Stupid shit in Medellin

[JjBee62]

A USAn trying to teach English. How sweet! Haha.

Seems that you are stumbling over the double negative that I used, plus not grasping that I spoke of other people, not myself. SO before you attempt to ridicule someone for not understanding English, best if you dble chk your own understanding first. Haha.

"Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective. " - simply means "This is good evidence against vaccine-efficacy deniers. ".

So clearly your are not off to a good start here.

Again, a quite astonishing misunderstanding of what I wrote: "people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven. ".

Nowhere did I state that was my own position. I am writing about the position that others hold. Neither did I ever state the best course of action is to do nothing.

Again, a complete strawman. Well done!.

Thanks for clearing that up. At first I thought you were just confused and unable to express yourself coherently. Now you've clearly stated you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply another idiot without anything useful to provide.

You could have saved about 20 posts by just saying so from the beginning.

[JustTK]

Is English not your first language? If that's the case, I will give you a pass on not understanding what you wrote. Let's take an in depth look, shall we?

A USAn trying to teach English. How sweet! Haha.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe the Covid vaccines are ineffective, go for it. But stop babbling incoherently about evidence when you obviously are either unwilling or unable to examine the evidence.

Seems that you are stumbling over the double negative that I used, plus not grasping that I spoke of other people, not myself. SO before you attempt to ridicule someone for not understanding English, best if you dble chk your own understanding first. Haha.

"Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective. " - simply means "This is good evidence against vaccine-efficacy deniers. ".

So clearly your are not off to a good start here.

Using your insane reasoning, since the long term effectiveness of the treatment was unknown, she would have been better off dying in 6-9 months after only a few months of being able to live her life. Since neither of us were insane, we went with the course which provided the best hope for a future..

Again, a quite astonishing misunderstanding of what I wrote: "people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven. ".

Nowhere did I state that was my own position. I am writing about the position that others hold. Neither did I ever state the best course of action is to do nothing.

Again, a complete strawman. Well done!

Nobody is forcing you to inject an unknown substance into your wife, child or mother.

Now on to your final total failure to understand what was written. You misundesrtand my analogy.

I posit a Q. Would it be moral for me to take you or a loved one from you without your or their permission so that I could run medial experiments on you / them? Chances are good that it will prevent deaths in creating a vaccine but chances are certain that you will die in the experiment Is that moral?

That is my dilemma. Do you understand the dilemma now?

No one has forced me or my wife or children or loved ones to take part in these experiments. Thats bcos I am lucky. But there are thousands of innocent sentient beings that have been forced in to these experiments. And been murdered. And that is what I do not accept.

So well, done. You not only failed to destroy anything of what I wrote, you manage to totally misunderstand every part of what I wrote. Is English YOUR first language?

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/08/t...ctual-cholera/

[AmoMedellin]

Vaccine have same side-effects that the original flu, corona has, but only of 1/1. 000 or 1/10.000 or even 1/100.000.

Blod coagulation is a major side-effect of corona infection, responsible for million of deaths, that is in combination with other damages on lunges etc.

Astra-Zenecas caused blood coagulation in 4 of 400.000 people in Norway. One on 100.000, and treatable!

So we are all safe in the 1st world very soon and can sell / give the vaccine to 2nd /3rd world counties in a couple of months and then the battle begins in Africa, Latin-American and Asia. It should eliminated in 6 months in the major population areas and in 12 months globally.

The price for sex services is 16% of that in Copenhagen. It has been around 15% since 2006 when I made my first trip.

Prices was souring when young venezolanas invaded and brought down prices to it's normal 150 k / hour for beautiful girls, which is a weeks salary for unskilled unregistred workers.

I look for my super vopuptuosa prepago-friend-provider Monica, she used the name Zara on Paisadivinas, we had an argument and I can't stand life itself with her, she is the perfect mistress! Big round ass, long legs, big tits, big lips, like a doll but affordable, I always. Hey, why only 150 k including BBBJ.

Anyone know her or anther super-voupuos beauty with great personality, around 30 yo, since they are not trying to rob me / us do all the time, I can't bring them to my apartment anymore, they are hopeless and might cause a scene and make things hell for me.

[JjBee62]

Well I guess if what you wrote is your understanding of what I wrote, then that makes you the idiot, not me. I didn't write any of those positions that you described. But go ahead and criticise those vews if you like. But they ain't mine..

