Posts by Megan Green72

Probably just some energy drink he’s shilling for.
Look, I’m not happy about it—the guy was a top-tier actor for years, and I don't recall him being wrapped up in any major scandals or drama.

mellowskipper said:Colored poison? I have no idea what you're even talking about.
I mean, why on earth would I be begging my own father or my best friend to go get vaccinated with some kind of toxic dye?
Look, I’m all for vaccines—honestly—but it should be a choice. It has to be voluntary. I guess we just can't have the government using coercion to force our hands.

Sent from my iPhone 12 Pro using Reddit

I'm not just taking shots at you—I'm talking about the whole situation.

mellowskipper said:Actually, people reject medication and diagnostic-therapeutic procedures all the time. They refuse painkillers, sedatives, chemotherapy, hemodialysis, even surgeries. They sign themselves out of the hospital against medical advice—against everything the doctors recommend. I’ve actually had to sign those papers myself, taking full responsibility for discharging my own child. Just because you might not be aware of specific instances doesn't mean they aren't happening.

Sent from my iPhone 12 Pro using Reddit

Yeah, maybe 1% do that—but they don't do it by accusing doctors of trying to poison them with colored sludge. ☕
Most people take their prescriptions without a second thought, yet suddenly everyone becomes an expert when it comes to vaccines.

mellowskipper said:I wouldn't say it boils down to that, though—mostly because you can always choose to refuse a prescribed drug or a specific diagnostic procedure.

Sent from my iPhone 12 Pro using Reddit

It does work like that because, in reality, you aren't going to turn down professional medical advice when it comes to drugs. You trust them.

William Barrett7 said:That comparison doesn't really hold water. I can refuse any recommended or prescribed medication I want without facing movement restrictions or being barred from public services. Can we say the exact same thing about those who refuse vaccination in the near future?

Yeah, sure, in theory—but I’m talking about reality here. People happily swallow whatever pills they're handed and trust the "experts" the second some doctor starts lecturing them, but the moment vaccines enter the conversation, suddenly everyone’s an expert on how corrupt and evil the system is, right?

mellowskipper said:Naturally. I'm on an antidepressant myself. And Xanax.
Medication helps; I mean, it's not like we're being cured by shamans with magic tea.

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Reddit

So basically, when a doctor prescribes you meds, it's fine and you trust them—but the second it’s vaccines, suddenly they’re all corrupt, evil, and out to kill you because they're in bed with some shadowy elites obsessed with depopulation? 🤔
Look, I'm being blunt here, but that's pretty much the core of the issue.

mellowskipper said:Where exactly would you run to? I mean, plenty of kids aren't even vaccinated against TB right at the hospital, yet they're out living their lives—it's not like you can just retreat to the Rockies. Who knows, maybe it's exactly a kid like that sitting right next to mine in class...

Sent from my JNY-LX1 using Reddit

How many, exactly? Give us a number.

dustymarlin10 said:The execution is still moving along.

Who even taught you how to do that?

You’re making a fool of yourself because deep down you already know I'm right and you can't even pinpoint where you messed up.☕

Ask me, if you actually have the balls. I'll set you straight, Smotani2.

dustymarlin10 said:So basically;

You're lying.
And when you get caught, what happens?
Instead of just admitting you're wrong and moving on, you start digging deeper with even more excuses.

Honestly, why am I even surprised?

Still can't explain why you're wrong—it's actually embarrassing. Lalalala.

dustymarlin10 said:Actually, it’s spot on.

When I caught that virus, my wife was totally fine to head straight into work without needing to quarantine, all thanks to being vaccinated.
The only catch was she had to wear a mask while she was indoors at the office.

And yeah, that was following the exact instructions from the CDC official who reached out after my test came back positive.

Not true—you just don't know which part is the problem. Or maybe you do, and you're just burying your head in the sand.

gentleharbor3 said:Someone explain the logic here. If vaccinated people are confirmed to be able to spread the virus and
their shot only protects THEM, why aren't they required to isolate when a family member tests positive?
Is this just some kind of moralistic spite directed at everyone who isn't vaccinated? Like, "Oh, you didn't get the shot, so we're going to make SURE you catch it"
even if you're following all the rules, being careful, and EVEN IF you have medical conditions that prevent you from getting vaccinated in the first place?

