Is the Covid-19 vaccine dangerous...

[Anonymous No.14884223]

or is it just something /pol/ is being schizo about?

[Anonymous No.14884227]

>>14884223
Studies show that yes it is.

[Anonymous No.14884232]

>>14884227
Studies conducted by whom?

[Anonymous No.14884233]

>>14884223
Which vaccine, there're many covid-19 vaccines.

If you're asking about the mRNA vaccines then don't worry, probably they'll be the standard method of many new vaccines.

[Anonymous No.14884237]

>>14884233
Let's say, Pfizer. Is that vaccine dangerous?

[Anonymous No.14884246]

>>14884237
Not enough controlled testing or time. Or refunds.

[Anonymous No.14884247]

>>14884232
Medical doctors and microbiologists, mostly.
>>14884237
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14884249]

>>14884247
I want names as well as sources.

[Anonymous No.14884254]

>>14884249
See >>14875668
There are so many of these fucking threads you could at least just read one of them. Making more won't get people to confirm your biases.

[Anonymous No.14884295]

>>14884223
I think you should take it plus all the boosters if you haven't figured it out by now.

[Anonymous No.14884301]

From personal experience, yes. I took one and now have a weaker immune system, to the point where wounds dont heal correctly, and I have chest pains.

[Anonymous No.14884304]

>>14884301
I'm sorry to hear that, anon. I hope you're active in demanding restitution from the people who hurt you.

[Anonymous No.14884308]

>>14884223
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
vaxbros I don't feel so good...

[Anonymous No.14884314]

>>14884304
I wouldnt know where to begin. They all have no suing policy and my school, which told me to take it or I cant continue, said its not their responsibility for any harm done. Money would be nice to afford doctors but the damage is done and Ill never get my health back.

[Anonymous No.14884320]

>>14884314
Your school can still be sued, and there are people who made those policies and who told you it was safe to take who are personally liable. If you can't find restitution in court then you can find it in other arenas. Politics perhaps. Make sure they're given speedy trials for their role in the deaths of millions.

[Anonymous No.14884325]

>>14884223
no, every vaccine ever produced carries with it some danger. Whether that danger is posed against people with pre-existing health conditions that society knows about and therefore are warned not to take it or simply the vaccine triggers some unknown variable that leads to illness or even death. This has happened with every vaccine ever produced. Its just that for every 1 out of a million or even 1 out of a hundred thousand that gets dangerously sick from it, 1000 lives are saved, so its just a matter of the greater good. (im not debating anti-vaxx tards who think all vaccines are bad, the guy who founded the movement was a legit fraud who was proven to have lied about most of the studies he produced for money).

Anyone who was involved in the industry knew this. The outcry about the recent vaccines is just because it was the first time really that vaccine production was widely spread to the public and they caught their breath at every single trial that went wrong, every patient that suffered and every death. Despite this being a normal, but unfortunate procedure. These vaccines are unironically some of the safest ever produced but poltards will clutch their pearls whenever someone reports that a tiny minority has a adverse reaction. Some potards actually ruined their lives trying to avoid taking a vax that for 99% of people just made their arm hurt.

[Anonymous No.14884331]

>>14884325
utilitarian = psychopath

[Anonymous No.14884340]

>>14884223
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
>mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
>The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.
>The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.

https://phys.org/news/2022-01-sars-cov-spike-protein-human-endogenous.html
>SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates human endogenous retroviruses in blood cells

> immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals
>According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible
>These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles
>As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued

> A recent early-release study has found that the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines is present in germinal centers in secondary lymphoid tissue long after the vaccine is administered, and that it continues to synthesize spike glycoprotein up to at least sixty days post-vaccination

[Anonymous No.14884344]

>>14884325
Nigga, dogfood is tested longer than this shit. KYS

[Anonymous No.14884345]

>>14884325
It's so obvious that this paid shill just mixed together two prefab posts. These people are too dumb to even keep the writing style consistent throughout a post.

[Anonymous No.14884349]

>>14884344
cope retard. If 99.9% of people are doing just fine then what's the fucking problem.
>NOO HERES A STUDY THAT WAS RUN BY SOME OBSCURE SCIENTIST IN BUMBFUCKASTAN THAT SAID THAT EVERYONE WILL DIE IN TWO WEEKS
kys brainlet

[Anonymous No.14884350]

>>14884349
>cope retard. If 99.9% of people are doing just fine then what's the fucking problem.
Cope about what? I'm chilling. And if you're so keen on the "99.9%", you wouldn't care for the vaccine in the first place. That's how many were safe to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14884356]

>>14884345
call me a shill all you want, I don't know a single-person who has gotten sick from the vaccine and all data about it backs me up. You'll call me a shill but then believe some retarded pol infographic in a heartbeat and take some random scientists word without checking any fucking credentials for truth just because it fits your bias. All throughout the world everyone just took the vaccine and didn't give a fuck about it except for fat maga ameritards with 60 iqs that saw that liberals were taking it so naturally did the opposite because thats how their subhuman brains posit every action.

[Anonymous No.14884357]

>>14884349
>99.9% of people are doing just fine
They're not doing just fine. They're having heart attacks from climate change, taking herbal supplements, sleeping in the wrong pose, smoking pot, doing sports... whatever else it's gonna be tomorrow. This has nothing to do with the vaccine, of course, but it seems like vaxxies are having some excess mortality problems this year. :^)

[Anonymous No.14884361]

>>14884356
>call me a shill all you want
I will call you a shill because your two paragraphs were very obviously written by two different people. Not reading anything else from your post. It can only end one way for Pfizer drones.

[Jealous No.14884366]

Unlike COVID, the vaccine actually exists.

[Anonymous No.14884371]

>>14884366
Go away, Tooker. We're COAM skeptics now.

[Anonymous No.14884375]

>>14884223
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q4O5ztz92o

[Anonymous No.14884387]

[Anonymous No.14884421]

>>14884387
>no known isolation of the virus
>they still claim a pandemic is happening
when will sheeple ever learn?

