@adam-l

1) You will contract the virus, I guess everyone understands that by now.

No, that's false. It's virulent, but if you practice good hygiene until there's enough herd immunity then you won't end up contracting it. There's roughly 6 strains of coronavirus floating around society at the moment. They're called the "common cold" and most people have only contracted 2 or maybe 3 in their lifetime. The idea it is inevitable is completely false.

2) Both for vulnerables and not, the chance of the virus killing you is not even comparable to the vaccine killing you. (Let alone that by now the blood clot issue is monitored, and can be almost 100% remedied.)

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but off the top of my head there's literally a 99.999% survival rate for young/healthy/non-vulnerable people.

There is tons of evidence that the virus creates problem in huge percentages, even those asymptomatic.

Feel free to share it. I've not seen any peer reviewed evidence of asymptomatic "problems" (I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.) My immediate first question to any such evidence will be "how has this been controlled to eliminate the negative health effects of lockdown?"

As you see, I'm not even touching the ethical issue of transmitting the virus to others.

That's not an ethical issue. Nature gonna nature. Being on a red pill site, this is a very surprising argument to see.

@adam-l So the body makes biochemical reactions as its way of communicating orders. This is an oversimplified way of pointing out how things like the nervous system function without going into the detail of how micronutrients are released and bind with receptors to continue the transmission of an electrical signal at absolutely tiny levels.

The "spike" is just a few amino acids. The whole virus is an entire cell complete with RNA. The point is the size difference. Your hormones are made up of just a few amino acids. Knowing the impact testosterone makes on changing your body, you may be starting to see why it's important to care about the size difference. A whole cell can't tell your body to change it's orders (your body does that itself when it detects a foreign cell through it's own set of orders.)

The difference is essentially between you detecting an enemy and issuing orders to your troops, and you detecting an enemy, issuing orders to your troops, but the enemy also having access to your communications and being able to issue other orders which are then followed. I hope that's reasonably clear.

Ultimately it comes down to risk. Are you vulnerable? Yes? Take the vaccine, the risk is worth is because the virus could kill you so it's worth the tiny risk that the vaccine could kill you. If you're not vulnerable, don't take it. The virus will not kill you, so it's not worth risking your life just to take the vaccine.

That is my assessment of the data and the knowledge we have. My position ethically is that you make up your own mind. Those are the facts as I see them, you can do whatever you like with your own body.

@deeplydisturbed From what I've read about the mRNA vaccines, they essentially work like a virus does. They will hijack some cells in your body and rewrite the genetic material in the cell to produce something else (except not a full virus in this case, just a small block of amino acids that create the protein "spike" part of the virus.)

These will be manufactured in the cells until the cells burst (the same way a virus normally reproduces, you ever had a sore throat? That sensation is the cells in your throat bursting, that's what is causing the soreness. You're viral when that's happening, don't cough over people or onto any hard/cold surfaces!!!)

Once all these protein spikes have been released into your system, your body should identify it and respond as a typical immune response, giving your T-cells something to latch onto. (Your T-cells work a bit like trying a set of 1000 keys on a chain on a door... it keeps trying until it finds something that binds and destroys it.) Your immune system then remembers this for the future, known as immunity or more specifically, T-cell immunity. I am unsure whether your B-cells can produce antibodies to this vaccine or not. I haven't seen any research using antibody testing as a method of verification. It's all been cohort studies with experimental and control groups.

It's phenomenal technology. Though obviously can do great evil... but if we stabalise it and make it work properly we can probably make people immune to most things we can catch and grow in a lab quite easily.

Now the downside: it looks like this particular protein spike can trigger the body's natural method of coagulation (causing your blood to clot) and from my own knowledge of what's been going on in the pharmacy of a major regional hospital.... they were issuing anticoagulants to just about everybody at the same time as rolling out the vaccine.... I sense many medical professionals were aware of this issue and taking personal action to protect their patients. (It's a fair treatment if you're old and COVID could kill you. Take the vaccine and do a short course of blood thinners. Very reasonable risk/reward.)

In the young/anybody who isn't vulnerable? You don't need the vaccine anyway, you'll fight off COVID naturally. It's not a sensible risk/reward to get a vaccine which won't improve your life, and then take blood thinners to try and ward off a risk you didn't need to take. This is the best I can make of all the evidence and where the data/technology is right now.

@whiteindia I've double checked Mike Yeadon's work history and everything he claims in terms of what he's worked is legit. He is a medical doctor with a specialism in respiratory disease and allergy medicine development. He was previously VP at Pfizer heading up their respiratory illness R&D business.

I've read much of the published research myself out of general interest. My background covers a pretty wide of area of medical stuff, but my specialism is more technical. There is a level of confirmation bias here because he says basically all the conclusions I'd reached through my own evaluation of the research evidence. However he has much more clout than I do due to his specialism and the fact he's been doing this specialism at a more senior level than I've reached yet.

In short - this is one of the most trustworthy dissenting voices you'll hear and he does go into some of the more complex medical things that I wouldn't be able to explain with the same authority.