Stupid shit in Medellin

[PedroMorales]

Anyone can easily determine whether or not the vaccine poses a greater risk than Covid. It's something most people regularly do and use when making decisions.

In the US there have been 57 million cases of Covid and over 200 million people are fully vaccinated. Roughly, if you're from the US, you know about 4 times as many people who are vaccinated, than people who have had Covid.

Do you know anyone who has had a serious case of Covid? Do you know anyone who has died from Covid? How many of each?

Take those 2 numbers and multiply each by 4. How many people do you know who have had a serious illness caused by the vaccine? How many do you know who died from the vaccine?

It's that simple. You don't have to rely on anyone else to try to influence your opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONH-...%27sWarStories

Goddamit Bee you're a goddam genius. That is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddam IQ of 160. You are goddam gifted, J Bee.

So many geniuses here. One was going well but used more similes than most could imagine. He'd fit right into any professorial job, explaining Covid like so:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate.

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May.

And summer's lease hath all too short a date.

O my Luve's like a red, red rose.

That's newly sprung in June;.

O my Luve's like the melodie.

That's sweetly play'the in tune.

[Nounce]

...the virus was still present in those people who were infected and could mutate in those people and then spread....

Is this the absolute truth in your opinion?

...Yeah, there was some benefit with the vaccine early on but now it literally does nothing...

It seems to me that this statement is assuming the vaccine development is static.

[Dcrist0527]

Consider the what if aspect. Or, if it makes it easier, consider a reasonably small island nation. If enough resources were diverted to that island to vaccinate everyone within 1 month and all travel to the island was very tightly controlled, would that island now be free of Covid?

I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thing to consider. Would Covid, on that island become no worse than the common cold?

Obviously, the question can't be answered with any certainty. The issue would be how the bodies react to said vaccine. But I would say, vaccine alone? No, it would not be wiped out because we saw breakthrough cases, even before the more well known variants. More effective (and just as impractical) would be absolute isolation. If the virus runs its course and has no other host, that would be more effective. But impossible.

As for the common cold hypothesis, that is what is occurring with omicron, no? It's the natural order of things. Did vaccination help get us there? No. (You could actually make a case that the unvaccinated helped us get to that point. Though, obviously, there with significant side effects.) Did vaccines save lives? Yes. But lower virulence is common as viruses mutate.

[Captain Solo]

Guys like JJBee should stop blaming the victims and stop defending criminals. They are doing the bros a disservice and potential great harms downplaying the huge security risks waiting for them by drugging and robbing hookers in Colombia.

3 drugging and robbing incidents happened within a couple days to seasoned mongers. It's obvious hookers in Colombia are professional thieves, out to steal everything from mongers at every chance they have.

It would be a big problem if mongers have their phones, money, wallets, passports stolen. Without money and credit cards how are they going to get emergency passports? How will they explain to their wives, children, bosses, friends that they lost everything and got stuck in putas central Medellin? Worse yet, they may be dead by the putas' drugs.

I suggest the bros be very careful with their wallets and phones while on the streets and in the rooms with hookers.

[JjBee62]

Anyone can easily determine whether or not the vaccine poses a greater risk than Covid. It's something most people regularly do and use when making decisions.

In the US there have been 57 million cases of Covid and over 200 million people are fully vaccinated. Roughly, if you're from the US, you know about 4 times as many people who are vaccinated, than people who have had Covid.

Do you know anyone who has had a serious case of Covid? Do you know anyone who has died from Covid? How many of each?

Take those 2 numbers and multiply each by 4. How many people do you know who have had a serious illness caused by the vaccine? How many do you know who died from the vaccine?

It's that simple. You don't have to rely on anyone else to try to influence your opinion.

[Elvis 2008]

Would you agree that if the everyone one earth was vaccinated in the same month, for example July 2021, the pandemic would be over by now.

Not at all. Delta was the predominant strain then, and the vaccine was not that great with Delta.