[Anonymous No.14884460]

>>14884223
The overwhelming consensus in the age before the big tech censorama was that making vaccines for coronaviridae was a hellaciously bad idea.
Everything /pol/ was schizo about (aside from astroturfing shit like microchips/depopulation/etc) was the scientific consensus in the first few months of 2020.
We have decades of research on coronavirus family vaccines and how they are really rather terrible. Simplest example is the FCoV vaccine which has been effectively banned globally because it does exactly the same thing that the SARS-COV-2 vaccines do (Priority humoral immunity, ~3 months of high titer antibody protection, and then ADE/OAS leading to immune infection.) which leads to the cats dying pretty spectacularly.
Honestly I think /pol/ doesn't have enough schizo imagination on this one. The most obvious theory for me about the whole thing would be the following.
1. Large chunk of population infected in 2018/2019. Everyone had a 'bad cold' in those years.
2. SARS-COV-2 colonizes the gut, same as FCoV, CCoV etc.
3. People in 2020 develop infectious peritonitis, a multi-system inflammatory disorder caused by the virus attacking the immune system from their own gut.
4. Vaccine happens. People having short term reactions a-la FCoV vaccines(Can't give vaccine to a cat that has had the virus, because it can cause immediate inflammatory disease/clots/heart failure), and longer term trends again parallel FCoV vaccines (short term humoral immunity, long term decline due to ADE/non-neutralization).

[Anonymous No.14884478]

>>14884460
Which implies that the people making the shots knew the risks and likely intended to cause the deaths of millions.

[Anonymous No.14884480]

>>14884478
Yes, but that's just medicine. Nothing abnormal about that.

[Anonymous No.14884484]

>>14884480
Fair point.

[Anonymous No.14884653]

>>14884356
Yeah righto while we're on anecdotes both of my uncles had a heart attack in the same week 3 weeks after getting their vaccine together on the same day. One of my friends had a stroke two weeks out from his booster, two of my young friends (~30) got clots in their legs before COVID was even anywhere near the population in my country. My mother's hair fell out, she developed permanent double vision and cluster headaches and she woke up every day for an entire month with giant jelly clots in her nose after her second jab. The principal at my kids school had a heart attack in the same week that two people from the local cycling club (20 members) died from heart attack during the first jab campaign.
Then there's my missus' friends and literally everyone else that are always fucking sick. Everyone's acting like a goddamn cancer patient. Everyone has an ashen complexion, the number of balding women is incredible.
But your dakimakura didn't get sick from the vaccine, ergo no people anywhere got sick. Shill.

[Anonymous No.14884699]

>>14884232
>>14884223
have a sum-up
https://textup.fr/651090GH

>mRNA vaccines provide a fast waning immunity (around four months).
>mRNA vaccines produce no monoclonal protection.
>Imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens.
>Non neutralizing antibodies put evolutionary pressure on the pathogen towards antibody escape.
>An imperfect vaccination strategy can lead to ADE (Antibody-dependent enhancement - antibodies INCREASE the infection), OAS (Original Antigenic Sin - the immune system will still produce the "old" antibodies against a new variant).
>Booster strategy is USELESS in the long run (through ADE, OAS or other).

>FOUR QUESTIONS to be resolved:
>Is there a difference between being EXPOSED TO THE SPIKE PROTEIN OF SARS-CoV-2 and BEING INFECTED WITH SARS-CoV-2?
>Is Endothelial Damage occurring post Spike exposure WHETHER OR NOT AN INDIVIDUAL IS EXPERIENCING THE SYMPTOMS OF PASC?
>Will repeated exposure to the Spike Protein break one’s immunity to it?
>Is SPED, like cancer, INDUCIBLE but not TRANSMISSIBLE? Are SARS-CoV-2 and Spike Protein vaccines the only ways to INDUCE SPED?

>possible problems caused by spike protein S1 (but not only):
>S1 biding with heparin, causing amyloidosis
>S1 causing blood hypercoagulation, due to inflammagen effect
>S1 causing damage in the endothelium, cardiac pericytes
>S1 disrupting lysosome function
>S1 causing vascular thickening in the lungs
>S1 triggering autophagy and apoptosis in ACE2-expressing cells, ROS-suppressed PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, inflammatory responses
>S1 impairing DNA damage repair, inhibiting V(D)J recombination
>S1 causing suppression of type I interferon responses, impairing innate immunity.
>S1 activating human endogenous retroviruses in blood cells

[Anonymous No.14884909]

>>14884314
Male them pay with their blood anon

[Anonymous No.14886010]

>>14884223
All vaccines are just snake oil.
There's no big difference between a normal vaccine and a mRNA vaccine.

[Anonymous No.14886076]

>>14884223
Potential for side effects? Sure, everything does to some degree. You can even find whitepapers and meta-analysis on side effects. (They're pretty rare).
More dangerous than not getting the vaccine and getting covid? No. The vaccine helps make sure you don't have to go on a respirator if you get covid.
Getting the vaccine is safer than getting covid
Anyone telling you otherwise is a quack, schizo, or larping.

Be sure your beliefs are supported by evidence. One sure fire way to identify evidence that's not load bearing is to see if you still believe something without that evidence.

[Anonymous No.14886090]

>>14886076
>(They're pretty rare)
1 in 2500 isn't rare.

[Anonymous No.14886093]

>>14884223
There are many /pol/fags here so expect to get schizo answers as well

[Anonymous No.14886328]

>>14886090
>1 in 2500 isn't rare.
Knock it off with the dishonest bait and switch. Are those side effects going to land you in the hospital? No. Most of them are sniffles, bruising (inept nurses), muscle pain (see also inept nurses), and so on. Like I said months ago with Delta, Omicron is still not safe enough to reasonably shift toward being concerned your arm will hurt for a couple days. If there are genuine medical concerns from vaccination, like HIV and so on, that's one thing. Somehow I doubt the entirety of /pol/ has any valid medical concern.

Omicron rates: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7137a4.htm
>the effectiveness of receipt of 2 or 3 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines against severe illness and death among hospitalized patients was 89% during the Delta period and 86% during the early Omicron period (8).
Lab confirmed rates: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7134a3.htm
>Hospitalization rates among unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times as high as those among vaccinated adults.
The details also vary wildly as hospitalization rates could range from 3.5 to 17.7 times higher in unvaccinated populations. e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2796235

So this schizoposting dishonest bullcrap still amounts to what it amounted to before. Justifying toddler tantrum "I DUN WANNA CUZ U SED SO!!!" instead of owning up to the simple fact you're a bunch of whining brats. Personally, I don't care if you're not vaccinated. I'm plenty satisfied you dumbasses have, statistically, enjoyed heavily paying for your stupidity.

