@agaperealm @DeezMistaReez @BowsacNoodle @Ovpod

>. I don't suppose you've done a click on the BMJ Group's About Us page.

Are you serious? the BMJ is one of the top medical journals in the world.

>Or, maybe you have and you're aligned with the sky is falling climate emergency crowd.

Ah yes the "i don't understand climate change so the entire scientific and medical establishment should listen to me about vaccines, which I am also wrong about" argument. Global warming is an extential risk to humankind and covid is preventing us from dealing with it effectively, by wasting our time in threads like this.

> . Remember 99% of scientists agree with the opinion of those funding them.

Yeah you made that up on the spot, and it's irrelevant in any case *because their data speaks for itself*.

> It is hard to find people these days who aren't aware of the COVID-19 "vaccination" myocarditis pericarditis connection.

Yeah they are wrong, as this study shows.

> Even the completely compromised CDC has had to publish the connection.

Yeah

> Considering the CDC's initial position on the vaxes was that they're completely safe

Nothing is completely safe, and the CDC didn't claim as such. They have

> and almost 100% effective at preventing transmission

At the targetted variant it is. But here's the thing; we were told, since day #1 that if this virus was allowed to mutate it was likely to not be like that forever. And it did, adn now we're not even targetting the correct circulating strains because you covidiots have allowed too many hosts for covid to mutate in.

> We've all been waiting for decades for a vaccine to cure the common cold.


>The flu vaccine 20% to 30% effective after decades of use

OK we're getting people in here claim 50% it's either 50% or 20% pick one guys. And the surveillance network of 2019 was not even remotely comparable to the flu surveillance network of 1999 or 1989 -- the cost of sequencing has fallen substantially over the decades and the speed has increased, the presence of labs capable of doing it is much greater. We can do a lot better targetting of flu strains than we could 2 decades ago and if the US hadn't defunded its pandemic response team during the trump years we'd probably be well on our way to eradicating even more flu strains than we have.

>. Enter COVID-19. Within 9 months 4 different companies have a vax based on a new, untested mRNA

Which you would have known about had you been actually following medical journals before covid hit. TWIV was talking about LNPs being used as a vaccine platform back in the late naughts. The tech was ready it just needed funding, which was suddenly available since *everyone in the fucking world needed something to deal with the imminent danger to their health and the lives of their loved ones*

>, "Almost 100% effective at preventing contraction and transmission" but within 6 months they've gradually reduced that to 40% effective.

Yeah, that's what happens when you're faced with an evolving foe. If we had reduced transmission/infection more we could have spread that time from 6 months to a lot longer, but we chose not to thanks to a combination of BLM covidiots on the left and "let er rip" covidiots on the right.

> And the Pfizer clinical data? You don't need to see that for...70 years.

We don't have to care about pfizer's clinical data anymore -we've got plenty of data from *outside of pfizer's control* on what the vaccines do. This vaccine has now hundreds of billions of datapoints on what it does. and guess what? it reduces transmission, reduces infection, just as they were supposed to, with minimal side effects and about as many people killed from the vaccine as you would expect from a vaccine given to so many people (actually about an order of magnitude less than that).

> 9 full pages of contraindications in what we were told was a perfectly safe, "experimental vaccine"


> that, by the way, the manufacturer's could not be held liable for people who suffered contraindications from their product.

Good. They shouldn't have to put up with antivaxxers using lawfare against them.

> The best part? They don't have to prove efficacy and they couldn't if they even wanted to.

They *have* proven efficiency either way.

> "Well, how do you know that?" "We just know." Got it.

No, because the pathology of covid is well documented and you can tell large groups apart in terms of health outcomes by whether or not they fit the patterns of other similar groups

>. They pulled of the most successful financial scam in corporate history.

You should take a look at the "alternative medicine" scumbags books sometime