First a trickle....Now a flood

[User]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

I don't really care what was said in your random link about the possibility of vaccine injury because the reality is that is NOT the message that went out to the public.

All 3 of my links were literally messages that went out to the public. 

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

They were sold to the public as "safe & effective" and they were neither.

They were safe and effective. 

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

Bourla came out and said the jabs were 95% effective and 100% safe.  I posted his announcement here.

OK.. and? Lets see the quote. This dude is not the arbiter of all things COVID. The effectiveness of stopping the spread was wildly oversold as we found out, but that doesn't discount how effective they were also proven to be in reducing the risk of death or serious illness. 

The overwhelming vast majority of people got vaccinated with no issues. The small number of people who did have issues were minor. It was an extreme few people who had severe side effects. 

These are the facts. 

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

When I first started sharing data and incidents, the majority of people on this forum viciously attacked me and said there were no injuries.

OK? That was not me. 

The argument is not about there not being injuries or not. You do realize A LOT more people died from COVID, right?

 

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

I also posted FOI'ed  information that injuries were deliberately suppressed.

This doesn't change the facts that I have presented here. So what is your point other than throwing mud at the wall?

 

 

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

So, no.  It was not communicated publicly that injury was a possibility. There were no cost/risk benefit analyses done.  A universal medical procedure was mandated for all, regardless of risk, and that is not how scientific medicine works.  That's how Big Pharma works.

I literally shared several links that contradict this. You just saying no, doesn't refute that or make it so. I can share more links. The simple reality is that it was in fact shared that there was risk. 

I did not support the mandates, but as misguided or stupid and wrong as they were, they were based on the fact that people were dying from a novel virus spreading rapidly through the community. 


 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, User said:

I literally shared several links that contradict this.

I don't care what your links are.  That is NOT the message the public got.  The vaccine injured were called liars, anti-vaxxers, they were ignored and silenced.  Vaccine injury was hidden from the public.  On purpose.

As for safe & effective - any medical intervention that is given to healthy people with almost zero risk needs to be EVEN MORE safe.  And if it's FORCED on people - it better be 100% safe.  That is the normal medical ethics that we have followed since Hippocrates.  We threw medical ethics and science out the window.

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

I literally shared several links that contradict this. You just saying no, doesn't refute that or make it so. I can share more links. The simple reality is that it was in fact shared that there was risk. 

The link you shared showed unequivocally that the information was NOT accurately shared. They claimed a level of risk that was untrue and they knew that the risk level was not known for that type of vaccine. 

You can't run away from that.   If the gov't says the risk is a 4 when they know it's actually a 10 then they did NOT advise people about the risks, did they. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I don't care what your links are.  That is NOT the message the public got.

 

 

Well, obviously, you don't care much about facts here. You can keep denying it all you want, the message was clearly and repeatedly made:

Here is another article, highlighting someone with an adverse reaction... talking about the risks:

 

Hamilton PSW says allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccine led to fainting, seizures and CPR

Deborah Tilli says she still thinks people should get the vaccine

Bobby Hristova · CBC News · Posted: Dec 30, 2020 8:56 AM PST | Last Updated: December 30, 2020

 

"When you administer a vaccine to enough people, you're going to get adverse reactions ... there's really two safeguards there," Furness said. 

"One is public communication that says if you have severe allergies, this is not the vaccine for you, not now, not yet. Wait for Moderna, perhaps. So everyone who has allergies should be awake and paying attention to that. Number two is people who are doing screening should also be right on top of that, so it looks like there was a double failure."

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

The vaccine injured were called liars

The person above was not being called a liar.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

anti-vaxxers, they were ignored and silenced.  Vaccine injury was hidden from the public.  On purpose.

The person above was not ignored, silence, nor was this hidden from the public. 
 

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

As for safe & effective - any medical intervention that is given to healthy people with almost zero risk needs to be EVEN MORE safe.  And if it's FORCED on people - it better be 100% safe.  That is the normal medical ethics that we have followed since Hippocrates.  We threw medical ethics and science out the window.

