Originally Posted by
redietz
Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
I don't particularly disagree with you but I don't find vaccine equivalent for reasons I've explained elsewhere. These are medications taken for chronic conditions which have active effects. The vaxes are proteins generated for your body to respond to. They are not a drug. They are not taken repeatedly.
I would bet money that if almost all the drugs listed would never have had these side-effects even revealed if people only took each drug 3 times.
The statement I quoted is an absurdity though and just goes to show out of touch with reality you are. Maybe you have the decimal place off... by a factor of 3. Maybe 1.28 drugs a year?
If you actually check out the documents you're supposed to fill out for VAERS reporting, you'll understand why adverse effects are massively underreported. The forms, which allegedly can be filled out by civilians, would be challenging for any GP. The Danish countries will provide actual long-term evaluations down the road that will be far more accurate than any VAERS information. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near anything that could be construed as long-term yet.
I don't know why account thinks long-term vaccine effects would be "out there somewhere" when we haven't even nicked the long term in any sense. It's the same logical flaw as labeling a vaccine as "safe" when the Phase 3 trials are due to be completed in 2024. It's the idea that somehow we have been exposed to the "long term." In reality, we haven't even edged into anything that would have been considered long-term when evaluating previous vaccines.
What account seems to be arguing is that Covid long-term outcomes appear worse than vaccine outcomes, which is not nearly the same as saying that a vaccine is "safe." Now that vaccines don't really prevent Covid, however, if you get vaccinated, you are taking on the additive negative effects of both vaccines and Covid exposure.
The "grifter" account references is Dr. John Campbell, whose doctorate is in nursing education. He's published some popular nursing education textbooks. What he does, naturally, is make medical topics understandable to a general audience. Both Campbell and Been, whose videos I posted, started off as strong vaccine advocates. Two years later, they are not so strong.
You're the one who said that those taking the vaccine have taken on all tjhe downside with no upside. It was an absurd statement. You also presented an article then very much misrepresented what it said. When called out on this you just double-downed on your authority by claiming you've read so much more.
What good is reading and giving vague references when it appears you haven't even read them yourself?
It is a fucking clownworld out there. No one is really arguing people go get vaccinated at this point.
This is what you originally said
2) If people have taken vaccines and boosters, and the vaccines level out at zero efficacy at some point (a couple of weeks for boosters), then the people who have taken the vaccines and boosters have absorbed all of the risks of the vaccines and boosters sans any real benefits. Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues.
Now you completely change this all around and start talking about people who take the vaccine now and not everyone who has been vaccinated in the past. lol okey dokey buddy. These details don't matter, just pick and choose to make sure you come across as correct and/or some authority, right? Pathetic.
You do more appeal to authority bullshit. That guy is still a grifter. The one time I watched him he was a misleading pandering dipshit. Not intellectual, not looking to bring truth, just sewing seeds of paranoia in people. You're a fool if you think just because someone has a PhD and such that they can't be a grifter. I can tell you a story of someone who just worked for me and was supposed to be world-class in his field.
You talk about logic and such. Then you reference these phase 3 trials. As if phase 3 trials are somehow most important. You know, that arbitarily chosen number of time that must past. Lets just ignore the fact that through the whole of history there has never been a vaccination with any longterm side-effects. In Redietz's application of logic, this government phase-3 thing is somehow the magical test and we should be inclined to believe there will be longterm effetcs.
The best thing is many of the drugs listed with side-effects likely made it through phase 4. Redietz earlier was telling me how flawed all these trials are, but when it comes to making his point he raises the importance of these trials. Which is it!? <my brain hurts>
It is all just crap for Redietz to try and sound smart.
One thing that seems to be lost on redietz is the number of people out there vaccinated. He brings out phase 4 but he seems to not appreciate that your typical phase 4 trial has a few thousand people. Looks like 4-5 billion people vaccinated. This means that in some level we have literally a million times as many people vaccinated as those in a typical phase 4. So it sorta follows that the longterm effects would have started to become noticeable and/or percolate to the top. Dontcha think??
Please don't bring logic up with me, Redietz. You fail at it. Between the fact that we have 4.8 billion people vaccinated and there has been no serious talk of side-effects and the fact that no vaccination has ever had longterm side-effects then it is clear that expecting longterm side-effects and convincing others is a foolish task to take on. Especially when it has you changing your statements etc without mentioning you've done so - all in order to gain the respect of a bunch of fucking gamblers who don't seem to particularly like you. PLEASE MAN. STOP IT.