Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[Dahlsim]

This post shows a lack of understanding when it comes to the entire concept of immunity. You have to be careful with the way you phrase this.
Active immunity can be acquired through infection ("natural" immunity) or the vaccine. No other options.
People cannot strengthen their natural immunity.

I sort of thought we were done here, as you say, positions are clear and "resistance is futile."   
Your reply has some good stuff in it, although your tone, well  
Since I'm planning to do some speaking now on a related subject now, I'll try and address a few points in some detail. 

Ok, I don't lack understanding of what's happening here when a person if confronted with the virus, that's pretty clear if you've been paying attention.   Your point about agreeing on and sticking to the proper use of the wording is a fair one though.  
If we say strengthen their natural immune system does that work better for you?  More in line with the reference you linked where the semantics are to "boost your immune system". 

And no natural immunity is not the solution that everything is build around

More semantics, but for your sake, lets substitute again, the natural immune system, which is in fact the solution that everything is built around, would you agree? 

Science isn´t a democratic process.

Again, a subject that deserves its own thread and much more time to do justice.  I would say that by using what you call "consensus" you are in fact making science a democratic process aren't you?  Think about it. The rules you say these misinformed scientists are standing outside of are rules established by consensus, right? 
You're really believing them because you feel comfortable with majority you think agrees upon them, making you not much more than believer.  

By contrast the principals of free speech would dictate that we let the marketplace of ideas sift them, and consider each point on its own merit or lack thereof.   The general public is not as dumb as some seem to think. Let it all out and don't force people one way with financial and political power. 

We don't need to toss some views out summarily and hide them away under the label of misinformation because they stand outside the consensus rules. 

The article you linked from Harvard is a good one, thanks for sharing it.  There are several important points made there and its more than I have time to dive into now but if the conversation continues maybe.  Important thing for me is that they say several times that there aren't many studies on this or more studies are needed etc.  

Whenever you see that you also generally see the accompanying "there is no evidence to prove" or similar language. 
So if there aren't enough studies then from the standpoint of a training scientist there is "no evidence" to prove, show or demonstrate.  
That does not mean that the point in question is NOT true, it means we don't have the required evidence based the standards we have established.  That may be because we have not focused on that area, or supplied enough resources, or even worse we have an agenda that doesn't prioritize that type of research?  

I could  say a lot more on this but it would be too lengthy but as I said earlier I've had in depth discussions with our own Doctor on similar topics and others.  Bottom line is, since anecdotal evidence is not evidence and since peer reviewed studies are often lacking on a number of topics in medical science, saying there is not evidence could mean that something which is very true and even life saving essentially gets ignored by the smartest guys in the room, based on a technicality.  
Some interested posts from your referenced link:  

There appears to be a connection between nutrition and immunity in the elderly. A form of malnutrition that is surprisingly common even in affluent countries is known as "micronutrient malnutrition." Micronutrient malnutrition, in which a person is deficient in some essential vitamins and trace minerals that are obtained from or supplemented by diet, can happen in the elderly.
Older people tend to eat less and often have less variety in their diets. One important question is whether dietary supplements may help older people maintain a healthier immune system. Older people should discuss this question with their doctor.

Interesting when you consider that it's older people that are also at the higher risk in general for Covid-19. 
Here's another point for example. 

Demonstrating whether an herb — or any substance, for that matter — can enhance immunity is, as yet, a highly complicated matter. Scientists don't know, for example, whether an herb that seems to raise the levels of antibodies in the blood is actually doing anything beneficial for overall immunity.

Aha. So again, based on the criteria by which scientists (or at least most that subscribe to the rules) know things, this is something that highly complicated and they actually don't know. 
 
For someone that takes a supplement for example or directly knows people that take something and can plainly see and now they get help, they might know very well that it works, at least for their case.  Keep in mind, they are not applying this to a general study group, it works for them, it works for their family members, in fact they may observe it work for a lot of people.  Scientifically speaking, from the perspective of people you and @"Jannemann2" there is 'no evidence to prove'. 

You are absolutely right we can do more than just wait around. Get vaccinated. It is that easy. Even "young" or "healthy" people can have severe or potentially deadly outcomes. Why risk it when a better option is available.

You like to toss the word misinformation around very loosely at people, Doctors, Scientists, People of all types.  You liove to throw that word at me too.  Its become a crutch word for people in my view.   Is it misinformation because I share an NBA players story which he shares in his own words about an adverse effect that he felt himself certain was from the vaccination?  Its a guy sharing his own story. I didn't interpret anything there really.  Is that misinformation when you tell him and everyone else to just get vaccinated, its that easy, as if any other risks should not even be mentioned?  
https://www.bitchute.com/video/chcruaF54mS0/ 



Is it misinformation to report that President Biden's fully vaccinated Press Secretary Jen Psaki still got Covid and still could spread it to others in theory just as an unvaccinated person could? 
https://www.newsweek.com/how-common-covi...ll-1644386

White House Press Secretary Jan Psaki announced on Sunday that she had tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated. The statement came just days after Psaki's last meeting with President Joe Biden, during which she said she wore a mask and maintained a six-foot distance.

Psaki catching the virus and the death of Colin Powell last month as a result of complications arising from a breakthrough COVID infection, have resulted in an increase in Google users searching for information on breakthrough infections.

To reiterate, my position is that the vaccinations are almost certainly helping many people reduce their vulnerability to Covid and probably their vulnerability to spreading it.  How much?  I can easily find significant disagreement among even credentialed and experienced Doctors, Scientists and Researchers. 
 
What is the percentage on adverse effects?  There are certainly far more people not having severe adverse effects than having them but honestly I don't think we have good numbers of what the real percentage is.  As for potential long term effects, tangential effects or minor effects (a lot people report tiredness for example) I don't know and I don't think we know.  If people made a free and informed choice to get vaccinated then the risks are risks.  We all live with them.  Being forced though to accept the risks, that's a different matter and many people are actively resisting that.  Let's not pretend they are simply stupid or misinformed. 

This is in large part because we have people, all the powerful entities, that are approaching this more like vaccinations are a religious doctrine rather than a scientifically produced option for people to evaluate and choose for themselves.  

A vaccine, especially one that 
1) does not have the efficacy to protect beyond what this one is doing, 
2) nor the ability to stop the actual spread from a vaccinated person to anyone else any more than this one is doing, 
3) and has questions outstanding about it's true adverse affect numbers, see VAERS and other sources, should absolutely NOT be forced on individuals.  

If people want to strengthen or boost their natural immune system, that should be not only valid option but one that is equally encouraged for everyone along with the option to take the vaccination. 

To continue to pretend as though this vaccine, which is clearly a good thing to have available, should be force injected into every living person as though its a slam dunk "its that easy" take-it-or-else fix is both wrong morally and from a standpoint of honest science.  

Let people make their own choices over their own body. The forced vax movement is more like religion than science, and the bigger problem is, its bad religion.