightforward. Read up a little on the vaccines - it's inconceibavle that what you're being injected with will cause any harm. The worst case scenario is that they will have limited efficacy.

    4. What rationale is there that this would affect fertility? There is no basis to that. Preclinical toxicology studies didn't show any issues for the reproductive system. The vaccine itself is cleared from the body and all you are left with is immune memory against coronavirus spike protein. That has nothing to do with reproduction. You acquire immune memory against viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens regularly from your daily life. The body isn't designed to mistake viruses for sperm or reproductive organs.

    5. Yes. According to ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon, this vaccine can cause sterility. Dr. Yeadon, along with lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies

      "However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."

    6. Again this attitude, worrying about infertility from the vaccine. Maybe you should worry about infertility from COVID?

    7. Again this attitude? What is that supposed to mean?

      What does one thing have to do with the other? If both the vaccine and Covid can cause sterility (the paper you linked to says is inconclusive) so you try to avoid both.

      If someone gets Covid and becomes sterile, that would be terrible. I'm not sure how many people that would effect. Maybe 10. Maybe 100. Maybe 1,000.

      But, why would you vaccinate the entire population with a vaccine that clearly has a biological mechanism to cause fertility issues? Especially for a virus that less deadly than the flu for young people.

      If it turns out that even 1% become sterile (and some doctors say it could be as high as 60%) and 7 billion people get the vaccine, that is 70 million people effected.

      In what world would you pressure someone to take this vaccine? It was not tested for this. In fact, in the tests, they specifically told people not to get pregnant. It could take years to find out if there in an effect, even if it was a high percent of the population.

      Quotes from the submission (found here:

      "Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies
      against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1...
      ...which is derived from human endogenous
      retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and
      humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in
      homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses.
      ...if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a
      placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.

      According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing
      potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using
      an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention
      period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention).

      This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of postvaccination infertility could
      be observed."

    8. mw - your link is to a site called 'global research'. Have you researched what this site is all about?
      Here is a list of articles linked to on the side of the page:
      - The “Killer Virus” is Not “Killing Christmas”. Corrupt Politicians Are “Killing Christmas”
      - The Covid-19 Numbers Game: The “Second Wave” is Based on Fake Statistics
      - World War I: The 1914 Christmas Truce
      - The Spirit of Christmas: War Criminals George W. Bush and Tony Blair banned from the Birthplace of Jesus Christ
      - Worthless PCR Tests for COVID. “Almost all” PCR Tests Produce False Positives

      That site is a cesspool of nonsense, conspiracy theories and other time wasting.

      If a credible site can quote any real danger to female fertility, please link to it.

      But just to be careful, I advised my 85 year old grandmother to hold off on the vaccine just now. She wouldn't want her fertility impaired.

    9. zichron devorim,

      It is a logical fallacy (genetic fallacy) to discount information from an unreliable source. You have to look at the information and judge it for yourself.

      Secondly, how can you be so sure the other information is wrong? The PCR tests are clearly worthless and with a bit of understanding on how they work, you would understand why they are mostly false positives. I would prefer not to get into that topic to limit the time I spend on this now.

      In terms of the top doctors who wrote a legal document submitted to the Eu health department to stop the vaccine, are you thinking that that "conspiracy" site made it up?

      Here is an interview with one of the doctors. And if you tell me that it is a deep-fake and not really him, I will call you a conspiracy theorist (not that there is anything wrong with that :-)

      In terms of your mother, I would be more concerned with the likely autoimmunity side effects as well as reports that MOST people had such a bad reaction that they had to take time off from work. I hope she survives it.


      World renowned German epidemiologist, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, recently submitted a petition to the European Medicines Agency requesting that all #Covid19 vaccine distribution and trials be halted until serious safety concerns are addressed, including the ability to alter human fertility.

    10. Today is your lucky day. This just popped up in my feed.

      PCR tests don't work. Please don't debate me on this without doing research. I realize this will cause cognitive dissonance and I'm just not prepared to deal with it now.

      if you watch it and have scientific questions, feel free to comment.

    11. More luck. I came across a twitter thread I had seen a while ago that explains the critical flaws in the PCR test. This has many doctors and scientists who explain in detail. Including one from Fauci himself who says that over 35 cycles it is worthless. And many labs use as high as 45 cycles.

      I wonder how many people will comment on this without even spending 15 minutes on this thread let alone watch the entire thing.

      I'll bet you can't even get through the very first 2-minute clip.

      You guys are funny. You know literally nothing about this subject, pontificate about how stupid everyone who disagrees with you is, and call yourselves rational.

