I try to stay away from 'community groups' and news comments sections as much as possible, because my "enraged-o-meter" just can't take the idiocy, but I have it on good authority that the latest trend in such circles is to label those with vaccine safety concerns "neanderthals" (and that tired old trope, comparing us to 'Holocaust deniers' and 'flat earthers' - NB: pro-quaxxers, if you think this is in any way witty or original, please know it is thrown at us so frequently, I actually have it as a query in the FAQ section on my vaccine website: https://striveuk.webs.com/about-strive).

This perspective is so roundly ridiculous, that I felt compelled to issue a little rebuttal (please feel free to link to it if you are battle-hardened enough to wade into such discussions...). I'm not going to do what pro-quaxxers attempt to do, which is "blind you with science", e.g. use big words they expect you not to understand (since they don't), combined with overly convoluted concepts and a condescending tone - I'm just going to break it down very simply and straightforwardly, because the definition of truly understanding something is NOT describing it in complicated, specialist language you'd need a PhD and thesaurus to understand, it is the exact opposite - being able to describe it simply.

So, here we go: first of all, the slogan relentlessly used to advertise vaccines is that they are "safe and effective", so we will look at each of these claims in turn, but first, we will have to define them,What does "effective" mean? That the vaccine stops you getting the disease? No, not in vaccinology. Where it comes to every single vaccine ever produced, prior to the COVID-19 ones, the definition of "effective" within vaccinology is that the vaccine provokes the production of antibodies in the blood. No need to take my word for this, please go and verify the claim with any vaccinologist of your choice.

So, does the presence of antibodies in the blood equate to immunity from disease? No, it does not. And you can go ahead and verify that claim, too.

Antibodies are one arm of defence in the complex dance of "immunity" (which science admits it does not fully understand), but they most certainly do not in themselves protect you from anything. All the presence of antibodies determines is that you have at some point been exposed to the antigen in question, e.g. if you have measles antibodies in your blood, you have at some point been exposed to the measles antigen, whether the organic virus or the vaccine strain. Antigen exposure doesn't equal either contracting the disease, nor being immune to it. This means that - perfectly preposterously - the same test they give you to work out if you HAVE a disease, is the same one they give you to determine if you're immune from it. Exact same test. I can personally verify this, because when I was at university, I was put under pressure to have a measles vaccine (and that they would kick me out of the university and country if I didn't - this was in the States). I declined this offer and insisted on a blood test instead, to determine if I was already "immune" (e.g. already had antibodies to the measles virus, because that's all vaccines can provoke, the production of antibodies). The test showed that I did have said antibodies, therefore I was not required to have the vaccine (and you should have seen how enraged they were about this, as they were so desperate and determined to inject me - their exact words when I repeatedly requested a blood test instead were, "it would be easier to just get the vaccine". It's never 'easier' to receive an invasive medical procedure with a catalogue of potential severe risks, including death, than to receive a simple blood test, and so this sinister utterance prompted my descent down the vaccine rabbit hole...).

However, had I developed a spotty rash and gone for a blood test to see if I had measles, they would have given me the exact same test, and determined the presence of measles antibodies meant indeed I did. Can you see just how ridiculous this is? "Antibodies" mean neither that you have a disease currently nor that you are immune to it. All they show is that at some point, you were exposed to the antigen - and that could have been today, but it could also have been twenty years ago. And being exposed to an antigen doesn't equate to immunity against it, as the mainstream media are now admitting, but we'll get to that shortly.

So, if you believe vaccine "efficacy" is measured by whether vaccines stop people getting a disease, then please use this new and entirely verifiable information to disabuse yourself of that notion. That isn't what "effective" means in vaccine science and it never has been. Up until 2020, the sole efficacy measure for a vaccine was "does it produce an antibody response in the blood".

Exacerbating the nonsensical nature of this "efficacy" is that vaccines don't produce an antibody response in everyone who receives them, but as no follow-up testing is routinely done on vaccinated people, there is really no way of knowing what percentage of the population has produced an antibody response, and what percentage hasn't. There are many cases of people required to get, for example, the Hep B vaccine for a job, and yet when they are tested, have not produced antibodies. I once heard of someone who had received it eight times without producing antibodies.

So, frankly, the "effectiveness" claim of vaccines is Mc$cience at its worst. There's no evidence they're effective at preventing disease since they're not evaluated on that metric, but they aren't even reliably effective at doing the one thing they do claim to do, which is produce antibodies. Therefore, the examples throughout history of disease outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities are innumerable, including on a naval ship with a 100% vaccination rate (e.g. a sealed off environment that it was impossible for unvaccinated individuals to enter). That's because provoking antibodies in a person does not equate to immunising them from disease, and it is therefore a total misnomer to call vaccines "immunisations". They should properly be called (hit and miss) "antibody provokers". And producing antibodies doesn't mean you're immune from disease, as the mainstream media has now finally admitted over the Covid pantomime.

