Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: JBurns

COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-2-CoV virus, is responsible for 6,860,165 deaths world-wide.

Extremely unlikely.

There might have been that many deaths from any cause that could also be associated with a positive pcr test (of unspecified amplification) within the previous 28 days (which is how many of the authorities were counting), but that is a very different thing. Though even this is unlikely.

Here's an example for you. 2 yrs into the pandemic in the UK the figure was around 137, 000 deaths from covid. A FOI request revealed only around 4.4% of these had covid listed as the cause of death on the death certificate. So there's a huge grey area. I think there was something like 3 people in the under 20 age group. Not sure if it's still on the UK gov website, but that's where I saw it.

The death certificate figures themselves are doubtful because there is good reason to believe based on some reasonable analysis that many of the elderly were really iatrogenic deaths. The initial fatalities in Italy for instance, doesn't follow the pattern of an epidemic/pandemic. There is evidence that covid was around for months before this that might explain the anomalies, but it would also lend further weight to the idea that panic and non/mal treatment (particularly of the elderly) played a huge part in fatalities.

Finding out how many people really died from covid isn't so simple. But if you insist on that figure, it's up to you to explain and support the methods by which it was derived.

To date, there are 673,570,579 total cases of COVID-19 reported world-wide. By these numbers, you have just over a 1% chance of dying from COVID-19 if you were to be infected. Pretty good odds, if you ask me.

Also very unlikely. There might be some GIGO effect in that.

The below is from John Ioannides and crew from Stanford based on pre "vaccine" seroprevalence data. I think it will be closer to the truth. The pre vaccine era IFR varied between age groups and across countries (depending on morbitity/ health of populations) but overall is nowhere near 1%.

Highlights *Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years.

*The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.

*At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Compare these numbers to the total doses given world-wide: 13.29 billion doses given to approximately 5.5 billion people. This means your chance of suffering any adverse reaction is 1:262,767. 1 person will experience an adverse reaction for every 262,767 doses given, or right around 1:109,733 people. In other words, 1 person out of every 109,733 people will experience some adverse side effect. Not neccesarily death, not neccesarily minor - the VAERS reports don't indicate the severity of the side effects.

Source: ourworldindata.org...

I don't need to do the math to show me that 1:109733 is vastly lower than the already low 1% fatality rate among COVID-19 patients.

Unless I'm mistaken you are dividing VAERS data into worldwide vaccine doses. VAERS is a reporting system for the US only, so that doesn't work.

You also don't know the under reporting factor as it's generally considered that only 1-10% of all events are reported. Dr. Jessica Rose (who is highly qualified if nothing else) reached an under reporting factor of 41x. Have seen others reach similar.

The best way to do it is to compare AE's and deaths per million doses with other vaccines. The covid products are horrendous in comparison.

While it is true your chances of dying from COVID are low, your chance of having a negative side effect from the vaccine is hundreds of times lower than that. This is where the risk vs. reward comes in.

We know from the Pfizer data that there was higher mortality in the treatment group (something like 40% higher heart related deaths) and the review by Doshi et al of clinical trial data showed that when severe AE's were factored in, the treatment group didn't fare so well there either. Isn't that the "gold standard"? They should have never been released.

Make the choice on your own folks. Don't buy up the clickbait disguised as scaremongering. Apocalyptic doomsayers are as old as human civilization, and you should pay no more attention to them now than our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. People are serving you crap sandwiches and expecting you to eat it with a smile on your face. Because politics? Because ideology? Or is it because they run entire communities based on spreading this stuff (no doubt for monetary renumeration in some cases). These people have a vested self interest in scaring the crap out of you.

No idea what you are talking about in those first few sentences. I haven't supported a political party or politician (I despise both) since the seventies because I'm apolitical. There are no systems of govt presently being practiced that I support. I don't vote for that reason (only encourages them).

The same could be said about yourself. By passing off obviously inflated fatality figures and an unrealistic IFR you are frightening people into being vaccinated. What is your motive?

They will tell you to do your own research without actually expecting you to do it. This is the result of doing my own research, and I invite you to do your own as well. Don't take my word for it.

