Common errors from the vaccine church in calculating risk-benefit analysis:
- assumes 'vaccine' 100% effective (completely wrong, see PHE data)
- often neglects age and comorbidities in analysis
- neglects probable life-long strong natural immunity against all 'variants'
- assumes 'vaccine' 100% effective (completely wrong, see PHE data)
- often neglects age and comorbidities in analysis
- neglects probable life-long strong natural immunity against all 'variants'
- often compares to one side-effect (eg. blood clots or myocarditis) instead of the cumulative possibilities of side-effects (many)
- assumes life-long vaccine protection instead of (semi-) annual vaccination rounds
- assumes life-long vaccine protection instead of (semi-) annual vaccination rounds
- neglects Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) risk
- takes into analysis the risk of only the 1st or the 2nd shot instead of both
- neglects vaccine sickness. >25% unable to do normal daily activities
cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/…
- takes into analysis the risk of only the 1st or the 2nd shot instead of both
- neglects vaccine sickness. >25% unable to do normal daily activities
cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/…
- neglects unknown Long-term risks and assumes that this never happens with vaccines. However, they forget to mention that mRNA and viral vector are new delivery methods.
- neglects fertility and maternal risk, while the 'vaccines' haven't even been on the market for 9m
- neglects fertility and maternal risk, while the 'vaccines' haven't even been on the market for 9m
- assumes it reduces transmission and that you're protecting 'others' (completely false, see PHE data, where in age group >50, 88% of the cases was found in the vaccinated group)
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1413939512737140736
- neglects the 'variant' escape possibility (vaccine failure in my own words)
- neglects the possible risk of cumulative 'booster' shots. Where are the safety studies for 'booster' shots?
You don't need to be a vaccine expert, to observe these obvious analytical failures.
- neglects the possible risk of cumulative 'booster' shots. Where are the safety studies for 'booster' shots?
You don't need to be a vaccine expert, to observe these obvious analytical failures.
It looks like all the public figures performing these analyses, profit from vaccines one way or another.
They are vaccine pushers/sellers instead of objective people that are occupied with our health
If they were transparant and used the right analysis methods I might trust them
They are vaccine pushers/sellers instead of objective people that are occupied with our health
If they were transparant and used the right analysis methods I might trust them
I'm not anti-vax. Everyone who wants should take the vax. I am anti-discrimination. I am pro-choice. I am pro transparency. And it irritates me when I see the Governments and vaccine proponents spread obvious lies ('safe and effective') and manipulation ('Do it for another').
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