I agree in as much as there were clearly more at risk demographics that we figured out as time went on. There was not much need for a healthy adult under the age of 40 to get vaccinated. Again, I do not support mandates here... but that is a completely different issue than the one you are peddling about the vaccine. 

You have not spent years on this thread or this forum only wanting to oppose mandates. You push anti-vax lies, propaganda to oppose vaccines in general, regardless of any mandates. 

 

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The link you shared showed unequivocally that the information was NOT accurately shared. They claimed a level of risk that was untrue and they knew that the risk level was not known for that type of vaccine. 

You can't run away from that.   If the gov't says the risk is a 4 when they know it's actually a 10 then they did NOT advise people about the risks, did they. 

 

Show me where in my link, make your argument. Stop speaking out of your rear with baseless assertions. 

Define the risk. Let's see your argument. Let's see your facts. Let's see you make a well-reasoned, articulate argument. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

Show me where in my link, make your argument. Stop speaking out of your rear with baseless assertions. 

Define the risk. Let's see your argument. Let's see your facts. Let's see you make a well-reasoned, articulate argument. 

 

Dude i did that already multiple times above!!!  What the hell, all of a sudden you're arguing like a liberal?!?!

In the link you provided they proposed that the risk of the new covid vaccine was the same as any regular vaccine. They knew at the time that was not accurate, the mNRA vaccines were a new technology with many untested elements and they were NOT known to be as safe as existing vaccines. At the time they knew there could be many unknown risks or effects 

And later we would see that such concerns were correct. while you can argue they were necessary if you like you cannot argue they're as safe as regular vaccines 

And i have pointed all this out previously 

FURTHER in public the same politicians and medical officer downplayed the risks even more as i noted in my link

You cannot reasonably argue that the gov't substantially disclosed the risk of the vaccine AT ALL.  they claimed with surety that it was as safe as any vaccine while knowing that the data to date did not allow for that conclusion. 

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, User said:

The person

One person.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

they claimed with surety that it was as safe as any vaccine while knowing that the data to date did not allow for that conclusion. 

Israel was the testing ground, they received the jabs before everyone else and the data showed evidence of increased myocarditis in young people.  That data was not only hidden and not disclosed to the public, anyone who pointed it out was vilified.  In fact, the alphabet agencies utterly denied it until they couldn't anymore.  Same thing happened with women and menstrual issues.  Deny, deny, deny - until it was so obvious and happening to so many that they finally had to admit it was true.

Like with climate issues, models were used based on worst-case scenarios and the responses, mitigations were based on those.

I've worked in risk management and that's not what's supposed to happen.  Yes, we want to know the worst-case scenario, but what is the percentage of chance that that worst-case scenario will happen?

For healthy young people and frankly - the majority of people, there was no danger from covid.  That means for the vast majority of people, the jabs had no up-side.  All risk, no benefit.

[Goddess]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you cannot argue they're as safe as regular vaccines 

This is the biggest lie that coronamaniacs still believe.  They are still saying that they were subject to the same testing as other vaccines.  They were not.

They were not tested for transmission, meaning they didn't know if you got the jab whether you were protected and/or able to pass it on.  They knew this from the beginning, yet the message to the public was "If you get these shots, you won't get covid and you won't pass it on."

This was even in the contracts the governments signed with Pharma.

They were not tested for carcinogenicity or fertility issues.  Prior to the human rollout, they already knew from animal testing that the spike and the LNPs settled in the testes and ovaries.  They already knew they didn't prevent infection, all the animals got it again and they died.

These are not regular vaccines, they are genetic therapies.  That's what they were invented for and the kinks were still being worked out.  They were not ready for human use.

The public was 100% duped.  And anyone who doesn't see that is a fool and ready to be duped again.  That's what scares me.

Governments and corporations learned one thing during covid - they can scare a compliant public into doing anything, ingesting anything, giving away their freedoms and rights as human beings.  All in the name of BIG money.

Until people start wising up - and that means admitting you were duped - they will do it again.

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

One person.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

This is it? This is your response?

First, this is the stupid game you play on here where you find one person allegedly harmed by the vaccine and then ignore all facts, statistics, logic, and reason to conclude that shows how awful the vaccine was.

Second, all I needed was one example to disprove your blanket assertion.

