- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: More fuel for the topic.. to vax or not vax?
Posted on 8/20/21 at 6:59 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 8/20/21 at 6:59 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You seem to be forgetting that 150 million people have taken the vaccines, and that a person considering taking it now can look at their experience and the data generated from that population to make his/her judgment.
The article involves more feedback/references to long term risks than immediate, overall a good read for those wanting an understanding of the role of mRNA and variable risks by component.
Check the references if anyone questions the legitimacy, everything is an opinion with this virus & its therapies/vaxxes, but the collected intel comes from solid sources.
Specifically Peter Doshi from the British Medical Journal. Further reading on Doshi's op-eds is recommended.
Educate yourself from all sides folks, echo chambers are fools gold.
Posted on 8/20/21 at 7:04 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
But from a public health concern they must look at it differently. As a whole we have a crap load of people in the hospital costing us a crap load of money. Take the shot, dont take the shot, but surely we can all see that the goals for an individual are not the same as the needs for the collective in all cases
If they came out tomorrow and said mowing the lawn can drive down hospital numbers!!! I wouldn't believe that either.
Because the vaxx/novaxx has nothing to do with hospital numbers...in places where they don't lie, it mirrors the population.
Posted on 8/20/21 at 7:10 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
1. Manufacturers would not have immunity from liability.
This is a necessary evil.
Vaccines are typically cheap.
When you make a vaccine you are giving it to the entire population and said population is presumably without said disease.
A .05% risk of a significant side effect spread over the entire population of this country is going to have some hits. When said person was healthy before then they will look to sue for big bucks.
Given this there is ZERO incentive to develop vaccines without immunity from liability.
If you don’t like it then take it up with the most conservative justice Scalia
Posted on 8/20/21 at 7:37 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:It was published in May; probably written over the first several months of the vaccine. How could there be "feedback" on long term. My guess is a couple of computer scientists wrote algorithms to find everything possible in the literature regarding "possible" side effects to vaccines. Any conclusions drawn on long term effects to vaccines written in January is horseshite evidence. They might turn out to be correct but that won't be known for some time. Everyone that wants it has had it. Everyone that isn't taking it really don't need more information - real or not - to affirm their decision.
The article involves more feedback/references to long term risks than immediate,
Posted on 8/20/21 at 7:43 pm to Diamondawg
Read the article.
Feedback & references from opinions on risk.
Move past the authors, note the referenced sources... it’s their intel that’s the basis of the op-ed.
Feedback & references from opinions on risk.
Move past the authors, note the referenced sources... it’s their intel that’s the basis of the op-ed.
Posted on 8/20/21 at 7:55 pm to BurntOrangeMan
My god at one point they cite directly from Wikipedia for some reason. I have no idea what naturopathic oncology is, but they seem to have a very odd description of the molecular elements of those homologous proteins, as well as a very odd description of autoimmune diseases. Some of the papers they cite are interesting, but frankly, the presentation of the argument isn’t very convincing.
Posted on 8/20/21 at 8:21 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
Risk report
Ah yes. A paper written by antivaxxers, reviewed by antivaxxer ambulance chasers, and published in a fake journal.
Par for the course with you inbreds.
Posted on 8/21/21 at 5:38 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
Yet when non vaxxers are shown the data that shows it to be effective at reducing severe illness, that any serious side effects are rare they just resort back to the 'you cant trust anything' And here we go again.
I’d be willing to bet my house that the vast majority of people labeled “anti-vaxxers” object to taking the vaccine because they don’t see a need or benefit to it, and it’s far less so that they’re worried about risks any more than those that get vaccinated are. So it doesn’t matter how effective the vaccine is, understand? It could be 100% effective and not cause any major complications, and I still wouldn’t take it because I see no benefit in doing so.
quote:
It is a giant retarded circle.
Fair statement - but understand, the clowns leading the retard circle are the dumbasses that have been cast as “experts” in this shitshow - Fauci the ring leader. The obscure clowns opposite them in the political spectrum are just following suit.
This post was edited on 8/21/21 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 8/21/21 at 5:45 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
Par for the course with you inbreds.
Says a vaccinated Alabama fan
Posted on 8/21/21 at 5:49 pm to Mattmac12
quote:
Make them liable I’ll take it tomorrow.
bullshite.
Posted on 8/21/21 at 6:09 pm to oldskule
No ones knows anything as not enough data is provided for these vaccines that should be studied for years. It is being rushed and they are letting the cart get ahead of the horse.
Posted on 8/21/21 at 6:11 pm to rebel cat
quote:
There is no more sympathy for those not getting the vaccine.
We laugh at the ones dumb enough to take it
Popular
Back to top

1






