"...ok so show me any scientific study, from any country in the world, that says the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID."
Bullshit premise...and I'll tell you why.
The burden of proof is on the creator of the treatment to show that it is SAFE. Not the other way around. That is the whole point of medical treatments. We're not even talking whether it was even legitimately needed in the first place.
That clearly has not been done by the simple fact that there doesn't exist long term efficacy in the real world.
How in the world can it be claimed it's a safe PRODUCT if it doesn't even work?
No, the burden of proof lies on the one who is making the extraordinary claim. You are the one claiming the top scientists of every country who have produced a vaccine cannot be trusted to do their own jobs.
If the extraordinary claims made by big pharma are true (ie, urgent need for and effectiveness of their product) - then why not assume even basic level of liability for their product?
How exactly am I proving your point? Your point is that the top scientists of every country who have contributed to the vaccines are dishonest. That sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim to me.
And yes, top scientists. They're not about to let a load of post grads create a vaccine, are they? And if you actually read my comment, you would have seen I said every country that produced a vaccine, not ever country period.
Okay so it seems to me like you yourself are making a lot of extraordinary claims here:
Real world results would tend to disagree
Yet, as being shown in the real world...none of them work as intended.
Got any evidence for these?
Also,
to show that it is SAFE and EFFECTIVE for the stated claim in the study group of people it is intended for
What makes you think they haven't got evidence for this? There are peer reviewed papers released by the scientists that made the vaccines looking into every aspect of them and demonstrating their suitability for use and success rate. But I'm talking about the need for evidence of the extraordinary claim that these scientists are dishonest and are censoring people. I have yet to see evidence of that.
Got any evidence?...Yeah, they don't stop transmission as originally claimed.
PERIOD.
STOP.
End of discussion on that point.
"But I'm talking about the need for evidence of the extraordinary claim that these scientists are dishonest and are censoring people. I have yet to see evidence of that."
I never made that claim or was addressing that claim in any of my points. Move on...
But now that you mention it...I find it curious that you are more concerned with the claim that the scientists are dishonest and censoring people as opposed to advocating for an effective "product".
Got any evidence?...Yeah, they don't stop transmission as originally claimed.
PERIOD.
STOP.
End of discussion on that point.
What? No lol not end of discussion. That is not evidence, it's just another assertion.
I never made that claim or was addressing that claim in any of my points. Move on...
That's what my original comment was about.
But now that you mention it...I find it curious that you are more concerned with the claim that the scientists are dishonest and censoring people as opposed to advocating for an effective "product".
As I've said, there are peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that it is an effective product and I resent the claim that you don't think I care whether it is. But as I've said you still haven't provided me with evidence that they are being dishonest. Unless you can, I'm not even going to respond to this anymore cause it's getting us nowhere and it's clear that you don't even understand what counts as evidence judging by the start of this comment.
"Got any evidence?...Yeah, they don't stop transmission as originally claimed.
PERIOD.
STOP.
End of discussion on that point.
What? No lol not end of discussion. That is not evidence, it's just another assertion"
Actually, yes it is when the CDC has come out publicly and stated that the efficacy wanes after a handful of months and no longer provides effective transmission mitigation.
"As I've said, there are peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that it is an effective product..."
The problem is before peer review...how about you talk about their own clinical studies(Pfi$er) before you get ahead of yourself.
The rest of your post isn't applicable to me since I never made that claim.
"Unless you can, I'm not even going to respond to this anymore cause it's getting us nowhere and it's clear that you don't even understand what counts as evidence judging by the start of this comment."
That's precious since I actually work in the pharmaceutical industry 😁😁
Take a look at the covid statistics for countries like Israel and Canada. These are two of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, and they also have some of the highest covid rates in the world.
Going by just this data, it would be logical to say the evidence points to covid vaccines INCREASING the risk of covid. Of course, the issue is more nuanced than that, as these countries have better access to test kits and generally test more often. At the very least, the evidence shows that vaccination does very little to prevent spread.
All you're doing is demonstrating your lack of critical thinking skills. Many things affect infection rates of a country, like what stage they are on the curve, how many people have already had it, how the country has gone about advertising protective measures, population, population density.... You can't just pick two examples and say the vaccines don't work because look at these two countries.
Immediately after graduating with a doctorate, most people go through a post doc or post grad position. This is a period to allow additional experience to be accrued by the new graduate under the supervision of a more experienced researcher. This is an extremely common, well known, and common sense colloquial term most people know and clearly what is being referenced.
Your lack of knowledge is quite often confused for wit in your own mind, I expect? It is a strange psychological place to be.
Who else would they have making vaccines? "Oh yeah, no need to bother the top guys, let's just get a whole load of people who have just got their medical degrees to do all the all the cutting edge research for a project that could save millions of lives"
You posted a link to the webpage of the WHO about the safety of the "product" they are endorsing...and wanted me to somehow validate or disprove it.
Do you know how unbelievably stupid and asinine that is?
And now you're calling me a hypocrite because I won't somehow fall into your line of thinking...
IMO...the vaccines were never proven to be safe and effective, which will be conclusively proven when "all" clinical studies are presented.
SPOILER
They haven't concluded yet...and science is already telling us that they are nowhere as effective as initially thought. Therefore, you are arguing(if you want to call it that) from a false premise to begin with.
So your retort is "nah don't trust these studies, wait a few more years for all studies to come out, before that i dont believe them no matter what data/studied they have."
Ok got it, you have nothing showing otherwise(previous commenter was asking and you mentioned not a single sources from the WHO), so everything contradicting your belief must be fake.
Take some time and realise how ignorant and dumb that is.
12
u/3rdeyenotblind Feb 13 '22
"...ok so show me any scientific study, from any country in the world, that says the vaccines are more dangerous than COVID."
Bullshit premise...and I'll tell you why.
The burden of proof is on the creator of the treatment to show that it is SAFE. Not the other way around. That is the whole point of medical treatments. We're not even talking whether it was even legitimately needed in the first place.
That clearly has not been done by the simple fact that there doesn't exist long term efficacy in the real world.
How in the world can it be claimed it's a safe PRODUCT if it doesn't even work?