3 ms·

Based on what you come to this conclusion? Scientific consensus reached after removing all the dissenting voices? Sorry, but I cannot take this kind of scientif

by cies 2y ago

Based on what you come to this conclusion? Scientific consensus reached after removing all the dissenting voices? Sorry, but I cannot take this kind of scientific consensus serious: we need scientists to be able to openly object, or it becomes junk science. For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. And we have not yet faced the terrible consequences of that junk-science: on a societal level (MSM, most govt agencies) we just act as if it did not happen.

piva00 2y ago
> For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. I don't understand this example, what are you referring to? And what was the total junk-science?
- cies 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - piva00 2y ago
    I don't see any literature showing myocarditis through the roof, can you share some sources? As far as I can remember the sources I've read after 2 years of the vaccines rollout showed a small risk of temporary myocarditis in a very small cohort. The shots were quite effective at curbing spread by lowering the time people shed the virus, and also substantially lowering mortality among infected. If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? I'd really appreciate sources for your extraordinary claims.
    - cies 2y ago
      > If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? it was said to "stop the spread" and "prevent infection", both it did not live up to. there are many, here's one study from Basel: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 discussed by someone that discusses these things more often here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA
      - stnmtn 2y ago
        Doesn't your link say that it was transient and temporary?
        cies 2y ago
        fixed my post. tnx
        stnmtn 2y ago
        Doesn't your link also say this? "No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])" So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?
        leereeves 2y ago
        0.3% is the percentage of participants, not the confidence in the diagnosis. Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".
        cies 2y ago
        0.3% is a lot for a medicine to be called safe.
        stnmtn 2y ago
        What do you think a safe threshold should be? And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?
        stnmtn 2y ago

by cies 2y ago

piva00 2y ago

> For example the "safe and effective" consensus we saw recently, that turned out to be total junk-science. I don't understand this example, what are you referring to? And what was the total junk-science?

cies 2y ago
[flagged]
- piva00 2y ago
  I don't see any literature showing myocarditis through the roof, can you share some sources? As far as I can remember the sources I've read after 2 years of the vaccines rollout showed a small risk of temporary myocarditis in a very small cohort. The shots were quite effective at curbing spread by lowering the time people shed the virus, and also substantially lowering mortality among infected. If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? I'd really appreciate sources for your extraordinary claims.
  - cies 2y ago
    > If that's ineffective I think... You had the wrong expectations? it was said to "stop the spread" and "prevent infection", both it did not live up to. there are many, here's one study from Basel: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 discussed by someone that discusses these things more often here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_RTf_ForA
    - stnmtn 2y ago
      Doesn't your link say that it was transient and temporary?
      - cies 2y ago
        fixed my post. tnx
        stnmtn 2y ago
        Doesn't your link also say this? "No definitive case of myocarditis was found. However, the two participants (both women) with vaccine-associated myocardialinjury and chest pain met the Brighton Collaboration case defini-tion Level 2, indicating probable myocarditis in those patients (0.3%[95% CI 0.1–0.9%])" So 2 of the participants had a .3% possibility?
        leereeves 2y ago
        0.3% is the percentage of participants, not the confidence in the diagnosis. Every result reported in the paper follows that same pattern: "[N] participants had [result] ([% of participants], [95% confidence interval])".
        cies 2y ago
        0.3% is a lot for a medicine to be called safe.
        stnmtn 2y ago
        What do you think a safe threshold should be? And note that your own link said that the .3% of participants were those that could possibly show signs of myocarditis, they didn't actually contract that disease. So what does your paper show that is damning evidence to you?
        stnmtn 2y ago