3 ms·

Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’

by azan_ 4mo ago

Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.

trimethylpurine 4mo ago
27% had a bad reaction to the treatment. Name another vaccine (pre COVID definition) that has a similar statistical outcome. Pre-COVID routine vaccines have a 1/500,000 or less negative rate. Hell, even 1/10,000 would be reasonable in an emergency (should be optional at that rate though). 1/3 is not okay. That's far worse than the disease it's supposed to treat. You need to have horns and a tail to call 1/3 safe. There is no justification for that. And look what happened as a result. People stopped trusting their govt and vaccines altogether and we have outbreaks of things we never saw in our lifetime.
- azan_ 4mo ago
  Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.
  - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
    The Democrats killing people point is about the NIH investment in illegal research in Wuhan, covering it up, releasing it, and preemptively pardoning it, robbing the public of a fair trial and justice. You're conflating two separate points. To the point you're ignoring, this study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. And nearly all conditions of COVID are also very much reversible so that's not a good comparison point in favor of the treatment anyway. I don't get from you that you're reading in good faith. Be a scientist. Read it critically. Poke holes in it, like you would a lab partner or a student. Remember, this was not peer reviewed! The reviewers are the researchers. The study itself doesn't meet the basic threshold for scientific rigor as it is. YOU need to review it. This wasn't a no big deal incidence rate. Find another approved vaccine with a number that high. You can't. Pull the CDC data into any SQL server and see if any treatment in history has anywhere near the number of negative reactions. These are not "got a red spot" or "said ouch" incidents. These are cases of permanent paralysis, heart attacks in unusually young patients, strokes, and death. Just filter for those specifically and you'll see that the rate of incidence is 100s of times greater than other vaccines. You simply can't explain that. Can you?
    - azan_ 4mo ago
      > This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like transient fever, numbers for myocarditis is much lower for vaccine vs covid, and for death it's much, much, much lower. I'm sorry but you hold your views only because you don't understand what you are reading. People who told you to do your own research owe you an apology - you are not capable of even reading very simple scientific article. > Again, if this was a no big deal incidence rate, find another vaccine whith a number that high. Good luck. But I don't care about transient fever or transient fatigue and why would anyone care? Anyway I'm ending this discussion - you clearly have absolutely zero idea about medicine. Shame that you can't see how stupid your opinions are and feel urge to share them.
      - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
        I was still writing my comment during your emotional outburst. Reinforcing stereotypes about the Left it seems. You haven't addressed any of the research or the CDC data. And you've conflated two data sets. You're also still ignoring the actual study to claim that the incidences reported didn't include fatalities when they did. (That number went up dramatically in the CDC data, even if it was low in the study by comparison but still insanely high when comparing other vaccines.) I'll excuse your emotions, but I'll not excuse you for valuing them more highly than the data. If you'll get mad and make decisions to discontinue discussion without clear understanding, then you'll just as soon make decisions that kill the public, which is why I've stopped voting left. It's YOUR behavior that reinforces for me that the left is not composed of scientists, but angry religious zealots. So respectfully, I hope you're not a PhD, and not in politics. Based on your responses, I think you're just asking ChatGPT to summarize for you and it simply doesn't have the CDC data. Use a MySQL connector and feed it the data. You have to download it. Did you? Obviously not.
        azan_ 4mo ago
        Amazing mate, literally everything you wrote is wrong, including labeling me as left wing, keep it up!

by azan_ 4mo ago

trimethylpurine 4mo ago

27% had a bad reaction to the treatment. Name another vaccine (pre COVID definition) that has a similar statistical outcome. Pre-COVID routine vaccines have a 1/500,000 or less negative rate. Hell, even 1/10,000 would be reasonable in an emergency (should be optional at that rate though). 1/3 is not okay. That's far worse than the disease it's supposed to treat. You need to have horns and a tail to call 1/3 safe. There is no justification for that. And look what happened as a result. People stopped trusting their govt and vaccines altogether and we have outbreaks of things we never saw in our lifetime.

azan_ 4mo ago
Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.
- trimethylpurine 4mo ago
  The Democrats killing people point is about the NIH investment in illegal research in Wuhan, covering it up, releasing it, and preemptively pardoning it, robbing the public of a fair trial and justice. You're conflating two separate points. To the point you're ignoring, this study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. And nearly all conditions of COVID are also very much reversible so that's not a good comparison point in favor of the treatment anyway. I don't get from you that you're reading in good faith. Be a scientist. Read it critically. Poke holes in it, like you would a lab partner or a student. Remember, this was not peer reviewed! The reviewers are the researchers. The study itself doesn't meet the basic threshold for scientific rigor as it is. YOU need to review it. This wasn't a no big deal incidence rate. Find another approved vaccine with a number that high. You can't. Pull the CDC data into any SQL server and see if any treatment in history has anywhere near the number of negative reactions. These are not "got a red spot" or "said ouch" incidents. These are cases of permanent paralysis, heart attacks in unusually young patients, strokes, and death. Just filter for those specifically and you'll see that the rate of incidence is 100s of times greater than other vaccines. You simply can't explain that. Can you?
  - azan_ 4mo ago
    > This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like transient fever, numbers for myocarditis is much lower for vaccine vs covid, and for death it's much, much, much lower. I'm sorry but you hold your views only because you don't understand what you are reading. People who told you to do your own research owe you an apology - you are not capable of even reading very simple scientific article. > Again, if this was a no big deal incidence rate, find another vaccine whith a number that high. Good luck. But I don't care about transient fever or transient fatigue and why would anyone care? Anyway I'm ending this discussion - you clearly have absolutely zero idea about medicine. Shame that you can't see how stupid your opinions are and feel urge to share them.
    - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
      I was still writing my comment during your emotional outburst. Reinforcing stereotypes about the Left it seems. You haven't addressed any of the research or the CDC data. And you've conflated two data sets. You're also still ignoring the actual study to claim that the incidences reported didn't include fatalities when they did. (That number went up dramatically in the CDC data, even if it was low in the study by comparison but still insanely high when comparing other vaccines.) I'll excuse your emotions, but I'll not excuse you for valuing them more highly than the data. If you'll get mad and make decisions to discontinue discussion without clear understanding, then you'll just as soon make decisions that kill the public, which is why I've stopped voting left. It's YOUR behavior that reinforces for me that the left is not composed of scientists, but angry religious zealots. So respectfully, I hope you're not a PhD, and not in politics. Based on your responses, I think you're just asking ChatGPT to summarize for you and it simply doesn't have the CDC data. Use a MySQL connector and feed it the data. You have to download it. Did you? Obviously not.
      - azan_ 4mo ago
        Amazing mate, literally everything you wrote is wrong, including labeling me as left wing, keep it up!