Posted on 11/19/2023 10:45:52 AM PST by grey_whiskers
Myocarditis Thrombosis Thrombocytopenia Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Vasculitis Guillain-Barré Syndrome Lymphadenopathy Anaphylaxis Myopericarditis Allergic Reactions Bell’s Palsy Axillary Adenopathy Pericarditis Acute Myelitis Perimyocarditis Intracerebral Haemorrhage Immune-Mediated Hepatitis Facial Nerve Palsy Neurological Symptoms Haemorrhage Immune-Mediated Disease Outbreaks Takotsubo cardiomyopathy Cardiac Rhabdomyolysis Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura Cardiovascular events Acute Hyperactive Encephalopathy Acute Kidney Injury Multiple Sclerosis Bleeding Episodes Cutaneous Adverse Effects Skin Reactions Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome Capillary Leak Syndrome Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Petechiae Purpura Annularis Telangiectodes Pulmonary Embolism Psoriasis Nephrotic Syndrome Bullous Drug Eruption Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis Pulmonary Embolism Blood Clots Thrombophilia iTTP episode Refractory Status Epilepticus Central Serous Retinopathy Cutaneous Reactions Prion Disease Pregnant Woman Process-Related Impurities CNS Inflammation CNS Demyelination Orofacial Brain Haemorrhage Varicella Zoster Virus Nerve And Muscle Adverse Events Oculomotor Paralysis Parsonage-Turner Syndrome Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy Lipschütz ulcers (Vaginal ulcers) Amyotrophic Neuralgia Polyarthralgia Thyroiditis Keratolysis (Corneal Melting) Arthritis Thymic hyperplasia Tolosa-Hunt Syndrome Hailey-Hailey Disease Acute Lympholysis Interstitial Lung Disease Vesiculobullous Cutaneous Reactions Hematologic Conditions Hemolysis Headache Acute Coronary Syndrome ANCA Glomerulonephritis Neurologic Phantosmia Uveitis Pathophysiologic Alterations Inflammatory Myositis Still’s Disease Pityriasis Rosea Acute Eosinophilic Pneumonia Sweet’s Syndrome Sensorineural Hearing Loss Serious Adverse Events Among Health Care Professionals Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Ocular Adverse Events Depression Pancreas Allograft Rejection Acute Hemichorea-Hemibalismus Alopecia Areata Graves’ Disease Cardiovascular Events Metabolic Syndrome Eosinophilic Dermatosis Hypercoagulability Neuroimaging Findings in Post COVID-19 Vaccination Urticaria Central Vein Occlusion Thrombophlebitis Squamous Cell Carcinoma Chest Pain Acute Inflammatory Neuropathies Brain Death Kounis Syndrome Angioimmunoblastic T-cell Lymphoma Gastroparesis Asthma Safety Monitoring of the Janssen Vaccine Myocardial Injury Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases Neurological Autoimmune Diseases V-REPP Herpes Simplex Virus Related Material
“a) you only quoted a line or two carefully selected out of all the contents of all the articles, to give the impression that the side effects were minor”
I quote from the conclusions of each article I looked at. I posted from EVERY ARTICLE I looked at. I only looked at the first three so your statement I looked at all the articles and cherry-picked is a lie.
“c) You carefully didn’t mention you picked from two of the earliest papers”
I specifically mentioned which articles I quoted from. The first three on their list.
“d) You carefully avoided both quoting from later papers”
I avoided nothing. I just started at the beginning of their list.
“So the only POSSIBLE conclusion according to you trolls is “There could never have been any such thing as risk, and it is forever disproven for all age and risk cohorts!””
I only quoted from your source. I made no comment nor did I draw any conclusions.
He doesn’t like that very much when you consider actual facts. And many of these are “peer reviewed” by paying the journal to publish. The majority of this — as you adroitly point out — is garbage.
He was quoting from the summary sections; not from the hard science.
Troll.
And many of these are “peer reviewed” by paying the journal to publish.
List the exact articles which are "peer reviewed" by paying the journal to publish.
We'll wait, troll-boi.
You need to go back to hyping EV’s.
Plenty to choose from, most recent first.
Have fun!
Plenty to choose from, most recent first.
I will go with your first which says the greater risk is not getting the shot.
Cytokinopathy with aberrant cytotoxic lymphocytes and profibrotic myeloid response in SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine–associated myocarditis
It is also critical to contextualize the rare risk of adverse events and potential clinical sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (2, 5) in comparison with the greater risks of sequelae (including myocarditis), hospitalization, and/or death resulting from infection with SARS-CoV-2
“You need to go back to hyping EV’s.”
Hyping? I am merely quoting from the OP article. If you don’t like what he posted, take it up with him.
Paper #4 (going down the list):
“The benefits of vaccination significantly exceed possible risks.”
“But wait! It’s safe and effective. /s”
That is what the first four papers in the OP say!
One purpose of linking to a massive number of papers claiming that they all “prove” something is to overwhelm anyone trying to get at the truth.
Professional antivax propagandists know that the audience they target is unlikely to ever look at the original published papers. And even if they did look, they have no clue what those papers are actually saying.
A debunker of antivax claims really only needs to show that the professional antivax propagandist lied about one paper. Because if they lied about one paper, chances are very high they lied about all of the papers.
Of course, no matter how many papers the supporter of science shows that the the professional antivaxxer lied about, the professional antivaxxer will just claim that all scientists are liars and, therefore, their papers say whatever the propagandist claims they say. And the propagandist will never explain how he/she has so much “insider” knowledge that the entire scientific and medical community—the people who actually do the scientific research—somehow missed.
(Yawns)
Paper #5 (going down the list):
“Cases tend to be mild, do not usually require specific interventions, and potential risks of the vaccine are outweighed by the well defined risks of COVID-19 infection. Vaccination continues to be recommended in all eligible individuals.”
Yes - there was one such woodchuck that was running such a journal out of their house with a similar name as an established journal. Endemic of a larger issue.
It doesn't help that some peer reviewed journals have really lost their way and and push normative science. It's left a vacuum for less than reputable journals.
“One purpose of linking to a massive number of papers claiming that they all “prove” something is to overwhelm anyone trying to get at the truth.”
The truth, according to the first five papers, is that you should get the shot!
It is common for publishers to charge fees for submission, publication, or page charges. This is separate from peer review. Some of the most prominent journals, such as Nature, charge premium fees to authors.
Of course! I can't begin to count the number of scientific publications I've read which were presented as "proof" that the shots are dangerous which conclude that the shot is safe and effective.
I just had the latest updated booster against the XBB.1.5 strain. I'm prepared for the holidays now!
Why does it bother you so much that not everybody wants the shot?
Let it go, for crying out freakin’ loud.
“Why does it bother you so much that not everybody wants the shot?
Let it go, for crying out freakin’ loud.”
I poste from the OP’s article. He said I cherry-picked the article. I am just going down the list. Why do you get so upset that I post from the OP article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.