Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General - This thread is proof that vaccines cause autism

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
It's in the same document that details the OPs Schizophrenia.
If you read SchizOP's posts, it's obvious he's got schizophrenia + autism.

However, there's no evidence that the janny is a tranny or a pedo, other than the fact that he made you assblasted and since you are a good little QAnoner, you believe everyone who you don't like is a pedo
 

renée remains insane

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 17, 2021
If you read SchizOP's posts, it's obvious he's got schizophrenia + autism.

However, there's no evidence that the janny is a tranny or a pedo, other than the fact that he made you assblasted and since you are a good little QAnoner, you believe everyone who you don't like is a pedo
Oh Jeez, so Pedo Tranny Mods dislike me, how will I ever show my face in polite society again?
 

CreamyHerman’s

(Worrying intensified)
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
If you read SchizOP's posts, it's obvious he's got schizophrenia + autism.

However, there's no evidence that the janny is a tranny or a pedo, other than the fact that he made you assblasted and since you are a good little QAnoner, you believe everyone who you don't like is a pedo
Wait you don't have credentials to diagnose someone with schizophrenia, unless you can show us
 

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Oh Jeez, so Pedo Tranny Mods dislike me, how will I ever show my face in polite society again?
Still waiting on that evidence, son.

Wait you don't have credentials to diagnose someone with schizophrenia, unless you can show us
I don't but it's pretty obvious from his posts. His posts are time-cube level babbling.

He still hasn't told me his credentials though. He said I cannot talk about vaccines because I don't have credentials, but hasn't told me mine and his diseased brain shuts down every time I ask
 

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
This is going to be a long post because there's so much misinformation out there. Don't come at me whining. Just go SKIP if you don't want to.

So a couple of people asked me to come back to this thread, specifically because stuff like this is what I work on. And you know, you don't want to do more work after you've done work, but I'm a janny anyway so I do it for free. I've been avoiding it because its become entirely too politicized. Vaccinated, unvaccinated, side-effects, no side-effects, etc. I do COVID research, starting up very recently and I am part of a COVID lab that does epidemiological testing. Don't ask for my credentials, because I'm not powerleveling so autists can hunt me down and try to ruin my life. I have run all COVID instant tests as well as PCR tests.

To be honest, the real reason I've been avoiding this thread is that, well, there's really nothing scandalous about the medicine itself. Just the societal reaction to it, which has nothing to do with the science. I deal with enough bullshit politics with modding, so I am not going to touch it. Please don't ask.

I'll kill the smaller topics first.

First: Media articles. Science reporting, notably in scientific circles, is a gigantic joke. They get so much shit wrong its funny. You have to remember science reporters are not scientists, and might only have a Bachelor's level understanding of Doctorate level concepts. It has come to the point where I ignore all science reporting as a matter of principle, because quite often, they don't know what they're talking about. And with COVID and the political element mixed in, they're the worst it has ever been.

These stories are strictly to push papers and clicks, and that's it. Do not use these as proof of anything. They are slanted, biased and have no fucking idea what they're talking about. That's not to say they're all wrong, but for me they're fundamentally useless in conveying scientific or medical information.

Second: Journal Articles. Another reason I avoided this thread. In my scientific career I have literally, not figuratively, read over a thousand journal articles in pretty much every subject under the sun. I was formerly a social sciences student/researcher and am now in hard science. So I know both sides.

I'm going to be completely blunt and honest: If you aren't in the sciences, have no experience with it or are an amateur you are not qualified to comment on heavy, science filled articles. You just aren't. There are things you will not pick upon simply because you don't have the experience or knowledge to pick up on.

I am not doing this to be antagonistic, I am just tired of seeing it over and over and over again. People wonder why scientists just stay in their labs and never talk. This and science journalism is why. You cannot just read about science. You need to be in a lab, doing the grunt work to understand how it is in the field. You have to do all the trivial bullshit, do some tests yourself. This is not something you can just read a textbook or a protocol book and you have knowledge of it. Its like all of us picking up court documents. There's specific jargon, specific ways things are done that are hard to understand if you're not in that field. Science is even more detailed than that.

