More to it. But I haven’t read rest of studies he posted yet either.
Phewwww…We were all wondering
Fucking commie cunt
Why and why do you care, you partisan sheep fucking cunt?
Worry about you libs…For one fucking time in your pathetic, meltdown-prone lives…Worry about you.
Because the deaths seem to be happening more frequently and we don’t believe the whole truth is being told…Why would we?
BMJ Study #2 from the fraud @GardenStateCane
Given the worldwide spread of the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants, future infection is the undesirable alternative to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Taken together with the potential long term sequelae of even mild SARS-CoV-2 infection,23 and with the risk of multisystem inflammatory syndrome among adolescents (which is associated with severe morbidity),24 our finding of a low absolute risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination supports the overall benefits of such vaccination on an individual, societal, and global level.
L
M
F
A
O
Folks
#3 - Israel
Our study has several limitations. First, a definitive diagnosis of myocarditis is based on the results of endomyocardial biopsy, which was performed in only one patient. The definition of myocarditis that was used in our study does not establish the diagnosis, although it corresponds to the way in which myocarditis is diagnosed in clinical practice.
I don’t know how to process #4 as I’m pretty buzzed rn.
Initial pass is similar to the other 3, however it seems pretty biased has a predetermined outcome. I don’t rally think that is bad, but odd is all.
That moment when you post a study that concludes the opposite of what you wanted it to.
1 Like
I think it’s pretty clear that you’re the one that doesn’t understand my point about VAERS. Why don’t you slow down, reread it, and then you can comment about it.
You know what’s funny? I’m not saying people shouldn’t get the vaccine. I’ve actually never said that.
I’ve said, and you can go look, that the vaccine should be meted out by risk factor. The higher your risk, the better the candidate you are.
Secondly, I have always said that they are lying about and hiding the dangers of the vaccine.
These 2 statements are not in conflict.
I will agree that they don’t emphasize the dangers of the vaccines, mostly because they are infinitesimal. But that’s all medicine, pretty much. I think the risk/benefit ratio is mostly built-in.
This is not the right word at all.
My boss’s husband just dropped dead 2 weeks ago. No heart issue ever. Just did a stress test and was clean. Family thinks into the booster.
Go tell them it’s “infinitesimal.”
Why would I do that? That would be insensitive. But how does that disprove infinitesimal?
Well- even a .1% isn’t infinitesimal. Infinitesimal is something you can’t even measure practically such as the weak force of gravity.
I would say there’s “low risk” of myocarditis…. But it’s still a real risk and I’m arguing that because the data is so bad- it’s probably medium to low risk, if we had the real numbers.
And if you weigh it against risk of dying from COVID I would say there’s a greater risk of adverse vaccine effects.
I agree but isn’t the percentage smaller?
That’s not what the study you posted said!
And I’m saying that if the study had the real data and not the 1% of the data that VAERS offers, their metrics and conclusions would be much different.
And I’m saying my imaginary data is more accurate than your imaginary data. 
I’ve cited sources prior to COVID that agree VAERS is highly under reported. It’s a known thing. Why do you guys pretend we’re making this issue up?
1 Like
No, you are a fucking idiot and continue to be one.
No one is saying shit about this you fucking tard.