I appreciate and applaud you for doing so. While I think it a little thin on substance to put it mildly (just IMO), at least you made an effort and I know now what you base your opinion on.

Spot on!

Take a look at my replies where I have mentioned the crucial mistakes he makes demonstrating he hasn't read the literature at all and doesn't know what the VAERS system is.

The reported cases come only from the State of Florida and not from the entire US. Then he divides this number which is only for Florida with the total number of shots given worldwide! I doubt Pfizer and Moderna would have ever come up with such plan to cook nicely the numbers...

He also conflates the IFR with CRF giving a fatality rate of 1% which even if it was correct couldn't be applied uniformly to all age groups.

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You are making again some huge mistake by dividing the number of adverse events reported in Florida by the total number of shots given on the entire planet

The 50,577 reports on VAERS is only for the State of Florida

The 13.29 billion doses given to approximately 5.5 billion people on the planet.

What you need to do is divide the number of adverse reactions reported in Florida by the number of people who have been vaccinated in Florida. Around 15,000,000 are considered fully vaccinated in Florida and over 17,000,000 have had at least one dose.

So in the State of Florida you can do the 50,577 divided by whichever number you choose from above. Let's choose the 17,000,000

It comes close to 3 in 1000
Which is massive.

Lol. Thanks for that I didn't pick it up, didn't bother looking at VAERS. But your right, VAERS is a reporting system for the US. So when he does get the right number, he would need doses administered in the US only.

Yes indeed, as well as total reports made in the US through the VAERS system because he used the reports for Florida only.

Then he has to divide further as every vaccinee on average gets 2 shots. Some people may get a third or a fourth one.

From the peer reviewed publication we have all linked in several threads the number of severe adverse reactions from the original trials of Pfizer and Moderna is 1 in every 800 vaccinees. Which is massive.

originally posted by: quintessentone

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

The CDC uses VAERS to look for "safety signals" via a method called "proportional reporting ratios" analysis, where they measure any disproportion of AE compared to other vaccines (that are considered safe).

Of course according to their own rules and documentation they were required to do these weekly beginning early 2021. The problem being that almost mid 2022 a FOI request revealed they had done exactly 0 of these analyses.

People were actually doing analyses for them and sending them through out of concern. Have you ever seen such analysis? They aren't pretty.

You won't find problems if you don't look seems to be their motto. Has there ever been a more inept PH institution?

No need to bother I suppose when they're deemed "safe and effective" by decree.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, you don't understand how the VAERS reporting system works, or rather, it's limitations.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead.

It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.

An additional factor to consider is that as the pandemic wears on and a disproportionate number of unvaccinated people die from COVID, the unvaccinated population shrinks. This leaves a comparatively larger vaccinated group, leading to an increase in total deaths despite the lower death rate among vaccinated people. No vaccine is 100 percent effective, but immunization reduces the risk of dying from COVID substantially.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Granted the newest studies are claiming that the boosters are adversely effecting people's immune systems but the research is still ongoing. So once we have repeated studies that are also peer reviewed we should not use factor in these numbers.

Your arguments have been refuted everywhere. To lecture others on various matters of vaccine safety or infectious diseases is rather hilarious. Before you do so make sure you understand the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2.

According to you

Covid-19 has come from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus

I hope you do see the problem what this statement or the attempts you made to make sense of what the VAERS system is. Which you misunderstand and try to discredit as some other members have done in the past few days.

It's rather hilarious to try to 'teach' the audience about the reopening system when you are not sure even about the basics such as the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2, the meaning of herd immunity and how it could be achieved, natural immunity, and a range of other matters.

Also I notice that you link irrelevant pieces of literature in your posts.

Your deflection tactics are getting old. But I suppose that is your only recourse when you can't discuss/debate a topic reasonably.

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: quintessentone

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

The CDC uses VAERS to look for "safety signals" via a method called "proportional reporting ratios" analysis, where they measure any disproportion of AE compared to other vaccines (that are considered safe).

Of course according to their own rules and documentation they were required to do these weekly beginning early 2021. The problem being that almost mid 2022 a FOI request revealed they had done exactly 0 of these analyses.