Furthermore, Covid is not just in people but animals now and even if humans had complete and lifelong immunity against one strain of Covid, the newer Covid versions could jump species.

Even if you vaccinated everyone on the same date when alpha was present, and the vaccine worked best against alpha, the virus was still present in those people who were infected and could mutate in those people and then spread.

The notion that the vaccine was going to stop the pandemic was a pure pipe dream, and that pipe dream sold by Fauci and Pfizer has made them billions. They knew it was not going to work. Hell, they printed vaccine cards with four entries on them instead of two. When that pipe dream failed as they knew it would, they turned on the unvaccinated and said, "It is your fault it did not work."

Yeah, there was some benefit with the vaccine early on but now it literally does nothing. To me, it is amazing that a vaccine that has been such a failure now is even being discussed.

[Elvis 2008]

The reality is that if you are not getting vaccinated and live in a country where it's widely available you are not making a smart choice. But to mandate a vaccine to protect them from their own bad actions is authoritarianism. It would be one thing if they were still posing a threat to others, but it is very clear that it is getting passed between people regardless of vaccination status. So if people want to be dumb and not get the vaccine that is their own dumb choice. I am fully vaccinated and the pandemic IS over for me. COVID is Endemic and so if you are not getting back to normal life after being vaccinated YOU are the one not following common sense.

I am glad you are anti-mandate Jake, but there is a lot you missed, and that is why that podcast from Dr. Malone was so helpful. The Democratic want to discredit him, but if you listen to the podcast, this man has had Covid twice, had long Covid, and has been vaccinated.

What he has said about the vaccine is what I have observed in real life. It worked great against alpha, so-so with delta, and does nothing with omicron. The hysteria was at a fever pitch with omicron but he said there has not been on death due to omicron. The media had a field day by changing the preposition. There have been people who have died with omicron but not FROM omicron. No one has died FROM omicron.

So now you have sports teams who are fully vaccinated and even have boosters and omicron is ripping through them. Country after country with high vaccination rates are seeing all time high cases of Covid. The good news with this is Covid is following what viruses historically do: getting more contagious and less virulent. So yes, it is endemic but being vaxxed has nothing to do with protection for anyone.

If the virus just stayed in the alpha phase, there is a case that could have made for vaccine mandates. Now there is none. Fauci just said today if you are not triple vaxxed, you are not vaxxed, which is a purely evil statement. At this point, you are handing out a vaccine with no benefit and terrible side effects. If ever there was proof that Fauci was owned by drug companies / vaccine manufacturers, today is that day.

Dr. Malone said when he first saw the virus, he thought drugs not the vaccine would be the way to go. He took over the counter Pepcid and got better and is now doing a study with that. China, who knew more about the drug than anyone, had a cocktail of drugs that they used early on including hydroxycholoroquine. India had a package that included ivermectin, and that package of drugs completely arrested the horrible spread going on there.

He also talked about the malaria belt in Africa and how ivermectin and HCQ are being used there, and there is no denying that part of Africa has been spared from Covid. So all in all, things are positive IMO.

Joe Rogan got sick with Covid when delta was rampant. He called up a doctor probably Dr. McCollough who was on his show and asked what should I do? According to JR, he was very sick. JR was given antibodies, ivermectin, prednisone, azithromycin, and some vitamin drips. In his words, he was better in a date. So he has been asking why is the treatment that worked so well for him not being discussed? Why is it all vaccines all the time? He was even pressured to get vaccinated and asked why when he has natural immunity that is better than vaccine immunity.

As for you, your being fully vaccinated is completely irrelevant as to what is going on today. I have seen tons of people who are vaccinated with Covid, a hospital staff had a Christmas party with its fully vaccinated workers and 25% came down with Covid. This is common.

