vaccination side effects

[Spizz]

You say that but you haven't answered the question I asked i.e. ....



The only thing you were prepared to do was label it 'irrelevant BS'.

Is this your go-to strategy when you start to lose an argument?

Seriously? I stuck to the point and explained my reasoning wrt vaccinations and consensus/majority, while you started rabbiting about god knows what. You also avoided most of my questions asking about this opposing views.

There is no argument to lose with you because you haven't the foggiest idea what you are arguing about.

 

[C4Cat]

The only thing you were prepared to do was label it 'irrelevant BS'.

How is your question relevant to vaccine side effects?

 

[_Dog]

Not a 50/50 split, far from it. The world wide scientific consensus and advice was to get vaccinated, and the results of that were overwhelmingly positive when they reduced deaths drastically.

Compare that to the misinformation, misunderstanding and downright lies from the people against the vaccine and you think it’s a close call to decide? Seriously?

---> "The world wide scientific consensus and advice was to get vaccinated"

How it happened (all without public debate or consensus):
1 Fauci & Gates order Tedros (WHO) to announce pandemic (lockdown and vaccine mandates to follow)
2. Tedros order World Government bureaucrats to implement "Emergency State" (lockdowns and later vaccines)
3. Your health minister implement Lockdown, and later vaccine on you without public debate ...

.... no scientific consensus was ever attained

 

[Spizz]

---> "The world wide scientific consensus and advice was to get vaccinated"

How it happened (all without public debate or consensus):

Here we go...

1 Fauci & Gates order Tedros (WHO) to announce pandemic (lockdown and vaccine mandates to follow)
2. Tedros order World Government bureaucrats to implement "Emergency State" (lockdowns and later vaccines)
3. Your health minister implement Lockdown, and later vaccine on you without public debate ...

.... no scientific consensus was ever attained

FFS, you want public debate with people like you? We'd all be armed with 9mm and shooting at it

 

[_Dog]

Here we go...


FFS, you want public debate with people like you? We'd all be armed with 9mm and shooting at it

mmm ...

.... those who are paying attention to whats happening know the virus is not the weapon .... it's the vaccine.

I omitted the preceding step in my previous post ...

• Klaus Schwab(WEF) and the Elite tell Gates to implement the next step in the Great Reset:“release the virus”
• Fauci & Gates order Tedros (WHO) to announce pandemic (lockdown and vaccine mandates to follow.
• Tedros order World Government bureaucrats to implement "Emergency State" (lockdowns and later vaccines.
• Your health minister implement Lockdown, and later vaccine on you without public debate ...

 

[lexity]

How is your question relevant to vaccine side effects?

'Vaccine' side-effects are a risk. The known risks are required to be published. Usually it takes years to uncover all the risks. So far, some risks have already been published after a very short time. Not widely publicized through State-endorsed media, was the attempt made, through the courts, to suppress the release of this data for 55 years.

So, since people act on the advice they accept, this back-and-forth started with who actually bears the risk of the scientific advice they are handed i.e. .....

lexity:
Science is a market service.
Which means it's the consumer's responsibility to decide whether it's worth the paper it's printed on. His ass is on the line, not some government bureaucrat who has given it a rubber stamp.
It is after all a matter of personal health, at the end of the day, right?

To which the reply was...

daveogg/spizz:
Right. Although I was just reading this and I’m buggered if I understand why people would think they are qualified to take the risk. There is no way back from learning the hard way.

So davespizz is saying, yes there's risk but the consumer doesn't have the scientific knowledge to refuse '[the advice]'.

The problem, here, is that it is taken as a given that there aren't experts on both sides.

So I posed the question....

lexity:
Just curious.... Two people claiming to be experts in science, tell you your life depends on their (conflicting) data.
How do you, personally, go about choosing which one to trust?

To which the answer was....

daveogg/spizz:
50/50. Flip a coin.

Now that on its own, should give any 3rd party reading this, enough to go on. In terms of the level of individual responsibility these guys are willing to take.