>>14884699
Likewise, all of this schizoposting is trying to cherrypick detail to obscure the simple fact you morons were, are, and have continued to be, flatly wrong. I said at the start of this year that unvaccinated would still fare worse under omicron, and I'm right. You idiots weren't.

[Anonymous No.14886350]

>>14886076
>don't have to go on a respirator if you get covid.
lmao. Give me a break. Am I here with a 400 lb diabetics? I am, aren't I?
It's no worse than a flu and the worst of it is over in a week.

[Anonymous No.14886353]

>>14886328
>Are those side effects going to land you in the hospital?
They are labeled as severe, so I would say yes

[Anonymous No.14886357]

>>14886353
>They are labeled as severe, so I would say yes
Dishonest bait and switch continues. Remind me again what's the RATE of hospitalization ATTRIBUTABLE TO VACCINATION? It isn't 1 in 2500 and you know that.

[Anonymous No.14886407]

>>14886357
>>14886353
You both need to compare stratified rates by age and sex. You'll find you're both right and both wrong in a way.

[Anonymous No.14886410]

>>14886407
>You both need to compare stratified rates by age and sex. You'll find you're both right and both wrong in a way.
Which the CDC data I linked does. No, I am not wrong. For every age and sex strata you are safer vaccinated than not. That continues to be true for the omicron dataset as it comes out, like I said it would be.

[Anonymous No.14886449]

>>14886410
the mRNA vaccine is not only dangerous, causing endothelial damage (and with each repeated exposure, myocarditis cases double, as the data shows), vaccine strategy is also pushing SARS-COV-2 towards monoclonal antibody escape, which will cause many more deaths than if a localized strategy were used.

I've also noticed that you didnt even bother to refute any single paper cited in the link, not even the ones that talk about waning immunity and how the vaccine doesn't create neutralizing antibodies.

https://textup.fr/651090GH

1 in 2000 myocarditis in young kids. For a vaccine that doesn't stop transmission.

[Anonymous No.14886465]

>>14886449
As I just posted >>14886328 your statement "doesn't protect" is materially false. Similarly, as already stated, no risk attributable to vaccination exceeds the risks of unvaccinated coronavirus in any age or sex cohort. Bringing up myocarditis for the millionth time, when people are being hospitalized for coronavirus and dying from that, is completely irrelevant. 1 in 2000 are not dying from myocarditis, 1 in 2000 are not being hospitalized for myocarditis. More dishonest bait and switch.

[Anonymous No.14886479]

>>14886465
Your whole MO is bait and switch when trying to present the virus as deadly. Have you even had it? WTF is wrong with you if you thought that was deadly?

[Anonymous No.14886485]

>>14886479
>Your whole MO is bait and switch when trying to present the virus as deadly.
My clearly stated position evidenced by referencing some CDC data. This is what's known as schizophasia, where narcissists and the like resort to a combination of projection and nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

My having had it or not is irrelevant to that data. My presenting that data is not "a bait and switch" when it clearly demonstrates the sole point I made from the outset. Your attempt to question my perception of reality instead of address that data is just part and parcel of the narcissist playbook. You're fooling nobody. If your position is "it's all fake", nobody cares, you're no different from a flat earther at that point. Your failure to understand what has been presented is nobody's failing but your own.

[Anonymous No.14886490]

>>14886465
hope you don't get myocarditis m8

I would like to see where do you find the causality between the vaccination and long term protection, because all I see is negative effectiveness and the suggestion that if there is a reduction in hospitalization and mortality is due to natural immunity


https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/waning-of-sars-cov-2-booster-viral-load-reduction-effectiveness
Waning of SARS-CoV-2 booster viral-load reduction effectiveness
Matan Levine-Tiefenbrun et al
becomes small and insignificant in the third to fourth months.

mRNA vaccines have no effect on mortality:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489
Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?
Ben et al

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eji.202149535
Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans
Haveri et al.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.27.21265574v1
Boosting of Cross-Reactive Antibodies to Endemic Coronaviruses by SARS-CoV-2 Infection but not Vaccination with Stabilized Spike
Crowley et al

[Anonymous No.14886493]

>>14886465
>1 in 2000 are not dying from myocarditis, 1 in 2000 are not being hospitalized for myocarditis.
Myocarditis isn't some mild illness. It's permanent heart damage that compounds with every further stressor. For example the new boosters they're going to force them to take. You're playing golf with your argument at this point, just driving it away as far as you can so you don't need to concede defeat.

[Anonymous No.14886514]

>>14886465
PEOPLE *CLAP* ARE *CLAP* DYING *CLAP* FROM *CLAP* THAT

[Anonymous No.14886526]

>>14886490
>I would like to see where do you find the causality between the vaccination and long term protection
I would like to see how you think that's relevant. Unvaccinated die and are hospitalized quite a lot more, even with omicron. Your attempt to change the goalpost matters because... ?
>>14886493
>Myocarditis isn't some mild illness. It's permanent heart damage that compounds with every further stressor.
Every disorder has degrees. Yes, myocarditis can be quite mild or quite serious. That is why some people with myocarditis end up in the hospital, and others can take ibuprofen for a few days. Don't believe me? Remember how I pointed out 1 in 2000 aren't being HOSPITALIZED for myocarditis? The proof is in the pudding. Acute myocarditis from viral infection is not the same as chronic myocarditis from heart disease, and the latter is what you're thinking of.
>>14886514
Another person with yet another goalpost shift. A major contributing factor to why there were more infections among vaccinated populations has to do with things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Remind me again, which group is dying and hospitalized more? Oh right, the unvaccinated, like I said. Yawn.

[Anonymous No.14886528]

>>14886526
The standard tactic of the shill. When confronted with objective proof he's wrong, he moves the goalposts. Yawn.