If you are relying on a title or an abstract, you honestly don't know what you are doing. What methods did they use? What tests did they conduct? Were these tests appropriate? What was the cell line/animal line? What do their graphs and stats look like? What do their figures/images show? How can this be extrapolated?

Abstracts and titles are like sexy people on book covers. They're designed to attract attention. I cannot stress this enough. I've seen enough articles with great looking titles and abstracts that were complete dogshit when I dug into them. Again, blunt: You just don't have the experience to tell. I'm sorry, but you don't. And its not at all different on other corners on the internet but to the general public as well. Just because you have access to all the information in the world doesn't make you good or an expert at interpreting it. You need to be out there doing it to fully understand what these papers mean and are saying.

Another thing: Watch what journals you post from and look at their impact factor. There's a lot of shady journals out there, and impact factor (while imperfect) is a decent way to gauge how influential and regarded a journal is. The impact factor is related to how many times articles in that journal are cited by other articles. Which means, generally, that their results are solid.

And NEVER EVER EVER EVER post unpublished articles, non-peer reviewed articles or articles under review. I don't care what they say. Until they are published and reviewed, they are not valid. They might have to add other experiments or they might have to remove/redo certain stats. They might be rejected from publications outright. Simply, these are drafts and may not resemble the final product. I've read articles in review and have some experience in the review process. Some articles come out completely different. Until they are published, they are not valid sources.

So all in all, this is my biggest pet peeve. Just because you can read shit on the internet doesn't make you an expert.

Third: Discussions by scientists and doctors that contradict things being said by other articles and scientists and doctors. Ok. For this, you have to understand, scientists by nature are extremely eccentric (batshit). Some of us believe in seriously ridiculous shit. For example, Linus Pauling. Brilliant man. Won a Nobel Prize and a noble peace prize (one of very few people who have one two, let alone two from different fields). Published over 1,200 papers in his life. A lot of stuff he found is now in textbooks from High School to Graduate level studies. The dude was a founder of molecular biology and quantum chemistry. His use of X-Ray crystallography to show molecular structures inspired Watson and Crick who found the double helix. Really super duper smart guy, right? Yes. Except he believed in vitamin C megadosing. And when I say megadosing, I mean fucking mega. Like 10 grams of Vitamin C. That's a fucking lot. And you know, Vitamin C is water soluble, so you piss it out. He really believed it could cure cancer and reverse aging. He was very vocal about this. Of course it was all bullshit. Even genius scientists can believe in crazy shit.

Just because you got a professional on YouTube or something doesn't mean you can trust them. The line between genius and madness is very thin, and it is true saying. Again, to a layman he might sound right. You need experience and knowledge to understand what he is talking about. It is very tempting to get caught up in what they say because they seem like they know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean they do. I'm not saying they're not smart or not good at what they do. Look at Pauling. He was brilliant and one of the best scientists of the 20th century, yet he believed something fucking crazy. And because he was so influential and had so many achievements, the public bought into this because, hey, if this smart dude is saying it, it must be true! Don't fall for that trap.

Another thing is, it might be somewhat malicious. If a scientist goes against the grain hard and gets proven right, he gains status and grant money INCREDIBLY quickly. They can spout this off on YouTube and as long as they do their work, they're not going to get fired. There's also the possibility that it is revenge for being fired, let go or expelled from a lab or a company to 'expose' what THEY don't want you to know.

It is very easy to get seduced by the sound of someone who looks like they know what they're talking about. And that includes myself as well. But I have no ulterior motive to lie to you. The stuff I'm saying isn't batshit, in my field its fundamental.

So, we've got that out of the way. What's next? Lets go over the Pfizer report shall we. This will be a deep dive, and I'll be referencing certain portions of the document. Get it out and your pencils ready!