Is English not your first language? If that's the case, I will give you a pass on not understanding what you wrote. Let's take an in depth look, shall we?

Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective.

There are people who think that pulling out is an effective method of birth control. There is no good evidence to support that belief, but those people are either unwilling to examine the evidence, or are unable to understand it. There is no evidence that the vaccines are ineffective, quite the opposite. For some individuals they may provide less protection, for some individuals they may provide no protection. However, for the vast majority they provide significant protection.

And that's how vaccines work, by preventing most recipients from contracting whichever disease the vaccination is for. Poliomyelitis would not have been almost entirely eradicated worldwide, without such widespread distribution of the vaccine. If you want a visual to help grasp that concept, go to Medellin. Walk around some of the poor neighborhoods. Look for the people with twisted and shriveled limbs. They're not difficult to spot. Often they are begging for change. Notice anything about them? None of them are children or young adults. The reason is, the disease was eradicated from Colombia by 1991.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe the Covid vaccines are ineffective, go for it. But stop babbling incoherently about evidence when you obviously are either unwilling or unable to examine the evidence.

But there are other reasons. For example, people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven.

I hate to keep beating this dead horse, but anyone can question anything they want. That doesn't mean their questions are valid. This is really the departure from sanity point in your post. I'll put it in terms anyone with an IQ above 85 should understand. If you get lost get an adult to explain it to you.

33 years ago, plus a few months, my fiancee was found to have 2 malignant brain tumors, 1 left temporal and 1 right frontal. This was her third about with cancer, with the second being about 4 years earlier. We consulted with Oncologists and Neurosurgeons, we researched all the available alternatives and asked all the questions. The main question was "what are the chances the cancer will come back?

In other words "what is the long term effectiveness of this surgery and treatment combination?

Without surgery, with radiation treatments and massive doses of steroids, she could have hoped to live for 6-9 months, however, she would have effectively been a vegetable after 3-4 months. With surgery, an experimental treatment and radiation treatments, she could reasonably expect to be cancer free for 3-5 years. However, the likelihood of future cancer was high.

Using your insane reasoning, since the long term effectiveness of the treatment was unknown, she would have been better off dying in 6-9 months after only a few months of being able to live her life. Since neither of us were insane, we went with the course which provided the best hope for a future.

In the end, the cancer returned (after 5 years) there was another round of surgery and treatment, which gave another 3 years before cancer ended her life. That's nearly 8 years of life that you believe she should have thrown away, because the long term effectiveness was unknown.

Are you beginning to grasp why I said you're making yourself look like an idiot?

Choosing between being protected nearly 100% against death or long term hospitalization from Covid for a year or more (at no cost to you), with the possibility of needing another dose of vaccine at some point in the future, and having up to a 20% chance of hospitalization and 1. 8% chance of death, if you become symptomatic with Covid (all while racking up huge medical bills), seems pretty fucking simple.

Myself, I would not take a vax bcos I think it is immoral. For example, would you sacrifice your own child / wife / mother so that I can research the effects of a potential vaccine? I assume you would say no. So then why would you expect someone else to sacrifice theirs or for anyone else to take yours without your permission?

Ah! The coup de grace. It's immoral to take a vaccine. I could understand your point if 60% of my cerebral cortex had been surgically removed. I could even understand your point if people were being injected with an untested vaccine against their will and without their knowledge. That would certainly be immoral.

However, the vaccine has been tested. It continues to be tested many thousands of times every day. The rate of adverse effects is extremely low. It is not a "potential vaccine." None of the currently available vaccines are "potential vaccines." Nobody is forcing you to inject an unknown substance into your wife, child or mother.

However, if wish to link voluntarily receiving a tested and safe vaccine with morality then you're on the wrong fucking forum. By being here, on ISG, in the Colombia forum, you are supporting using the poverty of young Colombian mothers as a lever to force them to have sex with you at a price much lower than you could get in other places. Check with your local community standards. I believe you'll find more people think that mongering with impoverished women 20-50 years younger than you is less acceptable than getting a vaccine.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not trying to claim my moral superiority by my decision on whether or not to get vaccinated.

I'll keep saying it:

If you don't want to get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to get vaccinated. Not that a bullet to the head has a chance of striking anything you use. It's your personal decision, nobody else's. Just stop spewing your idiocy trying to pretend your decision has any rational basis.