    12. Yeadon is a moron spreading BS and he's been stupendously wrong about many things he opines on including this. Not only does coronavirus spike protein NOT contain the protein syncytin-1 as he claimed - moronically and completely baselessly - it also doesn't even contain *peptide homology* with syncytin-1 by any definition of the term.

      So he has called false alarm and fueled conspiracy theorists with something that was factually incorrect.

      That this complete bumbling fool was in such a high position in Pfizer previously tells you what's wrong with corporate/executive culture in America.

      And now we have a guy in this thread feeling empowered by the likes of Yeadon to teach us about PCR when prior to January 2020, this "mw" had never even heard of the technique in his life and probably still has no clue what it does.

      If PCR tests are so unreliable and have such a high false positive rate as MW baselessly claims, then why, when Australia recently mass tested 250,000 people in a week with the PCR test, why did they only have 0.3% testing positive?
      Because false positive rate for PCR is very low, and mw is deceptive.

      If PCR tests are so unreliable and have such a high false positive rate as MW baselessly claims, then why after several months of a sharp rise in US cases (as detected by PCR tests) did the Covid hospitalization rate ALSO rise sharply, with predictable lag time from the rise in cases, and why has Covid death tally subsequently done the same, with predictable lag time from the rise in Covid hospitalizations?
      Because false positive rate for PCR is very low, and mw is deceptive. Just like his new idol Yeadon is.

  3. I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me thinks we should take the vaccine, even pay people to take it. Another part of me thinks that the potential side effects could be harmful. All in all, I think we should take the vaccine. The rabbit is out of the box.

    1. The side effects are well established and publicized openly. What are these "mystery side effects" that you expect to magically appear months or years after a vaccine was administered?
      The side effects of a product like this occur generally within days and if there was some delayed issue it would appear within weeks. 40,000 some odd people have been followed longer than that and we know what happens with them.

      The product profile is pretty clearly established

    2. @ student v
      Look at an official label of any drug and scroll down to Post-Marketing Experience. You will see the difference between side effects found during the trials vs. broad use. How many decades Zantac was administered before it was found as carcinogen? Covid vaccine alters your DNA. They want to vaccinate 100% population against the virus that has 99.5% survival rate. Aside from this, the trials looked only for symptomatic cases. They did not establish that the vaccine prevents asymptomatic cases and that vaccinated people would not transmit the virus.

    3. Wait, WHAT?


      Stop the presses, everyone - what we used to think was fantasy entertainment has now been revealed as TRUE SCIENCE! Comics and cartoons are not lying! Exposure to strange substances can ALTER YOUR DNA!

      I, for one, hope that I get the power to shoot fireballs out of my hands. This will save a lot of money on my gas bill.

      OK, OK. We won't get superpowers. But we will become half-human half-shafan hybrid were-beasts! A Humax, or perhaps a Hyman!

      Well, that was a good laugh for the morning. The vaccine does not alter DNA. It provides messenger RNA, which is the stuff from whence we get proteins. As an analogy: usual vaccines help a homeowner learn how to turn away door-to-door salesmen by showing them weakened salesmen and having them practice. The Covid vaccine actually provides a script for teaching them HOW to talk to such salesmen. But that's it - it's just a script for dealing with salesmen, and not all salesmen, just those selling one kind of vacuum cleaner. ALTERING DNA would be giving the homeowner a total vocabulary makeover, thus changing his/her ability to deal with salesmen, repair people, children, food, and possibly anything else. Or perhaps stealing the house - the analogy might break down a little here as we get into the philosophizing on Are You Your DNA?

    4. Yosef R,

      That was good laugh...

      Speaking of the dunning-kruger effect...

      Now read this from the NYT (now please don't tell me that you cannot rely on the NYT because they promoted the conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia and that they promote fake news all the time (remember the genetic fallacy).

      This if is regarding an HIV vaccine from 2015 that discusses DNA altering vaccines.

      "Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease."

    5. Lazer,
      Dosing an mRNA construct into a person does NOT alter his DNA. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology that any high schooler in the public school system would know just by paying the slightest bit of attention. It is a temporary message to produce a certain protein to induce an immune response. When mRNA is produced by a cell, it degrades over time, and then it is gone forever. Just like protein made by a cell turns over repeatedly. The same is true of mRNA provided exogenously. It will have a lifespan, and then it's gone. Goodbye.