What this document is is basically a section of a monograph. You know, those huge inserts you get with medication that nobody but insane people like me read? Yeah, that's a pharmaceutical monograph. It isn't anything scandalous or nefarious, its basically rote in all drug development. So lets get that out of the way. And yes, a lot of the times the detailed data is proprietary. Its proprietary because this is basically a document that's used to get something approved and may contain things they don't want competitors to know. As I said in the intro, I'm not touching politics. This is just the way it is.

Bottom of Page 5 said:
Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown. Some of the factors that may influence whether an event is reported include: length of time since marketing, market share of the drug, publicity about a drug or an AE, seriousness of the reaction, regulatory actions, awareness by health professionals and consumers of adverse drug event reporting, and litigation

Ok, so what they are basically saying here is that there are going to be a lot of unknowns. That does not mean this information is invalid. The marketing wording here is because people just simply forget they should be sending reports because its been awhile since the drug has been marketed or known about.

The seriousness of the reaction and publicity of adverse events may also effect reporting. We know they have some 42,000 reports, but maybe many people just don't bother reporting fatigue, nausea or other symptoms that go away in a few days. However, if someone develops serious complications or drops dead, you bet your fucking ass someone is going to report that. They say that because its a factor of bias. That is, it can skew the numbers in one direction when it may not necessarily be true.

Bottom of Page 5 said:
Because many external factors influence whether or not an AE is reported, the spontaneous reporting system yields reporting proportions not incidence rates. As a result, it is generally not appropriate to make between-drug comparisons using these proportions; the spontaneous reporting system should be used for signal detection rather than hypothesis testing.

Now, just what is incident rate vs. proportions? These are not the dictionary definitions, these are epidemiological and biological terms. We also have to define 'incidence'. There are three factors involving incidence in biostatistics: Events, a source population at risk of the event and the passage of time during which events occur. I bolded the last one because it is the most important to the subject at hand.

Incidence Rates are the rates of an incident on a year to year basis.

Incidence proportion are the rates of an incident based on a period of time.

The document stated in the beginning that there was a specific monitoring period. So we are not looking at incidents on a per year basis, but on the basis of the time that these tests were being conducted. The distinction is important because your target population decreases on a year to year bases in incident rate, whereas the population of the incidence proportion.

You cannot make drug to drug comparisons because typically drugs use incidents rates (year to year forever) because their methods are using a time period. So we cannot use this data to compare similar drugs because the time periods they are using are different.

They mention it should be used for signal detection. What is signal detection? I'll let the WHO explain it:

WHO said:
A signal is essentially a hypothesis of a risk with a medicine with data and arguments that support it, derived from data from one or more of many possible sources. The evidence in a signal is not conclusive (is, in the technical sense, uncertain), and is only an early indication (preliminary), as it may change substantially over time as more data accumulates. Sometimes a signal may provide additional or new information about adverse or beneficial effects of an intervention, or information about an already-known association of a medicine with an adverse drug effect, for example: on the range of severity of the effect or its outcome; postulating a mechanism; indicating an at-risk group; suggesting a dose range which might be more risky/perilous, a pharmaceutical group-effect or a lack of effect by a particular medicine.

I let you know the important part. This is NOT CONCLUSIVE. This is preliminary. This is basically used to accumulate date on adverse events. When they say hypothesis testing, they mean using the data as a basis for a study. They can't do hypothesis testing simply because they don't have enough information.

Page 6 said:
In some reports, clinical information (such as medical history, validation of diagnosis, time from drug use to onset of illness, dose, and use of concomitant drugs) is missing or incomplete, and follow-up information may not be available.

This is another explanation of bias to the reports, as they don't know if it may be from the drug, combination of drugs or anything like that

Page 6 said:
An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.

This is super fucking important. All drugs you get prescribed have to report ALL adverse events when you are taking it. All of them. It doesn't matter if you're taking aspirin and all of a sudden you shit and piss yourself and lose control of your limbs because three days ago you got a concussion and its from the concussion not the aspirin. You HAVE to report it. This is the way ALL DRUGS are done. This is NOT scandalous. All of this is ROUTINE.

