Yes, i would realy like to know his reasons.
Vaccination?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Now instead of Hitler's Nazis we have COVID Nazis not only in Austria and Germany, but in Canada and the USA also. And everything about this Scamdemic is a scam. Here's a new example:
FDA recalls more than 2 million at-home COVID test kits due to false positive results
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...sitives/?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=usa
The above manufacturer had gotten a 238.1 MILLION DOLLAR DEAL for bogus test kits.
And what most people are not aware of is that earlier this year FDA banned the RT-PCR test for COVID. But they failed to tell the world that 90- 99% of all "cases" were false positives for all this time that the test has been used.
Fauci, FDA, WHO All Now Admit False Results From PCR Tests
"4. A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test “positives” are not “cases” since the virus cannot be cultured, it’s dead. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical."
https://headlinehealth.com/fauci-fda-who-all-now-admit-false-positive-pcr-tests/
The cycle threshold (CT) values which have generally been used were 35-45, not 25 or less. So the majority of "cases" were bogus. But all the governments kept churning out these case numbers daily to create fear and panic and lead to mass vaccinations. Now Austria has more infections after vaccinations even after locking down the non-vaccinated. Hitler must be ROTFL.
the u.s. has conducted about 727 million tests, so the equivalent of population has been tested twice, plus them some, and that number has not changed.
at best, the positivity rates have been 15-17%, at the height of an outbreak .
i am sorry for you and anyone else who has health problems and is high risk.
but, your bleeding heart fear tactic has no effect on me,
i have never had any emotion toward covid, and will not, my decisions have solely based on the numbers , nothing more or less.
S
SophieT
Guest
I mean come on! everyone else can change their minds...why can't they? harumph 
In recent years, and especially after the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020, major health organizations across the world have changed several definitions of medical terms, which in turn have a significant impact on everyday life. In fact, were it not for the World Health Organization changing its definition of “pandemic” back in 2009, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.
Like the swine flu before it, SARS-CoV-2 would not have qualified as a pandemic were it not for the WHO erasing a few key words from the definition. Pre-2009, the official definition of a pandemic was:1,2
By removing the restrictive criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity and leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO has the ability to declare a pandemic any time there’s more cases of a given disease than normal.
Having this ability is of crucial importance, seeing how the WHO has played a central role in the technocratic takeover we’re now facing. The WHO has emergency powers over its 194 member countries, so when the WHO declares an international public health incident, all member states are required to follow along “in lock step” with the WHO’s directives.
Were it not for the WHO, nations would respond to any given outbreak in any number of ways. Trying to influence them to respond in ways that benefit the technocracy would be like herding cats. Without lockstep coordination between all the world’s nations, using a biosafety narrative to control people and shift wealth distribution on a global scale simply would not be feasible.
But there’s also an even greater and more long-lasting implication for society. By redefining what certain words and terms mean, the rising biosecurity state is attempting to change your perception of what's true and what is false. In the process, they’re perverting science into something ruled by faith, speculation and biased opinion. The dangers of that are incalculable.
In recent years, and especially after the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020, major health organizations across the world have changed several definitions of medical terms, which in turn have a significant impact on everyday life. In fact, were it not for the World Health Organization changing its definition of “pandemic” back in 2009, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.
Like the swine flu before it, SARS-CoV-2 would not have qualified as a pandemic were it not for the WHO erasing a few key words from the definition. Pre-2009, the official definition of a pandemic was:1,2
“… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
Then, in 2009, the WHO removed the severity and high mortality criteria (“enormous numbers of deaths and illness”), leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”3By removing the restrictive criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity and leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO has the ability to declare a pandemic any time there’s more cases of a given disease than normal.
Having this ability is of crucial importance, seeing how the WHO has played a central role in the technocratic takeover we’re now facing. The WHO has emergency powers over its 194 member countries, so when the WHO declares an international public health incident, all member states are required to follow along “in lock step” with the WHO’s directives.
Were it not for the WHO, nations would respond to any given outbreak in any number of ways. Trying to influence them to respond in ways that benefit the technocracy would be like herding cats. Without lockstep coordination between all the world’s nations, using a biosafety narrative to control people and shift wealth distribution on a global scale simply would not be feasible.
But there’s also an even greater and more long-lasting implication for society. By redefining what certain words and terms mean, the rising biosecurity state is attempting to change your perception of what's true and what is false. In the process, they’re perverting science into something ruled by faith, speculation and biased opinion. The dangers of that are incalculable.
S
SophieT
Guest
anybody know? 
What Is a ‘Vaccine’?
