I continually see memes quoting statistics that claim to show the ineffectiveness of vaccines.
Anybody with even middle school level math competency should be able to see through the misrepresentation of these statistics.
A recent example stated that 85.7% of deaths over a particular week in Scotland were vaccinated people. The conclusion drawn was that the vaccines don't work because the vast majority of people dying were vaccinated.
What was left out in the post was that 94% of Scotland has received at least 1 dose and 74% has received 3 doses. That leaves only less than 6% of the population unvaxxed accounting for 12% of the deaths. This data suggests (suggests, doesn't prove anything), just the opposite of the conclusion drawn.
Misuse of statistics makes people look either stupid or dishonest. If you see something posted like this, you should immediately question your source. Anybody passing off this kind of stuff isn't vetting their sources or their numbers either through actual intent to mislead or sheer stupidity. Either way, the source cannot be trusted. Trusting such a source is just allowing yourself to be duped (which makes you a dupe) or a liar yourself.
Hold yourself to higher standards of integrity, please, everybody. It doesn't help anybody to lie about facts or pass on lies about facts.
You are considered unvaxxed if you have not had a booster ie shot number 3. Unvaxxed stats are full of people who've had 2 shots and perhaps even three now that they are recommending a fourth. Classifying someone with three shots as "unvaxxed" is a misuse of stats.
The report I mentioned disaggregated all that data.
No it didn't. You're a propagandists handshake account and there's absolutely nothing to back up your story. You're just saying numbers that have nothing to do with anything
Yes, it did. Did you read the study? I don't think you did.
I know you want to say that anybody who calls you on your misinformation is a "handshake" or "glowie" or whatever other thought ending memes you want to throw out. But the fact that your response is just to gainsay, wave hands, and use thought-enders, tells me that you've given up trying to defend your misinformation.
You're either lying to yourself or you're lying to everybody else.
You didn't inform readers of your post of the numerous disclaimers in the report:
You didn't mention that in Scotland, a high number of people are vaccinated:
These are all direct quotes from your source. None of which you mention in your little meme post. The purpose is clearly to mislead people into thinking the vaccines are not effective, just the opposite of what the data show.
So if you read the report, why did you pass on misleading information about it? Were you trying to be honest?
https://thecountersignal.com/99-per-cent-covid-deaths-in-canada-among-vaccinated/
Tell me how "duh maffs be wong" with this, glowie
Even though they may have mentioned percentages who received 2 and 3 doses, Scotland's "fully vaccinated" classification only applies to people with 3 doses or more:
https://young.scot/get-informed/national/scotland-coronavirus-rules-right-now#Vaccine%20Certification%20Scheme
This means their "unvaccinated classification", which I'm sure they're encouraged to avoid talking about, will include many people with 2 doses, those who had their 2nd dose 4 months or more ago and not a third. And there's more and more of those every day.
Soon triple jabbers will be thrown into that category too.
Funny games.
Fully vaccinated means "fully vaccinated." I've been clear about that in all my posts. Health officials have stated that one or two doses are much less effective than 3 doses or 3 doses + booster. So why should people not fully vaccinated be included with the fully vaccinated?
But you could do that math, too, if you thought it would make the case better. Notably, you did not do that. Why? Because it doesn't really help you. So let's throw in the insufficiently vaccinated population.
Deaths Dec 14 - Apr 17 Partially Vaccinated: 881 Fully Vaccinated: 2,832 Fully+Booster: 1,995 Total: 5,708
Unvaccinated: 9,512
Total Deaths: 15,220
%Deaths Partially or Fully vaccinated: 5,708/15,220 = 37.5% %Deaths Unvaccinated: 62.5%
So congratulations, you managed to argue that if you include insufficiently vaccinated people with fully vaccinated people, you move the needle about 4%.
Now. If you could have done the math, or just look at the figure and make reasonable estimations, you would have known that your argument wasn't going to help you much. The % of deaths of unvaccinated are still far greater than insufficiently and fully vaccinated people. This is true despite the fact that there are more total people in the vaccinated pool:
Partially + Fully Vaccinated Total: 1,066,884 Unvaccinated: 945,183 Total: 2,012,067
%Population Partially + Fully Vaccinated: 53% %Population Unvaccinated: 47%
So if vaccines were as effective as say a plecebo, you would expect no difference in % deaths amongst all the groups. Instead we find that % of unvaccinated far outweighs % of vaccinated deaths.
You guys continually try to fudge these numbers are try to find a way to build cognitive to walls around your false beliefs. Or you're just lying.
"Insufficiently vaccinated" LMAO. I don't believe or trust the "health officials". So really, you've wasted your time on me writing all this. Maybe you'll get some fool who read it to get jabbed, good luck to them if that's the case.
Insufficient is my term. The term in report is "Partially." However, we know that "partially" is "insufficient." That's why health officials recommend getting boosters.
I know there are a lot of fools out there who trust memes from unknown sources that they see on the internet over virologists, epidemiologists, and other health experts. If that's you, then have at it. I don't care.
If the vax is "safe and effective" eg 95% as we've seen stated by agencies, then it would be impossible to have this 85% statistic given the high vax rates. Also, we've routinely done the normalization for prior odds. I recall proving 5-6x more deadly as far back as late last year. Even last Spring we knew the side effects were 30-40x baseline. So, what to do when confronted with the evidence? Oh, I guess you chose to attack the person rather than the create a compelling counter argument...
You don't understand the math. Take for example, if 100% of the population were vaccinated, a very small number would still die. In that case ,100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people. But that doesn't mean the vaccine is 0% effective right? It just means of the pool from which it is possible to die of COVID, they were all vaccinated.
So if we have some population in which 87.5% of the deaths are vaccinated, but 94% of the population has received at least one dose of vaccine (assuming they count any dosage as "vaccinated"), then the 87,5% death rate means nothing about vaccine effectiveness.
Now, you want to say the vaccines are said to be 95% effective, but that was before Delta and Omicron. No one says the vaccine is 95% effective against these new variants. That data discussed here refers to he Omicron variant against which the vaccine is not said to be 95% effective. It is said that the chances of hospitalization with 3 doses are 5 to 10 times less than without the vaccine.
You remember? Let's see the data and the figures.
