A few years back, during the small but well-publicized measles outbreak, I had discussions with two individuals. One discussion was with a person that thought all vaccines should be mandatory, let’s call him person A, and another discussion was with someone that was against all vaccinations, let’s call her person B.
Yes, exactly right: "I did not try to convince her that vaccinations were safe; I could not. Safety was a function of risk. There were risks and that was undeniable. But there were also benefits. Every person needs to do their own cost-benefit analysis and decide whether getting vaccinated is for them."
The biggest part of the risk:benefit equation is treatment. If there are effective, safe treatments, then why accept any risk from a vaccine?
This is why the pharma propaganda needs to suppress all effective treatments for covid (of which there are many), just as they suppress effective treatments for the other diseases we vaccinate against.
When we were deciding which vaccines to give our son, we looked at treatments, and were satisfied that we could treat any diseases or problems that might arise, that the risk from properly-treated illness was less than from the vaccine.
As we were taking our son home from the hospital, another baby went into convulsions, likely from the HepB they give at birth.
I dislike the reference to VigiAcces because By Year data can discredit it. Why are there even any entries for "covid-19 vaccine" in pre-vaccine rollout years? I do agree with the notion that the adverse effects are in abundance, we have have plenty of proof. But do be careful with citing VigiAccess database.
Yes the problem with these early warning systems is the data cannot be individually verified from the outside. I am not too concerned about that as we are not trying to quantify the frequency of injuries (which we would want the data to be relatively accurate to do); rather, we are looking for signals that something may be wrong. The general trends out of VigiAccess and VAERS/other similar systems (women having more adverse events, the type of adverse events) are reflected pretty well in the scientific literature. There are also enough reports that it would be impossible to verify them all for a regulator... Which should have been a termination point for any medical intervention. Even more concerning is most vaccine injuries do not get reported so even if some reports or false or incorrectly entered, we can be pretty confident this is an understatement of the true population of injuries (and perhaps by multiple orders of magnitude)
Yes, exactly right: "I did not try to convince her that vaccinations were safe; I could not. Safety was a function of risk. There were risks and that was undeniable. But there were also benefits. Every person needs to do their own cost-benefit analysis and decide whether getting vaccinated is for them."
The biggest part of the risk:benefit equation is treatment. If there are effective, safe treatments, then why accept any risk from a vaccine?
This is why the pharma propaganda needs to suppress all effective treatments for covid (of which there are many), just as they suppress effective treatments for the other diseases we vaccinate against.
When we were deciding which vaccines to give our son, we looked at treatments, and were satisfied that we could treat any diseases or problems that might arise, that the risk from properly-treated illness was less than from the vaccine.
As we were taking our son home from the hospital, another baby went into convulsions, likely from the HepB they give at birth.
I dislike the reference to VigiAcces because By Year data can discredit it. Why are there even any entries for "covid-19 vaccine" in pre-vaccine rollout years? I do agree with the notion that the adverse effects are in abundance, we have have plenty of proof. But do be careful with citing VigiAccess database.
https://i.imgur.com/g769mfr.jpg
Yes the problem with these early warning systems is the data cannot be individually verified from the outside. I am not too concerned about that as we are not trying to quantify the frequency of injuries (which we would want the data to be relatively accurate to do); rather, we are looking for signals that something may be wrong. The general trends out of VigiAccess and VAERS/other similar systems (women having more adverse events, the type of adverse events) are reflected pretty well in the scientific literature. There are also enough reports that it would be impossible to verify them all for a regulator... Which should have been a termination point for any medical intervention. Even more concerning is most vaccine injuries do not get reported so even if some reports or false or incorrectly entered, we can be pretty confident this is an understatement of the true population of injuries (and perhaps by multiple orders of magnitude)
Understood. Even a glance at https://openvaers.com/covid-data should tell you something is wrong.
Doctors are now saying pericarditis as an adverse reaction is common. Although probably not publicly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/imadgen01/status/1467245175864840196