The media has stated many times that having had Covid and having antibodies doesn't mean you're immune to it, so you still have to get the vaccine. But if you believe that (as pro-quaxxers clearly do), then, necessarily, you can't believe in any other vaccine, since ALL they do is provoke antibodies - which, as the media now truthfully admits, doesn't protect you from disease.

A frequent pro-quaxx rebuttal to the above is, "well, I've never had any of the diseases I've been vaccinated against, so why is that then, huh?". It's because you live in a first-world country with good sanitation and plumbing, where sewage doesn't run openly in the streets; where multiple large families aren't squashed together in cramped, filthy living conditions; and where severe nutrient deficiencies are vanishingly rare. If you check your history (rather than 'denying' it ), you will find that the decline in mortality from infectious disease followed directly after improvements in hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition, and the vaccinations jumped on the band-waggon only AFTER these declines had already occurred. In other words, thank your plumber for your good health, not your doctor.

Qualifying this is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of diseases for which no vaccine exists, and I bet you've never had any of them, either (one of my faves is when pro-quaxxers credit vaccines with the elimination of scarlet fever. There has never been a vaccine for scarlet fever).

Moving on to whether vaccines are "safe", how do you think this is determined in vaccine safety trials? Testing the vaccine against an inert saline placebo? Think again. Vaccines are typically tested against either other vaccines, or a solution containing the same adjuvant as the vaccine - the adjuvant being one of the most biologically reactive and dangerous parts of a vaccine. On occasion, saline placebos are used, but the results are lumped in with the results from the adjuvanted solution to obscure the true results.

What this means is that, because the vaccine being tested doesn't produce any more dangerous effects than the old vaccine, or than a solution containing one of the primary active ingredients, it is deemed "safe". This is the same as determining wine doesn't make you drunk, as people who drank vodka exhibited identical effects to those who drank an identical amount of alcohol in wine (I expanded on that analogy here: https://www.facebook.com/miri.anne8/posts/10156250231106034).

So, there you go. In very simple language: vaccines are not safe and not effective. What vaccines are is a very clever - if extremely evil - business model. The business they specialise in is sickness, since there's no money in healthy people.

Do you know what's in a vaccine, other than the antigen? Have you read independent, reproducible research as to what these ingredients do when injected into the human body?

If you look at all the chronic disorders that have exploded over the last four decades (since governments removed liability from vaccine manufacturers for any injury or death caused by their products), such as digestive disorders, learning disabilities, asthma, eczema, allergies, depression, and all the alphabet ailments (ADHD, OCD, ODD, etc), you will find these are all known and well-documented side-effects of vaccines, which all manufacturers list on the package inserts.All genuine vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies that exist (when the unvaccinated group is actually completely unvaccinated, rather than "has had slightly less than the full schedule of 74 injections") always show that these disorders are sky high in the vaccinated, and far rarer in the unvaccinated group, with some complaints (such as recurrent ear infections) being virtually non-existent in the unvaccinated. (And no, unvaccinated children are not more likely to die than vaccinated children - quite the opposite, in fact.)

So: the purpose of vaccines is to create lifelong customers for the pharmaceutical and related industries via the creation of chronic disorders, as well as fulfilling some other agenda items for the overlords, such as reducing fertility - a heavyweight American study found the HPV vaccine sterilises 25% of women who receive it, whilst many vaccines, despite containing known sterilants, state on the package inserts that they have not been evaluated for their effect on fertility - and lowering IQ - the average IQ has plummeted so much in the last 70 years that all researchers agree this cannot be "genetic" in origin and can only be attributable to environmental factors. Vaccines, full as they are of neurotoxic poisons, are highly likely to be one central causative factor.

Vaccines are also designed to expedite depopulation goals (note there was no such phenomenon as "SIDS" prior to vaccines), in particular, the euthanasia programme known as the 'flu vaccine, which is designed to hasten people's demise once they reach retirement age and prevent them from draining too much from the pension pot.

You can mock and jeer at the above all you like, but the fact is, the idea that vaccines are designed to protect health and prolong life has no legitimate evidence to support it, neither scientific nor logical. Why would a ruling class openly committed to depopulation want to prolong anyone's life? Meanwhile, the alternative explanation that I have offered as to what vaccines are really for makes perfect sense and is supportable with both (real) science and logic.

So, as I drag my club along the plains of the flat earth looking for some history to deny, I await the rational, thoughtful, and articulate response of my pro-quaxx friends, which I'm SURE won't just be "huh huh, ur well thick an insane innit. can u even science. i science well good. huh huh do ur research. huh huh u mean utube. u need 2 take ur meds. science." (Hey, I managed not to be condescending until right at the very end, which I think shows a monumental level of restraint. And anyway, they do talk like that... ).