      Zantac (ranitidine) is NOT a carcinogen. A manufacturing impurity was found (a chemical called NDMA) within the product which seemed to increase over time at high temperature storage, and therefore the product was recalled from the shelves. Some of them did not have high levels of NDMA when tested by FDA, as they were probably stored for shorter time periods. That is why product safety is monitored. The drug itself is not carcinogenic, and neither are either of the Covid19 vaccines now with EUA in the US.

      They want to vaccinate whatever percentage of the population is safe to vaccinate so that we can eliminate illness and death caused by Covid19 disease. It's funny that you point to 99.5% survival rate (as if death is the only relevant factor), and as if killing off 0.5% of the population wouldn't impact all of us and our families, but then you are at the same time shaking in fear over asymptomatic infections! LOL! Make up your mind.

      If the vaccine can reduce all sars-cov2 infections to asymptomatic and therefore eliminate all illness and death from covid19, the problem is completely gone. So your theoretical fear is actually a desired outcome. So what precisely is your complaint? You don't want the vaccines to do so well at eliminating symptomatic cases?

  4. There is a better argument. It may be possible that the vaccine has unknown long term effects... but you can say the same about Covid! Who knows what the long term effects are for people who survive it? So why assume the vaccine is worse than the virus itself in the long term?

    1. Happy, you are the official Charedi apologist for the forum.

      Are even being serious? If your concern had validity than the develops and planner would take it into account.

      Jeez. Your twisting your brain into a pretzel.

    2. I have no idea what you were trying to say? How is Happy mistaken about vaccines? I agree with him.

    3. Happy may be typically a chareidi apologist, but here he is on the side of rationalism.

    4. The difference is as follows:

      If there is a risk of Covid, only a small percent of people will get Covid and have those long term effects.

      If there is a long-term risk of the vaccine, you are giving it to the entire population and thus actively exposing many times more people to that risk.

    5. mw, what makes you think only a small percent of people will get Covid? Almost a year after the start of the pandemic, it shows no sign of slowing down. If there are neither lockdowns nor vaccinations, everybody WILL get it eventually. So it is either expose everybody to the virus, expose everybody to lockdowns, or expose everybody to the vaccine. And you think the vaccine is worse?

    6. Happy,

      First, thank you for asking nicely.

      It seems that between 50% and 80% of people already have some natural immunity (perhaps from a prior coronavirus).

      This has been known to top scientists for a long time already. Because I listen to medical journalists who interview scientists, I have been aware of T-cell immunity for about 8 months. Over the past few months, it has made it into the mainstream.

      Here are some articles that address this:

      Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?

      It Turns Out, We All May Have Some Immunity to COVID, New Study Shows

      Are some people already immune to COVID-19?

      COVID-19: Who is immune without having an infection?

      In addition, from the very beginning, many epidemiologists were saying that we should treat this as usual, let everyone get it, and build herd immunity. It would have been over in a month.

      I would argue that waiting a bit could have been justified to find better therapeutics.

      But we passed that point long ago. Now you can clearly see the medical establishment discouraging very strong therapeutics for whatever their agenda is. See:

      At this point, according to the CDC, more people died of suicide than of covid. millions are starving across the world. Peoples jobs and business are gone and their lives work destroyed.

      If you don't take into account the death and destruction from the response, you cannot come to a proper evaluation of the proper path.

      Not to mention the removal of our rights, which we will not get back so easily if at all.

    7. mv, I don't believe you answered the question. Even if they have natural immunity, who said there won't be long term effects on everybody who is exposed to it? All these articles cannot address what will happen in FOUR years. And it WILL be everybody who will be exposed in absence of vaccines or lockdowns.

  5. As an actuary, it's interesting to understand the cognitive (vs my gut tells me-which J Haidt says is the real driver for which we then construct a cognitive explanation) explanation for not taking the shot. The explanation seems to be that the likelihood of unknown possible long term side effects of the vaccine (and what they might be) is greater than the likelihood of unvaccinated folks getting covid and the direct and indirect current effects (and what they might be) PLUS the likelihood of unknown possible long term side effects of covid (and what they might be).
    Perhaps there's some of the if in doubt do nothing effect but I know how I decided on this data. The question imho is how will HKB"H look at our decisions (especially those who have ignored the communal impact of their decisions)


  6. My sharing this link might give you the impression that I disagree with you, but I happen to agree with every word you wrote. The only thing is that people who saw the following video are surely to have concerns:
    "60 Minutes Mike Wallace Exposes the 1976 Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine Injuries"

    1. That was a rush job, and the 1976 product wasn't tested extensively. Today's approved covid vaccines were tested extensively and all the data is available freely to the public. In addition, we are living in an actual pandemic, unlike in 1976.

