Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
In that case, we will have a problem, and we should probably flee ground zero taking only what we can carry
Those giraffes hadn't been vaccinated yet: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/z...te-what-killed-2-giraffes-last-month/2810445/
Ross will claim this is a cover up led by Fauci.
It's Peter Daszak that does the cover ups.
Fauci just says anyone who doesn't agree with him is racist.
Consider yourself fact checked.
Last edited:
Just spent a few minutes reading Pfizer's 'Legal Issues' tab on Wikipedia. I encourage everyone who hasn't already to do so. But yeah, we should trust these guys.
They're not all bad.
In their latest FDA briefing they've admitted it's possible that more kids will be hospitalised by vaccine induced myocarditis than by Covid.
Remember when the sheep and the CCP agent kept telling us there was no evidence the vaccines caused myocarditis ?
Do you mean this scenario based one for young people? https://www.fda.gov/media/153507/download
In every scenario, but one where Covid cases are 5% of current, you're more likely to die, end up in ICU, be hospitalised from Covid than get myocarditis?
In every scenario, but one where Covid cases are 5% of current, you're more likely to die, end up in ICU, be hospitalised from Covid than get myocarditis?
Considering you posted something that wasn't true, again. The one who got fact checked, again, was you.
Cool story. But then you get to slide 21 "by the way, we have no idea how to accurately determine anything we just told you, it's basically a bunch of bullshit we've made up, but as long as you pay me then it is what it is, don't forget to send the monies, thank you come again".
No that's not the one. It's on page 33 of a different report.
Wrong again Dumbo.
It's the same report, mine was the visualisation of it.
It was fine when it backed up the agenda, but not when it doesn't...kinda like the giraffes.
Yeah, your study wasn't fine, it was laughably shit. So you should ask yourself why they are using shit to support their points. If their point was accurate, and you believe it is accurate, then why not just demonstrate it with actual science? Why would you produce literal shit instead, then misrepresent it to people as science?
You were the one that brought the study up?
I brought up the admission made in it.
Which you got wrong?
This is a really bizarre conversation, are you reading something else?
I'll type it out then.
Under Scenario 3 (lowest incidence) the model predicts more excess hospitalisations due to vaccine related myocarditis / pericarditis compared to prevented hospitalisations due to Covid-19.
Hansern said he got it wrong, perhaps that is what confused you. The only things that are wrong are the study and hansern.
Scenario 3 is where Covid cases are 5% of what they currently are.
They're predictions based on a number of potential changes in incidence rates, the only scenario saying it's not better to get the vaccine is where the Covid case numbers are down by 95%
Do you understand what they mean by "scenario"? It means they don't have any idea what the risk or the benifit is, so they pick a number out of their arse, run it, and plot the graph. They did 6. This is the 6th: Scenario 6 (Lower Excess Myocarditis Rate): rate of excess myocarditis cases is 50% lower than that for ages 12-17 years from OPTUM. Why not use a higher case rate for the risk? That'd be scenario 7 and it'd conclude that the vaccine risk oughtweighs the benefit. No shit sherlock. If I had nothing better to do, I could try out about 300,000 scenarios before boredom took hold. Because it's just random numbers pulled out of an arsehole, half will favour the risk and half will favour the benefit. It's complete bullshit, and yet you are there drawing some sort of conclusion from the scenario good/bad ratio count.