Boys aged 12-17 more at risk from myocarditis after Pfizer jab than Covid

originally posted by: SideEyeEverything
I can't decide if I should laugh or cry that there are people who still think the "vaxxine" is worth a sh*t.

You can do both, then you and Brandon can go back to trying to grab our guns and hating on Trump's vax

Like it or not, Trump and Warpspeed saved the nation.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you determine the benefit to risk ratio if you don't know the medium and long term effects?

Except that the long term risks are well known. The risk factor drops off exponentially with time in line with the natural decay of the mRNA payload. In most people the risk factor drops of to a level that's mathematically equivalent to zero within two months due to the degradation of the payload.

Your risk factor at 3 months and your risk factor at 3 years are statistically equivalent.

You know the long term effects?! Wow! You have gone forward in time as it seems! You may have a time machine that others don't have. I haven't seen anyone else claiming that they know the medium and long term effects.

Note: You need string evidence for the above not just some links in your signature.

Then state what the medium and long terms effects are. Let's say medium referring to 3-5 years after vaccinations have been completed and long term from 5 onwards up to let's say 8 years or longer.

Your risk factor at 3 months and your risk factor at 3 years are statistically equivalent

I will require some proof and not models of exponential decays...

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Considering that the vaccine does absolutely 0 toward preventing covid infection, transmission, or symptoms it's ONLY adding additional risk. Comparing the 2 is moot. Although the vaxx is way riskier.

Source for that, please.

In fact, a simple explanation of how it could possibly be true would be nice.

Vaxxed people are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaxxed people purely because they start fighting the infection sooner, so it has a shorter duration. Please explain how someone who is infectious for a shorter period of time has an equal transmission rate to someone who is infectious for longer?

How do you know the above?
It would be great to have some data and mathematics on how much longer unvaxxed people are infectious in comparison to vaxxed people.

As always, sources are in my signature. As you absolutely 100 percent already know as you've absolutely 100 percent already read them from start to finish. Right?

Because it would be completely normal for a person to read through the links provided before responding.

But if you insist, try these link

Link
Link
Link
Link

The links don't say anything about how much longer the unvaxxed people are Infectious. In addition there is nothing on link2 other then a title. No abstract and no text either. Same for link1

The vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection and neither reduce them significantly.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You clearly didn't even try to read them, did you.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You know the long term effects?! Wow! You have gone forward in time as it seems! You may have a time machine that others don't have

It's been two years, and no effects have ever been observed over the 2 month mark. I don't need to look forward, I just look at the data that we already have.

Because there aren't any?

You need string evidence for the above not just some links in your signature.

the evidence is in the links.

Then state what the medium and long terms effects are. Let's say medium referring to 3-5 years after vaccinations have been completed and long term from 5 onwards up to let's say 8 years or longer.

I'm not sure which part of "No effects have been observed beyond 2 months" is unclear to you.

If there are no effects after 2 months, then there by definition can't be any effects at 3-5 years, because - as already stated - there are no effects beyond 2 months.

Let me put this another way. If a criminal commits a home invasion and I shoot him in the face, he can't get into my safe.

He can't get into my safe after 1 month because I've shot him in the face.

He can't get into my safe after 2 months because I've shot him in the face.

No matter how long you wait he won't be able to get into my safe because I've shot him in the face.

No matte how long you wait there won't be any more side effected because there is no vax in your system to create side effects.

I will require some proof and not models of exponential decays...

They're observations, not models. We're not predicting that it will happen, we're seeing that it has happened.

It's been 2 years, and no side effects have been observed after 2 months. That's pretty conclusive.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You clearly didn't even try to read them, did you.

Link1 and Link2 are just titles with no text.
No abstract, no main text, no conclusions.

I think you need to check your links again. Third link says the vaccines may reduce transmission. And? By how much? We know after two years that the vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection and don't significantly reduce them. Almost everyone gets infected vaxxed or unvaxxed.