Why am I going over this instead of the numbers? Because you need to understand WHAT they are looking for, the limits of this data and the amount of bias this data has. And when I say bias, I mean scientific bias, which is different from the dictionary definition.

The missing information in vaccine effectiveness is not scandalous either, because again, this data is looking for signals, IE: preliminary symptoms. It cannot yet be used to determine its effectiveness right at the moment. This is why you see so many conflicting articles about side effects. The detection of these events are still in the signal phase.

It seems the greatest risk they identified was anaphylaxis or an allergic reaction. Of which you can die from. If a patient dies due to anaphylaxis, it will be recorded as 'death'. So we cannot separate who died from a very common reaction to medication to those who died of other factors. Because, again, this is looking for signals, not to differentiate or hypothesize.

So, what do I think? Its a very typical monograph for a treatment that is still trying to figure out adverse effects. Since the purpose of this information is to look for signal, you cannot extrapolate it to other drugs. There's a large amount of bias so it is hard to say if it is accurate or not. And even so, accuracy isn't something they're looking for. They want to see the total breadth of all the adverse events in a population.

Is the resulting data shocking? No. Fatal cases were 3%, but again, that is from every source, not just from the vaccine. A dude could have been stung by a bee and died of shock. We don't know why these people died and cannot yet attribute it to anything. Looking at this, 46% recovered in the timing of reporting. It may take a long time, up to 90 days I think, but symptoms did fade. Again, there's no timeframe for this, because its preliminary.

Anyone trying to make a big deal out of this just does not know what they're talking about. The data just isn't there. Do I think we should vaccinate anyone under 21? No. We don't yet know the risk events for it. Do I think people should be vaccinated overall? Yes. (I am not going into the politics of this). Do I think you need a booster? No. There's no evidence that boosters provide any greater protection, and with numerous variants coming out (which all viruses have by the way, this is not a big deal) its kind of pointless to keep getting a shot which is now out of date. I mean, it will protect you from the COVID-19 strain that started this, but we do not know which strain will be dominant in the future. My money is on Omnicron. It evades the immune system and is relatively mild, so less work is going to be put into tackling it. I think Delta will eventually get wiped, because its too strong for us to just ignore.

It isn't yet too late for a COVID-19 shot. I got COVID (before the shot, shut up) and got vaccinated. Obviously it is your choice whether or not to get vaccinated, but this has become excessively political to the point where people twist shit back and forth and you can't tell what is real.

All in all, the COVID vaccine and its side effects are not any different or severe from current drugs that are approved on the market. Unless they're hiding information (no evidence of that) like they did with Viox. What do I think are the most likely side-effects for the jab? Arm soreness like the flu shot and fatigue for 2-3 days. Is it possible you will develop severe side effects? Sure. But people die all the time for no reason going under general anesthesia. One of my friends lost his brother because he went under and didn't come back up and that was relatively low dose and just simple wisdom tooth removal.

You have to understand we all react to medication differently. Even the most well studied drugs with the most well studied side effects that are super duper safe might put you in the ground because some weirdo gene was super upregulated/downregulated and it resulted in the normal dose have x10000 times the potency.

What do I think the fatalities were from (With the limited info available that are directly related to the vaccine, a number we don't actually know)? Anaphylaxis. Why do I think this? Because they did not mention 'sudden death' (IE: You just drop dead and they don't know why) or myocardial infarction (heart attack) under symptoms.

I think the likelihood of dying from this vaccine is very very very small if you are an adult. Obviously not for your kids. Don't do that dumb bullshit. Also if you are trying to become pregnant or are pregnant, don't take it. We don't know the implications yet.

You have to separate your personal politics from this issue and look at it objectively. I know its hard with all the media attention, internet bullshit and conspiracy theories. (I do believe it was an unintentional leak from the lab and not a bio-weapon. It was stupidity, the Chinese cutting corners and the cultural concept of 'face' in China. This trifecta lead to the pandemic. There is no benefit to them doing this as their population is extremely vulnerable due to air quality issues and they don't want their young people dropping dead because they might be heading for a demographic crisis. This is the only politics I will engage in).