It’s simple—what you just wrote is straight up wrong. ☕

black said:I just want to know which crazy parent would actually let their healthy kid be used as a guinea pig for these so-called "vaccine trials."

In what sense, exactly? How exactly do you think your kid gets a safe vaccine or medicine if it isn't tested on someone else first? 🤔

Gerald Chavez7 said:Is it possible you're just confused and logged in under the wrong username? I checked, and wanderingfox86 hasn't had a single post deleted from this thread today—...not that I bothered checking anything earlier than August.

Something's definitely off here because the original comment is gone and the link in my post leads to nothing. Either I totally screwed up or something else is happening—not sure yet.

EDIT: Even kakadu commented on the exact same post and mentioned the broken link. So yeah, we aren't just being played.

obelix88 said:What do you mean "instead of them" or "for them"? People get vaccinated for themselves—to protect their own skin. That’s totally fair. Getting a shot doesn't magically shield everyone else around you.

You're protecting those around you partially, obviously.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I truly appreciate such an elaborate and well-reasoned response.

/S

@Ethan Kim4, just for those who are too lazy to actually click the link: it’s about high-risk children and adolescents.

No problem.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Well, one of those million variables is precisely these kinds of nuances regarding potential risks versus benefits. But more importantly, you didn't actually answer my question about whether there was a push to make them mandatory...

Hell no.

But you didn't answer whether there was a tendency for them to become mandatory...

I don't know and I don't care.

neontinker19 said:After this whole fiasco and being lied to about the COVID-19 vaccines, I'm done. It’s not just that I won't be vaccinating my kids with those—I'm opting out of the mandatory ones too. Honestly, screw you all, I don't believe a single word you say anymore.

What'd I miss? What fiasco are we talking about?

Matthew Jackson2 said:Vaccine safety and testing levels asymptotically approach 100%, but you only actually hit 100% at infinity.

The likelihood of stumbling upon some unknown side effect depends entirely on how extensively a vaccine has been tested and how widespread its use has become. Mind you, there's a specific subset of side effects that simply don't overlap between those two categories.

Take, for example, when the FDA was first weighing in on blood clots related to the AstraZeneca vaccine; the agency basically admitted they hadn't performed an analysis broken down by age groups because the member states hadn't submitted the necessary data. In the context of a formal clinical trial, failing to collect that kind of data would tank the whole thing—it wouldn't even pass a basic peer review.

Here’s another scenario: it might be demonstrated that a certain side effect occurs frequently enough once antibody levels hit a specific threshold that vaccinating those individuals becomes counterproductive (they end up facing a higher risk with less net benefit due to their existing antibodies). A rigorous clinical trial would perform that specific analysis, but in the real world, we aren't checking people's antibody levels before they get jabbed. Consequently, it becomes incredibly difficult to detect such a side effect because we're only looking at total incidence rates, rather than having the baseline data needed to identify that it's disproportionately affecting a specific subgroup.

Then there’s the second type of side effect that mass observation simply cannot catch: long-term issues that require time to manifest, such as various autoimmune diseases. These can wreak havoc on the body while symptoms only surface after the damage has already accumulated. Whether you have 5,000 people or 5,000,000, the symptoms won't show up until enough time has passed.

Even those mandatory vaccines we've used for decades were once considered new.

Nobody is claiming they weren't new. The real question is whether they were being rolled out on a massive scale while they were still "new," and whether there was a push to make them mandatory the moment they hit the market.

I'm not going to call it experimental or semi-experimental; I'll call it a vaccine that received CMA/EUA based on facts regarding efficacy and safety, and that is exactly how I will treat it. Calling a vaccine "experimental," or your attempt to soften it by calling it "semi-experimental," is malicious because it is nowhere near the truth.

I've done my homework on the differences. As I've already told you, I don't actually care what labels you want to use, but the moment you try to equate them with drugs that have standard Marketing Authorization, I'm going to shut you down because they simply do not possess the same level of safety. If they did, the CMA wouldn't exist in the first place.