Back to the topic. There is no reason why children and teenagers should get vaccinated with these products.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You know the long term effects?! Wow! You have gone forward in time as it seems! You may have a time machine that others don't have

It's been two years, and no effects have ever been observed over the 2 month mark. I don't need to look forward, I just look at the data that we already have.

Because there aren't any?

You need string evidence for the above not just some links in your signature.

the evidence is in the links.

Then state what the medium and long terms effects are. Let's say medium referring to 3-5 years after vaccinations have been completed and long term from 5 onwards up to let's say 8 years or longer.

I'm not sure which part of "No effects have been observed beyond 2 months" is unclear to you.

If there are no effects after 2 months, then there by definition can't be any effects at 3-5 years, because - as already stated - there are no effects beyond 2 months.

Let me put this another way. If a criminal commits a home invasion and I shoot him in the face, he can't get into my safe.

He can't get into my safe after 1 month because I've shot him in the face.

He can't get into my safe after 2 months because I've shot him in the face.

No matter how long you wait he won't be able to get into my safe because I've shot him in the face.

No matte how long you wait there won't be any more side effected because there is no vax in your system to create side effects.

I will require some proof and not models of exponential decays...

They're observations, not models. We're not predicting that it will happen, we're seeing that it has happened.

It's been 2 years, and no side effects have been observed after 2 months. That's pretty conclusive.

I am sorry but the above is just word salad with no much explanation and no evidence for what you have said and claimed.

Nobody else has claimed that they know the medium and long term effects. They don't even know the short term effects.

It's been 2 years, and no side effects have been observed after 2 months. That's pretty conclusive

What are you talking about??

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you determine the benefit to risk ratio if you don't know the medium and long term effects?

Except that the long term risks are well known. The risk factor drops off exponentially with time in line with the natural decay of the mRNA payload. In most people the risk factor drops of to a level that's mathematically equivalent to zero within two months due to the degradation of the payload.

Your risk factor at 3 months and your risk factor at 3 years are statistically equivalent.

Did you say the long term effects are well known? The hasn't been any long mid or even long term safety data. Also all of the short term data was manipulated and hidden. That's why they had to sue the CDC to release it's V-safe data. They didn't want to release it because it was so bad, 7% severe adverse effects with a 10 million person sample size. And that's only short term. There is no long term data.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Bio weapon injected to children .

And they knew .

Um, okay.
Whatever you say. I don't know what it is you're trying to say, but whatever it is...okily doikly.

*snickers*

Frankly I'm surprised you love something so much from Trump.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you determine the benefit to risk ratio if you don't know the medium and long term effects?

Except that the long term risks are well known. The risk factor drops off exponentially with time in line with the natural decay of the mRNA payload. In most people the risk factor drops of to a level that's mathematically equivalent to zero within two months due to the degradation of the payload.

Your risk factor at 3 months and your risk factor at 3 years are statistically equivalent.

Did you say the long term effects are well known? The hasn't been any long mid or even long term safety data. Also all of the short term data was manipulated and hidden. That's why they had to sue the CDC to release it's V-safe data. They didn't want to release it because it was so bad, 7% severe adverse effects with a 10 million person sample size. And that's only short term. There is no long term data.

the mRNA payload decays at an exponential rate. What do you propose that we study after the medium that we're studying no longer exists, and nothing observable remains?

It's been two years, and no observable side effect ahs been observed to begin after two months. THAT'S your long term. Two months, three if you want to stretch it.

I've already debunked your 7 percent serious side effects, that would be 10s of millions of people. Think for a moment about what that would mean?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am sorry but the above is just word salad with no much explanation and no evidence for what you have said and claimed.

OK, I'll dumb it down.

mRNA doesn't last for very long.

Once it's gone, it's done all the harm that it can do.

If' it hasn't hurt you before it goes, it's not going to hurt you. Because it's not there any more.

What are you talking about??