I can provide more. 

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, User said:

this is the stupid game you play on here where you find one person allegedly harmed by the vaccine and then ignore all facts, statistics, logic, and reason to conclude that shows how awful the vaccine was.

No, it's the stupid game YOU play.

In the recent covid hearing in the US Senate, the stats were that REPORTED deaths per million in 2023 were:

Covid injections - 25.5

Flu vaccine - 0.46

As we know, not many actual covid vaccine deaths were counted as such.  Dr. Denis Rancourt estimates that 17 million died from the jabs, the majority of them are young people.

[User]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude i did that already multiple times above!!!  What the hell, all of a sudden you're arguing like a liberal?!?!

No, you didn’t. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring me. You throw the term risk around, make assertions about it, but then refuse to define what it is you are talking about or expecting.

You do this because the game you are playing is you expected people to know the future and fully explain and define a risk they didn’t know existed.

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In the link you provided

Show me. Quote it. I’ve asked you to do this and get and over again now. 
 

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You cannot reasonably argue that the gov't substantially disclosed the risk of the vaccine AT ALL.  they claimed with surety that it was as safe as any vaccine while knowing that the data to date did not allow for that conclusion. 

Argue? I’ve posted link after link showing explicitly they in fact did discuss the risk. The media reported on it. Doctors informed on it. The government published details on it. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No, it's the stupid game YOU play.

In the recent covid hearing in the US Senate, the stats were that REPORTED deaths per million in 2023 were:

Covid injections - 25.5

Flu vaccine - 0.46

As we know, not many actual covid vaccine deaths were counted as such.  Dr. Denis Rancourt estimates that 17 million died from the jabs, the majority of them are young people.

17 million died from the COVID vaccine?!

That exceeds all directly attributed COVID deaths and almost the estimated deaths from COVID.

You are completely unhinged from reality if you believe that. 
 

If you want to cite this BS, then let’s see your sources. The links. 
 

 

[Goddess]

33 minutes ago, User said:

That exceeds all directly attributed COVID deaths and almost the estimated deaths from COVID.

Correct.

34 minutes ago, User said:

The links. 

COVID - Denis Rancourt

 

47 minutes ago, User said:

you expected people to know the future and fully explain and define a risk they didn’t know existed.

They knew.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

42 minutes ago, User said:

 

COVID - Denis Rancourt

Yeah, I don’t play the link spam game. This is a link to endless links.

You want us to believe this outrageous BS. Expect us to believe that the whole worlds leading health agencies, scientists, governments are all in on a lie to cover up that the COVID vaccine killed 17 million people?

Then you better to better than post a link to a bunch of links. 

[Goddess]

48 minutes ago, User said:

they in fact did discuss the risk.

Then why did polls at the time show that the vast majority of people thought the risk of dying from covid was over 50%?

The actual known risk early on was about 1% and it turned out to be even less than that.

The "discussed the risk" by scaring the pants off the public.  It was dishonest, which is the point both of us are making but you obtusely ignore.  It was unnecessary fear-mongering for profit.  

Hopefully you wise up the next time.

 

[User]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

They knew.

Just because you assert it doesn’t make it true.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, you didn’t. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring me.

Nobody ignored you and I repeated myself because you weren't listening. A fact proven by the fact that you asked me to repeat myself yet again

Your own quote demonstrates that they presented the idea to the public that these were safe as any vaccine and that it was known that the risk was tiny. Both of those statements are false and they knew that at the time because they knew the testing wasn't as rigorous as a normal vaccine and they knew there was a great deal of possibility for side effects that had not been identified as product have never been used wide scale.

Those are simple facts

1 hour ago, User said:

You throw the term risk around, make assertions about it, but then refuse to define what it is you are talking about or expecting.

I have literally defined what I'm talking about and what I'm expecting in precise language. Stop being so dishonest. We can have a difference in opinion without you trying to break out bullcrap and lies to support your position. I am well aware you're smarter than that

As I have said many times above my expectation would have been that they would be honest with people. What I am talking about is the fact that they weren't honest with people and that they frequently radically downplayed the risks while knowing that the evidence did not support that conclusion, therefore when they tell the public that it's as safe as any other vaccine they are knowingly stating something that is untrue.

