Nobody can tell me that this vaccine can be well explored.
Long-term damage occurs only after a long time.
I'm looking forward to these arguments. The long-term damage can not have been explored because none can temporarily.
In every SCH ** in Germany, pingula is rumed around (or these detox people and genous opponents) if that is so safe or not.
But this vaccine then remove this vaccine although the gene is manipulated.
Damage through the vaccine, we already have: a split society.
All those indirect vacation Participate in supporting it or discriminating others because they are not vaccinating for me, nationwide the constitution has never read and withHer stupidity columns society because they can not think themselves and they represent free expression as a fake news.
I'm not a slave of the pharmaceutical mafia.
I do not mind if someone is vaccinating everyone should have the right to choose with his health what he wants but he should not try to vote other.
I let my fellow human beings but some do not let me alone and threaten me that I should take a medical treatment / provision with genes for a disease I do not have.
Me Would never be a test because I do not have a rod in the nose as an unobtrusive citizen does not have to be put into the nose from state earners. I knowAgain to fight back.
Why do many people reject the vaccine and accept the infection with a novel virus, whose long-term action is still not fully explored today?
Go closer to your improper murk ("horny", "indirect vaccinations", "pharma mafia" etc.) not.
I let my fellow human beings ...
Unfortunately not, like this "question", which is actually rather a tirade proves.
Why is there always there? still which are only on the rummeables?
It's just I can not go to the car dealership and demand: Give me the hottest and most expensive Porsche but I do not want to pay for it to me for it and if you do that Do not do then you restrict me in ma freedom
If you do not want to vaccinate, then your problem then stop to maul, accept the consequences and good.
The answer If:
virus danger and vaccine danger must be weighed from each.
Who does not do that, is not questioned, sick / endangered or feels healthy in view of death and infectious numbers, must be born between all things and then decide which way he goes:
- To make the vaccine in his body and to trust science as far as to infect themselves with the virus and accept the symptoms or death
- the vaccine, the media, the policy does not so Far to trust and the data situation with its current
I believe that older, pulmonary or chronically ill should give rise to the risk of vaccination than to be infected by the data situation of infectious numbers, and may not be able to survive. Because the virus strongly deteriorates the existing disease.
Since largely healthy people show significantly fewer symptoms or no, the vaccine is not necessarily necessary if the rules are adopted to avoid dissemination.
Long-term damage can not occur because the vaccine is no longer in the body within a very short time.
And what does not exist, no negative consequences can cause.
Because we KEcan accept permanent restrictions. If one asks, one should also offer an alternative to vaccination. And please do not come with the conservation speed now.