So, what should you do? That's up to you. You have to weigh the benefits and risks. And we don't entirely know the risks. But I don't think the risks are anything out of the ordinary. They seem similar to other medications that treat serious illnesses. And you can develop long term complications with plenty of meds. The preliminary numbers I'm seeing don't indicate a lot of long term consequences yet.

The data isn't yet all here, but it just doesn't look like anything crazy to me that you have to be paranoid about.

EDIT:
So to be clear, you CANNOT use the Pfizer document to compare to other studies. Again, do not do this. That is not what it is meant for. You CANNOT use it to draw conclusions about incident rates because its methodology explicitly says proportions.

As for pregnancy and lactation, they cite missing information. Which means they don't have a large enough population, not enough reporting and/or not enough anything to say if there are any adverse effects or not.
 
Last edited:

renée remains insane

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 17, 2021
Hey guys,
As one of the chosen few who actually makes MORE money since this mess started, I totes think y'all should keep doing what the people who created this mess say... the fact that they also profit from your prolonged misery is purely coincidental. You must ignore your gut feelings and actual experiences of these reactions. Remember, keep doing what didn't work last year until it works again.
Bro, The Covid testing system is totally not a mass scam, Bro.
p.s. there is NOTHING scary about forcing every human on earth to take one of two experimental medical interventions.
k, thanks bbz
xoxo
Secret Arsehole.
 

Mr Bunny

I for one welcome the rabbit overlords.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Hey guys,
As one of the chosen few who actually makes MORE money since this mess started, I totes think y'all should keep doing what the people who created this mess say... the fact that they also profit from your prolonged misery is purely coincidental. You must ignore your gut feelings and actual experiences of these reactions. Remember, keep doing what didn't work last year until it works again.
Bro, The Covid testing system is totally not a mass scam, Bro.
p.s. there is NOTHING scary about forcing every human on earth to take one of two experimental medical interventions.
k, thanks bbz
xoxo
Secret Wanker
Lol, calm down. If secret watcher's stickers are causing you butthurt like a hard cock then go get lube.
 

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Hey guys,
As one of the chosen few who actually makes MORE money since this mess started, I totes think y'all should keep doing what the people who created this mess say... the fact that they also profit from your prolonged misery is purely coincidental. You must ignore your gut feelings and actual experiences of these reactions. Remember, keep doing what didn't work last year until it works again.
Bro, The Covid testing system is totally not a mass scam, Bro.
p.s. there is NOTHING scary about forcing every human on earth to take one of two experimental medical interventions.
k, thanks bbz
xoxo
Secret Arsehole.
I am poor as shit. I don't work for a pharmaceutical company. Shocker, researchers don't get paid much at all.

Also scientists have no say in policy. I EXPLICITLY mentioned I was avoiding politics. Yes, they're going to profit off of misery. I have a little life tip for you: EVERYONE TRIES TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF TRAGEDY AND BAD SHIT. It doesn't mean this was a generated event or the people caused it. At the very least these people aren't scamming you or trying to kill you. In most cases, you're not even paying for it. The government is, and if you're screaming about the government spending money on stupid shit, hint: they all do. This is not different.

Wow, mass scam. Alright. The free testing we're doing for the poor is totally scamming people, even though buying those boxes cost tens of thousands of dollars and PCR is expensive. We're totally scammers bro, our non-profit organization that takes money from donors is totally scamming the government and the people. Like, you know, these tests are designed to give you mega aids.

If this were the age where the WHO was eradicating small pox or polio, people would say the exact same thing. Jesus christ you are stupid.