I get why. You want to believe something even if it is not true, and that is part of what is called "mass formation psychosis" that Dr. Malone talked about, and nowhere has that been worse than with the vaccines. Here you had the vaccines, you did what was told, you were being good, and you should be rewarded for that right? I get it. I want to think part of the reason I did not get Covid (or think I did not despite all the exposure) is I was vaccinated even when I saw vaccinated people getting sick before their eyes. It made me fool good. In reality, it is because I probably avoided being with sick people for an extended period of time.

[Jake2738]

You seem very certain so I like to know what do you think is the point I am trying to prove?

You literally said your point in the comment I responded to. Your point was that if everyone in the world got vaccinated in July 2021 that you believe that the pandemic would probably be over. Like read your own comment. You literally did not respond to any of the points I made in my reply, but instead you post this reply that is just trying to be a smartass but actually just makes you look dumb. How about you respond to the points that I made buddy.

[Dcrist0527]

I question your credentials, relevant experience and knowledge to question my analytical ability.

This is such a simple issue. Let's start with your last bit first, "they use Pfizer's data. " That's incorrect. They cherry picked pieces from Pfizer's data and presented it out of context. Let me put it into perspective for you. For this example let's look at a slot machine. If we look at every time the slot machine is played over a 2 month period, we can determine the average payout of the machine, just for fun let's say it's 91%. On average, for every dollar that goes in, 91 cents comes out. That's using the data. However, if we want to make the slot look better, we could just point out the number of times it hit a big jackpot. Or we could make it look worse by focusing on all the times when it paid nothing.

Next up, providing names and credentials. No respectable publication will publish any scientific study without the names and credentials of the principal investigators. No hospital will allow a doctor to work there without checking the doctor's credentials. Even your local car dealership requires the certifications of their mechanics. Schools require teaching credentials. It's a simple matter of credibility. Does this person have the necessary and relevant education to work in this area?

This might seem like a minor point to you, but it isn't. It's a core issue. For another dose of perspective, let's use ISG and Medellin as an example. If someone posts on the Medellin thread, it's their very first post, and they claim to have been a regular visitor, 5 months per year, for 15 years and they make a claim which goes against everything posted by known Medellin vets, do you accept their claim? Again, just for fun, let's say they claim that the best time and place to find the hottest women is just west of the Prado Metro station after midnight. Are you rushing off to find a girl there at midnight?

Probably not. At least I hope not.

The point is, any anonymous source can claim to be an expert, but only a fool would accept their expertise without question.

You are correct about one thing. My mind is made up about the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It's simply an anti-vax group pretending to be backed by science. Five minutes on their website proves that without the tiniest bit of doubt.

Do you understand what "click bait" is? It's everywhere. The heading of the blurb which leads to the CCCA website and "proof" is click bait. It makes a claim which the CCCA never proves. In fact, they prove exactly the opposite..

Your argument went from odd to absurd. Your endless analogies do nothing to bolster your opinions. Rather, you just cloud the issue. And arguing these points on ISG with a closed mind is foolish. If that's your definition of fun, well, enjoy! I generally enjoy debate. But you deal in immaterial analogies instead of fact. And why do I make it personal? You basically attack the control group because the saline doesn't cause reactions. Um. Isn't that the point? If that is news to you, may I suggest a 7th grade science class to you.

As for the credibility of the authors, how were Malone's credentials accepted? That is a pathetic game. If they don't subscribe to group think, they are quacks. They cherry picked data? Again, it was Pfizer data and they did not misrepresent a single data point. But if you want to say highlighting inconvenient data for you as cherrypicking? Call it whatever you want. I'll call it fact.

Lastly, clearly the nuance of relative vs absolute is lost on you. That is unfortunate because that is the most alarming nugget from the entire presentation. Frankly, I thought they gave a thorough explanation. But why it matters? The RRR is essentially the marketing ploy. That's the big number that gets people so hopeful about "efficacy". Marketing: "Hey, take our jab and your 95% more likely to avoid COVID. ". But that just isn't true. That is a lie. ARR is the true measure of reduction. You calling ARR bullshit tells me you either don't understand it or don't want to understand it. If you see it as bullshit, you stand in opposition with the scientific community. It's not bullshit. It's simple math. And it is the gold standard.

