Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

There is no evidence that there will be long term effects to the lungs, the ovaries, the endothelium, or any part of the body from any of the vaccines to any statistical significance. The truth is, we don't know. The other truth is, according to biology it is unlikely to be a problem for many people.

Could it happen to some? Sure. But the evidence we have so far (that we know of, it could be fraudulent) suggests such events will be very rare.

The VAERS data suggests short term serious effects in the 1:1000 range (or so), and the death rate is more like 1:20,000. Of course death is a non-issue, since she'd be dead, and its illegal to marry dead people, but serious short term effects (which is all the VAERS data shows) are also not overly concerning for long term effects. The body has a remarkable capacity for healing. To discount that is giving into your fears of the unknown, and not evidence based.

Within the VAERS data is also evidence of long term effects, but those are about the same level as the death data, and predominantly in older people. So the risk is actually very low (according to that data).

Could the VAERS data be underreported? Absolutely. I think that is highly likely. I doubt very much it is more than 10 times worse than it suggests however because if it were it would quite simply be too hard to hide from someone like myself who looks every day for such evidence (and all the other people doing the same thing diligently).

So if my 10 times hypothesis is correct (its really a reasonable upper limit) that would put the long term effects for which there is evidence at a rate of about 1:2000. Thats actually really good odds.

Its not good enough that I would risk my life. And its bad enough that I advise everyone I know to not get it, to the destruction of some friendships unfortunately (people who care nothing for actual evidence because they are too far under the spell), but in real actual numbers, its pretty good odds.

So to even slightly suggest that its a forgone conclusion, when every piece of actual evidence, and even reasonable speculation suggests that it is not going to be that bad is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.

3 years ago
1 score
Reason: Original

There is no evidence that there will be long term effects to the lungs, the ovaries, the endothelium, or any part of the body from any of the vaccines to any statistical significance. The truth is, we don't know. The other truth is, according to biology it is unlikely to be a problem for many people.

Could it happen to some? Sure. But the evidence we have so far (that we know of, it could be fraudulent) suggests such events will be very rare.

The VAERS data suggests short term serious effects in the 1:1000 range (or so), and the death rate is more like 1:20,000. Of course death is a non-issue, since she'd be dead, and its illegal to marry dead people, but serious short term effects (which is all the VAERS data shows) are also not overly concerning for long term effects. The body has a remarkable capacity for healing. To discount that is giving into your fears of the unknown, and not evidence based.

Within the VAERS data is also evidence of long term effects, but those are about the same level as the death data, and predominantly in older people. So the risk is actually very low (according to that data).

Could the VAERS data be underreported? Absolutely. I think that is highly likely. I doubt very much it is more than 10 times worse than it suggests however because if it were it would quite simply be too hard to hide, and there has been insufficient for someone like myself who looks every day for such evidence (and all the other people doing the same thing diligently).

So if my 10 times hypothesis is correct (its really a reasonable upper limit) that would put the long term effects for which there is evidence at a rate of about 1:2000. Thats actually really good odds.

Its not good enough that I would risk my life. And its bad enough that I advise everyone I know to not get it, to the destruction of some friendships unfortunately (people who care nothing for actual evidence because they are too far under the spell), but in real actual numbers, its pretty good odds.

So to even slightly suggest that its a forgone conclusion, when every piece of actual evidence, and even reasonable speculation suggests that it is not going to be that bad is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.

3 years ago
1 score