    2. This was not a rush job? It is not even FDA approved. It only has emergency use authorization.

    3. Emergency use authorization required FDA review. It is meant for emergency situations so that development timelines can be shortened within reasonable limits. Those reasonable limits are there to make sure that not just anything can be approved with EUA, and that the shortening of timelines will be done in ways that won't negatively impact patient safety.
      You're a pretty rightwing guy. You should know that there is a lot of regulatory red tape and excess, FDA included. Trump had to clear some of that away just to get a covid19 testing program under way. The same is true for EUA. *Non-essential* aspects of development are deprioritized, but clinical trial data is still fully reviewed!

  7. It seems that the person who posted was not a Hebrew speaker. Rabbit is translated as שָׁפָן (Shafan) by Google translate. Are hyraxes used for experimentation? I have seen so many around Kamenetz Neve Yaacov that it might not be a bad idea.

    1. In modern Hebrew, shafan means rabbit. It just doesn't mean that in Tanach or the Talmud.

    2. I live in a yeshuv with mostly Israelis. We have LOTS of hyraxes around us. They are called in Hebrew שפני סלע. They are not rabbits.

  8. It's not Covid that's harming society, it's many governments. I recently had Covid. My whole family did. You get sick for a few days and then recover, much like the FLU

    At least with Covid we know the recovery rates (over 99.995%). No long term effects shown for this Vaccine. Could be good. Could be awful. No real reason for young people to be getting it. Just get Covid and get it over with.


    1. Exactly the fallacy I was talking about! We DO know the recovery rate for the vaccine, it is currently 100%. Nobody has died from it yet. Ah, you are worried about the possible long term effects? So you should worry about that for the virus as well! Why so concerned about possible long term effects of the vaccine, but so nonchalant about the long term effect of the virus?

    2. Great to hear, Ssvi. Any estimate of how many people your entire family exposed to Covid while infected?

    3. MV- What a stupid comment. We did stay home ( I work from home). Made grocery deliveries, same with takeout letting them know in advance that we have Covid (paid by phone or online) and they dropped by the door or sometimes when I drove to the store they left it by the car.
      What's your point?

    4. Happy-- you said it. Yet. Anyway death is not the only possible effect. No one really knows. Blindly following anyone is stupid. Their were vaccines in the past that had great benefit for people and their were vaccines that did harm to people. Injecting something that's very new especially for a young person is stupid. But you can decide what you want to do.
      Anyway even with the very low Covid mortality rates they don't distinguish between people who died WITH Covid as opposed to people who died BECAUSE of Covid.

    5. I guess that is how science works.

      I got sick, so did my whole family, it wasn't so bad, therefore this disease is OK, and no one has anything to worry about.

      Shame that this scientists spent all that time and money researching the impacts of this pandemic on millions of people, when they could have just asked you what it was like.

      I assume that you are not worried about the unknown long-term effects of this disease which are not yet known (but we know that they are much more serious than the long-term effects of the vaccination)

    6. @Ssvi I'm sorry, such silliness I cannot tolerate. You say "injecting something that's very new especially for a young person is stupid", but then you have no problem saying "Just get Covid and get it over with". Again, what makes you thinking getting Covid is better than getting the vaccine?

    7. Happy,

      The reason is that young people, even under 70, have less risk of dying from Covid than from the flu.

      It is simply not dangerous for the young.

      Add therapeutics to that mix and it is even less dangerous.

      This vaccine, has experimental approval, not even FDA approved (which is also meaningless but that is another story) is a new technology never before tried. Moderna never sold a drug or vaccine; this is their first.

      The vaccine clearly has risk, as stated by the manufacturer and Bill Gates quite clearly as I linked in another thread.

      WARNING: This data will be shocking to some of you. Especially those that trust the mainstream media for information.

      COVID-19 Deaths by Age (Data Visualization)

      COVID-19 Hospitalization and Death by Age

    8. The reason is that young people, even under 70, have less risk of dying from Covid than from the flu.

      And guess what- young people also have less risk of dying from the vaccine than Covid! And so do old people!

    9. I have friends without the usual risk factors who " just got Covid and got it over with." They are now lying 6' under and their families will never be the same.

  9. How does it benefit society to get the vaccine?

    It does not prevent infection and would not prevent a vaccinated person from spreading Covid. One could argue that people who vaccinate may feel protected and get a false sense of security and become lax in their distancing and masking. Thus placing more people at risk.

    In any case, since it does not impact spread, there is no need to coerce or even care if anyone else takes it.