A couple more attempts to explain it. Again, I think this is SO important because the RRR is the very reason many subscribed to the theory that the vaccines are utopia. Even when real world data proves that it is not!

https://www.healthnewsreview.org/too...relative-risk/

https://www.tldrpharmacy.com/content...risk-reduction

Jjbee, if you take any of this personally, I apologize. I don't mean it personally. I don't know you. I don't know your credentials, background, or anything of the sort. Based on your comments and opinions, you strike me as someone who doesn't have an open mind. You dismiss, excuse, or ignore information. Your long diatribe in opposition is full of analogies and failed attempts to discredit sources. It is short on facts. You do not dispute the facts because you cannot dispute the facts. I truly do not mean this as a personal attack. I believe you have strong beliefs and opinions. My only interest in the discussion is not to prove I'm right and you're wrong. (I'm not arrogant enough to say I'm 100% correct.) My interest is in having you and anyone think.

What I am 100% confident in is that our "leaders" have competing interests. Be it financial, political, etc. Our "leaders" have an agenda. And that is very problematic.

[Dcrist0527]

Would you agree that if the everyone one earth was vaccinated in the same month, for example July 2021, the pandemic would be over by now.

What a foolish question. But I'll play along. My thought: if everyone was vaxxed on July 1, followed by 14 days of complete isolation, literally in your own room of 4 walls. In theory, yes, that would cripple, if not end the pandemic.

Meanwhile, back on planet reality, that is impossible. And what about those bats. LOL You remember, right? The wet market that "started it all". The problem with your hypothetical ignores the very natural mutation process. That's obvious but it's a fact we live with annually with the flu. Yet life goes on. People die from the flu. People die from a lot of things. Sad? Yes. Tragic? Yes. Fighting nature is a fool's game. Vaccinations & therapeutics are not bad. We should do what we can. But draconian mandates are bad. More importantly, reality has shown how ineffective those mandates are. Shutting down life for 3 years is not acceptable.

[JustTK]

But to mandate a vaccine to protect them from their own bad actions is authoritarianism. It would be one thing if they were still posing a threat to others, but it is very clear that it is getting passed between people regardless of vaccination status. So if people want to be dumb and not get the vaccine that is their own dumb choice. I am fully vaccinated and the pandemic IS over for me. I follow all the rules if they are in place, but if not then I just live normally. COVID is Endemic and so if you are not getting back to normal life after being vaccinated YOU are the one not following common sense.

Very well said. Maybe the vax would have worked if we had vaxxed everyone in the world (including those immuno compromised and those that can't / won't get vaxd for medical, religious and ethical reasons) on the very same day and then everyone in the entire world self-isolated for 2 weeks. Yes we could have got rid of the virus! Or maybe just vax your own clan / club / country and then close the borders from now until eternity. That would work too!

I will be happy when thiis is over and we have to face the reality that we cannot vax our way out of an endemic virus, and trying to force such a vax on people is destructive and futile. The resort to authoritarianism and shutting down dissent thru the media, and to lying to the public - is totally self-defeating. We need better leadership and respect for rights than this.

[JjBee62]

Would you agree that the statement you just made is insane and completely out of touch with what could realistically happen. You think it is even remotely realistic that everyone in the world could have been vaccinated by July 2021? Like cmon now, don't be creating unrealistic hypotheticals to try to prove a point. The reality is that if you are not getting vaccinated and live in a country where it's widely available you are not making a smart choice. But to mandate a vaccine to protect them from their own bad actions is authoritarianism. It would be one thing if they were still posing a threat to others, but it is very clear that it is getting passed between people regardless of vaccination status. So if people want to be dumb and not get the vaccine that is their own dumb choice. I am fully vaccinated and the pandemic IS over for me. I follow all the rules if they are in place, but if not then I just live normally. COVID is Endemic and so if you are not getting back to normal life after being vaccinated YOU are the one not following common sense.