[Anonymous No.14886534]

>>14886528
>The standard tactic of the shill. When confronted with objective proof he's wrong, he moves the goalposts. Yawn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_defences

Nope. Not a single one of you so far have addressed anything material to that first post regarding deaths and hospitalizations continuing to be higher now that omicron data is released. You have all, however, tried to shift to every other goalpost possible. Including clearly projecting that as you've just done.

[Anonymous No.14886535]

>>14886526
>Causality doesn't matter. Unvaccinated die and are hospitalized quite a lot more, even with omicron.
then
>Causality matters. A major contributing factor to why there were more infections among vaccinated populations has to do with things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

[Anonymous No.14886536]

>>14886534
Argumentum ad hominem, the last refuge of the defeated. Thank you for conceding. I hope you have a nice day at work.

[Anonymous No.14886542]

>>14886536
>Argumentum ad hominem
Pointing out you're accusing me of what you're doing is not an "ad hominem". I also defended against the accusation anyway. You don't know what a fallacy is. Thanks for playing, you lose.
>>14886535
Nope. Never said causality doesn't matter. Are you actually trying to argue "number on chart go up" establishes causality? Fucking hell that's funny.

[Anonymous No.14886544]

>>14886542
>Never said causality doesn't matter.
doesn't look like that to me

[Anonymous No.14886545]

>>14886544
>doesn't look like that to me
Not my fault you can't read and have a bad case of "being dishonest".

[Anonymous No.14886555]

>>14886542
>I also defended against the accusation anyway. You don't know what a fallacy is. Thanks for playing, you lose.
Quoting wikipedia fallacy pages isn't an argument but I'm happy for your concession. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.14886576]

>>14886555
>Quoting wikipedia fallacy pages isn't an argument
I agree. I also didn't do that.
>I'm happy for your concession. Thank you.
I do concede you are hilariously inept at this, yes. You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.14886584]

>>14886576
>I do concede you are hilariously inept at this, yes. You're welcome.
No refunds.

[Anonymous No.14886587]

>>14886584
>No refunds.
Wait I didn't pay for this why is money missing out of my

[Anonymous No.14886638]

billions of doses have been administered around the world yet only boomer magashits on facebook have experienced problems.

let that sink in

[Anonymous No.14886656]

>>14886638
Is that why Germany's health ministry said that children suffer severe side effects at a rate of 1 in 2500?

[Anonymous No.14886695]

>>14886656
>Is that why Germany's health ministry said that children suffer severe side effects at a rate of 1 in 2500?
Source: Your ass.

[Anonymous No.14886755]

>>14886695
I misremembered, but the point still stands somewhat. Germany said 1 in 5000 people generally (not kids specifically) suffer severe side effects.

[Anonymous No.14886769]

According to the internet, the vaccine will make you:
-infertile
-age 10 years in 2
-cause monkeypox
-give you vaxxaids
-CYTOKENE STORM!
-heart arrhythmia
-myocarditis
-contain parasite worms
-also contains graphite carbon nanotubes
-causes massive bloodclots

also this is supposed to happen in the next two weeks. Did I miss anything?

My evil conspiracy theory is that every single covid shot was just saline, and these big pharma companies Jewed governments around the world for trillions.

[Anonymous No.14886775]

>>14886755
Good on you for being honest enough to actually try and check up on something, because that's a million years ahead of the narcissists running around here. That report is more or less the same as VAERS, which is merely reporting any reported association after vaccination. You will also find what they mean by "severe" includes headaches, muscle pains, or fever. Additionally, the reporting rate is per vaccine not vaccinated person. If you can't read German or can't find the English translation I just googled up a website talking about it https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-misrepresentation-of-germanys-data-on-unverified-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects/

Do you really think that's some genuine objection to vaccination, now?

[Anonymous No.14886787]

>>14886526
Acute myocarditis *can* be a mild illness but the chronic lifelong effects of having had it are gravely impactful in 90+% of cases.
What you're saying is akin to saying that liver failure is mild, as the treatment period is short and is often outpatient care if not just medication and lifestyle changes. But if you have acute liver failure you will 100% have effect from it later. Perhaps one week, perhaps 10 years.

[Anonymous No.14886795]

>>14886787
>Acute myocarditis *can* be a mild illness but the chronic lifelong effects of having had it are gravely impactful in 90+% of cases.
Source: Your ass.

[Anonymous No.14886803]

>>14886795
There's no source needed because myocarditis is a well understood disease with well understood pathology and outcomes. You claiming it's mild is the contrarian position.

[Anonymous No.14886808]

>>14886803
>There's no source needed because myocarditis is a well understood disease with well understood pathology and outcomes.
Which is why you need a source for completely making that the fuck up. Case in point, you still didn't provide one.

[Anonymous No.14886832]

>>14886808
This nigga is steeped in vitriol for the entire thread and yet is weighed down debating with an opponent whom he clearly despises. Why? Is this how people spend their free time?

[Anonymous No.14886838]

>>14886808
What's the point? I'll post papers demonstrating outcomes with 22% mortality over 7 years, you'll post papers to the contrary. You'll claim my papers are biased, I'll point out that the available data since 2020 is biased and incomplete. Then we'll slide to some other halal talking point.
How about we move on to something more interesting like 'Inflammatory pathology from the spike protein is immune mediated, and the vaccines are designed to illicit artificially strong immunogenic activity; Is this a good idea given that the virus is now a permanent seasonal epidemic? What happened to the precautionary principle?
I'm a different anon to whoever you were arguing with btw.

[Anonymous No.14886840]

>>14884340

So for those 60 days you're at high risk. Lmao boosters every 3 months! Canadian government are murderers.

[Anonymous No.14886843]

>>14886838
>What's the point? I'll post papers demonstrating outcomes with 22% mortality over 7 years, you'll post papers to the contrary.
The point is context. Different results occur for a reason, and what you will find is the reason for higher mortality has a lot to do with the underlying reason for having myocarditis in the first place.

This brings us all the way back to what I said at the start, about how myocarditis has different severity depending on the cause. You have, whether you want to admit it or not, just conceded that by admitting you know papers exist to the contrary. That is the point.