    1. You seem to be completely ignorant and devoid of any ability to reason.

      NO vaccine prevents infection. That's not why we administer them. What vaccines do is allow the body to respond both immediately and effectively when the immune system detects a pathogen. It allows the infection to be halted almost immediately, which both prevents the body from being harmed and severely limits the time window during which the infected person could be an infection vector.

      All research and trials show that the COVID-19 vaccines are effective.

    2. Interesting.

      I made a point. First, none of the leading vaccine candidate trials is designed to test if the vaccine can reduce severe COVID-19 symptoms, defined as: hospital admissions, ICU or death. And, second, the trials are not designed to test if the vaccine can interrupt transmission.

      If neither of these conditions is met, the vaccine in essence performs like a therapeutic drug, except a vaccine would be taken prophylactically, even by the perfectly healthy, and more than likely carries a higher risk of injury than a therapeutic drug. If this were to be true, then therapeutic drugs would be superior to any COVID vaccine.

      Here the the article in BMJ.

      But rather than address my point, which is that the vaccine is NOT know to prevent spread, and in fact the CDC says you will have to wear a mask until every single person is vaccinated (which makes no sense but proves that the vaccine will not prevent spread) you make this into a person attack ("You seem to be completely ignorant and devoid of any ability to reason.").

      That sounds like cognitive dissonance to me, not to mention your obvious lack of basic knowledge of the facts as you can see clearly from the BMJ article if you would take the time to read it.

    3. mw: "First, none of the leading vaccine candidate trials is designed to test if the vaccine can reduce severe COVID-19 symptoms"

      vs. Reality as found here
      "A final secondary efficacy analysis also supported efficacy against protocol-defined severe COVID-19, with 30 cases in the placebo group vs. 0 cases in the vaccine group."

      The primary outcome which demonstrated VE of 95% was not exclusive to severe cases (it was inclusive of all symptomatic cases), but A SECONDARY ANALYSIS did in fact look at this question.
      Out of the 30 severe cases in the placebo group, 9 were hospitalizations and 1 person died of Covid. But yeah, must be a coincidence right?

      If you prevent symptomatic Covid-19 cases (as both of these vaccines demonstrated they do successfully at >90%), logic dictates that by definition you will prevent severe cases which are simply a subset of the symptomatic cases. This is what Doshi overlooks in his excessively anal retentive analyses and his unreasonable stance where he insists on the world continuing to be locked down until his definition of a perfect product is proven, no matter how long it takes.
      If either a) the products had failed on the primary endpoint, or b) if the trend in severe cases went against them (or both a and b), then you'd have a point. But that's not the case, so neither you nor Doshi has a point.

  10. If it is so obviously safe, why do the manufacturers demand a law that removes all liability, even from death? This is the only product, including other drugs, that have no product liability.

    “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects.”

    Four years? What do the vaccine manufacturers seem to know that the very educated people on this post don't seem to know?

    Andrews, Peter. "Bubble Indemnity: Big Pharma Firms Will NOT Be Held Accountable For Side Effects Of Covid Vaccine". RT International, 2020

    1. The answer is very simple. Manufacturers would very much like a law that removes all liability from all products, but they were only able to get it for vaccines. The US is the world's most litigious society, people sue all the time for injuries real or imagined, pharmaceutical companies are huge, wealthy targets, and left-wing activist judges hand out gigantic awards based on the flimsiest of evidence. Because they want to stick it to the evil corporations; see what happened with Monsanto.

    2. That is nice that they want to exempt themselves from liability. Why would they not demand that for all their products?

      Are they the only strong lobby? No other product, (including drugs sold by the same company in the same litigious society) has such immunity. There is a question if it is even constitutional.

      Not to mention that doctors are only given permission to heal if they are on the hook (their reputation will be ruined or they will be responsible). I'm not sure how no liability impacts the halacha but I don't see any heter to accept any medical intervention with no liability.

      And at the end of the day, they are concerned about effects that will be discovered in four years. And you see to believe that a brand new medical product with a brand new mRNA technology never used before is absolutely safe?

      I don't think it is simple at all.

    3. The government provides indemnity because vaccines are a public good, but they are not 100% safe. Other medications are good for individuals, so the government doesn't get directly involved. My health isn't impacted if you don't get your cancer drugs, or if they cause an adverse affect. My health is affected if you refuse to vaccinate.

    4. Why would they not demand that for all their products?

      What makes you think they don't? Of course they would be happy to exempt themselves for liability for all products! The only reason they got their wish in the case of vaccines is because government has a strong public health interest in getting everybody vaccinated.