Therefore they are not substantially warning the public about the risks involved.

Let me try this another way.  If i told you That it was okay to drink and drive because while there was a slim chance it might increase your risk of an accident that increase is absolutely tiny and negligible and not significantly higher than you drinking normally,  that would be dishonest woudn't it.  You would not say that i gave you a substantially correct evaluation of the risks.  If you then drank and drove and got into an accident, a court would likely find that i bore responsibility for not warning you about the risks 

This is the same. As your link pointed out, they downplayed the risk to a level that was unreasonable given their knowledge.   That means the public was not adequately warned about the risk.

I have been 100% clear about that

So when you say I haven't provided that information previously that is absolutely dishonest of you. Knock it off.

1 hour ago, User said:

Show me. Quote it. I’ve asked you to do this and get and over again now

You want me to show you the quote that you provided? Are you kidding me?

Are you saying you did NOT post this?

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, issued the following statement today:

"Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions. After being vaccinated, it's common to have mild side effects, such as redness and swelling at the injection site — this is the body's natural response, as it's working to build immunity against a disease. In most instances, these effects resolve quickly and completely. However, it is also possible for someone to have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. "

You're a fcuking liar kid.  I don't mind honest debate and disagreement but now you're just lying your ass off because you're butthurt you're losing. Shame on you 

A coward plays the "sea lion" game, a coward claims he wasn't provided with details that were clearly provided, you are fast becoming a lying sack of shit coward. 

I HAVE made my position clear, I HAVE provided my own quotes to prove the point and i've pointed out the quotes which YOU NOW DENY YOU POSTED EVEN THO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT. 

At this point we're done with the debate, I'm just going to sit here and make fun of you and your replies for the amusement of myself and others. That was absolutely pathetic of you.

The government Failed to warn the public of the risks and any significant or meaningful way and they failed to stand behind the people who got sick from their mistakes, and this is exactly what people were afraid of. Cope with it

Edited May 27 by CdnFox

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Then you better to better than post a link to a bunch of links.

Does your mom have to wipe your ass, too?  It's the one that has "17 million deaths" in the title. 🙄

I suggest you check out some of his other papers.  That's why I gave you the link to the body of his work.

2024-12-07 Did the C19 vaccine kill 17 million Yes but how Not what you think - Denis Rancourt

7 minutes ago, User said:

Just because you assert it doesn’t make it true.

 

They knew.

Look, I'm sorry they lied to you and I'm sorry you fell for it.

Do better next time.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Then why did polls at the time show that the vast majority of people thought the risk of dying from covid was over 50%?

Polls are polls. They are a discussion on perception, not facts.

This is also a discussion about the risk of COVID, not the vaccine, which is what was being discussed.

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The actual known risk early on was about 1% and it turned out to be even less than that.

Early on… when exactly? Risk was 1% of what exactly? Because if you were 35 years old, fat, had some underlying health issue, that risk was a lot more than 1%…

This was a novel virus spreading quickly killing people. There wasn’t much definitively known and it continued to mutate after. 

 

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The "discussed the risk" by scaring the pants off the public.  It was dishonest, which is the point both of us are making but you obtusely ignore.  It was unnecessary fear-mongering for profit.  

Hopefully you wise up the next time.

Some certainly did fear mongering over this, many on the left politicized that, but you are conflating different things. COVID was still deadly, still scary to some degree, especially early on when we didn’t know more. 
 

I have been wise most of this time. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

I have been wise most of this time. 

BWAAAHAHHA kid you haven't managed to be wise on this PAGE yet  

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Cope with it

The thing I find with User is that he gets on here and starts arguing with one point, while not having a f*cking clue of the processes that got to the point.  Now you have to go back and go over everything that you've already posted.

He quickly googles an opposite opinion that he likes and agrees with and declares that the truth.  With zero critical thinking or evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of opposing views.

I find it difficult to deal with him because he is jumping into a complex subject with very little knowledge of the basics of it.  And a brain still filled with propaganda from 2020, the majority of which was proven false years ago.