[JustTK]

You travel to impoverished countries, because the high poverty rate enables you to have sex with young women, most who are trying to support a family, at 10% of what it would cost you at home and you believe voluntarily taking a vaccine that has already been received by nearly 1 billion people is immoral?

That could quite possibly be the most incredibly fucked up rationale I've ever encountered.

People might question the long term effectiveness? People might also question the long term effectiveness of having malignant tumors surgically removed, because quite often the cancer will return, further surgery and treatment will be required. However, those are incredibly stupid people.

If you don't want to get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated. Honestly, nobody here really gives a fuck, no matter what they might say. But stop making up all kinds of bullshit, because it makes you look like an idiot.

Well I guess if what you wrote is your understanding of what I wrote, then that makes you the idiot, not me. I didn't write any of those positions that you described. But go ahead and criticise those vews if you like. But they ain't mine. .

[JustTK]

So, first sentence you acknowledge that the death rate is overwhelming among those who are unvaccinated and you say that "is good evidence against people who don't take the vaccie because they think it is ineffective".
But the very next sentence you say some people think it may not have long-term effectiveness? Seriously? So what? If the vaccine is good for a year or two and then you need another. Is that so bad? Since the.
Covid strain at issue has only been around for 1 1/2 years, and the vaccine has only been out about 6 months (after preliminary trials) I guess we'll find out. But the fact that it is effective initially is ample reason to.
Be vaccinated. If it doesn't perform long-term I suspect the drug companies will have improved the vaccine so that it will, in due course.
Lastly you think the vaccine is immoral? Because why?? You understand we are not in an experimental trial right now. Right? You know that the trials don't 'force' your child / wife / grandmother to enter it right??
The last bastion of stupidity is someone saying " I'm not going to take the vaccine because it isn't proven to be 100% effective " Current statistics are running over 90% effective against the virus and the less than 10% who still get infected are surviving at a highly elevated rate vs those who are unvaccinated. Perfect? Not yet. Effective. Damn straight.

Yes, there is a difference between short term and long term. The vaccine clearly helps vulnerable people from dying in the short term. But its long term effectiveness is not proven (bcos viruses mutate). Thats great if your vulnerable or rich, or even better if your both. But billions of people will never get a vax bcos they live in a poor country. That will remain an opportunity for the virus to mutate.

My personal issue is not with the effectiveness of the vaccine. My issue is that I will not support a process that kills innocent beings in the trials. I don't accept that my life is more important than those innocent beings that are being murdered in the trials.

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...accine/619276/

[MarquisdeSade1]

You are a victim of Russian / Republican disinformation.

Of defective DNA.

[MarquisdeSade1]

So, first sentence you acknowledge that the death rate is overwhelming among those who are unvaccinated and you say that "is good evidence against people who don't take the vaccie because they think it is ineffective".

But the very next sentence you say some people think it may not have long-term effectiveness? Seriously? So what? If the vaccine is good for a year or two and then you need another. Is that so bad? Since the.

Covid strain at issue has only been around for 1 1/2 years, and the vaccine has only been out about 6 months (after preliminary trials) I guess we'll find out. But the fact that it is effective initially is ample reason to.

Be vaccinated. If it doesn't perform long-term I suspect the drug companies will have improved the vaccine so that it will, in due course.

Lastly you think the vaccine is immoral? Because why?? You understand we are not in an experimental trial right now. Right? You know that the trials don't 'force' your child / wife / grandmother to enter it right??

The last bastion of stupidity is someone saying " I'm not going to take the vaccine because it isn't proven to be 100% effective " Current statistics are running over 90% effective against the virus and the less than 10% who still get infected are surviving at a highly elevated rate vs those who are unvaccinated. Perfect? Not yet. Effective. Damn straight.

You recd Sinovac.

[JjBee62]

Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective.

But there are other reasons. For example, people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven.

Myself, I would not take a vax bcos I think it is immoral. For example, would you sacrifice your own child / wife / mother so that I can research the effects of a potential vaccine? I assume you would say no. So then why would you expect someone else to sacrifice theirs or for anyone else to take yours without your permission?

Let me get this straight.

