Lol again ? What judgment exactly I passed on you ?

What lies and scandals you talking about ?
The last one ( dangerous death threatening vaccines) from my memory dated back to around 1970 , probably a date You wernt even born yet ….

It’s not my fault if u post a lot on mistaken assumption u have and pass it as scientifically truth .

Your post implied the vaers database is not to be trusted.
That implies that the CDC is to be trusted instead. And you believe the CDC after it has lied to you countless of times.

Last best example about about opioids.


If I cant trust the vaers database I have to believe the cdc, or what are you saying? Or do I trust nothing now? The vaers database is a tool where doctors can report reactions and side effects of vaccines. Whats wrong with that? That doesnt fit in the narrative of the mass media and the pharmas right now, who are backing lobbies with billions now, and are making billions. so vaers is spitting in their soup and has to get discredited now, by you Montreal, exaclty how you did there.

that 1% chance of dying from covid is for all cases, right?
yeah, you said this.


In the age group of children it is much lower, almost not existing. also confirmed by you. So I am trying to figure out something completely different, but you say vaers is bad. So take another database.

In the age group they speak of here which is 18-50 apr. its also lower imo, and the risk of serious to permanent side effects might be higher, almost 1%. Im trying to fugure this out. But you say there is bad data, which I think is wrong. There will be more and better data soon though.


About the other numbers you dont know and they say its all underreported and messed up. So go figure , good luck.

All I can see are these reported cases now and those are individual cases, that show you there is a tiny problem with that age group. And I dont trust the number from canada at all, thats whats reported.

So anyways you have to take the age group of the most

aplicable group, and then divide not by doses given but by people in that age group again.

So, you don't trust the number from the Canada link that you provided as proof of your 10K doses that reported serious adverse events?

Is is fair to say that you cherry-pick data that fits your personal narrative?

Full disclosure: I'm also skeptical of anything that is backed by Big Pharma. But "skeptical" doesn't for me mean "summarily dismiss everything they produce." (Not saying that's your position either, btw.)

I didnt assume anything, I gave a number I heard. Which is 0.8%
and that number is from some database, I think paul ehrlich.

Did you actually read the wiki link and the bolded passage I highlighted for you ?

First of , Anyone can repost on vaers not just doctors …..

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

« VAERS accepts reports from anyone. Patients, parents, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCP) are encouraged to report adverse events after vaccination to VAERS even if it is not clear that the vaccine caused the adverse event. In addition, HCP are required to report certain adverse events after vaccination ».


Furthermore vaers itself ffs says u can’t take the datas to draw scientific conclusion like u do ….

Vaers is exactly like a fire alarm mechanism .
Anyone can pull on it but doesn’t mean each time it’s pull down , a fire exist .

Here other sources :

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...s-scare-tactic

Sounds like u ?
« The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS is being misused by anti-vaxxers to terrify the public. It’s a shame because VAERS plays a vital role in detecting important but rare reactions caused by vaccines. The weaponization of VAERS by anti-vaccine activists serves as a reminder that having access to more information does not always lead to better decisions. «

« It is easy for an anti-vaccine activist—someone who is categorically opposed to vaccines and who sees themselves as a hero saving humanity from a costly mistake—to simply cherry-pick scary VAERS reports and present them as proof that a vaccine is known to cause serious harm and death, a tactic we could call “VAERS scare. ».

Read the link if u are « really » interested in how it actually works before reaching the conclusion u do .

Do u have a reading comprehension problem ?
Or U just want to read and comprehend what u wish ?

First offf I didn’t generalize at 1 % clearly …..


I said it’s lower then 1% at young age and higher then 1% as u get older ….


Second , I never said vaers is bad , it’s very useful to for certain thing but certainly not be used like u do , as a scientific data proving vaccines are bad …..

this guy saying it might be underreported bc they dont know
what to look out for.

I know that. And thats a bad thing? You think anyone would lie about side effects? a warning system is a bad thing or what?



Then take a database only made by doctors if you like.
you should come up with about the same number.

I know, I know... but you did the math wrong.

here you go:

so there is a chance of miocarditis, heart disease but its relatively low.

So Rober Malone got banned from twitter for

bashing pfizer vaccines.

that doctor there got a court ruling that pfizer has to report now
though his work.


cliffs, pfiizer tried to hide information.

All u speak about been debunked last year , I won’t go through at it again .
U can believe whatever u want , I’m just pointing what u quote as true scientific fact isn’t valid .

Fwiw u can find any study saying a results u want but scientific truth do not work like that .

I suggest u watch this little video and maybe u will realize it isn’t trivial scientific data or studies that makes a thing reliable but the amount of it .
It’s called the scientific method .
Regardless of the science u study .





Pretty clear to me what he speak off at 1m15 should be recognized by you .
U cherry pick data that are almost irrelevant by it’s rare , very rare , 1/10000 occurrence.
Are u scared to go out because u might be struck by lightning ?
Should we based government policies based on that and prevent people to go outside even tho the danger of being struck by lightning is actually real ?