[Anonymous No.14886852]

>>14886843
I'll agree with that. Myocarditis in someone with no other underlying medical conditions rarely has lifelong complication beyond a small statistically significant reduction in lifespan.
Confounding would be that myocarditis does not happen in people without underlying medical conditions. Then you can move on to 'Hurr but people who take the vaccine are healthy', and that's true. Healthy people do develop myopathology following vaccination, they also do with COVID, as we don't fully understand the cause of the inflammatory stage of either.
And of course I know that papers exist to the contrary. That's not a concession, that's science. Do you *not* know that papers exist to the contrary of your own? Can you build an honest position that way?

[Anonymous No.14886860]

>>14886852
Well, remember, the point is "How severe the myocarditis is". If you're talking myocarditis associated post-vaccination, statistics clearly show in most cases it goes away. The cases you cited regarding mortality are for conditions like chronic heart disease, something I mentioned before. This leaves us with the fact a mountain is being made out of a mole-hill with respect to that side-effect because in the majority of cases it resolves in a short amount of time. Bringing up chronic cases or conditions giving rise to that mortality figure aren't at all relevant to that. So, yes, I have a completely honest position, and it's that your position is making a mistake in the comparison.

Well, that and the fact we know most cases resolve themselves post-vaccination with little to no treatment. Seriously look into *why* conditions associated with myocarditis have that mortality rate, that's why, it isn't "you get some inflammation and later drop dead" by itself.

[Anonymous No.14886866]

>>14886860
>statistics clearly show in most cases it goes away.
Statistics from when? A settling of inflammation doesn't mean there's not permanent tissue damage. If you cut your hand, it heals, but you may still have a scar. Fibrotic tissue is not just a cosmetic issue when it comes to the heart.

[Anonymous No.14886871]

>>14884344
Its safe goy.

It was tested on 8 mice goy.

[Anonymous No.14886886]

>>14886860
There’s no such thing as “‘mild” myocarditis. It has over a 50% mortality rate within 5 years and the rest pretty much die within 10.

[Anonymous No.14886887]

>>14884232
>Studies conducted by whom?
Pfizer and Moderna's clinical trials showed higher death rate in the vaccinated.

[Anonymous No.14886888]

>>14886860
In nearly all cases of every myocarditis, the acute phase goes away, and that's the data point that is being reported. They monitor CRP, troponin etc. Do a few scans, and when the acute inflammation dies down then the myocarditis is over. Even you have to acknowledge that that is the most extreme and specific outcome to use for statistics - and is a dishonest representation of the situation at best.
I can cite a lot of papers with a lot of different statistics but endlessly citing known literature is tiresome. Resolved myocarditis (The term used in 2020+ statistics) has a mortality burden of anywhere from 1% over 10 years to 30%, depending on underlying factors.
That's important because the same justification was used for the vaccines. You can't just exclude people from society because they're fat.
The damage to heart tissues and the healing process is what most schizo anons are talking about when discussing myocarditis problems. Stubborn miscommunication makes the discussion muddy.
And there you are shifting the myocarditis associated deaths onto the underlying co-morbidities. You can't apply that to one without the other, just as you can't only read literature that agrees with your preconceptions.
On the point of heart inflammation, it really do be like that tho. Having had heart inflammation at any time, regardless of severity, it strongly correlated with sudden death years later.
To be clear I'm not arguing that this is a 'kill-shot' or depop or whatever other things people imagine. I'm just saying that there are risks that need to be balanced and understood, and that myocarditis is a very, very small fraction of the COVID/Vaccine discussion.

[Anonymous No.14886892]

>>14884325
>Whether that danger is posed against people with pre-existing health conditions
I never knew being a young male was a pre-existing health condition.

[Anonymous No.14886893]

>>14886886
The papers that hold these statistics are not general population and can't be applied to the general population honestly.
I know that COVID statistics use extreme selection bias themselves but we shouldn't stoop to their level. It's unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.14886897]

>>14886887
Later studies funded by Pfizer and Moderna, after participant exclusion criteria were applied, showed that participants had a dramatic all-cause mortality (non-covid) reduction. The vaccines are so amazing that they made people die *less* from car accidents.

[Anonymous No.14886900]

>>14886888
I can't think of a time when we had this many young adults experiencing myocarditis, so I doubt we can reasonably predict what will happen in the coming decades. However, everyone should be concerned, so I find it surprising that so many are dismissive over "mild" heart inflammation.

[Anonymous No.14886902]

>>14886897
>The vaccines are so amazing that they made people die *less* from car accidents.
Kek, I remember reading something along those lines.

[Anonymous No.14886911]

>>14886900
The real problem is that repeated cases of (acute) myocarditis have drastically higher mortality. As the myocarditis from vaccination is immune mediated, can we safely exclude the possibility of a large percent of the population developing sub-clinical myopathology during vaccination? We know prevalence increases multiplicatively per jab, are we just training the immune system to cause organ inflammation against some future variant? We've got a few centuries of SARS-COV-2 lineage to go yet.

[Anonymous No.14886916]

>>14886866
>Statistics from when? A settling of inflammation doesn't mean there's not permanent tissue damage. If you cut your hand, it heals, but you may still have a scar. Fibrotic tissue is not just a cosmetic issue when it comes to the heart.
Yes, there can be formation of scar tissue. At which point you, again, are asking "how much" and "how severe". I'm not sure what in particular you're concerned about, however, as even if we used the VAERS association-only as the upper estimate that really is not some epidemic of myocarditis. You can see for yourself: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

So the highest rate is quite low, and the risks are quite low, even if we did the silly thing of assuming 100% of all VAERS associations were causative. I hope you see how it doesn't make sense.
>>14886888
>Resolved myocarditis (The term used in 2020+ statistics) has a mortality burden of anywhere from 1% over 10 years to 30%, depending on underlying factors.
That is, again, the whole point. "Depending on underlying factors". What you will find is those factors overwhelmingly occur in the elderly, which is also the group LEAST at risk even going by VAERS data alone.

What you are missing is the big picture: Guess what the risks are for unvaccinated covid in this regard? Astronomically higher than VAERS association on its face, even. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm

So you're concerned about myocarditis? Might want to get vaccinated. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.14886962]

>>14886775
Yeah it's still a very genuine objection to vaccination. Factcheck.org unfortunately seems to present some sourceless conspiracy theories but no real facts.