    5. Again, the vaccine has not been tested, nor designed, to prevent infection and transmission.

      To the contrary, if it works to lessen the symptoms, people who might otherwise stay home will go around spreading it.

      There is no Government interest in this.

      Furthermore, even if there is a logical reason to give immunity, the two issues are that the manufacturer specifically said that they don't know what will happen in FOUR years. Meaning they have no idea if there are long term effects but are concerned enough to lobby for no liability (I'm not sure you quite realize how extraordinary that is).

      So to those who are so confident that it is completely safe, even though it clearly does not have long-term studies as that would be impossible, are just wrong.

      Secondly, knowing human nature as you do, do you really think they will care about side effects and quality if there is no liability.

      And as I mentioned, there is no heter to get medical treatment if there is no "Mirsas" (fear of repercussions)

    6. mw, absurd. There are 3 ways of dealing with the virus.

      1. Strict lockdowns like China and Vietnam, that appear to work.
      2. Vaccine.
      3. Don't deal with it, everybody eventually gets the virus.

      In all three of these cases, we don't know what the effect will be in FOUR years. Nobody knows if there are long term economic, political, or mental health effects from lockdowns. Nobody knows what the long term effects of the virus are. So why so worried about the vaccine?

    7. @mw, btw your whole obsession with mirsas is very strange. You think that you need the threat of American-style litigation to provide mirsas? You think a beis-din would find vaccine makers liable for something that happens 4 years later? Especially if the fine print says that they don't take responsibility for that? There is plenty, plenty of mirsas without American-style liabilty law.

    8. I enjoy seeing the cognitive dissonance express itself with these adjectives (absurd). It adds nothing to the conversation.

      If the vaccine does not limit the spread, but only (theoretically) protects the person who gets the vaccine, then why is there a need to coerce others to take it.

      If you want to protect yourself, and you are not aware of therapeutics that can offer the same protection at a much lower risk, by all means. Take it.

      But you don't need me to take it to protect you because even if I take it, I can get it and spread it to others who for whatever reason are still susceptible.

    9. and you are not aware of therapeutics that can offer the same protection at a much lower risk

      What makes you think that they are much lower risk? We don't know effect of prescribing them to Covid patients in FOUR years...

      By the way, there is no need to coerce others to take the vaccine. Just persuade them with good sense.

    10. Well, HCQ and Ivermectin have been around for 50+ years. Doctors who prescribe them regularly say they have never had a bad reaction. It has a very low risk profile.

      I'll be the last one to say that any drug is not without it's side effects but these seem to have less problems that Tylenol (which is actually pretty bad and I avoid).


      I feel I'm not communicating the math here.

      If one out of 10,000 have a bad reaction in each case, and 1 million people take the therapeutics, then 100 people will have a problem.

      If you give the vaccine to 7 billion people, then 700,000 will have a problem.

      I can already hear you screaming that I am making up numbers. Well, why not hear from Mr. Gates himself (ignore the article; I just searched for this video and this was the first one that came up. Watch the 3-minute video. It is full of useful information that you don't know e.g. that the flu vaccine doesn't work on the elderly, the risk, and how the only way they can make it work with with no liability, etc.)

    11. Well, HCQ and Ivermectin have been around for 50+ years. Doctors who prescribe them regularly say they have never had a bad reaction.

      Nope, we don't know the long term risks of prescribing them for Covid. Maybe there will be a bad reaction in the long term, perhaps in FOUR years. And we don't know the risk of Covid itself in FOUR years, which will eventually spread to ALL 7 billion people in the absence of lockdowns or vaccines.

      Meanwhile you are so worried about 700,000 deaths from a vaccine that has not yet killed one person, while the virus has killed almost 2 million around the world.

  11. I have a question. If a woman of child-bearing age gets the Covid vaccine, and follows the UK health recommendations not to get pregnant for three months after the 2nd dose (4 months after the first dose) what is the preferred method of contraception to be used during that period?

    For reference, see:

  12. Have you done any research on this topic at all? There are multiple top doctors who promote vaccines in general who are sounding the alarm on this one.

    Are you aware that every single Coronavirus vaccine that has been attempted over the past 50 years has cause "immune enhancement". That means in animal experiments, the vaccine seemed to work fine. But when the animal was challenged with the virus, they all had organ failure. That is why they never experimented on people. Fauci, Paul Offit and Peter Hoetez all acknowledged that fact and expressed concern early on.

    And now, they skipped the animal testing and went straight to human testing.

    Here is a virologist that explains specifically how this vaccine can cause immune enhancement. Meaning that when you get Covid in a few months or years, you can die from it then. And they will never link it to the vaccine.

