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:
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.
Can you explain exactly why you think admitting this is some victory?
You can’t get a vaccine injury without being vaccinated.
This would be a problem if the vaccine didn’t do anything.
If it makes you far less likely to die and transmit, then the threat of vaccine injuries then gets measured against the percentage of chance less you have of dying, transmitting, or suffering serious injury.
People who don’t wear seatbelts don’t die of being choked on their seatbelts, and people sometimes die in car accidents even after being belted. I still think it would be stupid to be more worried about choking on a seatbelt than in greatly reducing the risk of injury in a car crash.
But since we don’t agree on the threat of COVID, you do realize this conversation can’t progress much further here. If you need to feel like me saying that people who don’t wear seatbelts will never die of choking on them, then I welcome you to your parade. :)