[FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Fri Jun 18 15:36:28 EDT 2021

Thank you Glen,

I reread the article you posted
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vaccines-are-going-to-sterilize-our-womenfolk-take-2/
and then I listened to where dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA
vaccination technology discusses the potential harm of the Covid vaccines:
The long discussion has been removed, but the following two clips are still
available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb_7E12VDE4 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY

After reviewing this I came to the following conclusion:
a) I 100% agree with "your" article in that it debunks many of the wild
conspiracy theories. Thanks for this
b) In "my" video clips, dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination
technology, discusses carefully the potential harm of specifically the
Covid vaccines. Refer to https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ for more about him. I
don't find convincing arguments against these specific points in "your"
article.

Let me repeat, I am a VERY BIG fan of vaccinations in general and
specifically of the mRNA vaccination technology. I am really excited about
the potential benefits to humanity of this technology in that it could, in
future, have effective vaccines available against viruses very soon after a
new virus has been identified. Vaccinations have saved many lives the last
half-century or so and mRNA vaccination technology could take the fight
against virus infections even further.

We all are confronted with data and information and we have to use our own
judgement about what makes sense for ourselves. If you believe "your"
article debunked what dr. Robert Malone said, fine, I am definitely not
going to argue with you or try to change your mind.

In my judgement, on the other hand, I don't find convincing arguments in
"your" article debunking what Dr Robert Malone said.

Again, I really appreciate your comments and I really do consider it, in
general I value your judgement, but in this specific case I disagree with
you. But at the end of the day we don't have to agree on how we interpret
the information.

Just on the cost, I was not referring to what it costs me personally. I was
referring to the billions of dollars in taxpayers money big pharma got to
develop the vaccines and the killing they now make to sell it to
governments.

About stirring the pot, in general I like to do exactly that, yes, guilty
as charged. But in this specific case I am serious about seeking help. But
please don't crucify me if we come to different conclusions on being
presented with the same information. We can agree to disagree in a very
positive spirit.

Thanks again,
Pieter

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 20:32, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you would be specific about your chosen alternative, we could have a
> specific discussion. For example, are you comparing:
>
> 1) Vaccination versus
> 2) Ivermectin?
>
> If we ignore all the side effects of ivermectin (e.g. fever, pruritus,
> skin rash), we should at least consider cost. The tablets of ivermectin
> available to me are 20 tablets at 3mg for ~$30. Given that we won't reach
> herd immunity for quite some time, let's guess you'll have to take
> ivermectin for the next 6 months. And let's guess at a dosage of 12 mg. How
> many successive days do you have to take it? If we assume every day, we get
> $1092 for 6 months. If we assume 4 doses per week, we get $624 for 6 months.
>
> As far as I know, the vaccines are free. But maybe you have to travel
> somewhere to get it. So, if your travel costs are less than the costs of
> the ivermectin, then the vaccination is the better choice.
>
> Now, if you're not running the calculus for yourself, but for your
> daughter, then you have to estimate the risk to her ovaries. The article I
> posted DEBUNKED the evidence that the spike protein reaches the ovaries.
> But you won't talk about that. So, let's just assume that risk is non-zero
> and breeding is a high priority for her. Then, as long as she's not
> allergic to ivermectin, that regimen is a better choice than the mRNA
> vaccines. But what about the traditional (e.g. adenovirus-based) vaccines?
> Do you have any reason to believe the spike protein leaves the site of
> infection for traditional vaccines?
>
> If not, the vaccination is still a better choice than the ivermectin
> prophylactic.
>
> The above is an example of how you might start weighing one versus the
> other. You keep saying you haven't seen any argument that convinces you of
> anything. If the above is not what you're looking for, then
>
> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?
>
> Help me help you. What evidence would you accept? What would convince
> you?  My guess is that NOTHING will change your mind and you're only
> posting here to "stir the pot". 8^D
>
>
> On 6/18/21 10:29 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> > I am serious about whether to vaccinate or not and for now my ears are
> all open for comments on whether to vaccinate or not. Up to now I haven't
> had an argument that convinces me to change my mind from my original
> message. For information, let me repeat my position:
> > a) Covid is bad
> > b) The vaccinations are effective and relatively safe and if there is no
> other option then it's better to get vaccinated.
> > But tis is not the story, the whole story and nothing but the story, let
> me continue:
> > c) There are messages out there that convince me that there are safe,
> low cost alternative remedies to being vaccinated that are as effective as
> vaccination.
> > d) Although it's not as bad as the Covid infection itself, the Covid
> vaccination is also harmful, and especially scary is the potential long
> term serious harmful effects of the vaccination affecting the bone marrow
> and ovaries of women and girls. The original link I gave is the long
> discussion and was removed (not "censored", thanks Glen), but a clip where
> they discuss this specific issue is still, for now, available at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY> .
> >
> > For a slightly longer discussion with more details and references,
> please refer to the first email in this thread. If there are flaws in my
> reasoning I'd really like to hear about it.
>
> --
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210618/bd5ae5dd/attachment.html>