No, I only demonstrated that you all do not know math. I will bet that if you provide me with your data and methodology that you cite above, I will once again demonstrate that you do not know math.
You're entirely disregarding the fact they died of covid. You're not even disregarding, you're trying to pretend anything in a needle is 100% effective.
You probably think heroin addicts are the healthiest people on earth because "muh injection"
Woosh. Over your head.
Calling you out on your bullshit is not "woosh". You're just a pathetic liar
You haven't called me on anything at all. None of your responses have had any substance at all.
You claim to quote studies that absolutely don't say anything near the fuck you're saying
Yes, they do. I literally copy and paste them, link to them. You can lie all you want. Who do you think you are fooling? You're making a clown out of yourself.
You haven't demonstrated anything so far so if you're planning in doing so you better get to it. Meanwhile I can assure you, I know math so I'm not intimidated by you in the least
You know math? Ha ha ha ha. I don't think so.
Let's see if that's true. David cited this article.
From the data in the table alone, what percentage of the total deaths from COVID were unvaxxed? What % were Fully + Fully & boosted? Which % is higher?
What % of the population in the study were unvaxxed? What % of the population was Fully + Fully-boosted?
Now using that very straightforward data, explain how that data support a conclusion that the vaccines are not effective?
(You might want to quibble with 95% effective vs 75% effective, but any amount of effectiveness is good if it results in fewer deaths, right?)
Like I said, I've already done the math a long time ago. You're claiming we can't do it, you have the burden of proof here. Calculate the odds and cite your sources... if you can
What odds? What are you talking about? My point is that it is not legitimate to take one week of data to make any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of vaccines. I have continuously quoted the Scotland report:
Nonetheless, I demonstrated that, in fact, using that methodology demonstrates exactly the opposite of what was claimed.
It's up to you to make your case against effectiveness. I haven't seen it. There are plenty of actual, legitimate studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the vaccine. Those studies outweigh someone on the internet who claims to have "done the math long ago."
I don't believe you've done any math.
You still can't get the thing that make all your appeal to math completely void.
Vaccine is a special treatment that have to induce immunity to the disease. Immunity to the disease means you can't get that disease because your immune system is already know how to properly defeat pathogen due to vaccine or previous disease caused by same pathogen.
To talk about vaccine you need to have very close to zero disease cases in vaccinated. At the level of errror noise. If you have significant number of vaccinated in totals of disease - THIS IS FUCKING NOT A VACCINE! It does not provide immunity to the disease. It can't be named a vaccine at all.
So, we observe something, that is in no way could be named a vaccine but have severe side effects. According to the discussed data it can't be even named a some kind of "preventive treatment", since there are even no any solid correlation with not-a-vaccination and cases. That "vaccine" show the same result as "snake oil". Moreover, it is even worse than "snake oil", because even "snake oil" should show placebo effect, that will show more positive results for more doses. This not-a-vaccine shows completely opposite. That means that even retards who jabbed themselves with that shit multiple times do not really believe in that shit and think that it is harmful whatever they declare in public. That thing is named nocebo effect. Or it is a result of not-a-vaccine harm to the immune system.
And all that is even without mentioning that the "fact" of disease is determined with a PCR technology that in no way could be used to determine the fact of disease. Also, we still did not know, does SARS-CoV-2 exists at all, we still don't know does COVID-19 a real disease or just other regular diseases disguised to it, and what is the real reason of disease named COVID-19 if it exists. So, it is completely impossible to create a vaccine or treatment to the disease we know absolutely nothing about, especially if it does not exists at all.
So, we see here results of mass application of some unknown shit with severe side effects at least on blood and cardiac systems that show nocebo effect on the preventing questionable disease this substance had been declared to prevent.
It's mother's day.
Just out of curiosity, what vaccine data do you trust?
Still waiting.
https://thecountersignal.com/99-per-cent-covid-deaths-in-canada-among-vaccinated/
"Learn maffs nigga"
Do you know what "cherry picking" is?
So the claim here is that in one week, 222 vaccinated people died vs, only 1 unvaccinated person.
Let's look at that data:
Unvaxxed deaths through April 10: 9,511
Unvaxxed deaths through April 17: 9,512
So yes, it's true that there was only 1 unvaxxed death reported to PHAS from April 10 - April 17.
Fully vaxxed deaths through April 10: (2,770 + 1,835=) 4,605
Fully vaxxed through April 17: (2,832 + 1,995=) 4,827
That's a difference of 222 and includes Fully vaxxed and Fully + booster).
So that's correct. But we're missing a big a problem when it's reported as 99.6% of deaths are fully vaccinated.
Unvaxxed deaths through April 17: 9,512
Fully Vaxxed deaths through April 10: 4,827
Total: 14,339
%Deaths (Unvaxxed): 9,512/14,339 = 66.3%
%Deaths (Vaxxed): 4,827/14,339 = 33.7%
So nearly 2/3 of the total deaths (uvaxxed + fully vaxxed) are unvaxxed vs only 1/3 vaxxed.
So tell me how reporting this as evidence that vaccines don't work is not misleading? Anybody who can do math can look at the data presented and if it weren't such a serious subject just laugh out loud at the gross stupidity of the person who wrote that article. But there are enough people on the right who just don't have the math skills to do that so they think this article says something that supports their preconceived ideas. It's just confirmation bias.
That you would cite this and some argument against me is just laughable. It doesn't help your case in anyway. And I know your responses to me will be entirely vacuous. Meaningless. Insults with no analysis or argument to support them. Please, try harder.
We can go further, let's look at the n for each case.
For unvaxxed the n is: 945,183 For fully vaxxed the n is: (723,415 + 250,951=) 974,366 Total: 1,919,549
%Pop unvaxxed: 49.2% %Pop vaxxed: 50.8%
So all things being equal, we would expect the total deaths to be roughly 50-50. But instead it breaks down to 66:34.
Once again, you only reveal your inability to understand the math.
Feed me some more.
“Detailed case information received by PHAC from provinces and territories, since December 14, 2020”
What is that? 3 days after the vax was offered to the public. What was the vax rate for the 1st few months to year? Don’t you think that can skew the “totals” drastically?
“It leaves out totals. Let's compare totals:”
Anyone with basic math skills and reasoning would know that the “totals” date back to a time when the mass majority of the population was unvaccinated… making the totals completely unusable without adjusting for vaccination rate over time.