In September 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shocked medical experts by changing the definition of a vaccine from “a product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease,”4 to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5
The key change is that a “vaccine” no longer produces immunity, so it no longer protects you against the disease. It only stimulates an immune response against a given disease. This definition was obviously contrived to describe the limited function of the COVID-19 gene therapy injections, which do not make you immune and can’t prevent you from getting or spreading the infection.
By any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, the COVID shot is not a vaccine. At best, the shot will reduce your symptoms. This also means they cannot, ever, produce herd immunity. This despite the redefinition of herd immunity, from being something produced as a result of natural infection, to something resulting from mass-vaccination.
What Is a ‘Vaccine’?
In September 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shocked medical experts by changing the definition of a vaccine from “a product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease,”4 to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5
The key change is that a “vaccine” no longer produces immunity, so it no longer protects you against the disease. It only stimulates an immune response against a given disease. This definition was obviously contrived to describe the limited function of the COVID-19 gene therapy injections, which do not make you immune and can’t prevent you from getting or spreading the infection.
By any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, the COVID shot is not a vaccine. At best, the shot will reduce your symptoms. This also means they cannot, ever, produce herd immunity. This despite the redefinition of herd immunity, from being something produced as a result of natural infection, to something resulting from mass-vaccination.
S
SophieT
Guest
oh no! say it ain't so! 
Definition of Herd Immunity No Longer Has Scientific Basis
The WHO changed their definition of herd immunity in October 2020, likely in anticipation of the global mass vaccination campaign. To reiterate, in the past, herd immunity meant when enough people had acquired immunity to an infectious disease, such that the disease could no longer spread widely in the community.
Before science introduced vaccinations, herd immunity was achieved by exposure to and recovery from normal exposures to an infectious disease. Courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, before October 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity included both vaccine immunity and “immunity developed through previous infection.”6
However, in October 2020, the updated definition dropped natural immunity altogether. The current definition now reads as follows:7
Definition of Herd Immunity No Longer Has Scientific Basis
The WHO changed their definition of herd immunity in October 2020, likely in anticipation of the global mass vaccination campaign. To reiterate, in the past, herd immunity meant when enough people had acquired immunity to an infectious disease, such that the disease could no longer spread widely in the community.
Before science introduced vaccinations, herd immunity was achieved by exposure to and recovery from normal exposures to an infectious disease. Courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, before October 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity included both vaccine immunity and “immunity developed through previous infection.”6
However, in October 2020, the updated definition dropped natural immunity altogether. The current definition now reads as follows:7
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.”
Adding insult to injury, they also specify that “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.” This totally ignores the billions of people throughout history who have been infected naturally with measles, mumps, chicken pox and other infectious diseases, and who now have lifelong immunity to those diseases thanks to their natural infection, as opposed to vaccines that wane and need regular boosters.
S
SophieT
Guest
let's wrap this up...
Definition of ‘Fully Vaccinated’ May Soon Be Rewritten
Speaking of boosters, the rollout of COVID jab boosters means the CDC will most likely rewrite the definition of “fully vaccinated” as well. As reported by Axios, October 22, 2021:8
Not surprisingly, the CDC director's comments are a complete reversal of her position in late September 2021. According to The Epoch Times, at that time she said officials were not considering changing the definition of “fully vaccinated.”10
Just one month later, at the end of October 2021, The Epoch Times reported Walensky was now suggesting that the definition “may change as boosters become more commonplace.” Coincidentally, just five days after that, the CDC announced their recommendations for a booster shot for everyone, even suggesting a fourth dose for certain immunocompromised individuals
source: Dr Mercola email...if you want one, you gotta sign up cause I can't source it from my own (email)
Definition of ‘Fully Vaccinated’ May Soon Be Rewritten
Speaking of boosters, the rollout of COVID jab boosters means the CDC will most likely rewrite the definition of “fully vaccinated” as well. As reported by Axios, October 22, 2021:8
“Currently, the CDC's definition is the following: ‘Fully vaccinated persons are those who are ≥14 days post-completion of the primary series of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine’ ... ‘We may need to update our definition of 'fully vaccinated' in the future,’ [CDC director Rochelle] Walensky said during a press briefing.”