People were actually doing analyses for them and sending them through out of concern. Have you ever seen such analysis? They aren't pretty.

You won't find problems if you don't look seems to be their motto. Has there ever been a more inept PH institution?

No need to bother I suppose when they're deemed "safe and effective" by decree.

I know what VAERS looks for and it's limitations but I am pointing out we are not data analysts and if you read the 'limitations' on the VAERS site they explain the data does not show cause and effect. That is the main point, the most important point. So comparisons don't matter if you can't prove the cases were caused by vaccines, which this database does not do. No proof = no reliable data.

What I notice about some members here is on one hand they mistrust government and government data but when it suits their bias they don't hesitate to use it, such as VAERS data used by Florida's Surgeon General. The Surgeon General is not a data analyst and he is right-wing leaning, so, again, it appears any and all data is misused according to one's beliefs about vaccines/virus.

originally posted by: Tortuga
1 in a 100 chance of dying from covid if you’re very very old, those odds become pretty astronomical if you’re young with no underlying conditions.

If you’re very very old then your immune system isn’t working as it once was and viruses can easily see you off, vaccines don’t help much because ‘your immune system isn’t working as it once was’

It’s always been a percentage play IMO, like with many treatments. If you are in the very high risk group then what have you to lose trying some vaccine, if you aren’t then why take a dumb risk on potential side effects when you will clear covid quickly and get at least a period of natural immunity.

Not that ‘natural immunity’ was considered during the pandemic, the science doesn’t make money from natural immunity.

That is what it boils down to - risk vs. benefits and we are all still learning as we go. Now with newly emerging drugs like Paxlovid that may help keep the very sick out of the ICU, people's choices are also increasing.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, you don't understand how the VAERS reporting system works, or rather, it's limitations.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead.

It is also important to consider the ages of those who are dying. People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID. (Being older is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID because the immune system weakens with age.) So when you separate the age groups, it becomes even clearer that vaccination reduces the risk of death. And because immune protection from vaccination wanes with time, and because some older people do not mount a good immune response to the primary series, being boosted reduces that risk even further.

An additional factor to consider is that as the pandemic wears on and a disproportionate number of unvaccinated people die from COVID, the unvaccinated population shrinks. This leaves a comparatively larger vaccinated group, leading to an increase in total deaths despite the lower death rate among vaccinated people. No vaccine is 100 percent effective, but immunization reduces the risk of dying from COVID substantially.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Granted the newest studies are claiming that the boosters are adversely effecting people's immune systems but the research is still ongoing. So once we have repeated studies that are also peer reviewed we should not use factor in these numbers.

Your arguments have been refuted everywhere. To lecture others on various matters of vaccine safety or infectious diseases is rather hilarious. Before you do so make sure you understand the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2.

According to you

Covid-19 has come from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus

I hope you do see the problem what this statement or the attempts you made to make sense of what the VAERS system is. Which you misunderstand and try to discredit as some other members have done in the past few days.

It's rather hilarious to try to 'teach' the audience about the reopening system when you are not sure even about the basics such as the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2, the meaning of herd immunity and how it could be achieved, natural immunity, and a range of other matters.

Also I notice that you link irrelevant pieces of literature in your posts.

Your deflection tactics are getting old. But I suppose that is your only recourse when you can't discuss/debate a topic reasonably.

There is nothing you say that merits a proper response. Your arguments demonstrate lack of understanding of the most basic concepts such the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2, what herd immunity is, what natural immunity is, and others.

It is extraordinary that you seem to believe your understanding of any system that reports adverse reactions is adequate. It's actually non existent.

In addition you seem not to be able to comment on the OP that makes a range of false assumptions, claims and conclusions. Unless you agree with the OP. That's the only question I would like to ask you.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: quintessentone

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

The CDC uses VAERS to look for "safety signals" via a method called "proportional reporting ratios" analysis, where they measure any disproportion of AE compared to other vaccines (that are considered safe).

Of course according to their own rules and documentation they were required to do these weekly beginning early 2021. The problem being that almost mid 2022 a FOI request revealed they had done exactly 0 of these analyses.

