Covid 19 Vax is 'SAFE'? The Benefits Outweigh the Risks 'SERIOUSLY'?

yea, the exact same reasoning applies to all those people who got cured by Ivermectin, yet the anti vax people have no problem accepting that it was the Ivermectin that cured those people from a virus that 98% of people recover from naturally.

 

Deaths are pretty well-recorded in the United States (less so for places like India). In terms of determining the rate of asymptomatic covid, something like serology studies should help. That's how we know some countries underreport their covid cases.

 

Oh dear. You have a flawed understanding of the basics.

An adverse event does not mean an event caused by a pharmaceutical. It is a medical event occurring in an individual - adverse events which occur regardless, in the ordinary course of life. That is, people have adverse events like heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions and events regardless of any drugs which they may or may not be taking.

Pharmaceutical companies track the rate of occurrence - via adverse event reports - in people taking their products in order to see if the incidence rates are normal or not compared to the general population. In other words, if these events are occurring at the same rate as in the general population. If they are not - if they appear to be elevated above the norm - then this is a signal to investigate if their product is causing the higher rate or not.

To keep track, they obviously need a list of which events are being tracked - and that's what the list is.

 

most people did not sign up online, they went to jab stations lined up like an assembly line and got jabbed.
There are several adverse effects listed that cause death in the 10 page list!
Has nothing to do with fear.
SO they showed you the 10 page list of known adverse effects before you were jabbed?

 

Ive seen no data to that effect, deaths always defer to property transfer they are pretty well recorded everywhere on the planet now days. Under report or simply had covid and lived without a vax?

 

With 10 BILLION jabs the mathematical possibility of having an unrelated medical event to the jab within 24 hrs of the jab are reasonably high. So
"possible" is a long way from certainty. Just because it's listed doesn't mean the jab was the actual cause - it may just be an event that happened
within a certain time frame of the jab. You get that, right.

 

How was that or how can you possibly claim that having an adverse effect was not caused by the vax immediately after getting the vax?

 

I would point out that Pfizer et al are making a financial decision with this data. Meaning, they are calculating the potential risk/cost of future litigation based on the profitability of the current business being booked. Why do you suppose that Pfizer has an enduring no litigation exclusion ? Meaning that the feds gave Pfizer an artificial protection against being sued by those who were forced to take their product.

At some point, the non litigation will be overturned in court because it's ridiculous for folks not to have legal redress. And when it does, all of this data will be germane to the suits that will be brought given that it clearly demonstrates the knowledge of these adverse reactions. And don't kid yourself, these were reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines. So, they are reports, but they inform Pfizer of the harm their product is producing.

 

So, you chose to get the shot. I did as well. And why again? So we could go on with life. And you couldn't go on with life without having the shots. And some folks were even forced with threat of job loss. So, some folks were actually coerced into agreeing to get the shots. And if they had bad reactions, government made it almost impossible to get legal redress for it.

 

Because with 10 Billion jabs, the chances of having an unrelated medical event are reasonable high. People develop pulmonary issues every day. People get
headaches every day. Just because a person has a medical issue within 24 hours of the jab does not indicate that the issue was the direct result
of the jab.

 

There are certain risks involved in living in a community of people. You can live on an island if you feel it's not worth the risks. Life isn't perfect.

 

How do you make the distinction to claim its 'not' however?

 

This isnt a question of 'perfect', we need reliable medical information, we were not given any information except that its safe and mandates from guv to take the shot or have your life destroyed with loss of jobs and be locked down from travel etc.
Again its about the basis for safety, not after the fact as you are claiming, before the fact during the test phase that produced 10 pages of adverse effects many of which have a high probability of being fatal

 

With 10 Billion jabs, if it were not relatively safe, we would be seeing the emergency room filled with people just after having taken the jab. We are not
seeing that - ergo, the jab is relatively safe. Your trust issues do not necessarily mean something is "bad" - it just means you
have trust issues.

 

Certain risks... Yes, yes there are. So why again did government go out of its way to make sure every person was exposed to those risks? You seem to be missing the part where government made it a condition of life. It's like saying, here, smoke these... cause we said so.

Given the data, isn't that a criminal act now?

 

Thats a 'very' good point!

 

The data shows it's a very safe product - much more so than guns or cars - so why are you claiming criminal acts?

 

Pfizer's own data shows that it likely wouldn't have met the FDA's own criteria. How can you possibly say that it is "very safe" when the data shows that it is not? Guns, by themselves never killed a person, neither has a car. But a live virus injected into you can. If you get into a car, does the car kill you or do you have to do something stupid while driving it? Same question for a gun. What is criminal is an action taken by the person using those items. A virus inhibitor (mRNA) injected into you has a risk, one which you acknowledge. You were required to take the shot. The shot is what killed folks. You understand that right? To my knowledge no one who bought a new Range Rover this year died by just sitting in it.

Folks go to sushi restaurants to have blow fish. It's super deadly but folks still eat it and every year, one or two folks die because the sushi chef was careless and folks die. Government didn't create an exclusion to tort remedy for that, did they? But they did for Pfizer. Why? Because Pfizer need to be shielded from the liability of what they knew to be dangerous at a level that exceeded their own indemnification studies. And now we know that.

 

First, legal immunity expires in 2024. Second, tracking adverse events is normal practise for pharmaceutical companies, and yes, obviously there is a legal benefit. Abnormal incidence rates can be investigated, addressed through further development, mitigated through contraindications, etc. etc. All par for the course and all part of keeping patients, and thus also the company, from harm.

There is no "kidding" about what adverse event reports do and do not represent. Pharmaceutical companies track all adverse events regardless of cause, as a necessary first step to identifying IF their product is causing harm. The only way to do this is by comparing incidence rates of adverse events among those taking their drugs to incidence rates of the same events in the general population. This comparison isn't possible without gathering adverse event reports. Thus the reports themselves are not an indication of harm caused. They are a tool that allows comparison to determine if this is, or is not, the case.

For instance, if the incidence rate of encephalitis is 12 in 100K in the general population and adverse event reports indicate it is occurring at the same or lower rate among drug takers, the adverse event reports exist, yes, but are not indicative of harm. As a tool for comparison, they have shown that people are not more likely to have encephalitis as a result of taking the drug. So, to point to these reports and say that they do indicate harm, would be erroneous. On the other hand, where rates are elevated, they signal the need for investigation. As, for example, incidences of myocarditis.

 

Again, if it's not relatively safe, after 10 billion jabs, the emergency rooms would be filled with people having bad reactions. They are not. Therefor, the jabs
are relatively safe. Covid, on the other hand, is not safe.

 

10 Billion or so, you say, what, are you their lawyer now? And the idea that sudden onset is the only option is staggeringly superficial, even for you.

 

I remember you @drluggit
You're the End of the World Guy.

Overall about Covid.

You have lost your political war: a large part of the population of this planet is vaccinated.
What about beginning to play golf?

 

So you seem angry that the vaccine generally worked and more people didn't die so that you could advance your political agenda. Sad.

 

Earlier I talked with a staff member at a local hospital, and they told me they have seen a 'large' increase in heart problems, especially after the 2nd jab.

One of the RN's fell over dead at the hospital after the second jab and they had no symptoms, no complications to blame it on.

Non sequitur, just because people are not dropping over dead today does not mean that it did not cause damage to your body in some way and that damage will manifest and show up as a major problem years later.