It wasn't an insane statement, or completely out of touch with reality. It wasn't even a statement, it was a question.

It was a good hypothetical question, a thought experiment. Forget about the logistical impossibility for a moment. Consider the what if aspect. Or, if it makes it easier, consider a reasonably small island nation. If enough resources were diverted to that island to vaccinate everyone within 1 month and all travel to the island was very tightly controlled, would that island now be free of Covid?

I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thing to consider. Would Covid, on that island become no worse than the common cold?

Life is full of authoritarianisms. Right now I'm stuck in western Missouri, probably for 12-14 hours or more because of a rule which I wasn't aware I was violating. However, it was my fault.

Vaccine mandates, I'm not absolutely for or against. I'm vaccinated and boosted as well. I've also recovered from a reasonably serious about with Covid. However, the pandemic isn't over for me. Even though I try to keep myself protected and I've taken all the precautions, I can't forget how bad I felt and how long it took to recover from Covid. While I expect any subsequent infection to have milder symptoms, there's no guarantee.

[JjBee62]

Project Veritas is the group. None of their members have been sentenced to prison for their videos. Some of their members have been found guilty of illegal taping, and sentenced to probation and fines. In the Planned Parenthood case, no court has found the information in the videos to be false.

My mistake. I was going off of memory that the members who made those videos had been indicted, I believe in Texas.

It was refreshing to look at some of the ridiculous failures by O'Keefe and Project Veritas. There's a great article in T New Yorker about one of his most spectacular blunders.

[Nounce]

..Like cmon now, don't be creating unrealistic hypotheticals to try to prove a point...

You seem very certain so I like to know what do you think is the point I am trying to prove?

[JjBee62]

There are so many flaws in your response that I question your analytical ability.

I question your credentials, relevant experience and knowledge to question my analytical ability.

First, you start just as predicted: smear the source. 'They don't name a single expert'. Yet, had they, their credentials would be in dispute. Instead, they use Pfizer's data.

This is such a simple issue. Let's start with your last bit first, "they use Pfizer's data. " That's incorrect. They cherry picked pieces from Pfizer's data and presented it out of context. Let me put it into perspective for you. For this example let's look at a slot machine. If we look at every time the slot machine is played over a 2 month period, we can determine the average payout of the machine, just for fun let's say it's 91%. On average, for every dollar that goes in, 91 cents comes out. That's using the data. However, if we want to make the slot look better, we could just point out the number of times it hit a big jackpot. Or we could make it look worse by focusing on all the times when it paid nothing.

Next up, providing names and credentials. No respectable publication will publish any scientific study without the names and credentials of the principal investigators. No hospital will allow a doctor to work there without checking the doctor's credentials. Even your local car dealership requires the certifications of their mechanics. Schools require teaching credentials. It's a simple matter of credibility. Does this person have the necessary and relevant education to work in this area?

This might seem like a minor point to you, but it isn't. It's a core issue. For another dose of perspective, let's use ISG and Medellin as an example. If someone posts on the Medellin thread, it's their very first post, and they claim to have been a regular visitor, 5 months per year, for 15 years and they make a claim which goes against everything posted by known Medellin vets, do you accept their claim? Again, just for fun, let's say they claim that the best time and place to find the hottest women is just west of the Prado Metro station after midnight. Are you rushing off to find a girl there at midnight?

Probably not. At least I hope not.

The point is, any anonymous source can claim to be an expert, but only a fool would accept their expertise without question.

What your response does prove is your mind is made up. That's not a criticism, per se. But don't act as though you looked at this objectively. Comments like: "Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media!" So, if that isn't concerning, then don't talk about Grandma sitting at home with COPD. Both groups are just collateral damage in your line of thought.

