On 3/10/2021 4:33 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2021 23:01:27 GMT, Pamela >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22:50 9 Mar 2021, Sqwertz said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:09:26 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2021 4:51 PM, Sheldon Martin wrote:
>>>>> Got my shot today, the nurse did such a good job that I felt
>>>>> nothing, or I didn't notice, I was too occupied checking out her
>>>>> massive bosoms. I get to return for a 2nd shot in two weeks,
>>>>> hoping I get her again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got mine yesterday and go April 5 for the second.
>>>
>>> It's unanimous. I got mine yesterday, too. I go back the 29th.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> It doesn't seem long ago when you posted Covid didn't pose a risk and
>> you even calculated the people you would have to touch even to come
>> close to it.
>>
>> Even Covidiots eventually see sense ... or die.
>
> ...die at a rate of less than a single percentage point. Yes, let's
> all get behind an basically untested and unproven vaccine, using
> technology never trialed on humans before, with no evidence of
> efficacy or reducing the spread of the virus. OK, makes sense.
>

Yes, because what you say is not true. It was tested extensively with
good results. The technology has actually existed for some time but has
just not been used in a mass vaccine like this.

If no evidence of efficacy was shown it would not be approved.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:39:55 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 3/10/2021 4:33 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2021 23:01:27 GMT, Pamela >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22:50 9 Mar 2021, Sqwertz said:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:09:26 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/9/2021 4:51 PM, Sheldon Martin wrote:
>>>>>> Got my shot today, the nurse did such a good job that I felt
>>>>>> nothing, or I didn't notice, I was too occupied checking out her
>>>>>> massive bosoms. I get to return for a 2nd shot in two weeks,
>>>>>> hoping I get her again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Got mine yesterday and go April 5 for the second.
>>>>
>>>> It's unanimous. I got mine yesterday, too. I go back the 29th.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem long ago when you posted Covid didn't pose a risk and
>>> you even calculated the people you would have to touch even to come
>>> close to it.
>>>
>>> Even Covidiots eventually see sense ... or die.
>>
>> ...die at a rate of less than a single percentage point. Yes, let's
>> all get behind an basically untested and unproven vaccine, using
>> technology never trialed on humans before, with no evidence of
>> efficacy or reducing the spread of the virus. OK, makes sense.
>>
>
>Yes, because what you say is not true. It was tested extensively with
>good results.

LOL. Were you expect bad results being announced?

>The technology has actually existed for some time but has
>just not been used in a mass vaccine like this.

Exactly. It is untested in vaccines. You buy the bullshit that:

1: A year ago they said vaccines are being developed and should be
available by end of year. This, despite this never being achieved
before on such a short timeline - ever.


2: Testing, normally taking years, been reduced to weeks/months. LOL.

3: The mRNA vaccines are STILL essentially new and the ramifications
are still unknown. No matter what they say. These vaccines have NOT
undergone proper testing. No matter what you are told. This is
science, not politics.

>If no evidence of efficacy was shown it would not be approved.

That was a fait accompli a year ago. Vaccines were going to be
approved and released, no matter what. And they were.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just repeating information
served to you.

--
The real Bruce posts with Eternal September

On 3/10/2021 6:08 PM, Bruce wrote:

>> Yes, because what you say is not true. It was tested extensively with
>> good results.
>
> LOL. Were you expect bad results being announced?

May not be on the news but it would have have been allowed for use. I'm
sure some ideas did not work and were not pursued. Same as any new idea.


>
>> The technology has actually existed for some time but has
>> just not been used in a mass vaccine like this.
>
> Exactly. It is untested in vaccines. You buy the bullshit that:
>
> 1: A year ago they said vaccines are being developed and should be
> available by end of year. This, despite this never being achieved
> before on such a short timeline - ever.
>
>
> 2: Testing, normally taking years, been reduced to weeks/months. LOL.
>
> 3: The mRNA vaccines are STILL essentially new and the ramifications
> are still unknown. No matter what they say. These vaccines have NOT
> undergone proper testing. No matter what you are told. This is
> science, not politics.

