I'm showing it doesn't mean anything, you have to look at totals and percentages, not single incidents glorified in videos. Given the numbers of humans getting this vaccine, you would expect to see the same rate of these types of incidents as you would any other year.
The problem is that doctors, the pharma companies, the media, and even governments are doing anything they can to avoid connecting adverse reactions to the jab. They are too invested in this to have proper transparency.
There are many ways to skew studies. In some cases they only use the 2 weeks after the shot as the basis for their study. Any bad outcomes reported after that (often times months after the shot) are not listed as part of the study even if 10% of the people who have had the shot have a negative outcome (adverse reaction). They won’t compare it to the control group (which would be most important), it won’t end up in their studies, etc...
That’s stuff that’s still happening for a vaccine like Gardasil which debuted in the early 2000’s. Still has its recommendation and approval but parents have literally ruined some of their children’s lives or ended those lives by having their kids take the damn thing. It’s tough becoming a statistic for the sake of billion dollar business, but what do you expect? People do corrupt and terrible things for much less.
This article has some pretty good examples of the inner working of some clinical trials/studies. It’s worth noting how the pharma company’s play that game. I really do recommend you check it out.
Wait, are you arguing for anecdotal evidence or against it?
I can’t tell, because you’re using it.
Zing!
I'm showing it doesn't mean anything, you have to look at totals and percentages, not single incidents glorified in videos. Given the numbers of humans getting this vaccine, you would expect to see the same rate of these types of incidents as you would any other year.
The problem is that doctors, the pharma companies, the media, and even governments are doing anything they can to avoid connecting adverse reactions to the jab. They are too invested in this to have proper transparency.
There are many ways to skew studies. In some cases they only use the 2 weeks after the shot as the basis for their study. Any bad outcomes reported after that (often times months after the shot) are not listed as part of the study even if 10% of the people who have had the shot have a negative outcome (adverse reaction). They won’t compare it to the control group (which would be most important), it won’t end up in their studies, etc...
That’s stuff that’s still happening for a vaccine like Gardasil which debuted in the early 2000’s. Still has its recommendation and approval but parents have literally ruined some of their children’s lives or ended those lives by having their kids take the damn thing. It’s tough becoming a statistic for the sake of billion dollar business, but what do you expect? People do corrupt and terrible things for much less.
This article has some pretty good examples of the inner working of some clinical trials/studies. It’s worth noting how the pharma company’s play that game. I really do recommend you check it out.
https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/hpv-vaccine-safety-gardasil-clinical-trials-flaws.html
My stance is, I’d rather wait and see what happens over a longer term before thinking of getting this vaccine.