EDIT:
OH SHIT BRO ITS AN NGO WATCH OUT FOR THE SOROS PLANT DUDES
 

renée remains insane

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 17, 2021
Wow, mass scam. Alright. The free testing we're doing for the poor is totally scamming people, even though buying those boxes cost tens of thousands of dollars and PCR is expensive. We're totally scammers bro, our non-profit organization that takes money from donors is totally scamming the government and the people. Like, you know, these tests are designed to give you mega aids.
The test doesn't give you superaids, the test just promotes the infantilization of the general population.

When the tests are free, it mean the government/taxpayer are footing the bill.

When I had my first one I literally laughed in the guys face, I can't believe you people have been getting away with such a lame scam for so long... Yeah rub this stick up your nose and then the government can tell you if you are healthy. I got such second hand embarrassment for anyone who willingly took one of the things. I'm so sorry you got caught up in this mess and I feel sorry that you feel compelled to defend it.
 

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
When the tests are free, it mean the government/taxpayer are footing the bill.

When I had my first one I literally laughed in the guys face, I can't believe you people have been getting away with such a lame scam for so long... Yeah rub this stick up your nose and then the government can tell you if you are healthy. I got such second hand embarrassment for anyone who willingly took one of the things. I'm so sorry you got caught up in this mess and I feel sorry that you feel compelled to defend it.
Just understand this.

I'm not forcing people or approve of forcing people to do something they don't want to do. I do not believe COVID is serious enough to warrant forced universal vaccination. Is it bad? Yes. But there is established treatment for it. Its not like the measles where there's no established treatment, where I do believe that vaccination should be compulsory. I don't play with my health and the after-effects of COVID are bad, especially if you get re-infected. I'm also pointing out that the current data does not support the hysterics of the vaccine. Can this change in the future? Of course. But right now, there is simply no evidence besides that the vaccine should not be given to children and minors.

I am simply pointing out what is out there and I do believe some protection is better than none. At the very least it may prevent it from transferring to a loved one. And like I said, I don't think there's any evidence in boosters, especially now we're starting to see new strains.

The flu vaccine is based on which strain is dominant. Until we know that, I don't think constantly getting boosters is worth it.
 

Catch The Rainbow

kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 31, 2020
Just understand this.

I'm not forcing people or approve of forcing people to do something they don't want to do. I do not believe COVID is serious enough to warrant forced universal vaccination. Is it bad? Yes. But there is established treatment for it. Its not like the measles where there's no established treatment, where I do believe that vaccination should be compulsory. I don't play with my health and the after-effects of COVID are bad, especially if you get re-infected. I'm also pointing out that the current data does not support the hysterics of the vaccine. Can this change in the future? Of course. But right now, there is simply no evidence besides that the vaccine should not be given to children and minors.

I am simply pointing out what is out there and I do believe some protection is better than none. At the very least it may prevent it from transferring to a loved one. And like I said, I don't think there's any evidence in boosters, especially now we're starting to see new strains.

The flu vaccine is based on which strain is dominant. Until we know that, I don't think constantly getting boosters is worth it.
What's your take on natural immunity vs vax immunity? Natural seems pretty strong compared to vax.
 

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
What's your take on natural immunity vs vax immunity? Natural seems pretty strong compared to vax.
Natural is better simply because your body can recognize multiple antigens on the COVID virus while the vaccine is only one antigen.

That being said, you can't control what antigens your body recognizes while you can with a vaccine. So for some people, vaccine immunity might be better. Again, we're all different, so I can't conclusively say with 100% certainty. This is just my opinion.
 

fat old sun

she wasn't erect
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
@Secret Asshole
Is the resulting data shocking? No. Fatal cases were 3%, but again, that is from every source, not just from the vaccine.

So you're saying they count fatalities from the vaccine similarly to how they treat deaths from COVID itself, or...? (he died falling off a ladder and our PCR test with a coin flip chance of testing positive results in a COVID death)
 

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
@Secret Asshole


So you're saying they count fatalities from the vaccine in the same way they treat deaths from COVID itself, or...? (he died falling off a ladder and our PCR test with a coin flip chance of testing positive results in a COVID death)
They do. It might be people who had COVID and got the vaccine and died. It might be a guy who falls off a ladder, but they might not have his medical chart or medical info, so they have to mark it down as a fatality. These are all possibilities.

