> This part might actually be true. But it's, on aggregate, at a safe level.
Wrong, it's x100 more dangerous than previous vaccines. And stop with the "base level" shit. These are done per capita, per 100,000. Adding a couple more hundred thousands does not change the percentage.

> VERY few. And of those who did, most were revivable.
The fact that you can even say this and yet still defend getting the vaccine is literally shocking to me. But I'll entertain you for a second on this. If a couple people literally fainted on live tv, how many do you think in the real world are fainting or having adverse affects? if it was truly negligible numbers of people, we wouldn't have seen this on live tv at all; just like with every other vaccine in the past. "most were reviavble"...wtf? Again, if this is happening on live tv, and some people are not even revivable, why the fuck would you promote this vaccine? It's clearly not safe and could potentially kill you outright.

> No they don't.
yea they do

> Yeah, in mid-2020, the article it cited didn't account for that. You're right: before vaccines were rolled out, the researchers were sloppy and didn't think to run a statistical test about vaccines that weren't out yet.
Right, so your study doesn't prove what you're trying to say it proves. And, unless I'm mistaken, this article is from 2022: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01814-1

> That isn't even true, see above.
I did see above, and it is true.

> Not in this thread, you'll have to go back a couple of threads for that one. This thread was specifically about heart problems.
I'd like to see you cite 1 study in this thread that shows that covid itself (meaning people who never got the vaccine) developed AIDS.

> Mercola is BS. ADE and AIDS
not really, mainstream news is just as BS if not moreso. I'm not really sure how ADE and AIDS differ, but regardless, if the vaccine is causing this stuff, then this is a huge problem and I can't believe more people aren't doing memes about this.

> That might be so, but
> 1) it isn't
> 2) and COVID IS
> 3) and it reduces impact of covid on the immune system, and helps to prevent infection and transmission,which means
> 4) it will be a core part of efforts to eradicate covid
1) it is and you haven't proved otherwise
2) it isn't and you haven't proved otherwise
3) we've seen tons of evidence and scientists and government officials admitting in the past year that the vaccine doesn't significantly prevent infection or reduce transmission, and that natural immunity is something like x20 more effective.

> That doesn't follow. This is like saying 'if you don't believe donald trump i don't have to believe anything you say'. CDC have gotten A LOT wrong in this pandemic.
No this doesn't follow. If you can ignore state agencies and their data, then I see no reason why I shouldn't ignore anything you say. If you can't trust countries with their data (and some are obviously shit, like China), then you can't trust anyone with their data. Scientists and researchers need funding and financial backing to even have jobs, and most of the time that funding comes from multi billion dollar companies, like Pfizer, so there's obviously a conflict of interest there. Of course the CDC got a lot wrong, they lied about most things, like most studies did; this is equally as true of anything that you cite. If the CDC, one of the largest health agencies in the world, can blatantly lie about data, then you're out of your mind if you think that other countries and agencies aren't doing the same.

> Sure it does. Cytokine storms are clearly documented in the one.
I already addressed this, that study doesn't tell me whether those people were vaccinated or not; if their all vaccinated then that can be the reason they're experiencing cytokine storms. you already admitted that this study does not address this.