What the **** is wrong with you, washoe? Like seriously? What. The. ****. Over and over and over again you do this same ****. Come in to a thread with a little knowledge you've gleaned here and there, portraying it as some amazing new wisdom you've discovered, and then you do this thing where when someone questions you, you're off with the name calling. Like here, when someone points out that you cited a number of events without the context of what % that was, and your reply is to tell him to learn how to read and call him a donk.

So, you keep stating that there is 0.8% cases of serious reactions to the vaccine. Where do you get this number from? Who knows! Apparently you don't. When asked for hard data, you provide these three links. One is to an article about long-Covid symptoms as a RARE result of vaccines. Another is to a Canadian study that shows a serious adverse event rate of 0.0.12%. Not 0.8%. 0.012%. 67x less than 0.8%.

Then I have a look at the other link, which is to the Paul Ehrlich Institute's report - the same PEI you keep referring to as maybe the place where you heard 0.8%. But can you be bothered to spend 30 seconds following up on your link? No, of course not. Well, here you go, I did the work for you:

So that would be 0.03% serious adverse reactions. Not 0.8%. 0.03%. 27x less than 0.8%. Would it really have been so difficult for you to look this up yourself?

Do you even know what the VAERS database is? I think someone already posted this for you, but I'm going to requote it here because it's important:

That's straight from the first paragraph of the disclaimer on the data page. It's not hard to find. I've highlighted the part that you missed in your description above - a rather critical part. Anyone can submit a report. Anyone. And this provides no context; there is no sample size we can use to know how high or low the % of serious adverse reactions is. There is no verification for these reports. VAERS might contain some interesting information, but it's completely useless as a data point to quantify risk in any way. Even if every single report was 100% accurate, which we can be certain they won't be.

Ah yes, 0.8% again from some source you don't remember and can't provide but maybe it's from Paul Ehrlich, even though the link to PEI you provided very much contradicts that number.

My suggestion for you would be to shut up about 0.8% until you can provide data that backs it up. And once again, I'd urge you to self-reflect on why you keep getting things wrong - again, and again, and again, and again. All while telling other people that they're donks, and ignorant, and they can't read. Dude. Get a grip.

I'm pretty sure washoe has me on ignore so he won't see this, but the other important thing about VAERS is that health care providers are encouraged to report anything that happens within proximity of a vaccination, even if they think it has nothing to do with the vaccination. So, the idea that doctors are ringing the alarm and being ignored is bunk.

This is a database to throw everything in and later try to see if there's a signal in the noise. If there are reported events of heart attacks in VAERS, that's not indication that the vaccine caused it. If there is a higher incidence of heart attacks within a demographic in VAERS than you would normally expect in that demographic that may be an indication that the vaccine caused it. Raw numbers of events is proof of nothing by itself.

washoe put me on ignore shortly after my post that Bobo quoted above.

Is there anybody left that supports covid vaccine mandates?
Is it the right thing to do to try to compensate people who lost their careers over refusing the vax?
I know that will never happen because of money but I think some people got a raw deal in all that.

I don't think anyone supports mandates just because. It doesn't seem necessary anymore (outside of particular professions) to keep the healthcare system from being overloaded. If you still want to roll the dice now, be my guest.

Antivaxxers are not a protected class so, so at least in the U.S., I don't see how anyone would get compensated. I also personally don't see why they should. What raw deal? You'd probably be hard pressed to find a lot of sympathy for people that are either dumb or selfish (likely both).

Quoting so it will be seen by the ringleader of the washow™.

Nothing he said leads me to not taking the vaccine but I do agree that the way he is treated is very disturbing. To a lessor extent but similarly, with Professor Gupta

I don't know anything about this Professor Gupta but I know some about Malone. In what way has his treatment been disturbing? He is happy to be courted by antivaxxers and those who exploit misinformation for political gain and he's spouted false information mixed in with the science. He really comes off as someone with an axe to grind, who thinks he deserves the spotlight and he doesn't care that he's lending credibility to people encouraging ignorant risk taking that has gotten others killed.

Welcome to my political betting strategy! If you can monetize this approach you will really appreciate the massive +EV opportunities it offers and along the way you can ask them (for bonus fun) about their "research" of vaccines, Hunter, Avril Lavigne or whatever.

Dissenters with expertise should not be excluded. Not even when it's troublesome. I also dont doubt he is being attacked and people dont respond well to that which provides more ammo against them. There is no perfect answer but the preference for clueless idiots who agree with us over those with expertise who don't is a serious problem.

Institutions and governments are far from perfect even when they get it right. They need to be questioned. Especially with new developments. It's really hard and we make it the most thankless task becase nearly anyone can be discredited, attacked and associated with the more nutty elements.