People were actually doing analyses for them and sending them through out of concern. Have you ever seen such analysis? They aren't pretty.

You won't find problems if you don't look seems to be their motto. Has there ever been a more inept PH institution?

No need to bother I suppose when they're deemed "safe and effective" by decree.

I know what VAERS looks for and it's limitations but I am pointing out we are not data analysts and if you read the 'limitations' on the VAERS site they explain the data does not show cause and effect. That is the main point, the most important point. So comparisons don't matter if you can't prove the cases were caused by vaccines, which this database does not do. No proof = no reliable data.

What I notice about some members here is on one hand they mistrust government and government data but when it suits their bias they don't hesitate to use it, such as VAERS data used by Florida's Surgeon General. The Surgeon General is not a data analyst and he is right-wing leaning, so, again, it appears any and all data is misused according to one's beliefs about vaccines/virus.

You seem to misunderstand VAERS quite a lot and not even use common sense given that you don't use common sense when making the other claims which have been repeatedly refuted.

Here is the Twitter page of Dr Ladapo

Dr Joseph Ladapo

Florida saw a 1,700% increase in adverse event reports after COVID-19 vaccinations. Does that sound safe and effective? I didn’t think so either. That’s why we released this health alert.

Just because “correlation ≠ causation” doesn’t mean we should abandon common sense

In one of your previous responses you tried unsuccessfully to degrade the Surgeon General of Florida accusing him of not uunderstandinghow VAERS works.

It's much more likely that it is you who doesn't understand what VAERS is and how it works rather than Joseph Ladapo. Given that you don't seem to understand the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2 as well as a range of other matters.

a reply to: TheRedneck

People put on ventilation in the midst of the "Cytokine Storm" have their illness accelerated and multiplied x1000.

Feeding pure oxygen at such high concentrations is like trying to put out a fire using gasoline.

Here's how one doctor put it:

"When you ventilate someone with this condition, you are setting off a free radical bomb by supplying the cells with O2. It’s a catch-22, because we need oxygen to make Adenosine Triphosphate (that is, to live), but O2 is also the precursor of all these damaging radicals that lead to lipid peroxidation."

Most people, by the time they get to the phase where doctors put them on ventilation, are super sick because of what is know as the "Cytokine Storm." A basic overview is this. When our lungs are infected, our T cells signal our immune system macrophages when to start making the toxic soup of lysosomal enzymes, reactive oxygen species, and nitric oxide that destroys intracellular pathogens. The problem is that when you introduce oxygen via mechanical ventilation, it has the opposite of the desired effect. Ventilation makes the cytokine storm worse, causing further damage, and basically destroying the lungs. It is like trying to put out a fire by blowing pure oxygen into it.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: quintessentone

The analysis of these types of reports have limitations, in that, as stated above, there is no proof that the event was caused by the vaccine. So anyone that sends in a report to VAERS has not proven that their adverse reactions was caused by a vaccine. Cause and effect is not proven once again.

It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn a how to analyze data because we are not factoring in some common sense criteria.

Base Rate Fallacy -

The CDC uses VAERS to look for "safety signals" via a method called "proportional reporting ratios" analysis, where they measure any disproportion of AE compared to other vaccines (that are considered safe).

Of course according to their own rules and documentation they were required to do these weekly beginning early 2021. The problem being that almost mid 2022 a FOI request revealed they had done exactly 0 of these analyses.

People were actually doing analyses for them and sending them through out of concern. Have you ever seen such analysis? They aren't pretty.

You won't find problems if you don't look seems to be their motto. Has there ever been a more inept PH institution?

No need to bother I suppose when they're deemed "safe and effective" by decree.

I know what VAERS looks for and it's limitations but I am pointing out we are not data analysts and if you read the 'limitations' on the VAERS site they explain the data does not show cause and effect. That is the main point, the most important point. So comparisons don't matter if you can't prove the cases were caused by vaccines, which this database does not do. No proof = no reliable data.