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, User said:

Early on… when exactly? Risk was 1% of what exactly? Because if you were 35 years old, fat, had some underlying health issue, that risk was a lot more than 1%…

This is a prime example of what I just said to Foxy.

If you don't understand where the 1% came from or how risk is evaluated or the differences between absolute and relative risk or R naughts.......go learn the basics first.  Then we can discuss.

I've posted extensively about all this.

[Goddess]

 

Researchers from Mount Sinai and Yale took antibodies from people with long COVID and injected them into healthy mice. Result? The mice developed chronic pain, fatigue, and nerve inflammation—exactly like the patients.

A causal link between autoantibodies and neurological symptoms in long COVID - ScienceDirect

Mount Sinai Scientists Validate a Link Between Autoimmunity in a Subset of People With Long COVID | Mount Sinai - New York

This transfer did not occur with antibodies from people who had recovered or who had never been infected.

This proves that, in a portion of the patients, the symptoms (especially the pain) are caused by autoantibodies that attack the body itself: brain, nerves, blood vessels.

It’s not psychosomatic. It’s biological, real, and transmissible through the blood.

This is a major breakthrough: it validates autoimmunity as a mechanism in some patients and opens the door to targeted treatments (IVIG, plasmapheresis, etc.). But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Behind these autoantibodies, there are molecular mechanisms at work. The breakdown of self-tolerance can have various origins... chronic inflammation, issues in the ontogeny of immune cells, epigenetic programming (hey… we might end up talking about CXCL10 again), antigenic or pathogen persistence, predisposing terrains....

What needs to be clearly understood is that once the autoimmune reaction is triggered, you don’t really cure it. You can only control it. And the slightest re-exposure to the responsible antigen, especially the persistent Spike protein, whether from the virus or from injections, risks reigniting the pathological response.

But targeting these antibodies may offer some therapeutic relief to long covid patients.

This also ties in with the IgG4 antibody switch, since this study was basically asking whether IgG patients with long covid binds to human tissues/antigens and whether this causes pathologies when transferred into humanized mice.

This also raises a serious question for blood transfusions. If autoantibodies and/or circulating Spike can be transmitted via plasma or other components, then asymptomatic donors (post-COVID or post-injection) could potentially transfer these factors to vulnerable recipients. This theoretical risk deserves a real evaluation and precautionary measures (tests for circulating Spike, screening for autoantibodies in donors, etc.), rather than the current silence.

 

Add this new information can be added to this study from 2024, still awaiting peer review.  🙄

A causal link between autoantibodies and neurological symptoms in long COVID - PMC

 

PolyBio Research Foundation is currently funding a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of low-dose sirolimus at Mount Sinai (Cohen Center), in collaboration with David Putrino and other top-tier teams. This isn't some idea pulled out of a hat. It's a serious lead, grounded in documented biological mechanisms (mTOR activation, immune exhaustion, antigenic persistence).

Unfortunately, sirolimus can often exhibit some serious adverse effects, such as mouth sores, diarrhea, high blood pressure, swelling of the extremities, renal issues and increased risk from other infections due to delayed healing processes.

At least we have some really good, smart independent scientists and researchers looking into helping the covid vax injured, while everyone else is still denying they exist or denying the extent of the problem.  It's not just about deaths from the vax, it's also the large number of people whose quality of life has diminished to the extent they cannot work, as US disability stats and insurance records have shown.

[User]

On 5/27/2026 at 9:47 AM, Goddess said:

Does your mom have to wipe your ass, too?  It's the one that has "17 million deaths" in the title. 🙄

I suggest you check out some of his other papers.  That's why I gave you the link to the body of his work.

2024-12-07 Did the C19 vaccine kill 17 million Yes but how Not what you think - Denis Rancourt

These are your claims. It is not my job to wade through the BS you spam here with to figure out what your sources are. 

This paper is full of shit, which is exactly why it is buried on some page here and not actually supported in the scientific community. 

The basic premise is... deaths went up after vaccines, so it must be vaccines! 

Guess what else was happening, COVID! Excess deaths happened because people were dying from COVID. 

This is a bad case of correlation != causation. 

 

On 5/27/2026 at 9:47 AM, Goddess said:

They knew.

