Sorry for the slow response. "Every medicine has its own risks and contraindications, whoever tells the opposite is lying" Correct. Yet here's Bill Gates' GAV

Sorry for the slow response. "Every medicine has its own risks and contraindications, whoever tells the opposite is lying" Correct. Yet here's Bill Gates' GAVI saying "Vaccines are safe. Here's why" and of course there are hundreds of thousands more cases where people are told things like that by trusted authorities: https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covid-19-vaccines-are-safe-heres-why https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covid-19-vaccines-are-safe... This is standard - either claim the issue is black/white, or claim that whilst vaccines might have bad side effects in theory, in practice they basically never do (which is not the case). This is deceptive misinformation, but it's not being spread by randoms on the internet, it's being spread by governments and health authorities. Consider the following: 1. The stat you quoted is meaningless (and almost certainly wrong but we'll get to that in a second). To understand the costs/benefits you have to understand the absolute risk of injury or death from vaccines vs the absolute risk of injury or death from COVID. Authorities never present such stats because the true absolute risk of COVID death or even hospitalization for most age groups is so low that it'd just cause people to wonder why they'd bother taking a vaccine at all. 2. Even if they do present such comparisons, vaccine injuries are being systematically ignored or misclassified by the medical system so there's no way to do an accurate comparison anyway. As such nobody can truly make an informed decision on this topic. Now the 95% stat is almost certainly wrong anyway. I don't mean you're quoting it wrong, I mean it's not being calculated correctly. For quite some time, observers outside the health system have been pointing out that there are methodological errors in the way vaccine efficacy stats are being calculated, all of which significantly inflate the apparent effectiveness. The problem comes from two places: 1. The vaccines have an immunosuppressive effect. From the start, sceptics like Berenson noticed that there were non-seasonal COVID waves happening that appeared to always line up perfectly with the start of vaccine rollout. Some speculated that this was due to people gathering together in vaccination centers, others that the vaccines themselves were temporarily suppressing the immune system. Seems like the latter explanation was more correct. As part of the Pfizer document releases just a few days ago, a document came out that showed the vaccines do in fact reduce immune system operation due to lymphocyte migration and that Pfizer knew this after the stage 1 trials. So vaccine programmes actually make people more susceptible to COVID, temporarily. This was also confirmed by data accidentally released by the Albertan health authority that showed this in action: https://dailydose19.substack.com/p/government-of-alberta-canada-scrubs?s=r https://dailydose19.substack.com/p/government-of-alberta-can... That's clearly a major issue if you repeatedly vaccinate people during a pandemic. However this effect is hidden by a statistical trick - they only count someone has vaccinated starting from two weeks after their second dose. Until that point every infection or death counts as unvaccinated, even though that isn't true. So what happens if you give someone an immunosuppressant and then allocate all the resulting infections to the "did not take" bucket? You make it look like the vaccines are far more effective than they really are. 2. Second problem; the claims vaccines are highly effective against infection (which is strongly related to hospitalization stats given how they're derived) are broken by two sub-problems: 2a. Some countries like the USA and Germany count people as unvaccinated if they couldn't locate proof of vaccination. They conflate unknown status with unvaccinated, which is wrong (a lie, really). 2b. They aren't comparing case rates as you'd expect but deltas in test positivity ratios. This isn't valid because the methodology assumes no differences in test behavior between groups i.e. that the patient doesn't control whether they get tested or not. Clearly not true with COVID. End result - all claims like yours, even when made earnestly and with the best intentions, rest on a completely and deliberately corrupted set of stats. We actually cannot tell whether vaccines are effective or not, but given that raw case rates in the few places that report them (like the UK) show vaccinated people getting COVID at quadruple the rate of unvaccinated people, it seems unlikely. The cause is probably OAS/priming effects.