Surprised someone with your math skills could overlook something so obvious
All this and the argument I responded to was using data from ONE week to make the case against the vaccines.
Besides, your argument is spurious.
What part of my argument is wrong? Are you claiming that the totals DON’T date back to December 14, 2020… it does. Or are you claiming the vaccination rate wasn’t very low in the first few months of the vaccine rollout... it was.
You are arguing as if they pulled a random week out that showed the data they wanted to see. They used the last reported week. The data is following a trend showing lower and lower efficacy over time.
Is this one week’s data the strongest evidence ever? No.
Is it note worthy? Yes.
Is it in line with several other sources showing a decline in efficacy over time? Yes.
The report says:
That's the most recent month. It doesn't support anything you just said.
https://imgur.com/a/4qG3y5J
You are wrong. The numbers you provided are from 14 Dec 2020 to 17 Apr 2022. Move the goalpost all you want.
I can go by either totals back to dec 2020 or take the last month. Either way, it supports the inference that vaccines ARE effective. I did both. That's not cherry-picking. I took the last month in response to the argument that it took time for people to be vaccinated, etc. Also, the last week is included in the last month so even taking that last week into account, unvaccinated people were 3x times more likely to die.
I'm not wrong, the report does indeed say exactly what I say it says.
I didn't say it wasn't from 14 Dec 2020 to 17 Apr 2022. What I said is that report says unvaccinated people were more likely to die from COVID than vaccinated people.
This needs to adjust for prior odds over time or it's meaningless because, as you state elsewhere, the vaccine rate changes drastically over time. Need to find rolling cumulative average of a properly normalized series of odds. Last I did this vaccine was 5-6x more dangerous than doing nothing. The reason is because you can't just look at deaths, you most compare any outcome that is worse than the odds of doing nothing... ie. All serious negative adverse events.
You can look at deaths. If you are considering whether the vaccine prevents deaths, you look at deaths.
If you want to look at imaginary "vaccine injuries" maybe you have a point. Otherwise you don't. The OP was a direct response to a claim based on a single week that 99% of deaths were vaccinated people.
There are indeed many reasons to not just look at straight forward comparisons in order to determine vaccine effectiveness. But my OP was in a direct response to someone who was doing that exactly. And I used those numbers to show how that was completely spurious. So you agree with me: it's not a legitimate method for determining vaccine effectiveness.
Here is a study I will accept:
NEJM Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
So you have literally the most damaging vaccine ever created as measured by VAERS and your solution is to dismiss all this evidence as imaginary? Like I said before, change the goalposts to fit the narrative so it seems
You do know that VAERS alone is a suitable database for drawing that conclusion right?
The VAERS website itself says on the first page:
Yet here you are, using VAERS in a way that it itself cautions against. Why do you believe its legitimate to do that?
On the page: Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data, it reads:
No cause-and-effect relationship established. Anybody can report to VAERS. On and on. To use any of the VAERS data to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship, you'd have to verify the veracity of the report, rule out other possible causes, etc, etc. All of which is impossible to do with VAERS alone.
Another disclaimer on the VAERS site reads:
You have to wade through a lot of warning about how to not interpret this data in order to go ahead and interpret the data in exactly the way the site itself warns against. I would say that's dishonest.
What exists that is better?
Ahhh....so you ARE referring to VAERS data. It doesn't matter if anything else exists, if you use a database that itself says it could be inaccurate and that causal links can't be inferred, then your results and conclusions are literally garbage.
From Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data:
From the Disclaimer on the dataset page:
So you think that you can use information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, and unverifiable to draw conclusions about causal connections?
I want to know how you justify that.
You're still not quoting anything. You're just lying, glowie.
haha. keep telling yourself that. Like I said, you have no facts on your side, just misleading memes.
Here's a quote directly from the Canadian government document cited:
You cited nothing
You can say that. You can believe that if you want, I don't really care. Keep posting foolish memes, demonstrating your idiocy. I don't care. That's on you.
I don't believe anything. I know the data and I know you're full of shit
What data?
The data from the very report you cited says 9,512 unvaccinated people died of COVID vs 5,708 partially to fully +boosted people over the same period of time.
That's data from the report you cited. That same report said that unvaccinated people were 3 times more likely to die of COVID than vaccinated people.
So what data do you know that shows I'm full of shit? Why won't you just cite it?
One thing I learned the hard way, demographics matter.
As a mixed woman, with more mixed boys they had negative reactions to shots I had taken first with no issue.
Can you provide some data that is more than your limited set of direct observation?
You can look up the vaccine I mentioned? And MMR. African American males have a higher instance of negative reactions.
I witnessed it with my children. You may do your own sourcing.
a) does one perceive proof or does one perceive constant change? What does it imply to suggest "this is proof" while being within perceivable change?
b) can true vs false reasoning define a proof?
c) does the use of implication (if/then) within constant change define proof; when whatever one proves is still constantly changing?
a) does counting represent a suggested want or a perceived need?
b) as ONE within ALL aka form (life) within flow (inception towards death)...does "two" represent a perceivable state or can ONE only ever count other ONEs within the same ALL?
c) if different form within same flow; then doesn't that imply not just being ONE (form) within ALL (flow); but also the ONEness of ALL?
d) what if the few suggest the many to count; hence giving them problems to solve; just to deceive them from comprehending that flow represents the solution for the form within aka ingredient form out of base flow alchemy?
How would you mathematically tackle such a deception?
This is all utter nonsense.
I used the word "suggest" in an academic way to mean that we can make only tentative inferences from the data as it's presented. In fact, the report itself says that the data in the report does not support inferences regarding vaccine effectiveness:
And, yet, that's exactly how the report is used by anti-vaxxers who can't do math and can't read.
The report, the same report used for the 87.5% figure warns:
Which is exactly what was done in the cases I'm talking about and the specific case I referred to.
The report explicitly says, with emphasis:
And, yet, that's exactly what anti-vaxxers do with the data.
This should be an utter embarrassment to people making these arguments, but no, they just ignorantly trundle along providing live examples of Dunning-Kruger.
