Comments (8)
sorted by:
VaxedAndContagious1 9 points ago +9 / -0

u/ThePopCan, I think you broke Tuchodi.

Tuchodi’s obsessive compulsive mental disorder is on full display here, that’s what mental illness looks like below. We could post a study citing that the vaccine caused sudden death in toddlers and in infants and Tuchodi would dismiss the vaccine induced deaths as necessary, and continue obsessively defending the deadly products. There is NO limit amount of vaccine death and injury that will break her obsessive fixation.

Very Sick individual.

May karma find her soon.

tuchodi -7 points ago +1 / -8

More speculative fiction from V&C1.

We could post a study

Please do! Something more substantial than your repetitive opinions.

vaccine death and injury

That would be a good study. So far Twitter links seem to be about it.

tuchodi -6 points ago +1 / -7

the clotshots mess up men's sperm (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209)

The word "temporarily" is right in the title of the paper. The conlusion states "Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good."

Another word for 'transient' is 'temporary'.

OP doesn't mention that the effect is temporary. They're just going for the scare factor.

Bannonmeharder 8 points ago +8 / -0

Lol. You’re broken.

ThePopCan [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

If an ineffective gene therapy made you temporarily blind or made you temporarily bleed continuously from your behind (while giving you heart inflammation), would you take it?

tuchodi -6 points ago +1 / -7

More than 12 billion shots delivered. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/

The Vancouver Sun article you linked to has perhaps half a dozen potential adverse reactions to vaccines while noting no perceptible increase in strokes in the US.

temporarily blind or made you temporarily bleed continuously from your behind (while giving you heart inflammation)

Where does that come from? It isn't in your piece. What's your source?

ThePopCan [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's an analog (i.e. "Something that bears an analogy to something else; something that is comparable."), genius, the suggestion of which was that any temporary medical problem ought to be taken deadly seriously.

I'm beginning to think you're not mentally ill but rather a grassroots spokesperson for Big Pharma. You realize that prior to the pandemic, most drugs are taken off the market if there is more than a handful of deaths or serious adverse effects? That even if the clot shots only slew a few thousand, they shouldn't be pushed on the population.

tuchodi -6 points ago +1 / -7

any temporary medical problem ought to be taken deadly seriously.

You are refusing to recognize, admit, or care - not sure which - that you are promoting the collapse of the healthcare system, and you need to be called on it.

Provincial medical records all show that unvaccinated people are over-represented in hospital and ICU beds - for example Alberta https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm, Ontario https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/, and BC http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/covid-19-surveillance-dashboard.

Yet here you are arguing against vaccination.

grassroots spokesperson for Big Pharma

That's talking point #2 in the Anti-Vax Handbook, right behind "Don't believe the experts. Some of them are lying to you and the rest are too dumb to know they're being played."

I could easily say something similar about you: "They are paralyzed by fear of the global pandemic and are refusing to accept that it's real", or "They are agents of our enemies, taking advantage of the global pandemic to destabilize our society", or just "They are shit disturbing trolls".

I don't know what you are, but when I notice you making silly claims and spreading misinformation I'll probably point it out.

tuchodi -8 points ago +1 / -9

What kind of person is shocked and outraged that a global pandemic caused by a new-to-humans version of a virus was not smartly dealt with by a 100% perfect vaccine?

"How dare the government treat us this way!!" seems to be the cry. "It's my government's fault that I am exposed to this risk!"

I wonder if they also blame government for the damage from storms, floods, and other natural disasters.

It's as though some people never had to deal with any kind of adversity, and the virus has knocked them off their rocker.

tuchodi -8 points ago +1 / -9

it has been confirmed in a recent study that the booster shots don't work (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1841)

This is only true if you consider anything less than 100% protection to be a failure. What the study actually says is that the protection provided by the vaccine decreases somewhat - not completely - over time: "while functional neutralization by vaccine-primed sera is considerably blunted against B.1.1.529 (Omicron), three-dose vaccination efficacy against symptomatic disease holds up, in the 50-70% range"

Follow the link and read it yourself. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209)

OP is misrepresenting the research when they claim "booster shots don't work".