3 ms·

You're confusing Austria and Australia, but hey, it's par for the course for the dumpster fire level of comments currently on this thread... I'm going to trust

You're confusing Austria and Australia, but hey, it's par for the course for the dumpster fire level of comments currently on this thread... I'm going to trust the statistics that the vaccines work, and aren't deadly. The numbers seem to speak for themselves, thousands of samples and you can see any region with higher vaccination rates have lower infection and death rates (well, I guess until the efficacy wears down and boosters are needed...). On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust): https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-what-are-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know#vaccine_side_effects_show_up_quickly https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-... > Unlike many medications, which are taken daily, vaccines are generally one-and-done. "Medicines you take every day can cause side effects" that reveal themselves over time, including long-term problems as levels of the drug build up in the body over months and years, Goepfert said. But "vaccines are just designed to deliver a payload and then are quickly eliminated by the body," he said. "This is particularly true of the mRNA vaccines. mRNA degrades incredibly rapidly. You wouldn't expect any of these vaccines to have any long-term side effects. And in fact, this has never occurred with any vaccine."

twofornone 5y ago
>The numbers seem to speak for themselves, thousands of samples and you can see any region with higher vaccination rates have lower infection and death rates (well, I guess until the efficacy wears down and boosters are needed...) This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe. >On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust): Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide. The science is effectively poisoned, one sided because of social shaming. But Pfizer et al. aren't complaining given that they are raking in the cash explicitly free of liability. Not like that's a huge conflict of interest or anything, we should continue to trust their safety and efficacy data unquestionably. Surely big pharma has a spotless ethical and safety record.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  > This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe. Let's see your data then. > Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide. Ah yeah, of course, when you don't like the statement, the messenger is part of a giant lying conspiracy. Where's the science to prove otherwise? (Hidden by the money and power, I guess?) The studies that Jenny McCarthy and her doctor Andrew Wakefield[1] made up about vaccines = autism have been debunked. But I guess that's all because the powers that be have decided they need to be made pariahs, right? Sigh, I'm glad I live in reality. But hey, maybe I'm the one who's been brainwashed, and you're the clear thinking one, right? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/

twofornone 5y ago

>The numbers seem to speak for themselves, thousands of samples and you can see any region with higher vaccination rates have lower infection and death rates (well, I guess until the efficacy wears down and boosters are needed...) This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe. >On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust): Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide. The science is effectively poisoned, one sided because of social shaming. But Pfizer et al. aren't complaining given that they are raking in the cash explicitly free of liability. Not like that's a huge conflict of interest or anything, we should continue to trust their safety and efficacy data unquestionably. Surely big pharma has a spotless ethical and safety record.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
> This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe. Let's see your data then. > Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide. Ah yeah, of course, when you don't like the statement, the messenger is part of a giant lying conspiracy. Where's the science to prove otherwise? (Hidden by the money and power, I guess?) The studies that Jenny McCarthy and her doctor Andrew Wakefield[1] made up about vaccines = autism have been debunked. But I guess that's all because the powers that be have decided they need to be made pariahs, right? Sigh, I'm glad I live in reality. But hey, maybe I'm the one who's been brainwashed, and you're the clear thinking one, right? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/