Do you trust the co-vid19 vaccine ?

[Tash]

Adam died at age 930 years (Gen 5:5),
Noah at 950 years (Gen 9:29) and Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) was the oldest of them all, dying when he was 969 years old (Gen 5:27)

Learn at least the basics

Don't tell me that you actually believe this shit.

Its as good or even better as the other shit.

In other news something positve, Nigeria suing Pfizer for seven billion
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/05/health.healthandwellbeing1
And yes Pfizer can also be suid for the covid vaccine but government has to pay as per contract. (8.4 or thereabouts)

[beertoll]

Adam died at age 930 years (Gen 5:5),
Noah at 950 years (Gen 9:29) and Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) was the oldest of them all, dying when he was 969 years old (Gen 5:27)

Learn at least the basics

Oh yeah, I completely forgot that... And that there were also talking snakes...

[tvbcof]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

True enough because hunter/gatherer life ways tend to make for a tough lifestyle with a lot of risks.  That says nothing about geriatrics though.  Those who survived battles (male) and childbirth (female) likely often lived as long as people do today when they were naturally hardy, and most probably were due to multi-generational selective pressures and infant mortality.

In short, if one was 'lucky' enough to make it through the risky years to, say, age 40, it would have been realtively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's.  Probably much more smooth than it is for many industrialized people of today.

A long life was likely associated with the 'luck' of having kids and grandkids to help them out since it is a relatively common feature of hunter/gather groups that oldsters without such were turned out of the community to die.

---

Another thing I would point out is that there was likely the same 'bell curve' of people who are naturally perceptive and intelligent (and/or scammy) across place and time.  In the old days these people would stay in the community as healers and/or religious leaders.  It is quite amazing what some _real_ primitive healers were able to do with plants and such over a lifetime of studying them.  The thing which has change now is that someone from a less developed area and having some brains is likely to get sucked into the formal educational system and end up being a gall bladder specialist in an industrialized country.  This deprives more primitive areas of some of the talents that would in earlier times stayed among the community.

[Tash]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

Hunter gatherer Agafya Lykova is now 74 for most part lived alone in russian wilderness alone, immune to Lyme disease.....
https://youtu.be/BFK3DJ7Kn6s
She is smiling happy content.

[beertoll]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

Hunter gatherer Agafya Lykova is now 74 for most part lived alone in russian wilderness alone, immune to Lyme disease.....
https://youtu.be/BFK3DJ7Kn6s
She is smiling happy content.

That is a very bad "proof" to use. All of her siblings died at the age of around 40.

[Tash]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

Hunter gatherer Agafya Lykova is now 74 for most part lived alone in russian wilderness alone, immune to Lyme disease.....
https://youtu.be/BFK3DJ7Kn6s
She is smiling happy content.

That is a very bad "proof" to use. All of her siblings died at the age of around 40.

After having visitors who delivered "a very bad cough".

[beertoll]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

True enough because hunter/gatherer life ways tend to make for a tough lifestyle with a lot of risks.  That says nothing about geriatrics though.  Those who survived battles (male) and childbirth (female) likely often lived as long as people do today when they were naturally hardy, and most probably were due to multi-generational selective pressures and infant mortality.

In short, if one was 'lucky' enough to make it through the risky years to, say, age 40, it would have been realtively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's.  Probably much more smooth than it is for many industrialized people of today.

A long life was likely associated with the 'luck' of having kids and grandkids to help them out since it is a relatively common feature of hunter/gather groups that oldsters without such were turned out of the community to die.

---

Another thing I would point out is that there was likely the same 'bell curve' of people who are naturally perceptive and intelligent (and/or scammy) across place and time.  In the old days these people would stay in the community as healers and/or religious leaders.  It is quite amazing what some _real_ primitive healers were able to do with plants and such over a lifetime of studying them.  The thing which has change now is that someone from a less developed area and having some brains is likely to get sucked into the formal educational system and end up being a gall bladder specialist in an industrialized country.  This deprives more primitive areas of some of the talents that would in earlier times stayed among the community.

There is a lot of "probably" and "perhaps" and not much actual information. There is no credible information about them "... relatively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's."

Here is an excerpt from National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) article:

During the Paleolithic era, human life expectancy was only 33 years—roughly half of what it is today. We owe our more extended lives in part to better hygiene, medicines, and more plentiful foods. Yet some people aspire to return to that earlier era, at least at dinnertime.

https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/collection/detail.html?case_id=752&id=752


P. S. And I'm not even going to comment on the part about the witchdoctors.

[beertoll]

...
Cavemen who "lived in harmony with nature" were lucky if they lived to be 25.