You are correct about one thing. My mind is made up about the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It's simply an anti-vax group pretending to be backed by science. Five minutes on their website proves that without the tiniest bit of doubt.

Do you understand what "click bait" is? It's everywhere. The heading of the blurb which leads to the CCCA website and "proof" is click bait. It makes a claim which the CCCA never proves. In fact, they prove exactly the opposite.

Just for fun (I'm having lots of fun with this), the annual estimated death rate is about 8 per 1,000. For every 1,000 people, 8 are expected to die every year. The Pfizer study used over 40,000 people for 2 months. Out of that 40 k, over 1 year, 320 would normally be expected to die. Over a 2 month period that means about 53 people from the test group would normally be expected to die. Out of the group, there were 29 deaths over 2 months and 34 over 6 months. Which means the overall number of deaths isn't the earth shattering data you think it is.

You misrepresent the safey phase. The standard is 3 years (not 5-10 as you say). But we had 2 months of safety. Say what you will about circumstances and the urgent need to get to market. But don't tell me that the concern is invalid or that the point is BS.

The 5-10 years is directly from the CCCA "proof". You'll have to take your complaint up with them.

I'll say it. The point is BS. In fact, the point is complete and utter, absolute, certified 100% organic bullshit. Why? Because Pfizer clearly identified the time frame when the study was conducted. They used something you have failed to use to determine whether or not the vaccine was safe, relative to not using the vaccine. They used knowledge. They didn't claim the vaccine was perfect. They didn't claim it would last forever. They didn't even claim that in 3 years they data collected would still be relevant.

That's a big word, "knowledge. " There is a lot of it, readily available, but very few people use it. In this case the knowledge used is that historically vaccine side effects show up very quickly, or not at all. Do you understand why that's the case? It's really quite simple. Vaccines are supposed to trigger an immune system response. They might not trigger the response, or the response may not last as long as expected, or the recipient might have an allergic reaction, or the vaccine might trigger some other type of response. However, the vaccine is only in your system for a very short time. Within a few days, a few weeks at most, there is no longer any trace of the vaccine in your body. At that point, your immune system either recognizes and reacts to the virus the vaccine was for, or it doesn't. The vaccine isn't some security guard that constantly looks for bad guys. It just sticks a wanted poster up on the wall of your immune system and then goes away.

It's like getting seasick. While you're out on a boat, at some point while on the boat, you might get seasick. It might be minor nausea, it might be uncontrolled vomiting, or dizziness, whatever. However, 2 years after you get off the boat, you're not going to get seasick.

You conpletely ignore the relative vs absolute argument. You accept the relative risk reduction as fact, despite it being the lower standard. And I won't even mention how Pfizer bastardizes their "efficacy" numbers to the public. In Pfizer's own study, the absolute reduction is 1%, and that's rounding up! They are taking their relative number and selling it as absolute. And the public is too lazy to know the difference.

You lost me there. If I completely ignored the relative versus absolute risk reduction, how did I then accept relative risk reduction as fact? What the hell. I'm ready to have more fun.

If you run a business, which is the higher standard, gross profit or net profit? That's absolute versus relative. If gross profits are $5 million annually, but net profits are $10,000 how well is your business doing?

Absolute risk reduction isn't the higher standard. In fact, in most cases it's more bullshit. It kinda boggles my mind that you don't realize how ridiculous that statement is. Time to put it in perspective again.

I have an incredible device. If you install it in your home it protects your home against earthquakes. In fact, the absolute risk reduction for earthquakes is 98%. Are you ready to buy it? I guess I should mention that relative risk reduction is less than 1%. You see, very few homes in my data are in zones where earthquakes are likely to occur. Still prefer absolute over relative?

Here is another example of your closed mind: "Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. " I would not argue with your statement. But, um, how else would you measure impact? LOL instead, you excuse this as expected, necessary problem. That illustrates your willingness to excuse or accept more collateral damage.