    Award-winning virologist, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi elucidates why the rushed #Covid19 vaccine trials represent the world's largest medical experiment perpetrated on the globe in human history. Dr. Bhakdi details why the public should not only doubt it’s efficacy, but also be wary of unstudied dangers.

    1. Oh, you mean the guy who thinks that covid is no worse than the flu? Sure, let's take advice from him.

    2. You are closing your mind to alternate explanations of the world. To your detriment.

    3. Aw man! How did I miss out on being lectured on my "cognitive dissonance?"
      I am honestly curious to see if mw will successfully spam this comment section single-handedly and be the final comment to every thread here. And we're off to the races!

  13. Everyone must see this.

    1. Very good. Here is the longer version of this.

      Countless doctors warning of the dangers of this vaccine.

      How can you possibly be so confident when so many doctors, who actually bothered to review the details, are concerned?

    2. A medical journalist, an acupuncturist and a homeopath. If I put dog poo in your nose you probably wouldn't smell it.

    3. Big Mouth,

      Why are you lying? There are many medical doctors and scientists in that video. Among the 20 or so speakers, there is a medical journalist, an acupuncturist and a homeopath.

      In what world is it honest to ignore all the doctors and pick out the weakest three of the presenters (not the medical journalists should be discounted as they actually investigate things).

    4. All of this data disputes their claims:

      I know you love the "daas Torah" concept, and you think every field of expertise is just another "battle of Gedolim" where you can pick and choose your argument from authority as if it holds weight, but argument from authority is a logical fallacy. The results speak for themselves. The numbers speak for themselves. The people you quote are idiots who do not support their views with evidence or reality. Idiots sometimes obtain medical degrees.

  14. That anyone thinks they have any authority to discuss this demonstrates the potency of the dunning-kruger effect.

    None of us yutz-putz's know any of the relevant science and date, yet we're all armchair experts. Retarded.

    The overwhelming consensus of those in the know, tell us to get it. So just get it.

    1. That is really funny. You agree that you don't have any right to an opinion.

      How do you even know what the overwhelming consensus is?

      Based on my research, the overwhelming consensus of experts who are:

      1 - independent of pharmaceutical funding, and

      2 - doing their own research, rather than as most doctors who rely on the FDA and CDC

      Are saying that:

      1 - this experimental vaccine is not proven safe and has many major safety flags

      2 - there is no need for the vaccine because the death rate for anyone under 70 is lower than the flu death rate and the available therapeutics are just as effective, much, much safer, and most importantly, are only give to the small percentage of people who are high risk and who actually get Covid. Not the entire population.

      Can I humbly suggest you follow your own advice and not give anyone advice on this topic?

    2. Lol. This is all incorrect. There is no large body of reputable doctors advising is not to get it.

    3. Big Mouth,

      I posted many doctors. I know many more.

      As a self admitted yutz-putz, and also as a liar as demonstrated from your misrepresentation above, you really don't have a right to an opinion on this topic.

    4. 2 - doing their own research, rather than as most doctors who rely on the FDA and CDC

      I too only rely on engineers who do their own research, and would never step into a building designed by engineers who relied on the work of others. Therefore I live in a tent in the woods.

    5. Happy,

      I see you missed the point.

      People like to claim that "almost all" or "the vast majority" of doctors say...

      But the reality is that there are a few doctors at the CDC, well funded by industry, who have a history of fraud and billions in fraud penalties and you have a similar or larger number of doctors who oppose them.

      Then you have a bunch of doctors who are afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs.

      And a few hundred thousand doctors who simply rely on the few at the CDC/FDA.

      So I would say there are some number around 100 at the CDC/FDA (maybe not that much) and at least that who strongly oppose.

      You can do what you want and believe who you'd like. Just don't tell me (and if you are smart, anyone else) what what to do with their health because "most doctors say so".

    6. But the reality is that there are a few doctors at the CDC, well funded by industry, who have a history of fraud and billions in fraud penalties

      Mw, I am far more worried about the threat from the New World Order operated by the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, and Bezos, who ultimately answer to the Ancient Lizard people, who wish to destroy humanity and harvest our DNA for nefarious purposes. These corrupt doctors are just the lackeys of the New World Order, but the real power lies at the top.

    7. @happy, in all seriousness, do you truly believe that?

    8. "there are a few doctors at the CDC, well funded by industry"

      In 2020 the CDC received some 8 billion $ from gov't & received some 23 million from other sources. I don't know how much of that 23 million is from industry- but if you believe that <1% amounts to "well funded", than you believe in homeopathy.