Hunter gatherer Agafya Lykova is now 74 for most part lived alone in russian wilderness alone, immune to Lyme disease.....
https://youtu.be/BFK3DJ7Kn6s
She is smiling happy content.

That is a very bad "proof" to use. All of her siblings died at the age of around 40.

After having visitors who delivered "a very bad cough".

Exactly, they have died from totally preventable causes that are considered trivial in the modern world. And in the good old days, a bad cough could decimate a village.

Thank you for bringing an example where 4 out of 5 people died when the death was 100% preventable. And you should be thankful for modern medicine that you don't have to worry about dying from a bad cough.

[tvbcof]

...

There is a lot of "probably" and "perhaps" and not much actual information. There is no credible information about them "... relatively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's."

Here is an excerpt from National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) article:

During the Paleolithic era, human life expectancy was only 33 years—roughly half of what it is today. We owe our more extended lives in part to better hygiene, medicines, and more plentiful foods. Yet some people aspire to return to that earlier era, at least at dinnertime.

https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/collection/detail.html?case_id=752&id=752

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp, but from wikipedia:

  "Longevity, maximum lifespan, and life expectancy are not synonyms."

Just a quick scan and saw this article near the top of my search.  Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

So is modern society more beneficial for health and longevity than, say, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle?  To help gain an answer to this question, scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate).  It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood (Kanazawa, 2008).

[beertoll]

...

There is a lot of "probably" and "perhaps" and not much actual information. There is no credible information about them "... relatively smooth sailing up into their 70's and 80's."

Here is an excerpt from National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) article:

During the Paleolithic era, human life expectancy was only 33 years—roughly half of what it is today. We owe our more extended lives in part to better hygiene, medicines, and more plentiful foods. Yet some people aspire to return to that earlier era, at least at dinnertime.

https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/collection/detail.html?case_id=752&id=752

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp, but from wikipedia:

  "Longevity, maximum lifespan, and life expectancy are not synonyms."

Just a quick scan and saw this article near the top of my search.  Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

So is modern society more beneficial for health and longevity than, say, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle?  To help gain an answer to this question, scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate).  It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood (Kanazawa, 2008).

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp

I read everything you wrote and based on that I concluded that you are not fit to estimate my level of intelligence.


This essay by an unknown author that you posted also mentioned this:

According to historical mortality levels from the Encyclopaedia of Population (2003), average life expectancy for prehistoric humans was estimated at just 20 – 35 years;

And then the unknown author continues to guess and speculate using words like "might have", "probably" and so on.

Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

That site is a personal blog for making money on ads. This "source" also has an article about "Godlike Power and Monster Malevolence: Mishipizheu of Lake Superior". I'm sure it is also full of facts.

This is the problem with your "quick scans" through unverified and non-reputable sources. You will continue to confirm your bias in the following decades as well by hearing what you want to hear from unknown authors. Your opinions are unlikely to change, you will not consider information that doesn't confirm your biases.

[tvbcof]

Seems possible that this is just beyond your intellectual grasp

I read everything you wrote and based on that I concluded that you are not fit to estimate my level of intelligence.

Yup.  I guessed right.

Poor fella.  You really want to be smart don't you?  People who are intellectually challenged, or just beginners, can get sensitive in this way.  I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

This essay by an unknown author that you posted also mentioned this:

According to historical mortality levels from the Encyclopaedia of Population (2003), average life expectancy for prehistoric humans was estimated at just 20 – 35 years;

And then the unknown author continues to guess and speculate using words like "might have", "probably" and so on.

Won't vouch for it, but it makes sense with other things I've read over the last number of decades.

That site is a personal blog for making money on ads. This "source" also has an article about "Godlike Power and Monster Malevolence: Mishipizheu of Lake Superior". I'm sure it is also full of facts.

This is the problem with your "quick scans" through unverified and non-reputable sources. You will continue to confirm your bias in the following decades as well by hearing what you want to hear from unknown authors. Your opinions are unlikely to change, you will not consider information that doesn't confirm your biases.

The article had footnotes, and (Kanazawa 2008) seems to be this:

  https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-ii-life-expectancy

Personally I feel like Psychology Today is probably just another scientism rag (of the type that the Left wing intelligentsia considers the word of God), but this is a relatively unimportant topic and there is not a lot of reason to fabricate things.

