So you just spew crap with absolutely nothing to back it up?
You have never said verbatim "Guys take this untested vaccine". I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that was writing in long form what is implied when you advocate taking the fauci ouchie.
Problem is, I didn't "advocate" anything. But since you just make up stuff out of whole cloth, you probably don't care about the truth.
What I've said is that the vaccine is useful for people who are at risk. If you're 70+, morbidly obese (maybe that is why you as an American thought I was 'advocating for it', since you all are), then yes, the benefits do outweigh the risks.
And you're a retard if you hold otherwise. So yeah, I stand by everything I said. It has held up quite well.
That's why you can't produce any receipts for what you claimed I said.
In terms of medical procedures? It certainly is. Show me the 10 year trial data
Looks like another fake quote.
But this one I'd actually endorse. You can't call it "untested" nor "tested". It's in the middle. The amount of risk that one would accept from the vaccine is related to the amount of protection it's supposed to provide. So for 16-year-olds, who are basically not at risk from the virus, it'd have to be very safe - but for 80-year-olds, it might be worth recommending even if it has significant risks.
But go ahead and dismiss any nuanced position as "LEWLZ ADVOCATING FOR DA VACCINE". As if it's by definition a bad thing.
So you just spew crap with absolutely nothing to back it up?
Problem is, I didn't "advocate" anything. But since you just make up stuff out of whole cloth, you probably don't care about the truth.
What I've said is that the vaccine is useful for people who are at risk. If you're 70+, morbidly obese (maybe that is why you as an American thought I was 'advocating for it', since you all are), then yes, the benefits do outweigh the risks.
And you're a retard if you hold otherwise. So yeah, I stand by everything I said. It has held up quite well.
That's why you can't produce any receipts for what you claimed I said.
Looks like another fake quote.
But this one I'd actually endorse. You can't call it "untested" nor "tested". It's in the middle. The amount of risk that one would accept from the vaccine is related to the amount of protection it's supposed to provide. So for 16-year-olds, who are basically not at risk from the virus, it'd have to be very safe - but for 80-year-olds, it might be worth recommending even if it has significant risks.
But go ahead and dismiss any nuanced position as "LEWLZ ADVOCATING FOR DA VACCINE". As if it's by definition a bad thing.