I'm really not sure why this is so hard for you.

mRNA decays exponentially. Within 2 months of being vaxxed its functionally non-existent you your body. Therefore it can't cause you any more side effects, becausei t's not there any more.

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Bio weapon injected to children .

And they knew .

If that were true then you've got nothing to worry about, because whoever designed it is obviously incompetent because it's pretty much exactly as harmful as the measles vax. Which isn't a bio-weapon.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Can you tell then what are the medium and long term effects?

Just name them or give a list of what you think they are. I am sure many in the biomedical sciences will try to use your knowledge and expertise. Perhaps you could try to publish your results?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am sorry but the above is just word salad with no much explanation and no evidence for what you have said and claimed.

OK, I'll dumb it down.

mRNA doesn't last for very long.

Once it's gone, it's done all the harm that it can do.

If' it hasn't hurt you before it goes, it's not going to hurt you. Because it's not there any more.

What are you talking about??

I'm really not sure why this is so hard for you.

mRNA decays exponentially. Within 2 months of being vaxxed its functionally non-existent you your body. Therefore it can't cause you any more side effects, becausei t's not there any more.

So you must know then the medium and long term effects.

You can list them. All yours.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Can you tell then what are the medium and long term effects?

Just name them or give a list of what you think they are. I am sure many in the biomedical sciences will try to use your knowledge and expertise. Perhaps you could try to publish your results?

This link has the short term risks Source.

Medium - long term risks (See sources in my signature)

Mild heart inflammation (0.002 percent), serious heart inflammation (0.0002 percent) fatality through heart inflammation 0.00004 percent).

These figures are across a wide population and vary between age groups, sex, and co-morbidity. I've included a bias towards the upper bounds rather than the lower bounds. Risks drop exponentially with time.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Bio weapon injected to children .

And they knew .

If that were true then you've got nothing to worry about, because whoever designed it is obviously incompetent because it's pretty much exactly as harmful as the measles vax. Which isn't a bio-weapon.

Who says it's harmless. Did you not read the title of this thread? It seems not that harmless after all.
Unless you want to dismiss the several serious side effects. That's the short term effects because I happen not to know the medium and omg term effects.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

In brief:

Mild heart inflammation (0.002 percent), serious heart inflammation (0.0002 percent) fatality through heart inflammation 0.00004 percent).

The risk drops exponentially with time, so simply factor the above down after one week till they reach functional zero to calculate forwards in time.

So far, the risk factors have not varied from the standard model in two years. I'm not aware of anything ever breaking the model for functional zero. If I'm wrong, please feel free to post a link to your source.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Can you tell then what are the medium and long term effects?

Just name them or give a list of what you think they are. I am sure many in the biomedical sciences will try to use your knowledge and expertise. Perhaps you could try to publish your results?

This link has the short term risks Source.

Medium - long term risks (See sources in my signature)

Mild heart inflammation (0.002 percent), serious heart inflammation (0.0002 percent) fatality through heart inflammation 0.00004 percent).

These figures are across a wide population and vary between age groups, sex, and co-morbidity. I've included a bias towards the upper bounds rather than the lower bounds. Risks drop exponentially with time.

There is nothing in your signature about medium and long term effects.

Provide the links and the paragraphs from the links that show the medium and long term effects.
I see you are not able to provide them for once more.

The links you provided a few replies back said nothing about what you have claimed earlier. Two of them were just titles without any text, abstract, discussion and conclusion.

List the medium and long term effects since you known them.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

In brief:

Mild heart inflammation (0.002 percent), serious heart inflammation (0.0002 percent) fatality through heart inflammation 0.00004 percent).

The risk drops exponentially with time, so simply factor the above down after one week till they reach functional zero to calculate forwards in time.

So far, the risk factors have not varied from the standard model in two years. I'm not aware of anything ever breaking the model for functional zero. If I'm wrong, please feel free to post a link to your source.

The medium and long term effects as you promised.

Not just word salad