Polyethylene glycol, for one, has never been used before in an approved vaccine. It is thought to be the cause of some rare anaphylactic reactions.
There are dozens of other compounds in the Pfizer vaccine; the reason for them being there and their effects are, for the most part, a trade secret.
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nano...
> natural way that keep population in balance
This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned.
> All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline.
Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection.
I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.
There's a limit to how much armour you can wear. There's always a cost.
And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do. How much is the accumulated damage from all the vaccines we currently take or will need to take into humanity's future vs a naturally evolved immunity.
I don’t think this is supported by evidence at all.
The strongest hunch that something is off with an animal population, is a low fertility rate. You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6
That isn't some systemic malady, it's a scar. I've got one from cutting myself shaving, but shaving isn't really a problem.
> You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6
This is clearly because people are choosing to have fewer children as they get richer. And is a bizarre point as you earlier argued that the virus killing people was good for "natural balance."
It's really hard to believe you're acting in good faith here and not just trolling.
Evidence is provided of adverse effects here for the US. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
"During this time, VAERS received 5,343 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
For Canada:
There have been a total of 7,408 reports (26.3 reports per 100,000 doses administered) up to and including June 11, 2021.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
2. That's just one plausible explanation you are given without questioning. It might be true to some extent, but its not the only reason for the decline.
Western Women are not able to have children in large numbers, some are struggling to even have one and are spending thousands of dollars on IVF fertility treatments now into their 40s trying.
"About 10 percent of women (6.1 million) in the United States ages 15-44 have difficulty getting pregnant or staying pregnant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."
https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/infertility#:~:text=....
Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.
https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho...
Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more.
Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.
I'm curious about this line of reasoning. We've been testing mRNA treatments for other diseases for about 25 years now. The approach was abandoned for gene therapy because the effects weren't long lasting. We have follow up data on people who participated in those studies, and to my knowledge there aren't any documented negative long term effects. We know what the vaccine encodes, a spike protein, which is produced for a few weeks and the the mRNA wears out and is cleaned up by the cells. The proteins also don't persist in the body for very long. The other ingredients in the vaccine aren't anything special.
History also demonstrated that negative vaccine reactions typically happen quickly, and not years down the line.
With all of that in mind, why would one be concerned with long term effects? Is there something I'm missing? Is the position one of maximalist caution? If so, are you applying that to other areas of your life?