[ExI] vaccines again
john at ziaspace.com
Wed Jan 4 16:36:46 UTC 2023
> OK hereâs where I am going with this. About a year ago or more, we
> knew that the vaccines introduced known and unknown risks, and that for
> young people, covid doesnât amount to much. So for the young, the
> vaccine introduces more risk than it removes. Denmark has made it
> illegal for under-18s to get the vaccine. The British study suggests
> that there is a net risk increase for 20 somethings to get the vaccines.
I think you're picking and choosing studies.
> I have long estimated the crossover point where the risk retired by the
> vaccine is about equal to the risk introduced, to be around age 30.
> With the British study, I now think it must be later than that, perhaps
> 40 and even then, dependent on oneâs physical condition. Athletic
> types would have a risk crossover point perhaps later than 40.
Risk of flu-like symptoms is not equivalent to risk of the more serious
effects of Covid, like death. Until someone points me to reliable studies
that show otherwise, all I see are attempts to suggest false
> This is what is bothering me: Twitter was perhaps our best bet for
> sharing information on negative health consequences of the vaccine, but
> Twitter didnât allow those kinds of posts until Musk bought the
> platform. So now we know. But we were denied that information until
So you want to say that non-scientific people, often with specific
agendas, are a better source of information than *checks notes* scientific
studies which clearly document their data and sources.
It seems like you're advocating for the freedom to spread misinformation.
The idea that "Twitter was perhaps our best bet for sharing information"
is just... I don't even know how to express how completely out of touch
with reality that is. If you're talking about marketability of
"alternative facts", perhaps you're right. If that's what you really want,
then just come out and say it.
More information about the extropy-chat