What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Well, considering the standing theory is that the vaccinated people:
A. Are sterilized by the shot
B. Only have 3 years to live due to the cardio problems
C. Were dumb enough to get the jab to begin with
All point toward parentage with such a person isn't only likely impossible now, but simply irresponsible.
You don't have a kid if you know you're not gonna survive at most 3 years past their birth. It's just cruel to the kid and the surviving parent.
Marriage sure, why not, but having kids?
I won't judge someone who does, even if they could, but know that you've chosen a pointlessly hard path if you do.
There is no "standing theory". Suggesting that there is suggests that there is evidence to support the ideas. It is an appeal to authority to support an argument for which there is no good evidence. It would be more appropriate to say "my hypothesis which some (few) other people share".
There is zero evidence to support this. There is evidence that it causes substantial spontaneous abortions in the first two trimesters, but that can easily be caused by a shock to the system (which the vaccine causes). It can also be caused by permanent damage to the reproductive organs, but there is zero substantive evidence to support that conclusion.
This again has zero evidential support. I am sure it is probably true for some people, but the vaccine causes different damage to different people. Not everyone is susceptible to heart damage from the spike protein and/or inflammation/autoimmune heart damage the vaccine might cause. Each individual has different diet/genetics/state of health/where the vaccine accumulates/etc. Patterns may emerge for statistical evidence to support such an idea, but we don't have any data to support ANY long term problems, nor do we have any idea of statistical long term patterns (yet).
I can't argue with this one.
This is nothing but fear mongering, and it doesn't even have a lick of evidential support (that I have seen). All evidence that I have seen that would warrant these particular fears I have provided substantial evidence to the contrary. That evidence being ignored because people would rather be fearful than not is not my fault. But I am calling this for what it is. Fear mongering.
While your points are valid, so are the counter points: there is no evidence to suggest it's not true, either.
This is kinda vaguely stated. I'm not really sure what you mean, but I'll try to respond.
Exactly which counterpoints were true?
I stated that there was no evidence to support a stated fear. To the best of my knowledge, that is true, there is no evidence. It was touted as "The Standing Theory" but it would have been more accurate if he had said, "My unfounded fear." My protest was of advising someone against interacting with other people intimately because of a fear without any evidential foundation.
He stated that "people were sterilized by the shot". There is no evidence to support that statement. No evidence was provided in any counterpoints, so what "counterpoint" was true exactly?
He stated that "people have only 3 years to live" after the shot. There is no evidence to support that statement, so what "counterpoint" was true exactly?
I could say, "The Standing Theory is that a nuclear bomb is going to hit your house tomorrow. Because a nuclear bomb is going to hit your house tomorrow, you should be very afraid."
It MIGHT be true. There is no evidence that a nuclear bomb WON'T hit your house tomorrow. But its not a rational fear if there is no evidence.
My point is that you're both speculating. The "there is no evidence of" line is simply lazy. What is a rational fear is an entirely different question.
You are both looking at different "evidence" and coming to different conclusions.
I don't know what evidence that sleepydude is looking at, that's up to him to support his theory. But you didn't support yours either, you simply claimed that he had no evidence of that.
There was no evidence that thalidomide will hurt your baby, until there was.
There was no evidence that smoking was bad for you, until there was.
There was no evidence that the NSA was hoovering up everyone's data, until there was.
You see the point?