You travel to impoverished countries, because the high poverty rate enables you to have sex with young women, most who are trying to support a family, at 10% of what it would cost you at home and you believe voluntarily taking a vaccine that has already been received by nearly 1 billion people is immoral?

That could quite possibly be the most incredibly fucked up rationale I've ever encountered.

People might question the long term effectiveness? People might also question the long term effectiveness of having malignant tumors surgically removed, because quite often the cancer will return, further surgery and treatment will be required. However, those are incredibly stupid people.

If a vaccine prevents you from being hospitalized or dying for 6 months (and also prevents you from infecting other people who might be hospitalized or who might die, then what's the objection? "I'd rather go ahead and die now than have to submit to another half second vaccine injection again next year."

Where in the fuck is this potential vaccine you are speaking of? There are several actual, tested and proven vaccines. To date they have been administered to nearly 1 billion people around the world. That's a total of almost 2 billion tests, not counting all of the actual tests before any of the vaccines were authorized for distribution.

Is there a chance that any individual will have an adverse reaction to the vaccine? Yes. Just like there is a chance that someone will choke on a piece of popcorn. Is it immoral to sell popcorn because 1 out of every 1 million people who eat popcorn will choke and die on popcorn?

If you don't want to get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated. Honestly, nobody here really gives a fuck, no matter what they might say. But stop making up all kinds of bullshit, because it makes you look like an idiot.

[John Clayton]

Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective.

But there are other reasons. For example, people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven.

Myself, I would not take a vax bcos I think it is immoral. For example, would you sacrifice your own child / wife / mother so that I can research the effects of a potential vaccine? I assume you would say no. So then why would you expect someone else to sacrifice theirs or for anyone else to take yours without your permission?

You are a victim of Russian / Republican disinformation.

[Villainy]

Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective.

But there are other reasons. For example, people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven.

Myself, I would not take a vax bcos I think it is immoral. For example, would you sacrifice your own child / wife / mother so that I can research the effects of a potential vaccine? I assume you would say no. So then why would you expect someone else to sacrifice theirs or for anyone else to take yours without your permission?

So, first sentence you acknowledge that the death rate is overwhelming among those who are unvaccinated and you say that "is good evidence against people who don't take the vaccie because they think it is ineffective".

But the very next sentence you say some people think it may not have long-term effectiveness? Seriously? So what? If the vaccine is good for a year or two and then you need another. Is that so bad? Since the.

Covid strain at issue has only been around for 1 1/2 years, and the vaccine has only been out about 6 months (after preliminary trials) I guess we'll find out. But the fact that it is effective initially is ample reason to.

Be vaccinated. If it doesn't perform long-term I suspect the drug companies will have improved the vaccine so that it will, in due course.

Lastly you think the vaccine is immoral? Because why?? You understand we are not in an experimental trial right now. Right? You know that the trials don't 'force' your child / wife / grandmother to enter it right??

The last bastion of stupidity is someone saying " I'm not going to take the vaccine because it isn't proven to be 100% effective " Current statistics are running over 90% effective against the virus and the less than 10% who still get infected are surviving at a highly elevated rate vs those who are unvaccinated. Perfect? Not yet. Effective. Damn straight.

[JustTK]

Almost any and everything you read will echo that around 99% of the CoVid deaths are in unvaccinated people. I copied a bunch of links below. They are not all parroting the CDC's findings.
(Which should be sufficient for anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist). The uniformity of the results might lead a rational person to actively seek vaccination. You are not guaranteed against getting the virus, but you are far more likely to survive it.
Isn't that enough?? Do we really need to know exactly how the virus operates or how the vaccine was conceived or who profits or who scratches their balls.

Its good evidence against people that do not want to take the vaccine bcos they think it is ineffective.

But there are other reasons. For example, people might question the long term effectiveness of the vaccine. That has not been proven.

Myself, I would not take a vax bcos I think it is immoral. For example, would you sacrifice your own child / wife / mother so that I can research the effects of a potential vaccine? I assume you would say no. So then why would you expect someone else to sacrifice theirs or for anyone else to take yours without your permission?

[GeneHickman]

How did it affect your brother? If you were infected by your brother would it have still shown up as late as the date that you took the test in Colombia?
I don't blame you. That must have been 50 years ago, $20!

Some people with weaker immune systems. Chronic illnesses or elderly take longer to clear the virus. Kids with strong immune systems generally run through it quickly.