What is the proper testing? Details please.

>
>> If no evidence of efficacy was shown it would not be approved.
>
> That was a fait accompli a year ago. Vaccines were going to be
> approved and released, no matter what. And they were.

No matter what? Where have they failed?


>
> You have no idea what you're talking about. Just repeating information
> served to you.
>

As you are.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:38:26 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 3/10/2021 6:08 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Yes, because what you say is not true. It was tested extensively with
>>> good results.
>>
>> LOL. Were you expect bad results being announced?
>
>May not be on the news but it would have have been allowed for use. I'm
>sure some ideas did not work and were not pursued. Same as any new idea.
>
>
>>
>>> The technology has actually existed for some time but has
>>> just not been used in a mass vaccine like this.
>>
>> Exactly. It is untested in vaccines. You buy the bullshit that:
>>
>> 1: A year ago they said vaccines are being developed and should be
>> available by end of year. This, despite this never being achieved
>> before on such a short timeline - ever.
>>
>>
>> 2: Testing, normally taking years, been reduced to weeks/months. LOL.
>>
>> 3: The mRNA vaccines are STILL essentially new and the ramifications
>> are still unknown. No matter what they say. These vaccines have NOT
>> undergone proper testing. No matter what you are told. This is
>> science, not politics.
>
>What is the proper testing? Details please.

That's not a genuine question, as if you'd be even interested. Proper
testing takes years, not months.

>>> If no evidence of efficacy was shown it would not be approved.
>>
>> That was a fait accompli a year ago. Vaccines were going to be
>> approved and released, no matter what. And they were.
>
>No matter what? Where have they failed?

By breaking all the general rules with vaccine testing. Care to
provide examples of other vaccines developed, tested and deemed safe
in such a short time?

>> You have no idea what you're talking about. Just repeating information
>> served to you.
>>
>
>As you are.

Uh-huh. You're obtuse as ****.

--
The real Bruce posts with Eternal September

On 3/11/2021 3:50 PM, Bruce wrote:

>
> Uh-huh. You're obtuse as ****.
>

Thank you for recognizing one of my better qualities. People often miss
it. Unlike some, I even post under my real name so to be properly noticed.

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 4:44:12 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 3/11/2021 3:50 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >
> > Uh-huh. You're obtuse as ****.
> >
> Thank you for recognizing one of my better qualities. People often miss
> it. Unlike some, I even post under my real name so to be properly noticed.
2nd shot today at work. They come to me, no drive, no wait.

On 21:43 11 Mar 2021, Ed Pawlowski said:

> On 3/11/2021 3:50 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> Uh-huh. You're obtuse as ****.
>>
>
> Thank you for recognizing one of my better qualities. People
> often miss it. Unlike some, I even post under my real name so to
> be properly noticed.

Millions have had the vaccine but paranoid anti-vaxxers are still
terrified like rabbits caught in headlights.

Strange how they find a 1 in 100 chance of death from Covid is
negligible but a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a unproven side effect to be
too much.

Maybe they have psychosis.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:04:59 GMT, Pamela >
wrote:

>On 21:43 11 Mar 2021, Ed Pawlowski said:
>
>> On 3/11/2021 3:50 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Uh-huh. You're obtuse as ****.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for recognizing one of my better qualities. People
>> often miss it. Unlike some, I even post under my real name so to
>> be properly noticed.
>
>Millions have had the vaccine but paranoid anti-vaxxers are still
>terrified like rabbits caught in headlights.
>
>Strange how they find a 1 in 100 chance of death from Covid is
>negligible but a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a unproven side effect to be
>too much.
>
>Maybe they have psychosis.

Anyone who has doubts about the covid 'vaccines' is therefore an
'anti-vaxxer'?

--
The real Bruce posts with Eternal September