[Anonymous No.14886965]

>>14886962
>Yeah it's still a very genuine objection to vaccination. Factcheck.org unfortunately seems to present some sourceless conspiracy theories but no real facts.
Sources are included. Click the blue links. They're also at the bottom. Or by "no real facts" did you mean "It doesn't agree with me"?

[Anonymous No.14886968]

>>14886965
I prefer to trust the health ministry, which says that it's inadvisable to vaccinate anyone under 50 and they won't be provided any if asked. I follow the science.

[Anonymous No.14886977]

>>14886968
>I prefer to trust the health ministry, which says that it's inadvisable to vaccinate anyone under 50 and they won't be provided any if asked.
Source: Your ass

[Anonymous No.14886983]

>>14886916
>Yes, there can be formation of scar tissue. At which point you, again, are asking "how much" and "how severe".
I would count any scar tissue as severe when it's in a young adult.

>I'm not sure what in particular you're concerned about, however, as even if we used the VAERS association-only as the upper estimate that really is not some epidemic of myocarditis.
We have evidence suggesting the VAERS data is massively undercounting cases of myocarditis.

>So you're concerned about myocarditis? Might want to get vaccinated. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But...then you're risking myocarditis from multiple vaccinations and you're still going to get infected, which is another risk of myocarditis? BTW, you should know the CDC data is in major conflict with a lot of other data, to the point that it's not even believable. The supposed reason is incorrect marking of cases as unvaccinated due to the patient visiting a provider outside the medical system in which they were vaccinated.

[Anonymous No.14886996]

>>14886983
>We have evidence suggesting the VAERS data is massively undercounting cases of myocarditis.
That's probably the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Based on what?
>But...then you're risking myocarditis from multiple vaccinations and you're still going to get infected, which is another risk of myocarditis?
Again, cases of myocarditis are different. Notice how high the hospitalized cases are with covid vs not. This is not "on or off", it's degreed.

[Anonymous No.14887012]

You guys are still bitching moaning about this. You know the pandemic is almost practically done, right? And like 99% of the normies took it and they're fine, right? Is this entire thread just bots with a old script. Talking about vaccines being bad is not so taboo and controversial or smth.

[Anonymous No.14887014]

>>14886996
>That's probably the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Based on what?
Historically, VAERS has always been an underreporting of actual adverse events. I know people have tried to argue anti-vaxxers are spamming it with fake reports, but other countries have their own systems for tracking adverse events, and they're all pretty much in line with VAERS. In other words, I don't think the sudden spike in reports of adverse of events is a result of people abusing the system, and I suspect it's still an underreporting.

The only study I'm aware of that actually medically evaluated all participants is the following, and it found the rate to be substantially higher than the rate being reported elsewhere.

https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196

>Again, cases of myocarditis are different. Notice how high the hospitalized cases are with covid vs not. This is not "on or off", it's degreed.
I'll be honest, if you're going to provide information from the CDC, I'm going to dismiss it. Their data has been far too different from other countries for me to trust it, and I believe there's some issues causing them to vastly overestimate the unvaccinated rate of hospitalized patients.

[Anonymous No.14887017]

>>14884349
Ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.14887019]

>>14886357
Yep, you're a liar.
How much are you being paid for this propaganda? Or do you do it for free?

[Anonymous No.14887026]

>>14886769
Haven't been keeping up with the news have you. Just do a simple jewgle search on any of those things, retard.

[Anonymous No.14887033]

>>14886977
Source: Norwegian national health.

[Anonymous No.14887034]

>>14887014
>In other words, I don't think the sudden spike in reports of adverse of events is a result of people abusing the system, and I suspect it's still an underreporting.
Which doesn't help your case either, because if you're looking at myocarditis severe enough for damage you're looking at hospitalization. Which, again, compare that and hospitalizations vaccinated vs unvaccinated, and with and without covid.
>The only study I'm aware of that actually medically evaluated all participants is the following, and it found the rate to be substantially higher than the rate being reported elsewhere.
To be clear: That is in thailand. Especially in thailand given lack of access to medical care, I've no doubt plenty of people had plenty of health conditions and other problems to go along with it. That is not really a useful comparison. Even so, myopericarditis was present in only one patient, the others were not confirmed.
>I'll be honest, if you're going to provide information from the CDC, I'm going to dismiss it. Their data has been far too different from other countries for me to trust it, and I believe there's some issues causing them to vastly overestimate the unvaccinated rate of hospitalized patients.
If you're going to dismiss particular reports for no established reason, well, I dismiss your dismissal. Evidence, not conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.14887036]

>>14887033
>Source: Norwegian national health.
>Norway has administered at least 11,438,164 doses of COVID vaccines so far.
So you're lying?

[Anonymous No.14887037]

>>14887014
>I'll be honest, if you're going to provide information from the CDC, I'm going to dismiss it. Their data has been far too different from other countries for me to trust it, and I believe there's some issues causing them to vastly overestimate the unvaccinated rate of hospitalized patients.
It's the CDC definition of vaccination. People within 2 weeks of their last shot are unvaccinated according to the CDC, and people who are out of date for their booster are also unvaccinated. So if you have 2 shots after early this year, or 3 shots after the release of bivalent boosters, you are considered unvaccinated by the CDC when it comes time to make these death reports.

[Anonymous No.14887042]

>>14887036
Do you want to trust another scandinavian country's health service? Everyone is essentially in lockstep on this now after Denmark.

[Anonymous No.14887043]

>>14887037
>It's the CDC definition of vaccination. People within 2 weeks of their last shot are unvaccinated according to the CDC, and people who are out of date for their booster are also unvaccinated. So if you have 2 shots after early this year, or 3 shots after the release of bivalent boosters, you are considered unvaccinated by the CDC when it comes time to make these death reports.
I have no idea why this myth spreads when you can just read the pages. You can access different reports and you are referring to ONE kind of report. For others, that means no history of vaccination. For yet others, they're following people who only ever received a single vaccination and whose immunity has waned enough since the start (so over a year) in some people to be near enough to unvaccinated in population characteristics. These are different sets of data and different reports.

So, no, there is not some conspiracy at the CDC to fudge numbers. Having DIFFERENT numbers for DIFFERENT purposes is not a trick.