"this is" implies sensing something; which represents the prerequisite to judge it as "nonsense"; yet suggesting "nothing-sense" contradicts your behavior and you were domesticated to behave this way. Nonsense was suggested to you, and you are using it to deflect anything challenging your lack of comprehension. Nonsense represents a judgmental blanket to sweep anything inconvenient underneath.
One thing within everything cannot sense no thing; yet the many keep parroting "nonsense" to each other without questioning why? Can you?
The "way" for temporary life represents being moved from inception towards death; which implies ongoing motion, and it's that flow that communicates inspiration to those within for adaptation. PRESENT (presented by) -ATION (action) implies being the presented to reaction; hence form within flow; choice within balance; temporary within ongoing; resistance within velocity; potential within potentiality; magnetic within electric; perceiving within perceivable; ONE within ALL.
The deception underneath "making" represents suggested creationism (implies out of nothing); which ignores perceived transmutation (implies out of everything) aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka ingredient form out of base flow alchemy.
In short...you cannot "make" any suggestion without shaping it out of already perceivable inspiration aka the origin of data (things given). You represent the lack of comprehension within everything perceivable impressed upon you. What's missing is your frequency of choice to compress (comprehension) the impressed (perception) for expression, and all of suggested academia is utilized to suppress you from expressing yourself.
FACT, noun [Latin factum, from facio, to make or do.] - "an act". As choice you represent a reaction to being enacted upon. Perceiving implies being in response to the perceivable. The suggested "in fact" ignores the perceived "within fact". You exist within everything already predefined with the temporary choice to express it; hence growing the seed of ONE within the soil of ALL.
RE (response) PORT (from porto; to carry in form). Form carries (life) itself within flow (inception towards death) by resisting; not by following the suggested reports of others towards death.
VAC'CINE, adjective [Latin vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.] Very effective for topsoil production and of course bullshit (fertilizer); not so much by mooing after the pied piper of pharmaceutical (crude oil based barbiturates) genocide through suggestion.
It's flow that represents the cause for every formed effect within...not suggested vaccines.
Vaxxer vs anti-vaxxer represents the rebranded want vs not want conflict of reason; caused by consent to either want or not want suggested "vaxxines" It's that conflict of reason that is being utilized as a battery to fuel the vaccine agenda, and which side the cattle is consenting to moo from is irrelevant to the agenda.
Again...where do we perceive the need to count and what can ONE within the ONEness of ALL count? How about this...explain to me the perceivable 0 (zero) as communicated by nature to our senses?
What writings has nature published? What words is nature communicating to those within? Does the perceived sound exist before the suggested word? Why do you feel so comfortable to perpetuate the suggested fiction you read from others; yet seem to ignore questioning the perceived reality?
A warning represents a suggested outcome; which ignores that death represents the predefined outcome of life; hence life not being outcome oriented; but a response to origin for the sustenance of self until reaching predefined outcome.
Why suggest a FIG'URE, noun [Latin figura, from figo, to fix or set.; to feign aka fiction]; when we are being moved within the perceivable reality? Isn't 87.5% just less of ONE within ALL?
All suggested information represents misinterpretation of perceived inspiration (data)...if consented to.
Please make an argument that makes sense.
a) if you can read it...you have sensed it.
b) ARGUE (reason) MENT (mind; memory)...a reasoning (want vs not want) memory ignores perceived balance (need/want) for suggested imbalance (want vs not want).
c) is "two" perceivable or was it suggested by one who counted other ones? How could my senses perceive "two" if everything perceivable represents a difference?
Instead of regurgitating what others suggested you; why not challenging yourself with the foundation of math? A mathematical instrument implies being played within the same source of sound. Let's talk about that source aka the perceived solution; instead of the suggested problems...
I don't even read this word salad anymore. You remind me of one those homeless guys scribbling madly in a notebook and you wonder, hmmm, what are they writing? You walk by and see that its all just gibberish.
Yet; the want to confirm disagreement still tempts replies.
Judging something while moving on (as life towards death) ignores that anything represents an expression of perceived everything; which you willingly ignore growing your comprehension within; when passing judgements and moving on.
"Babylon, the wonder of all tongues". If only the many would comprehend the perceived sound underneath the suggested words...they wouldn't wonder so much.
Next attempt to stay on topic...if everything perceivable represents energy, and those within perceiving it represent a differentiated ingredient out of the same solution, then how could there be suggested mathematical problems?
Can you tell me anything about the foundation of math? Doesn't suggesting problems within perceivable solution sound like MATH, noun - "a mowing; as in aftermath" aka suggested artificial problems in ignorance of a perceived natural solution?
How could choice at the center of balance be homeless? How could the perceiving within the perceivable be homeless? How could ONE within ALL be homeless?
No response required.
That's cute, apparently you can just change the goalposts to fit your needs. Not very scientific.
I didn't change any goalposts. Show me anybody stating that the vaccines are 95% effective vs Delta or Omicron. You made the claim, now you can try to back it up.
I never made this claim. I simply cited the 95% claim used to sell this dangerous experimental gene therapy to laypeople. You introduced the concept of variants which I never acknowledged as a valid construct.
If you don't accept the fact that viruses change over time, then you literally know nothing about viruses.
I never said that
Here is what you said:
Yes. That doesn't mean I don't it's possible just that I don't believe their covid variants.
What's not to believe about them? Viruses mutate so of course there are variants.
Here's a study:
Local occurrence and fast spread of B.1.1.7 lineage: A glimpse into Friuli Venezia Giulia.
On what basis do you gainsay this study?
All of this is just, what? Fake?
Nextstrain
All you do is naysay science then claim you aren't a science denier. The science here is overwhelming. You have to be a fool to deny it.
So internet troll "KiloRomeo" doesn't acknowledge variants as a valid construct, but this paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the top two or three medical journals in the world says:
The authors:
I would argue each and every one of them alone has more knowledge and expertise than internet troll "KiloRomeo" who claims to have "done the math" a "long time ago" (in a galaxy far, far away?).
Your pretentiousness is almost as laughable as your utter ignorance, dude. Put up your so-called "math" or I won't believe a word of what you say.
Stop projecting. You claim to be the expert, be the expert. So far all I see is personal attacks and no follow through.
Where did I claim to be an expert? I claim to be able to do very simple, rudimentary math which anti-vaxxers apparently are deficient in.
