Netsua 3:16
AND THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE
@Lineandinitial gimmick profile?Pay attention boy
@Lineandinitial gimmick profile?Pay attention boy
But the doctors get the info from the patient, and has to report it, verified or not. Not a hard concept.
In a perfect world I’d be going door to door investigating every one of those and getting paid to do itWhere does it say verified or not? It says they should report whether they have reason to believe it was caused by the vaccine or not. And the reactions that can only be determined by a subjective accounting of the patient usually aren't the type of reaction that causes concern about the vaccine, unless they are more than just transient, in which case they can run tests to determine a cause. My whole point is that, though VAERS reports don't necessarily prove anything about the safety of a vaccine, they also shouldn't be summarily dismissed on that basis. It's not just random cranks reporting nonsense in order to further some anti-vaxx conspiracy. But, according to some people's responses, it seems like that's what they believe. I wonder where they would get such ideas.
In a perfect world I’d be going door to door investigating every one of those and getting paid to do it
That would prove whether or not the claims are legitimate, and provide an audit to the reporting process. Something this serious, a number that small, it could be accomplished under a United journalistic umbrella. Each case deserves It’s own specific consideration.What would that prove? Double blind, random controlled studies are the best way we have to gather usable data. Opening up the vaccine to the general public makes it just about impossible to gather that data, unless they are still running controlled studies at the same time, but I haven't seen any claims of such being the case. I have posited that, if they were actually still running studies and doing it on the entire general public, then some portion of the shots given would have to be placebo.
That would prove whether or not the claims are legitimate, and provide an audit to the reporting process. Something this serious, a number that small, it could be accomplished under a United journalistic umbrella. Each case deserves It’s own specific consideration.
My willingness and eagerness to accomplish this, in my dreams at least, shows you how intrigued I am by your claims. They’re just not enough for me yet, to not dismiss them. I need to be convinced to decline more rational, observable, reasonable reports
Your opinion on journalists is reflective of modern day MSM, and NOT OG journalists; on whom the country freaking RELIED ON for ANY information pertaining to big subjects like this; before the prominence of the internet.Journalists aren't doctors or scientists. No one should feel compelled to answer a random reporter's questions regarding their personal medical infornation. That's not a great idea if you actually want to get to the truth. The fact is that covid vaccines cause harm, and you can't know if they will harm you until you take it. Regardless of the percentages, that fact is enough to prevent the implementation of any coercive actions regarding people's medical decisions. I have never seen a compelling argument for people telling others what medical decisions they must make, there is nothing special about vaccines that should make them an exception to this.
Yes, it matters.I was wondering how many days I get off per dose of the vaccine if I’m experiencing symptoms? I’m in CA if that matters.
Youre in a death cultIf those death numbers were much higher, maybe I’d be impressed
Your opinion on journalists is reflective of modern day MSM, and NOT OG journalists; on whom the country freaking RELIED ON for ANY information pertaining to big subjects like this; before the prominence of the internet.
Can we have cops do it? Would that make you happy? I don’t care who does it, Z. You can’t USE a freaking site as a source, and discourage auditing its information. Cmon big dawg.
You want the truth?
Or
Something that supports your theory?
I don’t care as long as I can observe the results.I don't discourage auditing anything. But people are prone to give you the answer they think you want. Remember back to your psych classes. Double blind, random controlled studies are the best answer. It would be far less costly, and would avoid the issues with confidentiality that your method would create, and provide far more reliable data. If we are being asked to follow the science, then they should probably actually do science.
I already told you, I never liked Marilyn Manson, and made fun of goth kids.Youre in a death cult
I remember hearing he had some of his ribs removed, so he could suck his own dick.I already told you, I never liked Marilyn Manson, and made fun of goth kids.
Which I now feel bad about
I mean,, thats what i do.. is that not good?Or
Something that supports your theory?
Depends on who you askI mean,, thats what i do.. is that not good?
He’s responsible for Columbine, 9/11, Iraq, everythingI remember hearing he had some of his ribs removed, so he could suck his own dick.