I wonder how they define “injury” when "Hs-cTnT-elevations were mild and only temporary. No patient had ECG-changes, and none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days (0% [95%CI, 0%-0.4%]).”

It's not so much the study with which I take issue, it's the interpretation grifters are presenting over social media.

huge grift from Campbell for sure

but you have a paper from established sources showing some huge flaws which begs the question how well scrutinised are the safety ones as well (e.g. they can also use some metrics that need important context);


one I saw last month, was one MD showcasing how clotting from AZ was only slightly higher than from birth control... however the location and severity/risk of the clot was much worse for AZ (brain etc); Some guy in Twitter comments pointed it out, normal low-follower count profile with no agenda, I looked at mainstream sources for the claim and indeed the nature of the clots was a true thing

and I was like... how come no one mentions that

Pro tip: when a discussion isn't going the way you'd hoped, do what you can to make it about the discussants.

It's becoming pretty obvious.

At least I am not blind to another perspective.

But Campbell's followers sure have a confirmation bias going on.

As a member of this site since 05, people rarely take into account the individual differences in how they respond to supplements, training styles, diet or protein levels, and in this case a covid vaccine.

None of us wanted to take this but it was a situational judgment so let's ask why those that had a bad reaction to it, did.

If it was really bad ,they would have pulled it like they did the first batch of jhonson and jhonson vaccine.
As I have been reading Mayo Clinic lists of side effects for other drugs, , the numbers are much worse and way more scary than this thing.

In before abnormal replies from the usual suspects.

Okay.

I took the vaccine of my own volition.

So many? There's 5 that I can find reference to. Is 5 more than the other 200 countries in the world? And even in those 5, it's nuanced primarily for children and young adults based on the risk/benefit of those particular country's dynamics - namely the fact that enough people have already encountered the virus, years later.

I don't have insight into their particular merits, but I can certainly see the administration having a vested interest in suppressing misinformation based on the facts at the time during the midst of deadly pandemic. That doesn't mean that experts should dismiss their claims summarily, particularly when done through the proper channels, but I can see the sensitivity around adding doubt in the public discourse at a time where vaccine hesitancy was already high.

Not terribly familiar with remdesevir and don't care to throw another topic into this already bloated subject.

My trust in the experts is not confined to the US, its to the scientific community at large, including those from other countries. It is not uncommon for studies to have conflicting findings, meaning that the next best course of action is look at the totality of evidence, rather than focusing on any one trial or subset of trials. To the extent that those dyes and additives have been proven by scientific consensus to be harmful, yes, the FDA is wrong for continuing to allow it. The FDA having clear instances of being too beholden to corporations (which I abhor) does not mean that the vaccine was more harmful than good. I would be very happy to remove the lobbying and corporate interests in our regulatory schema as well.

It is not surprising to me that more recent studies are showing a decline in efficacy, we're over 3 years since the pandemic began and the dynamics have shifted quite alot in terms of how many people have been exposed to the virus, have been vaccinated, endemic acceptance, variant complexity etc. That does not mean that vaccines were a mistake at rollout, nor are we at the point where the experts have definitively stated that the vaccines are doing more harm than good. And they may never if the technology keeps up and remains effective.

My expectation for our public health officials is to continue following the data and making changes as the evidence becomes clear and well-accepted that the vaccines have become more risk than benefit to a population than the alternative.

I love how most miscers framing is taking aim at the vaccine in a vacuum, conveniently ignoring the adverse health risks of unmitigated COVID. And how many wade past mountains of readily available studies from credible sources still proving their effectiveness to focus on the few that say otherwise. Definitely not biased at all trying to support your anti-vax position. Inevitably, when it turns out to be a nothing-burger, they just disappear, having no accountability for their nonsense and onto the next thing to be unjustly outraged over. Exhausting.

Just went through this thread and all I can say is WOW, must be a real eye opener for OP and he must not have expected all these facts. If not, OP must be the dumbest man on misc and nothing will change his mind, typical brain washed liberal who blindly believes everything MSM tells him.

actually, if you went through this thread and you still invoke some random political affiliations like "typical liberal" speaks volumes about you

[QUOTE=messomi post_id=1687570433][img]https://media.tenor.com/nnUyxuqaeNcAAAAd/actually-nerd.gif[img][/QUOTE]wow! reasonable, never thought about that

Hey, just because the jab came out in 9 months, doesn't mean it was rushed, just because everyone took the Pfizer jab the wrong way, for over a year, doesn't mean it wasn't rushed or that it doesn't work, just because there's like 5-6 different vaccines, doesn't mean it's not worth getting, just because they claimed you wouldn't get the Rona, and you wouldn't spread the virus if vaccinated, and they were wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't get it.

Just because boosters are required, doesn't mean it isn't effective.....

^^^^ comment section etc.

Be a good little cuck and buy my book.