I don't have a lab in my wood shop to run experiments on coronavirus variants. I leave that up to actual experts.
This has nothing to do with my argument. I see anti-vaxxers making false and misleading claims, distorting studies, and misinterpreting statistics. Thus the title: Please learn math. If you're refusing to get vaccinated so you can stick it the man, more power to you. I respect that. Just don't misrepresent statistics in embarrassingly false ways to do it. Stand up and say: I refuse to take the vaccine for moral, political, whatever reasons. That makes sense.
Since you keep ignoring my question on which vaccine research you trust, I’m just going to interject here. Stop using the term “anti-vaxxer”. Or I will just sling a term back at you: “science denier”. That’s you. You don’t understand math, immunity, virology, evolution, the list goes on.
Vaccines aren’t science and they don’t work. If they did, they’d be 100% effective and you could force/manipulate/encourage people into taking them because, you know, there would be irrefutable proof of their usefulness. But you can’t because they aren’t scientifically effective and that doesn’t even take into account all of the adverse injuries and death associated with vaccines. Unless you can point me to a study that shows vaccinated people aren’t getting sick from COVID, the seasonal flu, polio, etc. But you can’t because those vaccines don’t work either. In fact, they prolong these illnesses. Look at the explosion of polio in Africa, the increased rates of autism after MMR vaccines.
What do you understand about the immune system? Herd immunity? When viruses mutate, if you believe in germ theory, they become less deadly and more communicable. Our immune response then creates anti-bodies for that virus and the cycle continues, as it has for millennia. So why force people into ineffective vaccines when nature runs its course and eliminates the threat. You have to trust your body’s immune response, or does the immune system no longer exist?
I don’t think you fully comprehend what’s even in COVID vaccines. Since you’re a mathematician, are you denying that VAERS, and these studies showing increased rates of hospitalizations and death associated with vaccinated people? Do you deny Pfizer’s own trial papers that are releasing showing people died and were injured during their trials? Do you refute the 9 pages of side effects associated with COVID experimental injections? If you’re denying it, what’s your proof that the vaccines work? That the numbers you refute are false? That trial research from the vaccine makers themselves is wrong? You can pick and choose numbers here and there and yell “anti-vaxxer!!” but you’re a science denier.
I’ve known loads of vax shills such as yourself over the years. You all resort to falsehoods, name calling, seething with a little side of cope. You’re a pawn, a mouthpiece for the billion dollar companies that love useful idiots such as yourself.
Source: I’ve never been vaccinated and, miraculously, I’m still alive.
I just scrolled through all the replies I've received and I don't see any others from you. I haven't ignored your question.
I literally cite the science on this. Here is a study from one of the top medical journals in the world:
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
You will immediately gainsay this scientific study (just watch) published in a top science journal, recognized by top scientists all over the world, but then call me the "science denier." That's truly, truly Orwellian, dude.
Literally an unsupported claim hurled in utter desperation to protect your cherished biases.
Hmmm....in addition to the New England Journal of Medicine article above, let's see what else we can find on this, shall we?
Here is a 1965 British Medicine Journal study on the pertussis vaccine, which as is noted in the discussion:
You aren't a science denier, right? But...right...you will absolutely deny this science.
JAMA, another top journal published the research on the effectiveness of polio vaccines, but unfortunately that's behind a paywall. But it's there if you want to buy it.
Here's an article on measles vaccines:
Effectiveness of measles vaccination and vitamin A treatment
Which states:
All this readily found on the internet (google scholar works well). But you aren't an "anti-vaxxer," right? You understand all this science-y stuff better than even the scientists, I guess.
So saying "vaccines aren't science and they don't work" isn't being an anti-vaxxer? It isn't being anti-science when peer reviewed science journals have published hundred, thousands of studies on the effectiveness of vaccines.
Back to not understanding math. Every damn time. Look, the idea is to reduce the contagion rate to below 1, so the number of infected people decreases instead of increases. So a vaccine doesn't have to be 100% effective to protect the community. That doesn't mean nobody will be infected, but it does mean fewer and fewer people will be infected. Which is better than just letting everybody get infected. (don't start on "herd immunity," I guarantee you will misrepresent that concept as well).
Can you cite a scientific study on "adverse injuries and death associated with vaccines?"
I found this study straight away:
Vaccine Adverse Events: Separating Myth from Reality
That article says this:
No mention of "deaths associated with vaccines." I did notice you used the term "associated with" giving you wiggle room because you know there's no causal relationship.
Vaccines virtually eradicated polio in the US. Again, you're making many claims. Where are the peer reviewed studies supporting your claims? It's just a lot of words strung together unless you have scientific evidence. (A polio outbreak in Africa is not evidence of the ineffectiveness of vaccines.)
oop. There it is. Herd immunity. I'm pretty sure you have no clue what herd immunity is. Here's some science to help you:
Herd immunity is an important—and often misunderstood—public health phenomenon
National Academy of SCIENCE. You aren't going to deny more science are you?
What studies? If these studies exist, why don't you explicitly cite them? I bet because they aren't science. I can say without even reading them that they aren't science, because scientists wouldn't use VAERS to establish any causal links between vaccines and vaccine injuries. How do I know that? Because VAERS itself says the data on that site isn't suitable for that purpose:
More from VAERS site itself:
From page, Guide to Interpreting VAERS data:
[emphasis in original.]
So tell me more about studies based on VAERS data. Seriously, if you didn't know this about VAERS already, then you are just ignorant about the science related to vaccines. If you did know this about VAERS, then you're a liar. No respectable scientist would ever base a conclusion of causation on VAERS data. So if you have accepted studies based on VAERS data, you've been duped by liars.
Now that you know this, you can stop citing VAERS data. Because to continue to cite VAERS data when VAERS itself says not to, is dishonest. And you don't want to be dishonest, do you?
Did you really think I would fall for these anti-vaxxer talking points? Come on. This stuff only works on red pilled, down the rabbit hole crowd.
You need a citation. I can't deny or not deny if I can't read the trial papers.
I know there's side effects. I've been injected 3 times, so I know by experience. Please link to your sources (as I have done).
I'm inclined to respond with the thought-killer: "do your own research" from the anti-vaxxer crowd. But I won't. I will help you get a start on that research.
