4 ms·
> Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine. You do understand it also does not mean they are related to the vaccine, right? I mean, putting aside the gr
by rualca 5y ago
> Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.
You do understand it also does not mean they are related to the vaccine, right?
I mean, putting aside the grasping as straws aspect of this claim, let's look at your original claim: in a country where there are already 20 million person's who already were administered the vaccine, and given that by your own account you can only put together two dozen cases among those 20 million that are not ruled out vaccine side-effects, don't you agree that the tradeoff is clear?
- dukeofdoom 5y agoWell you don't know the long term effects. So you can't say the trade off is worth it. It's just blind optimism on your part, not even shared by the vaccine manufacturers, that put in their government contracts clauses that they will not guarantee that it works or take liability for any side effects. Despite making billions on these drugs.
- rualca 5y ago> Well you don't know the long term effects. To put it accurately, there is absolutely no indication that any vaccine has any long-term effect whatsoever. Doesn't this mean you are trying to analyze tradeoffs of a problem that does not exist in the plane of reality?
- dukeofdoom 5y agoRead about Marek's disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease "However, the leaky vaccine changes this evolutionary pressure and permits the evolution of highly virulent strains.[13] The vaccine's inability to prevent infection and transmission allows the spread of highly virulent strains among vaccinated chickens."