[GreenLanternCorps]

An entire article based on suppositions without any data. If you want to criticize the vaccines, fine, but your need something to back you up other than “I don’t like these people”.

He’s got bupkis.

[gitmo]

An entire article based on suppositions without any data. If you want to criticize the vaccines, fine, but your need something to back you up other than “I don’t like these people”.

He’s got bupkis.

But other than that it’s a great article.

[mewzilla]

The author is asking questions.

Very good questions.

Pray to God that the vaxxed don’t have to find out the answers the hard way.

[MayflowerMadam]

“An entire article based on suppositions without any data.”

Just like Fauci, etc., projecting that their snake oil injections are safe.

[DoodleBob]

Last night I linked to a technical paper on the estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. In short, Vaccine clinical trials succeeded only 33% of the time from 2000-2015 and took about nine years at the median to be conducted.

While that process may be overkill, it helped guard against prematurely releasing sera that could be nasty.

In part, because we now have no clinical long-term evaluations of the side effects of these shots, legitimate concerns over a rash of people who "died suddenly" and "died unexpectedly" are shouted-down, and skeptics are bullied.

At the same time, cranks get to spout whatever they want -pro or con- on the matter, with little critical thought.

Why, it's almost as if this bedlam was intended.

[Captain Compassion]

You are correct. Nothing to back up this article. That being said the effects of these “vaccines” X years out are unknown and that is a problem.