[Anonymous No.14887045]

>>14887043
>So, no, there is not some conspiracy at the CDC to fudge numbers. Having DIFFERENT numbers for DIFFERENT purposes is not a trick.
It's a matter of which numbers are reported by the media and to the public in graphs.

[Anonymous No.14887047]

>>14887045
>It's a matter of which numbers are reported by the media and to the public in graphs.
Since when are we discussing the media? What does that have to do with a single thing I've linked in this thread? Nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.14887058]

>>14887034
>Which doesn't help your case either, because if you're looking at myocarditis severe enough for damage you're looking at hospitalization. Which, again, compare that and hospitalizations vaccinated vs unvaccinated, and with and without covid.
First, you're assuming the CDC data is accurate. I've already stated I have major issues with the data, especially when they were reporting that 99% of covid hospitalizations were unvaccinated when we had countries like the UK reporting on the same dates that only 60-70% were unvaccinated. That's a MASSIVE difference in vaccine efficacy, to the point that it makes no logical sense. Second, you're assuming myocarditis that doesn't require hospitalization can't cause long term damage, which I don't agree with.

>To be clear: That is in thailand. Especially in thailand given lack of access to medical care, I've no doubt plenty of people had plenty of health conditions and other problems to go along with it. >That is not really a useful comparison. Even so, myopericarditis was present in only one patient, the others were not confirmed.
If you want to only go with the "confirmed," then a 1 in 300 rate is still absurdly high. But if you have another similar study which actually evaluated patients before vaccination and each week for several weeks after vaccination, I'd love to see it. Surely you can see that waiting for patients to get so bad that they visit a hospital is going to miss a lot of cases, and that even hospitals may not diagnose all cases?

>If you're going to dismiss particular reports for no established reason, well, I dismiss your dismissal. Evidence, not conspiracy theories.
We can go tit for tat here, because I can complain you're a conspiracy theorist for dismissing the only study that medically evaluated its patients.

[Anonymous No.14887061]

>>14887037
That may be part of it, but the USA uses numerous medical catalog systems, and if you're vaccinated at a location that uses one system, and then get hospitalized at a hospital that uses another system, you're likely to have your status marked as "unknown" or "unvaccinated" even if you state otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14887063]

>>14887047
The CDC reports numbers that seem skewed compared to other countries because they cherry-pick the datasets that match the President's "dark winter" "pandemic of the unvaccinated." Other countries are just reporting boring binary vaccinated or not vaccinated stats that better represent the reality of the situation.

[Anonymous No.14887065]

>>14887061
This is also very true. Locally if you don't disclose your status and the hospital doesn't know, they'll mark you whatever the nurse prefers at the time.

[Anonymous No.14887067]

>>14887058
>I've already stated I have major issues with the data, especially when they were reporting that 99% of covid hospitalizations were unvaccinated when we had countries like the UK reporting on the same dates that only 60-70% were unvaccinated. That's a MASSIVE difference in vaccine efficacy, to the point that it makes no logical sense.
You keep putting numbers out but from where? Who reported 99%? When? The stuff I linked in here said nothing of the sort.
>If you want to only go with the "confirmed," then a 1 in 300 rate is still absurdly high.
Look, if you're being that much of a stickler I have one of my own: How do you confirm that isn't due to a missed coronavirus infection? Tests have false error rates, many people don't test within the testing window at all. What now? Covid causes myocarditis so that's a huge confound. This does not help your position.
>We can go tit for tat here, because I can complain you're a conspiracy theorist for dismissing the only study that medically evaluated its patients.
Not dismissing. It does not align with any data I am aware of from the US or otherwise. Outliers, for whatever reason, are outliers not "the hidden norm".
>>14887063
I do not care about your conspiracy theories about CDC data. Either put up or shut up.

[Anonymous No.14887068]

>>14887067
>Look, if you're being that much of a stickler I have one of my own: How do you confirm that isn't due to a missed coronavirus infection? Tests have false error rates, many people don't test within the testing window at all. What now? Covid causes myocarditis so that's a huge confound. This does not help your position.
The tests think that pawpaws and goats are covid+. It's almost impossible to get a false negative on one unless the reagents for PCR were stored improperly.

[Anonymous No.14887076]

>>14887068
>The tests think that pawpaws and goats are covid+. It's almost impossible to get a false negative on one unless the reagents for PCR were stored improperly.
Really? Massive government conspiracy but PCR tests are flawless? Oh come off it. No they're not. https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1298
5-021-01489-0
(link split due to spam filter)
It depends on far more factors than storing properly. The study lists seven citations of examples and two earlier studies ranged from 1 to 30% with its own results finding varied false results. It is NOWHERE near as accurate as you just claimed for false negative.

[Anonymous No.14887083]

>>14887067
>You keep putting numbers out but from where? Who reported 99%? When? The stuff I linked in here said nothing of the sort.
Are you playing coy? I'm making the point that the CDC is not reliable. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

https://medicalpartnership.usg.edu/covid-19-staggering-statistic-98-to-99-of-americans-dying-are-unvaccinated/

There's no way those numbers could have been accurate, and it calls into question everything else they've been reporting.

>Look, if you're being that much of a stickler I have one of my own: How do you confirm that isn't due to a missed coronavirus infection?
You're proposing they were infected post-baseline check?

>Covid causes myocarditis so that's a huge confound. This does not help your position.
That's questionable, actually. Israel observed no increased rate of myocarditis prior to the vaccination rollout.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

>Not dismissing. It does not align with any data I am aware of from the US or otherwise. Outliers, for whatever reason, are outliers not "the hidden norm".
It's only an "outlier" if a study using the same methods finds a different result. So far as I'm aware, all studies of myocarditis are tied to passive reporting rather than medically following each participant for the first few weeks after vaccination.

>I do not care about your conspiracy theories about CDC data. Either put up or shut up.
Are you contending that 99% figure listed above could in any way be accurate?