What I notice about some members here is on one hand they mistrust government and government data but when it suits their bias they don't hesitate to use it, such as VAERS data used by Florida's Surgeon General. The Surgeon General is not a data analyst and he is right-wing leaning, so, again, it appears any and all data is misused according to one's beliefs about vaccines/virus.

You seem to be of the opinion we just keep pumping out the drugs regardless because "haven't proved causation"? It doesn't work that way. That causality hasn't been established doesn't make something safe, nor does it rule out causality. It simply means we don't know.

There are also plenty of data analysts not in the CDC employ. Enough studies to be sceptical also. The data and analyses should be publicly available to anyone.

What they should do with a signal is apply different studies to see if they need to investigate it. Or if the safety signal is large enough and the effect dangerous enough, it would be customary and simple common sense to assume causality and halt the product until investigation deems it safe. That used to be the way pre covid, when there was sufficient doubt about safety of a drug they stopped the product.

As to the CDC, they didn't perform any analysis at all for the first 15 months. Then they only did a couple of months worth and simply stopped. With release of the data it became apparent why. Think they just fobbed it off to the FDA who have a different system but last I heard weren't very forthcoming either.

When the data shows a disproportionate number of deaths compared to other vaccines, to me that's quite a signal no matter what they say. It gets far worse for some individual AE's. Far beyond the normal CDC threshold for a "safety signal" using the comparator vaccines mentioned in their breifing documents. I don't trust them to have looked into this properly because I haven't heard a sufficient explanation and they have been nothing but wrong about everything for the whole pandemic.



From a submission to the CDC in late 2021.

a reply to: infolurker

Even so, that's around 1/335 roughly. Your logic is faulty. The risk of death from the vaccine is tiny in comparison.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Even if you alter the risk to reflect it being only say a 1/500 chance, it's still way higher than dying from the vaccine. So much higher that it makes the argument laughable. You can't ignore that using VAERS is hardly science.

I have no issue with people being angry over the way the vaccine was forced on people and I'm angry about that also. It does not make me want to close my eyes to reality or want to force my views on others. Both sides in this have been acting very badly and stretching the truth to the breaking point.

Look at the numbers by age groups instead......... you pro vaxxers are riding the elderly vax luck train here.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I don't know whether you use the numbers and analysis of the opening page. The numbers and analysis are completely wrong as I said earlier in this thread and as others have pointed out.

Your understanding also is wrong as you still seem to use part of the analysis which is faulty and then coming up with your own numbers(?)

You have said that 1 in 103 is the chance of dying from Covid using some numbers for the US. This is not correct as you are using the CFR instead of the IFR. You are not taking into account the asymptomatic cases and those who are never tasted because they have minor symptoms i.e a very large number of cases. You have used confirmed cases but that is very misleading.

By the way the global average infection fatality rate was around 0.15%. Now it is the same or even lower than that of the flue given the continuous exposure over the last 3+ years.

Clearly you haven't read the literature and not even the most recent research publications where for children and young and healthy adults the risk of having a serious adverse reaction from the vaccine is higher than the risk of getting hospitalised due to Covid-19.

The OP has made huge mistakes in trying to estimate the rate of serious adverse events by taking the reported cases registered in the VAERS in Florida and dividing by the total numbers of shots given worldwide.... So he has come up with something completely wrong.

The number of serious adverse reactions from the original phase3 trials of Moderna and Pfizer is at least 1 in 800 vaccinees. The figure is massive and the products should never have been rolled in the general population.
If you can find me another vaccine with such profile.... And still we don't know the medium and long term effects.

Another major mistake is that in the OP does not take into account different age groups. Children and young adults have from very low to miniscule chancre of dying due to Covid.

Also the comparisons are extraordinary when you are trying to compare vaccines to viruses. A vaccine is compared to other vaccines and a virus to other viruses. Although in this case the vaccine can be more harmful and especially for those under the age of 50.

In terms of who is stretching the truth. Well... That is very obvious to those who are not invested emotionally and mentally in the junk produced by Pfizer & Moderna. Just as many said this is the greatest medical scandal in history.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are you honestly and with a straight face saying the vaccine has killed a higher percentage of people than Covid has? Really? After billions of people have had the vaccines?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

As far as arguing about various age groups' needs, I've not said a word about that. I'd agree that there is no reason for healthy children to be vaccinated.

