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.
We don't know it without reading the original study in detail
I mean, there's an obvious conclusion based on the data. And it isn't "OMG THEY ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER WITH PLACEBOS".
I'm not going to do that since you're obviously not going to the effort of reading either of the 2 links provided.
I don't read stuff from random blogs, but I am surprised that you do read it and then proceed to take it seriously.
Placebos should not be producing statistically significant rates of adverse events, full stop.
Here we agree. We don't agree about your attribution of those 'adverse events' to the placebo.
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?
The world would not be more or less upsetting in the absence of deadly placebos. That would be the least of my worries, the way we're tailspinning into oblivion. That said, I do make it a habit to be critical of random stuff on the internet, just as I am of the MSM. It's bad to exchange one form of NPC'ism for another.
If you actually believe this, then I'd present it to someone like Bret Weinstein and see what he has to say about it.
"OMG THEY ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER WITH PLACEBOS".
then I'd present it to someone like Bret Weinstein
We're talking on different levels. Bret Weinstein really hasn't said much that's useful about the pandemic at all, at least not where he hasn't trailed months behind people like Jessica Rose (and Meryl Nass, Stephanie Seneff, JC Coeuy and others), who's been consistently insightful and ahead of the curve when talking about VAERS, amyloids, poor-fidelity mRNA and countless other things on her 'random blog'. Bret's a lightning rod for ignorant attention and a punching bag for narrative-spewing types like sam harris who wait for him to screw up some basic vaxx-sceptic fact and then ritually trash him in catharsis, all the better for maintaining the orthodoxy.
Since you accept that information and theories are opaque to the average layman like you and I, you should probably read more random blogs rather than wait for information to be laundered through questionable figures like Weinstein. Otherwise you remain susceptible to the manipulation possible when social institutions start messing with the definitions of words, hoping you'll accuse those noticing of being crazy.
The world would not be more or less upsetting in the absence of deadly placebos.
But you make such sweeping statements as 'placebos don't cause myocarditis', and use that as an apparent foundation for further judgements, when a closer examination reveals that there's no such certainty in a post-2020 world. You then recoil from that closer examination, even when learned people are attempting to present it in such a way that would mean you'd no longer know nothing about it, as you accept you currently do.
Most people are upset when their accepted truths are challenged. If you were really as comfortable as you claim, not having any firm basis of definition for the things you're talking about, I suspect you wouldn't try to argue them one way or the other. Yet you do, while attempting to exaggerate and loonify the things you disagree with, in order to make doing so easier.
Bret Weinstein really hasn't said much that's useful about the pandemic at all, at least not where he hasn't trailed months behind people like Jessica Rose (and Meryl Nass, Stephanie Seneff, JC Coeuy and others),
I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.
Since you accept that information and theories are opaque to the average layman like you and I, you should probably read more random blogs rather than wait for information to be laundered through questionable figures like Weinstein.
But is there any reason to believe that those 'random blogs' provide information that is reliable? I don't see it. I accept information that I can verify myself, as much as I can at least.
Otherwise you remain susceptible to the manipulation possible when social institutions start messing with the definitions of words, hoping you'll accuse those noticing of being crazy.
I accept your claim that placebos are not supposed to cause side-effects. Indeed, that's the whole point of a placebo. However, I'm not persuaded that there are deadly placebos being used. Extraordinary claims require...
But you make such sweeping statements as 'placebos don't cause myocarditis',
I didn't. But I would. Because I am pretty sure that they do not.
You then recoil from that closer examination, even when learned people are attempting to present it in such a way that would mean you'd no longer know nothing about it, as you accept you currently do.
I'm not at all attached to 'knowing' anything. I'm fine with saying that I don't know. This was just not sufficient evidence to persuade me that I don't know.
Most people are upset when their accepted truths are challenged
And I have noticed, because I'm usually the one challenging their accepted truths.
If you were really as comfortable as you claim, not having any firm basis of definition for the things you're talking about, I suspect you wouldn't try to argue them one way or the other. Yet you do, while attempting to exaggerate and loonify the things you disagree with, in order to make doing so easier.
So when trying to judge whether something is true, you have to take into account how likely something is, and the evidence for it. If you tried to claim that Biden has ice cream for breakfast this morning, I'd be content with fairly meager evidence. If you make extraordinary claims, I'll ask for something more than just random blog post.
Now, considering that we know the establishment is corrupt, could it be that those random blog posts are the only ones pointing out the truth? It's certainly not impossible. But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.
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.
I mean, there's an obvious conclusion based on the data. And it isn't "OMG THEY ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER WITH PLACEBOS".
I don't read stuff from random blogs, but I am surprised that you do read it and then proceed to take it seriously.
Here we agree. We don't agree about your attribution of those 'adverse events' to the placebo.
The world would not be more or less upsetting in the absence of deadly placebos. That would be the least of my worries, the way we're tailspinning into oblivion. That said, I do make it a habit to be critical of random stuff on the internet, just as I am of the MSM. It's bad to exchange one form of NPC'ism for another.
If you actually believe this, then I'd present it to someone like Bret Weinstein and see what he has to say about it.
We're talking on different levels. Bret Weinstein really hasn't said much that's useful about the pandemic at all, at least not where he hasn't trailed months behind people like Jessica Rose (and Meryl Nass, Stephanie Seneff, JC Coeuy and others), who's been consistently insightful and ahead of the curve when talking about VAERS, amyloids, poor-fidelity mRNA and countless other things on her 'random blog'. Bret's a lightning rod for ignorant attention and a punching bag for narrative-spewing types like sam harris who wait for him to screw up some basic vaxx-sceptic fact and then ritually trash him in catharsis, all the better for maintaining the orthodoxy.
Since you accept that information and theories are opaque to the average layman like you and I, you should probably read more random blogs rather than wait for information to be laundered through questionable figures like Weinstein. Otherwise you remain susceptible to the manipulation possible when social institutions start messing with the definitions of words, hoping you'll accuse those noticing of being crazy.
But you make such sweeping statements as 'placebos don't cause myocarditis', and use that as an apparent foundation for further judgements, when a closer examination reveals that there's no such certainty in a post-2020 world. You then recoil from that closer examination, even when learned people are attempting to present it in such a way that would mean you'd no longer know nothing about it, as you accept you currently do.
Most people are upset when their accepted truths are challenged. If you were really as comfortable as you claim, not having any firm basis of definition for the things you're talking about, I suspect you wouldn't try to argue them one way or the other. Yet you do, while attempting to exaggerate and loonify the things you disagree with, in order to make doing so easier.
I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.
But is there any reason to believe that those 'random blogs' provide information that is reliable? I don't see it. I accept information that I can verify myself, as much as I can at least.
I accept your claim that placebos are not supposed to cause side-effects. Indeed, that's the whole point of a placebo. However, I'm not persuaded that there are deadly placebos being used. Extraordinary claims require...
I didn't. But I would. Because I am pretty sure that they do not.
I'm not at all attached to 'knowing' anything. I'm fine with saying that I don't know. This was just not sufficient evidence to persuade me that I don't know.
And I have noticed, because I'm usually the one challenging their accepted truths.
So when trying to judge whether something is true, you have to take into account how likely something is, and the evidence for it. If you tried to claim that Biden has ice cream for breakfast this morning, I'd be content with fairly meager evidence. If you make extraordinary claims, I'll ask for something more than just random blog post.
Now, considering that we know the establishment is corrupt, could it be that those random blog posts are the only ones pointing out the truth? It's certainly not impossible. But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.