The reason saline solution was used is because it doesn't do anything. It's routinely used to replenish lost fluids. It's neutral. As a placebo for an injected vaccine trial it's perfect, because it won't cause any sort of reaction. I don't understand how that's an example of my closed mind. It's simply recognizing the requirement for a placebo in any trial.

The question is, what collateral damage are you talking about? Are you talking about the vaccine causing more deaths than it prevents? It doesn't. Data from everywhere around the world confirms that. It's not even close. Are you talking about adverse reactions to the vaccine? I'm going to assume that is what you're talking about.

I'll go over it again. I used pretty simple explanations the first time, but apparently they weren't simple enough.

The Pfizer study classifies 4 types of responses to the vaccine. The first is efficacy. From the placebo group 850 people contracted Covid during the study. From the vaccine group 77 people contracted Covid during the study. Please show me the math you used to determine efficacy is under 1%.

Next up injection related adverse effects. This classification includes any complaint which a researcher determined was connected to the actual injection of either the vaccine or saline solution. If a person later says their arm hurts it gets added to this group. If they say they feel dizzy, nauseous or anything else it gets added here. If they faint or piss their pants when getting injected, it gets added here. These are the absolute numbers. In a moment I'll show why they aren't important. Almost every vaccinated person I know has complained it made their arm hurt. Most people also have mentioned feeling nauseous. A couple of people have said that they were feeling really poorly for about a day. It's not surprising that 1 in 4 of the vaccine group had a related adverse effect. The question is, how many of those adverse effects were anything worse than a brief, minor amount of discomfort? Which brings us to the next 2 classifications.

First up, adverse effects which interfered with a person's normal function. If the person fainted, or left work early, or missed a day of work, or couldn't sleep, or didn't feel like eating, it shows up here. It's important to understand that none of these instances caused hospitalization, permanent effects, serious illness or death. They were all just cases where people didn't feel well enough to complete their normal routine. From the placebo group, about 0. 7% of the subjects had an event in this category. The rate for the vaccine group was 1. 2%.

Already the numbers are coming together. Using rough numbers starting with minor, effectively insignificant adverse effects to the vaccine it was 25% versus 5%. Now it's 1. 2% versus 0. 7% and none of these events required immediate medical attention, or resulted in permanent injury.

The last classification are adverse effects which required immediate medical assistance, or required hospitalization. This class includes permanent health issues. For this one it's dropped to 0. 6% versus 0. 59%. In simpler terms, within the statistical margin of error, the vaccine caused no more significant health issues than the placebo.

Now do you understand why absolute numbers are less useful than relative numbers? I'm betting the answer is no. I can't really help you any more on that one. You either understand that 2 numbers which are almost exactly the same, are almost exactly the same, or you believe that 2 numbers which are almost exactly the same are completely different.

I could go on, but why. Arguing this is boring. Sadly, most of us have retreated into our camps and prefer name calling, accusations and warfare instead of thinking for and educating ourselves. Full disclosure: I'm not anti-vax. I've been vaxxed and boosted. I am anti-mandate. And I am heavily in favor of holding our "experts" responsible for their actions, decisions, and conflicts of interest.

If arguing this is boring, why did you argue it? I didn't quote one of your posts, I didn't call you names or insult you or question your abilities. I merely responded to another person's post which was laughable bullshit.

For your final statement, I'm calling bullshit. You're jumping on a bandwagon for an anti-vax group. You are defending bogus claims by an unknown group, which they are unable to prove. You defended "experts" who remain anonymous and provide no credentials or anything to validate their claims. Explain to me how an anonymous "expert" can be held responsible for their actions, decisions and conflicts of interest?

Here's a bit of wisdom for you:

If you don't want to argue a subject, don't argue that subject.

See how simple that is? What the fuck, let me shovel out some more perspective.

If you don't want to have a tranny fuck you in the ass, don't go out, find a tranny, let them fuck you in the ass and then say "I didn't want to do that. ".