@metal-brain saidI thought you wanted to know about deaths? Benefit is a totally different set of data points
I can't remember every link you post. I don't remember much about it. Here is another study I found that contradicts your conclusion.
https://archive.is/3FbAx
Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThey do list deaths.
I thought you wanted to know about deaths? Benefit is a totally different set of data points
"the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy."
The numbers are different than your article, right?
Your study excluded certain people, didn't it?
Did the study you posted use VAERS data?
Did they rely on data from Pfizer?
@Metal-Brain
You AND that article are so full of shyte you should be in an 19th century outhouse.
And OF COURSE you will post some OTHER BS post you think helps your side.
It doesn't but A. You don't care, and B, it makes you look like an IDIOT.
But you LOVE negative attention.
@sonhouse saidThen you should be able to prove it.
@Metal-Brain
You AND that article are so full of shyte you should be in an 19th century outhouse.
And OF COURSE you will post some OTHER BS post you think helps your side.
It doesn't but A. You don't care, and B, it makes you look like an IDIOT.
But you LOVE negative attention.
I am waiting.
@metal-brain saidNo. It was a real clinical trial. The exact gold standard study used to answer your exact question and you completely ignored it for a anti cdc talking point.
They do list deaths.
"the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy."
The numbers are different than your article, right?
Your study excluded certain people, didn't it?
Did the study you posted use VAERS data?
Did they rely on data from Pfizer?
@sonhouse saidThat is a lie.
@Metal-Brain
We already have dozens of times over. You are too thick to see it.
You never prove me wrong.
Prove you proved me wrong then.
If it is true you should easily be able to do that.
I am waiting.
@wildgrass saidYour study excluded certain people. Can you list them?
No. It was a real clinical trial. The exact gold standard study used to answer your exact question and you completely ignored it for a anti cdc talking point.
The study you posted used VAERS data.
They used data from Pfizer.
The study I posted is from Israel data as well, yet the numbers are different.
@Metal-Brain
It doesn't matter to you HOW much we show you, YOU ARE RIGHT ALWAYS and WE ARE ALWAYS WRONG.
@sonhouse saidYou have never shown me anything. All you do is troll to avoid debates.
@Metal-Brain
It doesn't matter to you HOW much we show you, YOU ARE RIGHT ALWAYS and WE ARE ALWAYS WRONG.
You never debate. That requires proving stuff and you never prove anything. You just lie.
@metal-brain saidNOOOOO! I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to provide you with the data you need to answer your question. VAERS AINT IT. THE CDC AINT IT.
That is a lie.
You never prove me wrong.
Prove you proved me wrong then.
If it is true you should easily be able to do that.
I am waiting.
You don't want to absorb the information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo frustrating.
@wildgrass saidThe study you posted used VAERS data.
NOOOOO! I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to provide you with the data you need to answer your question. VAERS AINT IT. THE CDC AINT IT.
You don't want to absorb the information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo frustrating.
DUH!