[Anonymous No.14887139]

>>14887083
>Are you playing coy?
Says the person who links some random EDU page instead of the CDC page, and on which there is no link to the CDC page. That is not the rate listed in ANY of the CDC links I've given you. Who, exactly, is playing coy? You. I can't even find it by checking myself, only that page and some ABC article and neither list the source.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187

I then find said source, and it is not the CDC. It's an AP News report allegedly "analyzing CDC data" (with no source) and its contents show it's only claiming one month.
>You're proposing they were infected post-baseline check?
I'm proposing an outlier is an outlier. That is not just an outlier against CDC data, that's an outlier against most of the world's data and most data I've seen published.
>That's questionable, actually. Israel observed no increased rate of myocarditis prior to the vaccination rollout.
Except most of the world did. Again, one outlier in one subset of a nation's data is not evidence. It's an outlier. I can't get the full study, so I have no idea what the population demographics included are.
>Are you contending that 99% figure listed above could in any way be accurate?
No. Want to know why? Because unlike you I not only went to find the source I went to get the actual data: https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/Rates-of-COVID-19-Cases-or-Deaths-by-Age-Group-and/3rge-nu2a/data

Oh look. May 2021. It doesn't say what that AP news article says. Who knows how they came up with that figure, but it wasn't the fucking CDC now was it?

One of us does due diligence. It isn't you. Cherrypicking from the antivaxxer list of confirmation bias is not evidence.

[Anonymous No.14887144]

>>14886695
>>14886755
>>14886775

1 in 2500 = 40/100K

>HK myocarditis data
>3.37/100K after first dose
>21.22/100K after second dose
>5.57/100K after first dose in young males
>37.32/100K after second dose in young males
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/

[Anonymous No.14887153]

>>14887144
Antivaxxers citing chinese data now. Oh my God the hilarity.

This is what I mean about cherrypicking. That is orders of magnitude higher than most other studies including the one I linked above. It is also a far smaller sample size. Note the confidence intervals being all over hells half acre. It also has fuck all to do with anything that anon or I were discussing.

[Anonymous No.14887169]

>>14887153
let me cherrypick a bit more:

>1/3000 = 33/100K
Paul Erlich Institute:
https://www.pei.de/DE/newsroom/dossier/coronavirus/arzneimittelsicherheit.html
>0.046 per 1000 vaccine doses in the first report
>0.046 per 1000 = 4,6/100K doses.
>Now its 0.3 per 1000 = 30/100K
https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-bis-31-12-20.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6

>back in 2021, the FDA acknowledged in their models 1/5000 cases of myocarditis in young males
https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
an estimated excess risk approaching 200 cases per million vaccinated males 16-17 years of age

>Sample size:23 Million
>Cases after second dose: 5.5/100K(Pfizer/BNT162b2) and 18/100K (Moderna/mRNA-1273)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents
Karlstad et al

>Sample size:42 Million
>Cases after second dose: 14/100K (Oxford/AZ) 12/100K (Pfizer/BNT162b2) and 101/100K (Moderna/mRNA-1273)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1
Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex
Patone et al

[Anonymous No.14887176]

>>14887169
Good lord I don't give a shit. If you read the above discussion the whole point was the majority of these are NOT hospitalized and are NOT severe, nor is there evidence to suppose they cause long term problems if any of them do at all (without underlying health conditions). I could just full on accept the absurd highest number you pull out your ass and it has no bearing whatever on the discussion.

[Anonymous No.14887179]

>>14887176
aaand we're back full circle

[Anonymous No.14887186]

>there are still absolute morons on this board trying to debate vaxxshills in good faith

[Anonymous No.14887187]

>>14887179
>aaand we're back full circle
You mean right back to the same point you tried to side-step? Yeah. Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.14887206]

>>14886410
If the bottleneck for data inclusion is to be hospitalized it's obviously worthless as a source for drawing conclusions about healthy young men. It's probably even more worthless than unstratified data, since it is even less representative.

[Anonymous No.14887251]

>>14887176
>nor is there evidence to suppose they cause long term problems if any of them do at all (without underlying health conditions).
Of course there's no evidence they cause long term problems when it's only been a year and a half. We might have better answers in 10-20 years once everyone is already fucked, and then the experts can say "oops, we couldn't have possibly seen this coming!" The fact remains it's unprecedented for a medical treatment to be causing myocarditis at the rates that's occurring, and we have no idea what the long term consequences will be. It's one thing to say we don't know, it's another to flat out dismiss them and act like it's a certainty everything will be fine and dandy.

[Anonymous No.14887281]

>>14887139
>Says the person who links some random EDU page instead of the CDC page, and on which there is no link to the CDC page.
I was making a point, that was the story going around, being reported by media far and wide.

>That is not the rate listed in ANY of the CDC links I've given you. Who, exactly, is playing coy? You. I can't even find it by checking myself, only that page and some ABC article and neither list the source.

Hmm...
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1017002907/u-s-covid-deaths-are-rising-again-experts-call-it-a-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated
>More than 99% of recent deaths were among the unvaccinated, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said earlier this month on NBC's Meet the Press, while Walensky noted on Friday that unvaccinated people accounted for over 97% of hospitalizations.
Isn't Walensky the Director of the CDC? And then we have Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to the President.

>I'm proposing an outlier is an outlier. That is not just an outlier against CDC data, that's an outlier against most of the world's data and most data I've seen published.
So find me a study following the same methods, otherwise the safe bet is to assume other countries haven't been looking hard enough. That kind of study should be the standard when testing a new medical treatment.

>Oh look. May 2021. It doesn't say what that AP news article says. Who knows how they came up with that figure, but it wasn't the fucking CDC now was it?

Hmm...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team-and-public-health-officials-45/
DR. WALENSKY: And maybe I’ll just add: When we look at the age demographics of people being hospitalized now, we are seeing them go up in all age demographics, exactly as Dr. Fauci noted, differently for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. But, importantly, over 97 percent of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.

[Anonymous No.14887307]

desu bros i think these two really put the nail in the vax coffin

https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/71/224
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070

[Anonymous No.14887310]

>>14887176
>I could just full on accept the absurd highest number you pull out your ass and it has no bearing whatever on the discussion.
You're really going to fucking say that if everyone had mild myocarditis, it would be fine because it's totally not dangerous?

[Anonymous No.14887334]

If prions are maformed protein, and strike protein is "malformed", does it make it spike protein a prion