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: findings from real world studies
Effectiveness of mRNA and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes with variants of concern in Ontario
Note on above; this is a preview copy and didn't go through peer review and says so up front in bold letters which is what hones publishers would do.
Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care Settings
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines over a 9-Month Period in North Carolina
Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization — Five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, United States, February 1–August 6, 2021
Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing Hospitalization Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years — COVID-NET, 13 States, February–April 2021
Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥65 Years — United States, January–March 2021
Efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection: interim results of a living systematic review, 1 January to 14 May 2021
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes with variants of concern in Ontario
Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Delta (B.1.617.2) Variant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies
Comparative Effectiveness of Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations Among Adults Without Immunocompromising Conditions — United States, March–August 2021
Effectiveness of 2-Dose Vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Hospitalizations Among Immunocompromised Adults — Nine States, January–September 2021
This isn't even close to all the studies out there demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccines. I've provided a nice sampling of the SCIENCE on this topic. I ACCEPT this science (thus I am not a science denier).
Here is start for you to do your own research on this topic:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=effectiveness+of+COVID+vaccines&btnG=
Now please provide me with your list of peer reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate that the vaccines are not effective or cause serious injury/death. PEER REVIEWED. I am not going to wade through pseudoscientific junk. I spent too much time doing your research for you here.
Show me a single paper that is done by an entlty that is not financed, connected, or dependend on BigPharma or state Health institutions. Show me a replication of a single paper that is done by an entlty that is not financed, connected, or dependend on BigPharma or state Health institutions
You don't understand, that everything you linked here is a solid proof that all that vaccinehoax is not a science at all.
Scientific papers are published to present some research to other scientists. Presenting your research to other scientists is necessary for independent replication of researsch. If you have no independent replication of your research, publication of your research says absolutely nothing about validity of your research. Only when other scientists repeat your experiments and get exactly same results, your research could be named valid and your theory could be accounted as correct.
Science is not about publishing papers. It is about repeateability of experiment that prove or disprove some theory. Repeateability of experiment is the only proof that your research is valid. If nobody independently replicated your research and get the same results - it is unscientific to declare that your theory is correct.
There are no any single independent replication of any paper somehow connected with coronahoax at all. Medical "science" have lowest replication rate of published papers among all other areas. Moreover, even if rare medical papers replicated even by not-so-independent, but just another group of scientists, their results in most cases contradictes with initial paper. That is named "replication crisis", many sane people tried to point on this greatest problem in medicine, but was shut down by medical establishment. But with coronahoax we see a total zero of independent replications.
So, if you want to talk about science, you choose completely wrong area. Medicine is not a science for a long time already. There is only theories that is not supported by independent replication of experiments.
Published papers prove absolutely nothing if described experiments was not replicated by independent researchers with same result.
There is nothing to discuss at all. You have no any clue what science is and how it works. It is funny to see how you try to replace science with some kind of stupid religion with "published papers" as sacred writings and people financed by BigPharma and state health institutions as "priests", having no any idea what is all that really about.
You all keep making these claims, but I see nothing to back up the claim. I've cited dozens of papers in this thread. Why don't you go through and list the funding sources for each of them.
The funding source of a study alone doesn't discredit the study. The studies lay out their entire methodology so they can be replicated. Some of these papers have dozens of authors named on them. You have to believe that all of those authors, all of those research institutions, all of those journals are willing to bend the truth and risk their reputations by doing shoddy science.
State health departments? Seriously? Come on, of course state health departments are going to fund research on COVID, it's literally their job. You are literally ruling out all sources of funding.
Says anonymous internet troll "Crazy Russian."
You have no idea what you're talking about. Papers published in prestigious research journals undergo peer review. Experts in the field review the methodology and analysis before a paper is accepted for publication. If you think there's a problem with the study, then why aren't anti-vaxxer "scientists" replicating them and showing them to be false and publishing their results? They could do that. Instead, se see armchair experts poo pooing valid studies published in prestigious journals on the basis of nothing, just the possibility that there is some vast conspiracy including scientists, the top medical journals in the world, and top research institutions. All lying to get people to take vaccines. Literally, a bonkers position.
And what is the purpose of this grand conspiracy? What interest does the state have in getting people vaccinated other than preventing a pandemic that kills people and destroys the economy? You reject studies financed by the state, but the state has to pay for all these vaccines. It makes no sense at all.
I wonder if you cast the same critical eye at all studies supported by Big Oil? All those fake studies that purport to debunk global warming? You reject those, too, right?
Papers present finding of science.
Theories are not "declared" correct. That's not how science works. Every study either supports or doesn't support a hypothesis. It is absolutely scientific to declare that the study either did support or did not support a hypothesis.
How do you know that? Do you think all replicative studies are also published? They are not. What is your source for your claim that there's been no replication of the findings of any paper? There are literally hundreds, thousands of papers. Have you read them all to see if they support or don't support findings of previous papers? If not, then how can you make this claim?
So you only accept replication of studies done by independent groups of non-scientists? You are entwining yourself in an ideology so airtight that there is no way to refute it. You won't accept science because by the rules you set up, there is no way to prove things that don't confirm your bias. I doubt you are so critical when you accept studies based on data pulled from the VAERS website. Right? All these independent non-scientists cherry picking data from a site that literally disclaims that its data is likely to contain inaccuracies is the kind of science you can accept.
Not true. You have made this up. But papers do have to be replicable. So anti-vaxxer scientists can go out and disprove them. Why don't they?
So says anonymous internet troll "Crazy Russian." I'll take his word over the word of dozens of scientists publishing in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.
Why don't you start a "science-y" journal and publish your debunks of all these, hundreds and thousands of papers published in prestigious medical journals? You clearly know more about science than all of these scientists who actually have science jobs.
I checked. Found none independent researches. At all.
And no any replications. Zero. Nobody checked researches published by BigPharma/state researchers.
Do you know what is "peer review"? Peer review does not mean that research is valid. It does not even mean that it is really done. It just a check that there is no any obvious mistakes, and that's all. Peer rewievers do not replicate experiments, so they just can't confirm paper at all.
