3 ms·
No, there has not been any studies done on the "efficacy" of vaccines. You misread something. Your link is about "adverse reactions", my statement was about "e
by RobertRoberts 8y ago
No, there has not been any studies done on the "efficacy" of vaccines.
You misread something. Your link is about "adverse reactions", my statement was about "efficacy".
>There's not been one single peer reviewed double blind test done on the _efficacy_ of vaccines
- anoncake 8y agohttps://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1279 https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1279 1 minute of googling.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoNone of those studies controlled who was exposed to the disease. This is unethical by modern standards and is stated as a comment in your link. Notice the results from the study in Asia: (your link) >"25 (2.5%) of 1017 infants assigned to receive vaccine and 20 (2.0%) of 1018 assigned to receive placebo had a serious adverse event within 14 days of any dose. The most frequent serious adverse event was pneumonia (vaccine 12 [1.2%]; placebo 15 [1.5%])." The infants getting the vaccine vs placebo within 14 days had almost identical results.
- anoncake 8y ago...when it comes to adverse effects. In other words, the researchers could not find any side effects.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoCan you show me where is says they found no side effects?
- anoncake 8y agoIn the sentences that you fucking quoted.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago>...the researchers could not find any side effects. The phrase "side effects" is not anywhere in my quote.
- anoncake 8y agoStop trolling.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoI considered not replying to this, but instead I will argue that that nothing I stated was trolling, and an ad hominem attack certainly isn't proof.