Buy hey, if, for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think that all cavemen dropped dead at or before age 30, be my guest.

[beertoll]

Yup.  I guessed right.
Poor fella.  You really want to be smart don't you?

You guessed wrong. I said that you aren't fit to estimate my intelligence implying that you are an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Stop guessing and make your assumptions based on facts.

People who are intellectually challenged, or just beginners, can get sensitive in this way.

I totally agree with you on that one.

Buy hey, if, for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think that all cavemen dropped dead at or before age 30, be my guest.

You claimed that people are better off without modern medicine, like cavemen. I showed you scientific resources that state that Paleolithic era men lived a short life (and your response is, "for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think..."). I'm always open to new information but you send links to weird sites with opinions and stories about dragons. The reference link in that article explains the meaning of life expectancy and NOTHING else.

I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'. You were in this debate alone, no one argued with you about that. My graph showed the life expectancy for the modern era, I shared the life expectancy for Paleolithic era and the drastic difference between them. Why are you even pushing this? Do you want a cookie for understanding the difference between meanings? Go get one and don't bring the terms up again.

Their life expectancy was short, their lifespan was short. Their life was short. 4 of their 10 children would die at birth. 4 of the remaining would not survive until the teenage years. The survivors would perish from diseases and injuries in their 20-30s.

[Ultegra134]

Yup.  I guessed right.
Poor fella.  You really want to be smart don't you?

You guessed wrong. I said that you aren't fit to estimate my intelligence implying that you are an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Stop guessing and make your assumptions based on facts.

People who are intellectually challenged, or just beginners, can get sensitive in this way.

I totally agree with you on that one.

Buy hey, if, for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think that all cavemen dropped dead at or before age 30, be my guest.

You claimed that people are better off without modern medicine, like cavemen. I showed you scientific resources that state that Paleolithic era men lived a short life (and your response is, "for whatever weird reason, it makes you feel good to think..."). I'm always open to new information but you send links to weird sites with opinions and stories about dragons. The reference link in that article explains the meaning of life expectancy and NOTHING else.

I get it.  Keep working on it.  I think you could understand the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan' if you ponder on it a little more.

I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'. You were in this debate alone, no one argued with you about that. My graph showed the life expectancy for the modern era, I shared the life expectancy for Paleolithic era and the drastic difference between them. Why are you even pushing this? Do you want a cookie for understanding the difference between meanings? Go get one and don't bring the terms up again.

Their life expectancy was short, their lifespan was short. Their life was short. 4 of their 10 children would die at birth. 4 of the remaining would not survive until the teenage years. The survivors would perish from diseases and injuries in their 20-30s.

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

[tvbcof]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

The above user is to stupid to realize that his 'argument', or whatever it is, is not even relevant to the discussion going on.

He's also to lazy to point to any examples of his accusations of course.

[beertoll]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

The above user is to stupid to realize that his 'argument', or whatever it is, is not even relevant to the discussion going on.

He's also to lazy to point to any examples of his accusations of course.

You must be kidding me... The examples of the accusations are in the last 30 posts in this thread. You are either post your own opinions based on "decades of your own knowledge" or posting links to personal blogs where people write what they think is true based on the pieces of information they liked on the internet. No references to research or any kind of verified sources.

[fastlight]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

The above user is to stupid to realize that his 'argument', or whatever it is, is not even relevant to the discussion going on.

He's also to lazy to point to any examples of his accusations of course.

to glorious ignore button... don't worry, he is in a big office with a lot of little keyboard slave like him, trying to fuck our health, for a few nikels a day... don't even care or mention such biowaste > ignore. they will respawn.

[tvbcof]

...
I don't understand your obsession with the difference between 'life expectancy' and 'lifespan'.
....

I never mentioned anything about 'life expectancy' nor did I imply it.  But over and over again you keep bringing it up because you think it is some attack on something I said, or you just want to flap your gums and it is the most scienc-ee word you know.

Here's what is actually happening in your pea-sized brain albeit at a subconscious level which is why I'll do you a solid and help bring it to your attention:

You have been programmed to believe that everyone will drop dead before age thirty unless they have modern pharma drugs.  That's what billions of dollars of advertizing and 'investment' into state funded schools buy them.