I mean, they could have said you have to draw on every single source you can possibly lay your hands on to give yourself the best possible chance of rejecting bad advice.

Instead they choose to: 'flip a coin'. I mean how much more risky can you possibly get?

Then they scramble to bolster this jaw-dropper, with 'scientific consensus', which I proceed to demonstrate argumentatively as being common to both sides(using their own definition).

All along the ad hom is rapidly increasing, from their side. Usually a tell-tale sign, they are losing the will to engage in argumentation, as the only peaceful means(*), to resolve the potential conflict.

* I'm excluding jurisdictional separation, here, for the moment.

 

[Spizz]

'Vaccine' side-effects are a risk. The known risks are required to be published. Usually it takes years to uncover all the risks. So far, some risks have already been published after a very short time. Not widely publicized through State-endorsed media, was the attempt made, through the courts, to suppress the release of this data for 55 years.

So, since people act on the advice they accept, this back-and-forth started with who actually bears the risk of the scientific advice they are handed i.e. .....


To which the reply was...


So davespizz is saying, yes there's risk but the consumer doesn't have the scientific knowledge to refuse '[the advice]'.

The problem, here, is that it is taken as a given that there aren't experts on both sides.

I asked you to present them, you didn't. You also talked about censorship, I asked you to highlight anything specific, you ignored the post. I said that it the anti vax side seems to be full of "misinformation, misunderstanding and downright lies", you still presented nothing in return. Instead you banged on about consensus and tried to make points on semantics.

So I posed the question....


To which the answer was....


Now that on its own, should give any 3rd party reading this, enough to go on. In terms of the level of individual responsibility these guys are willing to take.

I mean, they could have said you have to draw on every single source you can possibly lay your hands on to give yourself the best possible chance of rejecting bad advice.

You think I'm playing your silly game that seems to have no object other than for you to win at all costs? Jog on fella.

Instead they choose to: 'flip a coin'. I mean how much more risky can you possibly get?

A stupid answer to a stupid question. Again, you have presented no experts or even a sniff of a mdeical argument against the vaccinations. Early on you even alluded to bIG PhArMaZ, but of course backed it up with nothing. As usual.

Then they scramble to bolster this jaw-dropper, with 'scientific consensus', which I proceed to demonstrate argumentatively as being common to both sides(using their own definition).

You lost everyone at this point because you were way off topic arguing about semantics instead of presenting your case against the vaccines. A case I may add that you still have provided nothing on except your smoke and mirrors.

All along the ad hom is rapidly increasing, from their side. Usually a tell-tale sign, they are losing the will to engage in argumentation, as the only peaceful means(*), to resolve the potential conflict.

* I'm excluding jurisdictional separation, here, for the moment.

Yeah, you're a clown. I'm not sure what else you'd expect.

 

[pouroverguy]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483920741104222209

Absolutely worth a read for the pseudo-epidemologists here, who supposedly care so much about the vaccine's risk for myocarditis in certain populations, but don't bother to interpret the data in its entirety and speak about the side effects of COVID to those same populations, and cherry pick sentences to suit their beliefs.

 

[surface]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483920741104222209

Absolutely worth a read for the pseudo-epidemologists here, who supposedly care so much about the vaccine's risk for myocarditis in certain populations, but don't bother to interpret the data in its entirety and speak about the side effects of COVID to those same populations, and cherry pick sentences to suit their beliefs.

BIG PHARMA bad. See below.

"5/n And, if we were totally incompetent, we might argue that, since some studies observe myocarditis at a slightly higher rate in younger people after vaccination, this means that the vaccine is causing harm But that's a very bad argument"

 

[pouroverguy]

BIG PHARMA bad. See below.

"5/n And, if we were totally incompetent, we might argue that, since some studies observe myocarditis at a slightly higher rate in younger people after vaccination, this means that the vaccine is causing harm But that's a very bad argument"

What is your point?