Its done like this because 1) They don't want to ignore something and then get sued and 2) It errs on the side of caution and is frankly good practice, because its better you have all of the data then let something slip by.

EDIT:
Also, remember, the Pfizer study I'm talking about is being done to find out what adverse effects there are, not their frequency. So in this case, they will try to document everything under the sun.
 
Last edited:

EyelessMC

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Good news (for USA): Vaccine Mandates are getting blocked and the struggle to finally be rid of them seems to be going favorably.

Also @Secret Asshole thanks for taking the time to come into the thread. I know this subject can be exhausting as it is and I can imagine that goes double for anyone working in this field or similar. @Otterly has been MIA periodically due to her work too. Thanks for lending your assessment and perspective. No one is going to agree on every point since we're not drones but taking the time out should still appreciated, especially when you do it for free lol
Thanks.

Also, remember, the Pfizer study I'm talking about is being done to find out what adverse effects there are, not their frequency. So in this case, they will try to document everything under the sun.
Which is what I want to see since that's exactly what ought to be done, shouldn't it? First comes data collection and then sifting through it for validity and frequency. For many it seems as though they'd prefer AEs to just be turned away at the door because either they aren't frequent enough or there's some which prove unrelated.

EDIT: On your earlier points,
I appreciate you wanting to avoid the politicization of this subject. I also appreciate your concern over people picking up scientific studies and parading them around, let alone with an air of knowing, as if they are smoking guns in favor of/against Covid or its vaccines. Same goes for your detailed argument against blindly trusting doctors/scientists, particularly from social media. Your argument against the "argument of authority" is immediately applicable and crucial to everyone regardless of their stance on the matter.

However I disagree about the notion that people who aren't scientists/knowledgeable in this field should avoid picking up scientific studies and assessing them, particularly from a summation or the abstract. Your concern over heralding every study as basically the voice of God is fair, especially those not yet peer-reviewed--the vax was already being sent for emergency approval before there were any peer-reviewed studies after all. If anyone has a problem with that (and they should) then they can't apply the same slipshod haste to other things they like.

But it is because we paid attention to the published (and reviewed) studies early on that we were basically able to predict the danger of the Spike protein and its effect on the vascular system. We were talking about the Salk Institute's study long before they started vaccinating youths and, thereafter, had VAERS flooded with myocarditis reports (and thereafter the CDC, upon investigation, found that heart inflammation was certainly linked to the Covid vaccines). If more people had paid attention to that early on then countless adults and especially youths would not have had to been diagnosed with pericarditis/myocarditis.

TL;DR I agree with not flagging scientific papers and medical reports as Voice of God and I agree with not just embracing anyone "science" simply because of what they say/how they explain it. However, I do not agree we should avoid discussing and reading medical studies/scientific publications simply because our lack of knowledge can lead to misunderstanding. If we pay attention to detail and don't put on airs, if we're honest and don't carry pretense of knowing, then we can be greatly informed in matter which otherwise would catch us off-guard, like with the Spike protein.
 
Last edited:

GeorgeFloyd

"BUST ON ME NIGGA!"
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
I spend my nights not sleeping because I am boning your mom, it has nothing to do with vaccinations. We hear you waking up in the middle of the night and coming up the stairs and wondering what the noise is... well, now you know
You can't have sex because the vaccine made your penis shrivel up and blow away in the wind.
 

Shaka Brah

Patriotic Ass-Blasting Poster
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
At the very least it may prevent it from transferring to a loved one.
I should point out that neither Pfizer nor the CDC claim that the jab prevents transmission. In fact, the CDC has cautioned that vaxies are just as infectious as normal people when it comes to current variants (e.g. Delta). While they may have claimed that was the reason for mandatory mass vaccination in the beginning, all current messaging is that it protects oneself, not one's neighbors or family.