Look, I'm sorry they lied to you and I'm sorry you fell for it.

Do better next time.

What lie did I fall for?

You are here asserting they knew the risk before the risk was even known... this is your garbage claim to support. 

 

On 5/27/2026 at 9:57 AM, CdnFox said:

BWAAAHAHHA kid you haven't managed to be wise on this PAGE yet  

Which is why you can't answer my simple questions and resort to your usual childish antics. 

[User]

On 5/27/2026 at 9:47 AM, CdnFox said:

Nobody ignored you and I repeated myself because you weren't listening. A fact proven by the fact that you asked me to repeat myself yet again

Your own quote demonstrates that they presented the idea to the public that these were safe as any vaccine and that it was known that the risk was tiny. Both of those statements are false and they knew that at the time because they knew the testing wasn't as rigorous as a normal vaccine and they knew there was a great deal of possibility for side effects that had not been identified as product have never been used wide scale.

Those are simple facts

Yes, you are ignoring my questions. You just keep making the assertions and do not back them up with any real argument or facts. 

What my own quote? Give it to me. 

You are playing some silly game of absolutes, as if "they" said the vaccines was literally 100% exactly as perfectly safe as any other vaccine, when that is not what was said generally speaking by the scientific community or government health entities. The argument generally was that vaccines are "safe" and this vaccine did go through testing. To that point, the one being made, is that this vaccine was safe like the others. 

And guess what... it was and is. 

The vast vast vast majority of folks had no issues. Those who did were minor and quickly recovered. 

AND YOU STILL HAVE YET TO DEFINE THIS RISK THAT YOU THINK THEY KNEW BEFORE OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BEFORE

 

 

On 5/27/2026 at 9:47 AM, CdnFox said:

I have literally defined what I'm talking about and what I'm expecting in precise language. Stop being so dishonest. We can have a difference in opinion without you trying to break out bullcrap and lies to support your position. I am well aware you're smarter than that

No, you have not. 

On 5/27/2026 at 9:47 AM, CdnFox said:

As I have said many times above my expectation would have been that they would be honest with people. What I am talking about is the fact that they weren't honest with people and that they frequently radically downplayed the risks while knowing that the evidence did not support that conclusion, therefore when they tell the public that it's as safe as any other vaccine they are knowingly stating something that is untrue.

Therefore they are not substantially warning the public about the risks involved.

What risks? What risks? What risks?

 

 

On 5/27/2026 at 9:47 AM, CdnFox said:

You want me to show you the quote that you provided? Are you kidding me?

Are you saying you did NOT post this?

That quote does not say:

"They knew at the time that was not accurate, the mNRA vaccines were a new technology with many untested elements and they were NOT known to be as safe as existing vaccines. At the time they knew there could be many unknown risks or effects "

[User]

On 5/27/2026 at 9:59 AM, Goddess said:

The thing I find with User is that he gets on here and starts arguing with one point, while not having a f*cking clue of the processes that got to the point.  Now you have to go back and go over everything that you've already posted.

He quickly googles an opposite opinion that he likes and agrees with and declares that the truth.  With zero critical thinking or evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of opposing views.

I find it difficult to deal with him because he is jumping into a complex subject with very little knowledge of the basics of it.  And a brain still filled with propaganda from 2020, the majority of which was proven false years ago.

Well, you certainly love to think very highly of yourself, but in reality, you offer the same surface-level deep tropes any average conspiratorial anti-vaxxer pushes, and then you fold under the slightest criticism.

Your idea of "critical thinking" pretty much comes down to mindlessly quoting the most fringe people who have very little to no real facts or science to back up this shit they are serving. 

Then, when I point all this out, when I give you facts and data, you ignore it... move on to the next silly assertion. 

On 5/27/2026 at 10:02 AM, Goddess said:

This is a prime example of what I just said to Foxy.

If you don't understand where the 1% came from or how risk is evaluated or the differences between absolute and relative risk or R naughts.......go learn the basics first.  Then we can discuss.

I've posted extensively about all this.

Once again, this is not a problem with my understanding; it is you making baseless assertions with no context. 

YOU brought this up. If you can't back it up, don't bother.