Moreover, none of that paper will pass a peer review of, say, physics scientists. The first their question to the paper will be - "how did you isolate effect of vaccine from other effects like natural immunity, medication, other substances in the vaccine and other stuff? You did not demonstrate that declared effect if exactly from vaccine active component only and not from other possible variables". Next will be - "how do you infect your test subjects with virus to enshure that it is really declared disease vaccine have to prevent". And so on.
Exactly. If a theory have no repeateable experimental confirmation, it is probably bad, wrong theory thinked out by some swindlers.
If you don't have any clue about the deep black ass medicine drowned to, try to read something about replication crisis in medicine. Medicine is the worst among all other sciences. Somwhere near sociology and psychology.
Of course. That is the point. If you declare in your research that some treatment works, then this should be checked by an independent researches, that in no way have any connections to those who connected with you and those who interested in confirmation.
Person who create sentences where every part contradicts all other either insane, either propagandist.
I don't care what is your religious beliefs at all.
No independent replication of experiments - nothing to discuss.
"Why don't you create your own Twitter (i.e. state, banks, money, networks, powerplants, etc.)?" :)
You see, people? That's all you need to know about propagandists. Final argument always fall to some kind of monopoly or "consensus". :)
Yes. Because I'm a scientist and engineer and doing science and engineering job nearly everyday. That thing, that is happening in medicine is not a science at all. "We made some device, we absolutely have no clue how it really works, but we give 100 devices to 100 people and ask them to shake device. Then we found that women have 20% more green LED activated than men. Few people died for unknown reasons. So this device could be used to safely and effectively detect women.". Every single paper you posted looks like that. That is how medical science look like today. That is why medical science is complete bullshit and garbage. That is why it should be deeply reformed and forcefully returned to the strict scientific methods.
That depends on your definition of "independent." Also, I don't believe you. What were the funding sources of each study?
That's not how it works. Replications aren't necessarily published unless they show the study wasn't replicated (as was the case with Wakefield or cold fusion).
Yes, I do. I have experienced peer review. Have you? Peer review is more than what you think it is. Will it catch everything? No, there have been peer reviewed studies that were later retracted after publication. But having experts in the field review your work before publication is not just formality. It's an important check on validating a study.
And certainly a study going through peer review is to be taken more serious than a study that does not.
Ooops. You let the facade slip there. Can't take you seriously. Physics scientists would say they aren't qualified to peer review a paper on epidemiology or virology. This is a meaningless, nonsense assertion. I really don't need to read on from this point. You pretty much discredited everything else you're going to say.
You don't understand science. Not even the basics.
But you don't believe any scientists are actually independent because they might be financed by the state. I'll let the "non-scientist" thing slide, but what you said was non-scientists.
It's pretty clear that you are not an engineer and you are not a scientist. You don't understand even the difference between hypothesis and theory.
Zzzz. It’s the same thing every time with you vax whores.
You cite Big Pharma sponsored “research” and “studies” and wonder why people call you out on your presumptions.
If you can’t see what is happening around you, right now, with all cause mortality rising worldwide at the same time routine/scheduled vaccines are thrown at kids in amounts much higher from even 10 or 20 years ago, then your awesome “modern medicine” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and it doesn’t work. Careful, don’t say all cause is up because of covid, that’s got a 99.9% survival rate. Hmm, what could be causing all this death?
Until next time. I look forward to your sad response to the fact that Big Pharma (BioNTech) is warning their investors about share prices tanking (which is really what all of this is about, it’s got nothing to do with health or “science”) because their trials were worthless and misrepresentative, and that their injections are neither safe nor effective. Now why would that happen? Better check their math and go get those boosters.
You don't like the term "anti-vaxxer" but "vax whores" is legitimate? Ok.
You are making a fallacious attack on these studies. Instead of dealing with the substance of these scientific studies, you discount them because of your assumption of sponsorship. First, I don't think you know for sure that all these studies are sponsored by "Big Pharma." Second, even if some or even all of them are, they still have to pass peer review to be published in a prestigious journal like JAMA or BMJ or NEJM, or any of these journals. So you have to believe in a widespread conspiracy composed of the most prestigious journals on earth as well as all these prestigious research institutions willing to go along with "Big Pharma" and publish false studies.
What you don't do is offer any substantive criticisms of the research. You just throw out a thought-killer, "Big Pharma," as your cognitive shield to defend your cherished presuppositions.
Let's see. Here's this article: Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant
Who do you think sponsored this study?
Here are the disclosure forms . You will notice that one of the authors, not one of the main authors (authors are listed in order of contribution), has listed an unrelated Pfizer grant. Do your experts provide disclosure forms?
Source, please?
You’re the research expert. Do your own fucking research on the source, Pharma Puppet.
What a surprising response.
Ok. That's fine. You can not believe me. I don't care.
"Numberology?" You mean math and science? Yes, I respect math and science. I also respect principled stands, which is why when someone says they won't get the vaccine our of principle, I don't argue with them. That's fine. I disagree with them, but if they feel that out of principle against state mandates as infringement on their liberty, I'm not arguing against their position on that. The proof of that is in the pudding.
I'm fighting out here against misinformation. If someone says, "I won't take the vaccine because I won't be coerced or socially pressured," I don't care. That's an honest take.
But when people spread falsehoods that other people might believe, falsehoods based on lies, then, yes, I will fight that fight against falsehood, manipulation, and disinformation. It is dishonest and unethical to lie. I will fight against that.
I care about the truth. Further, it is a threat to the health of the community I live in, not to mention the health of people who are close to me and more at-risk of contracting severe, life-threatening infection.
What the hell are you even talking about? What "credentialed men" are you talking about. I cite credentialed men and even some women ALL THE TIME.
There are bunch here that I site:
Effectiveness of COVID vaccines
I haven't seen in any response to me a single "credentialed man" cited. The article I criticized was not by a "credentialed man," but an uncredentialed liar. I have no patience for uncredentialed liars.
Ummm....ok. I'm not sure you are actually sane. No, it's science, it's not a "cult ritual."
No, actually you don't. There was no statistical analyses done on those numbers. I am talking about math, straight up numbers. How many of these vs how many of those. Just math, yes math that used some very simple stats (like percentages), but no stats to determine causation or even correlation. So I think you don't know much about either math or statistics.
Everything does come down to math. The problem with statisticians is they don't rationalize the denominator. I just can't even go there.