You are so indoctrinated you will go rabid-dog style and start chewing on anything you perceive as being a threat to your cyber-sponsors in big pharma.  Constantly going back to 'life expectancy' in spite of it not even being relevant is equivalent to the rabid dog attacking a tire instead of an actual animal.  Amusing to watch at least.  I've seen it on the internets before of course, but some of you noobs on this forum really take it to an extreme level lately.  It's at least a glass half full that you guys are going to be sterilized or killed by the 'vaccine' where 'my type' is more likely to make it through to the other side.  I mean, I think you guys are pretty much damaged beyond hope of repair.

[franky1]

more like tvbcof thinks people are programmed to die before 50 if they have a vaccine..

yet history proves tvbcof wrong.
before vaccines were even a thing average life span was 50
after vaccines became the norm.. life spans averaged 82

even now countries that dont do regular vaccinations still have lifespans of average 50
vs all the countries that do do vaccines.

the reason is that diseases do kill people. .. its why they are defined as diseases!!! and not just temporary irritations
vaccines stop/reduce diseases to small percentage levels. and in many cases eradicate it

vaccines are not the major cause of death. and have never been the causes of death.
quite the opposite disease with no vaccination leads to high causes of death

EG how many people die of polio after having a polio vaccine
vs
how many people die of polio before vaccines were a thing

[beertoll]

The following user has been posting all sort of non-scientific websites and conspiracy theories all around the forum, no matter what evidence you provide, he'll simply reject/ignore it. It doesn't require much scientific knowledge, that back in the 50s, people would die at the age of 40-50-60 years, from diseases that have now been eradicated.

It's plain stupid to ignore that, with simple statistics it can be proven that the average life expectancy has risen dramatically, the last few decades, due to modern medicine.

I don't usually argue on the internet and I understand that there is almost no chance to change people's minds if they believe in conspiracies. And I'm not trying to win an argument with him. The goal of my posts is to dilute the load of crap they post with links to reputable sources. I hope to minimize their impact on people who are uncertain about vaccines.

My mother has a friend like who doesn't shut up about big pharma and the government that has the sole purpose to get them in some way. Because of that friend, my mother was hesitant about vaccines and it took me an effort to convince her.

But luckily she did it in time because the friend with whom she was often around got Covid and ended up in hospital. My mother didn't contract the virus. With her respiratory problems, it would be disastrous. It is unfortunate what happened with her friend but on the other hand, after seeing what her friend went through - she is not hesitant now to get a booster shot if required.


People are "woke" while nothing bad is happing to them. When the disaster strikes in their family - it is too late, and they are left with regret and self-blame.

[BADecker]

Do I trust the Covid vaccine? Of course I do! I trust it to kill people after turning them into superspreaders.


CDC confesses: Vaccines are failing, the vaxxed can be super-spreaders, demands return to mask mandates for everyone, including the vaxxed

Via the words of the CDC’s own director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the official narrative on vaccines and covid has just self-destructed. While in March of this year, Walenksy had publicly promised that vaccinated people could not spread the virus and infect others, this week she publicly stated that vaccines are failing, and that vaccinated people may now carry higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, contributing to the spread of covid.

Even Yahoo News, which typically shills for Big Pharma, could not sugarcoat the devastating narrative shift, reporting:

The CDC updated its guidelines on Tuesday to recommend masks indoors, even for vaccinated people.
The Delta variant makes it easier for vaccinated people to transmit the virus, the CDC said.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected with Delta may have similar viral loads.

USA Today was so alarmed by the CDC confession that they tried to memory hole their own reporting which cited NBC News. In a panic, USA Today scrubbed this sentence from their story:

NBC News, citing unnamed officials aware of the decision, reported it comes after new data suggests vaccinated individuals could have higher levels of virus and infect others amid the surge of cases driven by the delta variant of the coronavirus.

The CDC is currently hiding these data from the public, by the way, most likely because they know that once the data are revealed, any remaining shred of their pro-vaccine narrative will spontaneously collapse.

CDC “confession” just obliterated all the promises made to the vaccinated… now they are slowly realizing they’re the doomed super-spreaders

In making these public statements, the CDC just admitted that the entire promise that vaccinated people were immune to covid and couldn’t spread it to others just unraveled. Immediately, the CDC demanded that the entire nation revert to neanderthal mask mandates, even for those who have been “fully vaccinated.”

It begs the question: If the answer isn’t vaccines but rather just wearing masks, then why does America need the CDC in the first place? And since masks actually don’t work to block viral particles that are orders of magnitude smaller than the gaps in the mask threads, then how can masks stop them?

And if vaccines aren’t working, then what’s the use of vaccine passports?

...