I mean those skeptical of the Covid-vaccine in general. You need only look at this very post, and that's what you were replying to.
That those with vaccine-induced myocarditis will have similar mortality as those with chronic heart/health problems is an assumption, one not backed by any evidence that has emerged so far.
It would be nice if those who are rightly skeptical of government and 'public health' were also skeptical of what they read on random websites, but no such luck.
Motherfucker won’t step a single toe in the other rolling vax thread because he has nothing to say there. He just does these driveby “akshully” posts in the threads where he thinks he has some advantage.
A critical evaluation of the supposed evidence presented by someone certainly does not require you to post counter-evidence. An argument casting doubt on the validity of the evidence is sufficient.
That those with vaccine-induced myocarditis will have similar mortality as those with chronic heart/health problems is an assumption, one not backed by any evidence that has emerged so far.
But it's a completely reasonable assumption to make until there is data to say otherwise. "Cases of myocarditis (aka part of your heart fucking DYING) causes these effects," therefore cases of myocarditis (again, aka part of your heart fucking DYING) caused by this new thing is likely to also cause these effects."
It's not like it's some sort of special kind 'vaccine'-induced myocarditis where the cells in your heart are only mostly dead. They're dead. They're never coming back. And the effects of having parts of your heart being DEAD are likely to be the same, regardless of why parts of your heart DIED.
What a fucking cope. You made a bad call on this so-called vaccine and it looks like you're going to ride it into insanity. Here, I'll give you some good news to help let you off of your guilty conscience: you aren't personally responsible for any of this. You were just a useful idiot. You can turn it around at any point by just saying, "oh hey, maybe we should have given these jabs a little bit more scrutiny before mandating that everyone on the planet be injected with them?"
But it's a completely reasonable assumption to make until there is data to say otherwise.
Why should there be a presumption in favor of that hypothesis though?
It's not like it's some sort of special kind 'vaccine'-induced myocarditis where the cells in your heart are only mostly dead. They're dead. They're never coming back. And the effects of having parts of your heart being DEAD are likely to be the same, regardless of why parts of your heart DIED.
I think there is a huge difference between the risk for someone who has a myriad of health and heart problems, including myocraditis, and someone who only has that. Now, if all these people had heart problems following, like some people who suffered after taking the vaccine have, it would be a different matter. It does not seem to be like that.
You made a bad call on this so-called vaccine
What was my bad call?
You can turn it around at any point by just saying, "oh hey, maybe we should have given these jabs a little bit more scrutiny before mandating that everyone on the planet be injected with them?"
How is that a 'turn'? I've always opposed mandates.
I mean those skeptical of the Covid-vaccine in general. You need only look at this very post, and that's what you were replying to.
That those with vaccine-induced myocarditis will have similar mortality as those with chronic heart/health problems is an assumption, one not backed by any evidence that has emerged so far.
It would be nice if those who are rightly skeptical of government and 'public health' were also skeptical of what they read on random websites, but no such luck.
No explanation for your contradiction. Opinion discarded.
Motherfucker won’t step a single toe in the other rolling vax thread because he has nothing to say there. He just does these driveby “akshully” posts in the threads where he thinks he has some advantage.
There was no contradiction, but you do have to 'discard' as you cannot refute.
Your point was "I have zero evidence. Your evidence is possibly in some situations less than 100% reliable. Therefore I'm right. Antonio, away!".
A critical evaluation of the supposed evidence presented by someone certainly does not require you to post counter-evidence. An argument casting doubt on the validity of the evidence is sufficient.
But it's a completely reasonable assumption to make until there is data to say otherwise. "Cases of myocarditis (aka part of your heart fucking DYING) causes these effects," therefore cases of myocarditis (again, aka part of your heart fucking DYING) caused by this new thing is likely to also cause these effects."
It's not like it's some sort of special kind 'vaccine'-induced myocarditis where the cells in your heart are only mostly dead. They're dead. They're never coming back. And the effects of having parts of your heart being DEAD are likely to be the same, regardless of why parts of your heart DIED.
What a fucking cope. You made a bad call on this so-called vaccine and it looks like you're going to ride it into insanity. Here, I'll give you some good news to help let you off of your guilty conscience: you aren't personally responsible for any of this. You were just a useful idiot. You can turn it around at any point by just saying, "oh hey, maybe we should have given these jabs a little bit more scrutiny before mandating that everyone on the planet be injected with them?"
Why should there be a presumption in favor of that hypothesis though?
I think there is a huge difference between the risk for someone who has a myriad of health and heart problems, including myocraditis, and someone who only has that. Now, if all these people had heart problems following, like some people who suffered after taking the vaccine have, it would be a different matter. It does not seem to be like that.
What was my bad call?
How is that a 'turn'? I've always opposed mandates.