Math is stupid? ok. That doesn't actually go against my position that anti-vaxxers don't understand math.
More utter nonsense. Not a single point worth arguing.
I agree with you on this point- there's a lot of bad references floating around. Though, there's also a LOT of bad policy and bad support for the vaccine. If our goal is to be objective then we need to condemn dogma where it exists.
Of course we should condemn dogma. I have yet to see where the support for the vaccine is "bad policy." You won't show your "math" and I have literally read hundreds of links that anti-vaxxers put up purporting to be "studies" showing the vaccines to be ineffective at best, harmful at worst. Of all those links, not one stands up to even the most cursory of examination.
Show me THE BEST study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the COVID vaccines. I will read it and consider it. But I am not an epidemiologist or a virologist. I doubt that you are either and when we have studies like this:
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
we should have substantial reasons for rejecting it. Not conspiracies about the "western medicine establishment" that won't sanctify drinking urine or eating placentas as sound preventative health practices because they want to sell more drugs to people. (And, yes, absolutely, many drugs are overprescribed, physicians get taken in by drug companies, too, yes, I'm not saying those problems don't exist.)
it is ludicrous to trust an anonymous person on the internet doing the math on vaccine efficacy over the work of experts in the field, openly publishing their work in prestigious journals for the whole world to see, consider, and critique.
I don't trust "experts" i trust experts
You mean you don't trust the actual experts who have studied their subjects for nearly a decade just to earn their PhDs then have secured prestigious research positions and publish their work in prestigious research journals where other "experts" working at other prestigious research institutions review their work prior to publication and either reject it or mark corrections to be made before the research is published in said presitigious journal?
No, your experts publish on blogs on the internet or made up anti-vax journals that are not held in high regard by the scientific community and are not reviewed by people who earned their PhDs after nearly a decade of higher education and do not work at prestigious research institutions. Those are your experts.
It's literally irrational. If I'm wrong, cite one of your experts. Cite yourself and provide the "math" you did on the effectiveness of vaccines. Don't give me studies based on VAERS, I have demonstrated already how and why using that data to make causal links between "vaccine injuries" and vaccines is entirely spurious and outright dishonest. So if your number are based on VAERS, be prepared to defend why you are using a database that itself says shouldn't be used for that purpose.
You keep saying I'm wrong and that all this research in all these prestigious scientific journals is wrong, but you have yet to cite a single study or even a single fact to support your position.
I don't trust the experts the TV tells me to trust, only trust good research. Fo you have any or are you still relying upon personal attacks and dogma?
I have literally cited dozens of studies all that are "good research."
I don't think you are any kind of judge of what "good research" is when you defend using VAERS for your "math" on the effectiveness of COVID vaccines.
This isn't dogma. This isn't personal attacks. I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your foolish arguments. That isn't a personal attack. That is discourse. Am I harsh? Yes! I have to put up with ridiculous arguments like not accepting that COVID variants exist or that using VAERS data is legitimate research or that scientific studies published in the most prestigious medical journals on Earth aren't "good research."
You are all defending the right to lie to people. That's all you are doing. You don't trust ACTUAL science but you do trust your own "experts" (who you won't cite) who make up shit on the internet. Believe me, I have had the patience of Job reading and responding to these absolutely bonkers replies. If you took any biology course at any college or university and tried to make any of these arguments, you would be laughed out of the lecture hall.
"Excuse me, Professor, but I have not accepted the construct of COVID variants."
Literally. It's laughable, then you are hurt and think I am personally attacking you because I call you out on absolute BULLSHIT that you post on here. I mean it's ludicrous. I mean, you'd be laughed out of HIGH SCHOOL classrooms. But here, where we are supposed to be adults who can read and critically examine sources and think for ourselves, I'm supposed to be patient with absolute bonkers arguments.
I have been called all sorts of names. vax whore, being the latest. I don't cry about personal attacks. If someone only makes personal attacks I completely disregard what they have to say (for example @DavidColeIntrepid, I don't know how to tag people). But any substance, with insults or not, I will respond to as long as I have time.
The true goal of the vax is to give you a hope spot before they crush it and tell you that you will be locked down anyways.
Nothing has been done against this.
Instead of the vaccines, we should be more concerned how we will roll over and die no matter what "we did".
This is like a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we had followed medical advice from the start, we could have thwarted the virus early. But the health community said if we didn't thwart this then the virus would continually to mutate out of control. That's exactly what happened. The more times a virus replicates, the more opportunity it has to mutate into more lethal variants. It's all about the math.
To be fair, the problem wasn't just the population of crazy, math and science phobic Americans. Even if the US had complied with health experts, huge populations around the world weren't adequately vaccinated giving the virus ample opportunity to mutate. So we're not entirely on the hook for all of this (though we could have done more to help the world get vaccinated).
We missed that window of opportunity so now we're living with the virus. The vaccine isn't 100% or even 90% effective against new variants. Maybe over time the vaccine will be less and less effective vs the virus. The flu vaccine is sometimes only 40% effective. But we're living with this thing now, so that's how it will be.
Keep arguing against the vaccine. Don't get vaccinated. I don't care. What I care about is that numbers aren't misrepresented. It's about the math. Please learn math.
Where exactly do you think you are pal?
This website is a proving ground for psyops and disinformation. The Christian fox news boomer is quite literally the most gullible species on the planet, and this is one of several websites that aim to influence them knowing full well that the "do your research" crowd literally believes their Twitter feed constitutes a source.
This fucking clown got vaxxed.
Nah he trusted the science, and he will pay the price.
Or he came from the government and is going to enlighten us about more psychopath logic.
"Blaming the Victim for their own woes."
The last time I see someone do this, it's when Junko Enoshima or the Joker from the Dark Knight is going to ruin some lives.
Nah, he just dunked on you with scorching accuracy.
Tick tock, vaxxer.
So sad that you dorks desperately need people to drop dead just so you can be right. Sorry idiot, I’ve been vaccinated for a year and I’m in perfect health.
I’m actually sorry you were tricked into getting the jab. Hopefully it doesn’t cause you any adverse effects and/or death. Take solace in knowing that, no matter what happens to you, your vax manufacturer got paid. Good luck!
100%.
oh dang. I think I should have taken a left at Albuquerque.