      The problem is not that you do your own research. It's that you don't research your research. For example, you write that Yeadon claimed that the vaccine can cause sterility. If you actually researched that claim you'd realize that's not what Yeadon claim. (BTW, he did claim the pandemic is over back in November.)

  15. The likelihood of 70 years plus old ladies to be infertile after a Covid vaccine is 100%.
    I would be careful if I was in that age group.

    1. Considering many people will have side effects that are essentially the same as actually getting Covid (beats me why anything thinks that makes sense) it is likely that many old people will die.

      They are already warning people to expect deaths and setting people up to blame it on old age (unlike with Covid when no one ever dies of old age, only of Covid)

    2. None of the old people vaccinated in the trial died from the vaccine. None of them in Moderna's trial even got a severe case of Covid after the vaccine. But some in the placebo group did. Whodathunk it!

  16. Just started a good interview with Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav.

    What happens when people indiscriminately follow government orders? What about when those orders are for the greater good but they might hurt the individual? Join us for a must-see conversation with Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav as she speaks out on public health policy today and the government’s response to coronavirus.

    Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav, Part One

    Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav, Part Two

    Or will you discount what a survivor is warning about because Youtube has conspiracy some theory videos...?

    After that, prepare for some cognitive dissonance:

    Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement

    1. One of the most high profile UK eugenicists was George Bernard Shaw. And guess what? He was anti-vax. And specifically against Jenner- some 150 years late!

      Oh yeah, the author of the article you cited is Whitney Webb- who obsessively writes anti-Israel articles- arguably anti-Semitic.

  17. I'm amazed that you all seem to be so sure there are no fertility concerns.

    I have to wonder what it is that gives you that confidence.

    It's not like the manufacturers are sure about it at all.

    They tell the doctors about their concerns but not the people.

    Here is the version of the document they give doctors (relevant section):

    4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation

    There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
    Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
    BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.

    For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.

    It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to
    the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used
    during breast-feeding.

    It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.

    And here is the document they give patients.

    1. You are hilarious 😂. Do your parents know you go online.

    2. FDA also does not recommend the products for pregnant women. They say so in public documents. Which is to say, they tell all US citizens and anyone with an internet connection this advice:
      No one is hiding anything.

      Want to guess why they state this advice?

      Because pregnant women were excluded from the clinical trials. In order to obtain EUA for vaccination of pregnant women with these products, each company will have to run clinical trials first proving the product is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses. It's really that simple. That's the purpose of clinical trials. There is no data for this subpopulation, therefore FDA can't recommend the product for this subpopulation.
      That's because they need clinical data to review in order to determine whether to recommend it. And there is none (yet).

      The same is true for children btw. These products were approved for those above 16. They will be running trials in children to obtain approval for those under age 16.

      Your alarmism and fearmongering is absurd. You are taking boilerplate statements and blowing them out of proportion to suit your agenda.

  18. Let's get practical... I am 72 years old and I got the vaccine last Thursday and I'm still alive (at least my wife thinks so). I promise that if I die in the next month or so I will update this post.

  19. IF any of you were qualified you would give that at the end of your opinion or comment RIGHT ? MD RN B.S. Epidemiologist D.O. Phd ? I am a B.A. A.A. and a amateur reverse engineered psyops counter-counter intelligence 'hobbyist'; So the opinions on here are no more valuable than any other layman. The "Devil" what ever your view of that dis-eve-er, comes to steal kill and DESTROY so, gee what would it take for man to no longer be a suitable host of the spirit as a temple ? Is that the Levite's plan to abrogate the Cross ? Corrupt the temple being our body so that they claim the only ticket to salvation is to start killing in the supposed holy of holies, even if a 'ark' is brought in would you believe it, is any Levite more than 3% if the DNA of YeshuAh's line ? IF you get 'altered enough' with non-human DNA or aborted non-jewish /edomite DNA goi DNA what's that do for a tribal status ? Go not in unto the strange woman but foreign DNA from a Scandanavian baby girl from clones of their stem cells is no woories BIBI and the rabbis or some of them say it's all OK? Gain some extended life but lose your soul, of what gain is that ? Idolators tend to get handed over to a reprobate mind, we should trust their science? SIGNED : Michael Williamson from the 'targeted town of Kim Davis... B.A. A.A. and a amateur reverse engineered psyops counter-counter intelligence 'hobbyist'


Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

A Different Kind of Chocolate

With Covid having prevented my wife and I from celebrating a significant anniversary milestone, we finally took a long-overdue vacation - to...