You're not engaging with this on a sensible level, and I'm putting that kindly. Far more people died to the 'placebo' shot of the second dose than the first dose, 15 vs 3. To insist this is random you have to ignore this as well as the other inexplicable 'adverse reactions' which keep happening from placebo, mentioned here
Why are you comparing the placebo 1st shot to the vaccine's 2nd shot? 3 died after the placebo, 2 after the vaccine. For the second, 15 died after the placebo, 16 after the vaccine.
You do know that some time passed in between, right? People die as time passes. Unfortunate but true.
Why are you assuming the time frame they're looking at when counting 2nd shot deaths is any different from the 1st shot?
By all means, do tell me about the time frame.
I just find it strange that you are hyperventilating about 'deadly placebos' when the death rate is exactly the same as for the vaccine. I assume this is because you want to be able to argue that the vaccine is a net negative, rather than having no effect.
you're ignoring such as 58% systemic reaction rate from placebo, 89% hand-foot-mouth disease rate from placebo, other adverse events from placebo and more?
Because I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of their 'studies', but I'm particularly skeptical of random images provided without context to someone who doesn't know anything about it (like you and me).
Sensible yet?
No, but it's clear you insist on believing what you want to believe.
We don't know it without reading the original study in detail, but I'm not going to do that since you're obviously not going to the effort of reading either of the 2 links provided. If the time frames they're looking at for each shot are comparable, then the numbers constitute useful comparisons between each stage, but maybe they're not. It is a useful comparison to strange placebo outcomes in other studies in any case.
I assume this is because you want to be able to argue that the vaccine is a net negative, rather than having no effect.
I can't tell if your understanding of my point is limited to the point of incomprehension or complicated to the point of being gibberish. The mRNA jabs are trash but irrelevant to the discussion of what a placebo should be expected to do. Placebos should not be producing statistically significant rates of adverse events, full stop.
No, but it's clear you insist on believing what you want to believe.
I believe it would be very strange for researchers to fabricate a practice of using empty LNPs during vaccination if they were not in fact doing so. I agree with anyone who says that this does not constitute a placebo, especially if such a placebo is documented to be producing adverse events. Is that so controversial that you have to invent a caricature of me 'hyperventilating' over it, in order to protect yourself from the upsetting implications? Apparently.
You're not engaging with this on a sensible level, and I'm putting that kindly. Far more people died to the 'placebo' shot of the second dose than the first dose, 15 vs 3. To insist this is random you have to ignore this as well as the other inexplicable 'adverse reactions' which keep happening from placebo, mentioned here
Why are you comparing the placebo 1st shot to the vaccine's 2nd shot? 3 died after the placebo, 2 after the vaccine. For the second, 15 died after the placebo, 16 after the vaccine.
You do know that some time passed in between, right? People die as time passes. Unfortunate but true.
I'm comparing the placebo's 1st shot to the placebo's 2nd shot.
Why are you assuming the time frame they're looking at when counting 2nd shot deaths is any different from the 1st shot? Why are you acting like I'm talking about this in isolation rather than as part of a range of events you're ignoring such as 58% systemic reaction rate from placebo, 89% hand-foot-mouth disease rate from placebo, other adverse events from placebo and more? Why are you acting as if researchers haven't casually mentioned using 'empty lipid nanoparticles during vaccination'?
Sensible yet?
By all means, do tell me about the time frame.
I just find it strange that you are hyperventilating about 'deadly placebos' when the death rate is exactly the same as for the vaccine. I assume this is because you want to be able to argue that the vaccine is a net negative, rather than having no effect.
Because I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of their 'studies', but I'm particularly skeptical of random images provided without context to someone who doesn't know anything about it (like you and me).
No, but it's clear you insist on believing what you want to believe.
We don't know it without reading the original study in detail, but I'm not going to do that since you're obviously not going to the effort of reading either of the 2 links provided. If the time frames they're looking at for each shot are comparable, then the numbers constitute useful comparisons between each stage, but maybe they're not. It is a useful comparison to strange placebo outcomes in other studies in any case.
I can't tell if your understanding of my point is limited to the point of incomprehension or complicated to the point of being gibberish. The mRNA jabs are trash but irrelevant to the discussion of what a placebo should be expected to do. Placebos should not be producing statistically significant rates of adverse events, full stop.
I believe it would be very strange for researchers to fabricate a practice of using empty LNPs during vaccination if they were not in fact doing so. I agree with anyone who says that this does not constitute a placebo, especially if such a placebo is documented to be producing adverse events. Is that so controversial that you have to invent a caricature of me 'hyperventilating' over it, in order to protect yourself from the upsetting implications? Apparently.