Pfizer vaccine data. Of particular interest is page 30: full pages of known adverse effects…
(twitter.com)
💉VACCINE DATA RELEASE 💉
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (209)
sorted by:
Yes... there are a higher percentage of people who suffer vaccine injuries in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated population.
I'm... not sure why you stated that. But you did. So I guess we established that.
In other news, nobody who eats an entire pack of razor blades has ever died from cancer. Therefore, eating razor blades must prevent cancer.
Silly, right?
But you are making clear why this is confounding you. You believe that COVID is nothing, and therefore, the vaccine protects you from nothing. Which means side effects, even extremely rare ones, are not worth it.
Which means, of course, that this conversation will never go anywhere, because as long as you don't believe that the vaccine actually protects against a more significant threat, then there will never be a reason to take it.
And that's a conversation far outside of the purview of this.
IT doesn't excuse you for continually refusing to empirically prove the assertions that make up the foundation of your argument on the mathematical certainty that the vaccines are causing significant damage. But the context of the seriousness of COVID is always going to qualify what level of side effects are going to be considered acceptable.
But again, that goes nowhere, because you are someone who believes the mere existence of a data set in the mainstream media is enough justification to dismiss it completely as a fabrication. Which, honestly, isn't any better than the idiots you talk about who believe everything they see on television.
Nope. I would have said this from the beginning.
That doesn't bring us anywhere, because merely admitting that side effects probably exist in a population gives us no information regarding the PERCENTAGE of the population of adverse reports that is actually experiencing these side effects because of the vaccine.
(Population here refers to the total number of adverse reports, NOT the population of the country.)
You say it's a high percentage. In fact, you said it's 100%.
So... how do you know?
Because if you can provide this evidence, then you won the argument!
See? Falsifiability. I not only know how you can defeat my argument, I am telling you how to do it, exactly.
Show me in this data that a VAERS report (or even THIS report) correlates directly to a "CONFIRMED" side effect of the vaccine. Prove to me you made this statement based on evidence from the source, and not an assumption.
Until then, I really don't have time to keep dancing in circles with you. I'm not asking you of anything I wouldn't ask from any other researcher in any Q or non-Q setting, and if you aren't able to participate in that context, then I can find someone around here who will.
I don’t know what kind of data scientist you were, but…
The vaccine would make sense under these conditions IF:
Vaccinated people suffered fewer deaths and symptoms from the virus than the unvaccinated.
Vaccinated people transmit less than vaccinated people.
COVID is a more prevalent and serious array of symptoms than the vaccine side effects and provide a far higher risk to the health of human beings that a remote chance of a vaccine injury.
So does the data support these conditions?
Well, the data that exists does, yes. All three, actually.
But you neither accept those postulates nor the data that supports them.
Which is fine, I guess. But the data that you provided also isn’t supporting your argument.
It’s pretty hard for you to convince someone that their preponderance of evidence for a position is a lie and a fabrication, while at the same time offering theories based on misunderstandings of existing data and theories that are supported by almost nobody with actual proven time in the field. Your credentials don’t mean much when you’re an anon, so I am not interested in paying fealty to whatever data scientist credentials you claim to have, especially since I have not seen any predictive capabilities expressed by your magical algorithms and advanced Q understandings so far.