guest1178273

guest1178273

Member
  • Content

    77
  • Visitors

    733
  • Followers

    0
  • Likes

    50

About guest1178273

Latest Activity

  1. It's all clear to me now. Thank you
  2. "I in no way implied, much less stated that no one was qualified to infer anything" -Yes you did. See below. "where's the rational response that argues that the general public is equipped to infer ANYTHING from the VAERS database?" "Sharing...
  3. You don't need any type of qualification to be concerned about adverse effects people are having to the covid vaccine. But if you want to keep talking about qualifications, I'd say you're not qualified to suggest otherwise. It is tantamount to ...
  4. ?‍♀️ OK then
  5. I understand what you're saying and agree completely. I just think that so many reports aren't to be dismissed offhand and chalked up to something as random as the bird poop in the eye scenario. Some reasonable percentage of those VAERS reports proba...
  6. I didn't say they were evidence. I didn't isolate specific complaints in VAERS. In fact, I specifically said I knew that all reports weren't factual. I only said there are a lot of people reporting adverse events. This, TO ME, my opinion, please take...
  7. Thanks for clarifying that I left the word "event" out of my response, but I did not put the word "reaction" in its place. I do understand what you're saying though, and that makes perfect sense. I think some people might think an "event" is fairly s...
  8. I didn't intentionally misinterpret anything. I saw your bullet points. They were clear. I was clear, too. I said being hesitant doesn't make someone "amoral". That's pretty much the gist. "VAERS are not reports of adverse reactions" Um, VA...
  9. Because they ARE different. We don't have evidence yet that the amount of mRNA reaching the immune system is efficacious, nor do we know if the mRNA delivery system (nano lipid particle) has any negative side effects yet. It may take more time ...
  10. I've suggested what might be questionable with long term efficacy, as well as safety of the vaccine. I don't have "facts or evidence to support the notion that there is cause to be concerned", but I also don't have evidence to the contrary because no...
  11. Why do you think the mRNA vaccines are special in this regard? We've never used mRNA vaccines before. That's why.
  12. What I think is, that we don't have enough long term evidence of safety.
  13. As you like to say, that's your opinion. I don't need to justify anything.
  14. Agreed, but if you fail to the see the sarcasm and intent to belittle in poster's response, there's no reason to comment further.
  15. "Lipid nanoparticle" (LNP) is the scientific word used in the article and in the scientific research. Not my term (I didn't say you said it was, just stating). Not sure why 'nano' suggests something nefarious, but that may just be your interpretation...