They got the green light for unlimited use—as for how many people actually got them, that depends on a million different things.

I looked into the differences. Like I already told you, I don't care what you call them—but the moment you try to equate them with ones that have standard MA, I'm going to shut you down because they don't share the same safety profile. If they did, we wouldn't even have the CMA.

I’m not equating them. They're just as safe as the ones with MA because, safety-wise, they cleared everything required for an MA. They didn't just pass the secondary Phase 3 points—those aren't even safety-related.☕

And you don't care what I call them? Look, the point isn't about my terminology—the point is that other people are lying and calling them "experimental." And you're basically defending that by arguing that CMA isn't identical to MA. Real smart. ☕

Matthew Jackson2 said:Coming from the same person who spent all this time trying to explain that things aren't just binary—that they aren't just zeros and ones, but can exist somewhere in the middle.

At this stage, the level of evidentiary certainty regarding safety is significantly lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been in use for decades, even if it does technically sit above the threshold we’ve collectively decided is acceptable.

This isn't anything new. And calling them experimental is a lie that won't fly here.☕

Well, that largely comes down to semantics. However, there are certain facts that don't depend on how you choose to label them:
- the vaccine does not meet the requirements for a standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the very data required for a regular MA, which is still being gathered
- using that exact same dataset, the vaccine received emergency approval in the USA, which is effectively authorization to use an experimental vaccine.

Whether you want to call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental is entirely your prerogative, but those underlying facts remain unchanged regardless of the label you slap on them.

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

Actually, no, you were quoting a specific post that compares potential unknown long-term side effects of a vaccine against the potential unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.

With a vaccine, that represents an acceptable risk we accept because of the necessity of the shot (which is essentially the definition of CMA), but that risk isn't equally justifiable across every single age group. Comparing it to the virus is nothing more than pure whataboutism, the likes of which I haven't seen in medical discourse before.

Nothing I said contradicts that at all. ☕

The level of evidence regarding safety at this stage is way lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been used for years, even if it stays above the threshold we decided was acceptable.

And those "long-standing" mandatory vaccines were also new once upon a time.

That mostly comes down to definitions. Here are the facts that don't care about your definitions:
- the vaccine doesn't meet the requirements for standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the kind of data required for regular MA—is still being collected
- using that same dataset, the vaccine in the USA received emergency approval, which is basically an authorization to use an experimental vaccine.

There's no such thing as CMA in the USA, so it's not clear how a vaccine that cleared all major phases and met its primary endpoints for safety and efficacy gets fast-tracked without it being an EUA.

btw go study the difference between full FDA approval and an EUA.
https://vaccine.unchealthcare.org/sc...-fda-approval/

An EUA does not affect vaccine safety, because it does not impact development, such as research, clinical studies and the studying of side effects and adverse reactions. Instead, it speeds up manufacturing and administrative processes.

If a vaccine lacks safety evidence, it’s experimental—period. I don't care how much mental gymnastics people try to pull to spin it otherwise.

Whether you call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental doesn't matter—those labels don't change the reality.

I'm not calling it experimental or semi-experimental. I'm calling it a vaccine that got CMA/EUA based on efficacy and safety data, and that's exactly how I'm going to treat it. Calling it "experimental" or trying to soften it with "semi-experimental" is malicious because it's nowhere near the truth.

Nah, you're just quoting a post that compares potential unknown long-term vaccine side effects against the possible unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.

Yeah. Basically.

Ronald Chavez2 said:The fact remains that since side effects only surface after the fact, anyone choosing to get vaccinated is essentially acting as an unpaid test subject, which is one thing, but what's truly problematic is the government using coercion and pressure to force everyone to take experimental shots—even people under 30 who aren't even at significant risk from COVID-19.

Look, side effects pop up with all drugs and vaccines. Period. Clinical trials aren't perfect—you can't test a few thousand people and expect to cover 7 billion people 100%, no matter how long you run the study. That's just reality. And don't give me that "experimental" nonsense; that lie doesn't fly here.☕

Samuel Turner2 said:Are you seriously suggesting that the safety profile of these shots is identical—or even close—to the vaccines kids are required to get?
If that's your stance, what exactly are you basing that on?

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.