It’s not complicated to understand what such a redefinition will mean. It means that anyone who has received the initial single- or double-dose of COVID “vaccine” will magically be considered unvaccinated again once a certain amount of time has elapsed. As noted by The Atlantic,9 the term “fully vaccinated,” if redefined, will lose its meaning.Not surprisingly, the CDC director's comments are a complete reversal of her position in late September 2021. According to The Epoch Times, at that time she said officials were not considering changing the definition of “fully vaccinated.”10
Just one month later, at the end of October 2021, The Epoch Times reported Walensky was now suggesting that the definition “may change as boosters become more commonplace.” Coincidentally, just five days after that, the CDC announced their recommendations for a booster shot for everyone, even suggesting a fourth dose for certain immunocompromised individuals
source: Dr Mercola email...if you want one, you gotta sign up cause I can't source it from my own (email)
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Brother, I do not think you heard her correctly
She is speaking of a select grouping of people who are vulnerable
The stats you keep posting do not take that into account
Angela is not trying to scare you into taking the vaccination. She is justifying why for some people. They almost have no choice
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Well I am proof it does. And I know many others who it did work for.
So what do we do? Listen TO Fauci , or not listen to him?
Pro vaccers seem to want to do it both ways. If he agrees with them, he knows what he is talking about. If not. He does not know.
maybe i am reading her wrong.
i just see her and others maybe not saying, but heavily implying that i and others are " bad people " for not getting the vax.
and. for the record, i am not telling anyone to not take the vax.
that is up to each person to decide.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Since @ penned marked this post. I will just show him what I mean
In Matt 5. Jesus said anyone who calls a brother a fool (in the greek, it means foolish, STUPID, Unwise etc etc, was guilty and deserved hell.
I can’t judge you, I can just let you read Gods word and take what Jesus said to heart.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
We are not saying this bro. We are just defending ourselves and trying to share with those who are attacking us that some people need the vacc. Because there at this moment is no other option.
I know bro. It is not you who are spreading the hate and fear.
Again, You gave a statistic, all Angela (I did this also in an earlier post) said is this data is skewed. It gives the population data, it is not seperated into groups.
It tends to say no one needs this vaccine, because only around 1 percent get seriously ill and or Die.
But in some age and health groups. The percentage of people who get seriously ill and die is much much higher, And these people groups need to make a decision.
I think those are fair statements. Do have a question though, how do you know the vaccine is working, since you said, "I am proof it does". What proof do you have exactly?
I know someone who was labelled as having Covid 19, by medical personal in the hospital, but had no symptoms at all, except a positive test. So, if you had no symptoms of having Covid, how do you know, you didn't have Covid, and how exactly do you know the vaccine helped? Please explain how you are proof that the vaccine worked?
Supposedly there is about a 98% chance of recovering from Covid, does the vaccine increase your chance of recovering from 98% to 100%? I don't think so. We also know that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission, or does it? So, once again, how do you know? These are serious questions, not playing games here.
Since you have called into question multiple times on a thread about the vaccine whether I’m actually a brother or not, revealing YOUR hatred, it’s only fair to Biblically define what a “fool” is.
It’s up others to determine if this fits you or not, since these are the words of the Holy Spirit.
A sampling:
What does the Bible say about fools?
A fool is someone who is unwise, lacks sense, and lacks judgement. Fools don’t want to learn the truth. They laugh at the truth and turn their eyes away from the truth. Fools are wise in their own eyes failing to take in wisdom and advice, which will be their downfall. They suppress the truth by their unrighteousness.
Hmmm…..
1. Proverbs 18:2-3 Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions. Doing wrong leads to disgrace, and scandalous behavior brings contempt.
2. Proverbs 1:5-7 Let the wise listen to these proverbs and become even wiser. Let those with understanding receive guidance by exploring the meaning in these proverbs and parables, the words of the wise and their riddles. Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
3. Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
4. Psalm 92:5-6 “How great are your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep! 6 The stupid man cannot know; the fool cannot understand this.”
5. Psalm 107:17 “Some became fools through their rebellious ways and suffered affliction because of their iniquities.”
6. Proverbs 1:22 “Fools, how long will you love being ignorant? How long will you make fun of wisdom? How long will you hate knowledge?”
5 young athletes in 8 days die or suffer career-threatening heart attacks
https://thecovidblog.com/2021/11/11...e-or-suffer-career-threatening-heart-attacks/
https://thecovidblog.com/2021/11/11...e-or-suffer-career-threatening-heart-attacks/
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
98% is national average it does not take into account age groups health issues and other possible issues which are unknown
If your just looking at that. Your not looking at the whole picture
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
That does not give you an excuse to break Gods commands my friend
Now your bearing false witness another sin. I never questions your salvation I questioned your motive. I just called you out for a sin you commuted against many of your brothers
We may not agree on everything on scripture views, but I do appreciate your Covid 19 views, and concerns. There should be a major investigation on why these athletes died, and possible connections to the Covid 19 Vaccines, or something else.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Got to love how you post an article from an anti vaccine site that you have to pay to even read and investigate
Again. Your hurting your own argument and exposing your true agenda. Much like the other day when you posted an article that left out permanent information which skewed the article your way
- Status