 

[lexity]

and the media is just on one side

Yes. A media industry funded by advertizers, who's stakeholders now dominate markets, following decades of consolidation courtesy of State-regulators imposing artificial barriers to entry.

Notice there is a very distinct pattern that emerges with cancelers and mandvaxxers viz. they think they are entitled to be well-informed by politicians and their cronies('the' experts) i.e. as individuals they have relinquished the inalienable responsibility for making sense of the world, including working out who is deserving of their trust.

This is naive in the extreme and such naivete is hazardous to any society which values vigilance over imposed political limits, because it shelters the most sophisticated criminals in society, rather than depriving them of ill-gotten resources.

 

[pinball wizard]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483920741104222209

Absolutely worth a read for the pseudo-epidemologists here, who supposedly care so much about the vaccine's risk for myocarditis in certain populations, but don't bother to interpret the data in its entirety and speak about the side effects of COVID to those same populations, and cherry pick sentences to suit their beliefs.

Twitter. The source of truth. Really.

 

[surface]

Twitter. The source of truth. Really.

It is just a medium, right? I can say earth is flat on twitter and someone else can say it is oblate spheroid. How is twitter source of truth or falsehood in itself? Maybe you meant that "that" account is promoting falsehoods?

 

[pinball wizard]

It is just a medium, right? I can say earth is flat on twitter and someone else can say it is oblate spheroid. How is twitter source of truth or falsehood in itself? Maybe you meant that "that" account is promoting falsehoods?

Yeah yeah. When it suits you right? I've seen you vaxholes on here deriding and ridiculing others for quoting the same 'medium'.

 

[C4Cat]

Yeah yeah. When it suits you right? I've seen you vaxholes on here deriding and ridiculing others for quoting the same 'medium'.

Where did you see that?

 

[axsis]

Twitter. The source of truth. Really.

I like how he includes the overall graph but neglects the by Gender graph. Then makes it about hospitalization of kids but a lot of those 'cases' were kids hospitalized for other causes including other viruses. You also don't compare the vaccine to the virus, you compare the vaccine to other treatments.

He then goes on to acknowledge we don't even know if there's a benefit for young people (I assume under 40s given the graph he showed) to any of the other risks he's spoken about. Yet fails to mention adverse events are usually underreported.

We've cancelled vaccines in the past for less evidence than what we currently have (Swine flu vaccine is a pretty good example). Lots of countries have simply stopped Moderna in young people and many are starting to question the need for multiple shots in a population at fairly low risk, and in a climate where the predominant variant of concern is even less harmful and escapes the current vaccines...

Also while he's an epidemiologist (studying for a PhD), his field has a track record of being very wrong about most things. SARS-1, Bird flu, H1N1 to name but a few were all thought to be pandemics resulting in mass amounts of death based on modelling.

The current vaccines are probably a good option for the old (over 50), and the at risk and seem a decent optional precautionary measure. Whether people take them or not should be up to their own volition.

 

[Spizz]

Twitter. The source of truth. Really.

If you don't have the 'MSM' (lol) and you don't have social media, where are you zealots actually getting your information from?

 

[lexity]

Has anyone here seen a published list of AEs and SAEs (Adverse Events/Serious Adverse Events) reported for any of the covid jabs, so far?

Haven't followed this thread from the start but maybe someone posted a link.

p.s. for reference: post #12

 

[PsyWulf]

If you don't have the 'MSM' (lol) and you don't have social media, where are you zealots actually getting your information from?

Here

icc-complaint-7 (1).pdf

December 6, 2021 International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor Communications Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM The Hague The Netherlands EMAIL: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int. BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (TREATY OF ROME STATUTE, ART. 15.1 AND 53). Subject of complaint: -...

www.docdroid.com

 

[surface]

Yeah yeah. When it suits you right? I've seen you vaxholes on here deriding and ridiculing others for quoting the same 'medium'.

TIL, I am vaxhole. I often ridicule uncles on facebook, facebook is just a medium.