3 ms·
No. The odds differ for each individual. It may be the case that for a particular individual it is better for them not to take it.
by babesh 5y ago
No. The odds differ for each individual. It may be the case that for a particular individual it is better for them not to take it.
- himinlomax 5y agoExcept that it's demonstrably not.
- babesh 5y agoThere is no need to argue with you anymore. First you say that all vaccines are safe. Then when I find examples of them being unsafe, you say it was a manufacturing mistake from 60 years ago. Then when I find another from 1998 you argue that bowel obstructions are not long term and that it was 3 decades ago. Then I find another from only 4 years ago and you say that it is only one example. Then I go and find two more. Keep on walking back your claims. Note that many of these vaccines were already approved and not under emergency use authorization. Ever wonder how many side effects vaccines under trial have and how many never make it out of trials?
- himinlomax 5y agoI never said all vaccines are safe. You were not arguing with me, you were arguing with a strawman of your own making.
- babesh 5y agoHiminlomax - “Yes we do. There are hundreds of vaccines, none have long term side effects. There was some suspicion regarding one flu vaccine and narcolepsy, but it's been mostly ruled out and is entirely due to the peculiar etiology of that disorder, not the vaccine as such (the virus it targets is the known trigger for that autoimmune disord…” “Ah, at last, one relevant example. So you're right, there is one case where a vaccine had negative side effects, long term. Out of hundreds of vaccines. Doesn't change much to the argument, statistically.” “I never said all vaccines are safe.”
- himinlomax 5y ago> long term side effects
- babesh 5y agoWhat a clown dagsdgfhdgdj - “You have to go back over 60 years and even then only find issues caused by manufacturing problems, i.e., cases where not the intended vaccine was injected...”
- himinlomax 5y agoDifferent person, clown.
- babesh 5y ago“himinlomax 13 hours ago [–] That's still 3 decades, and that was short term”
- babesh 5y agoNope, wrong again. Go look at the game theory of taking a vaccine for a trivial example. Suppose there are 100 people. Suppose a virus has a 10% chance of killing you and the vaccine has a 1% chance. Now give the vaccine to 99 people. Should the last person take the vaccine? The virus is gone. Their probability of dying from the virus is now 0% instead of 10%. But their probability of dying from the vaccine is still 1%. Different people taking the vaccine at different times have different risk profiles. That is just the hypothetical example. There are actual real life examples of this with Covid-19. Some Scandinavian country was giving the vaccine to the elderly. Apparently they were already fragile and taking the vaccine pushed them over the edge and killed them. Now if you are one of those people should you take the vaccine or be forced to? Your best bet is actually to have everyone else take the vaccine and NOT take it yourself. Some people say that this is an example of a tragedy of the commons and that the health community pushes everyone to take the vaccine even if it is NOT in their specific self interest to do so. Everyone wants to be last. No one wants to be first. What do you actually think these vaccine mandates are pushing?