Are your sources all good ones or are some of your facts from the small collection of nuts on unvetted video's?

I take anything I read online or see in the videos with a grain of salt as I should. Most of it is unadulterated crap coming from paranoid people and the usual list of radicals who automatically assume the entire medical community is in on some huge scheme to kill us all. Then you have the sources selling stuff, like that creep Jones among others.

a reply to: flice

Being pro-vaccines is the norm and the smart way to be. Even though many who are pro-vaccines are opposed to the Covid stuff, they are not normally averse to the vaccines that have saved so many lives and prevented so much suffering.

I get people being nervous about something new, but the idea of being against vaccines, in general, is akin to a phobia and not rational.

a reply to: JBurns



But they said the " Air " Is/Is Not Perfectly Safe !

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are you honestly and with a straight face saying the vaccine has killed a higher percentage of people than Covid has? Really? After billions of people have had the vaccines?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

As far as arguing about various age groups' needs, I've not said a word about that. I'd agree that there is no reason for healthy children to be vaccinated.

Are your sources all good ones or are some of your facts from the small collection of nuts on unvetted video's?

I take anything I read online or see in the videos with a grain of salt as I should. Most of it is unadulterated crap coming from paranoid people and the usual list of radicals who automatically assume the entire medical community is in on some huge scheme to kill us all. Then you have the sources selling stuff, like that creep Jones among others.

I don't think you understood what I said and you don't seem to read the available literature for which I have made numerous threads. Your first paragraph is more of attaching the strawman.

The analysis of the Phase3 clinical trials was done on a peer reviewed paper for which I have made an entire thread about it and other members have linked it and cite it. It is clear that with this profile i.e at least 1 serious adverse reaction per 800 vaccinees the products should have been withdrawn from the market long time ago. And we only discussed the short term effects.

Scale up to 5.5 + billion people who have used mainly the mRNA products and what you can get in the short term. Millions of serious adverse reactions all over the world and without knowing the medium and long term effects.

If you want to have a look at my sources then take a look. Most are from the scientific literature either articles, pre-prints, or peer reviewed publications.

I don't think you have realised the magnitude of harm these products could cause. Its because of this Florida is trying to ban them and Idaho is trying to make it illegal to administer them in the state.

There is no reason for heathy children to be vaccinated. The sane is true for most adults under the age of 50.

And no. Not all of us are crazy. Medicine and science have been hijacked the last 3 years by the pharmaceuticals and their cronies in Government and elsewhere. And yes there are thousands of doctors, physicians, and scientists who are against this lunacy we have lived over the last 3 years.

I have not made a claim that the vaccines have killed more people than the virus. But the vaccines are not safe and effective and are potentially dangerous to young and healthy people. I don't know of any vaccine so far that had at least 1 serious adverse reaction per 800 vaccinees in the short term.

a reply to: Blaine91555

No,

Let's try this again.

The Risk of a serious side effect from the vaccine is much higher than the risk of hospitalization from covid and extremely higher than the chance of death from covid for most age groups.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: flice

Being pro-vaccines is the norm and the smart way to be. Even though many who are pro-vaccines are opposed to the Covid stuff, they are not normally averse to the vaccines that have saved so many lives and prevented so much suffering.

I get people being nervous about something new, but the idea of being against vaccines, in general, is akin to a phobia and not rational.

Not really... This is a political position.

Every medicine or vaccine must be judged on its own merits.

If someone has invested emotionally or mentally in the junk produced by Pfizer and Moderna they will find themselves in a very difficult position defending the products and the pharmaceuticals at the same time. Hence the terms vaccine apologists and defenders of the Pharmaceuticals.

I still want to see how many lives were saved by the mRNA products as all we have is a narrative where vaccines are safe and effective and the adverse reactions rare... When in reality this is the most absurd medical and scientific campaign in history.

If a product is new, untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, then common sense dictates you stay away from it. You are engaging in pro vaccination politics.