.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
163
Anti-vaxers kill child in Texas
1. The Core Issue: A Young, Healthy Boy Died Days After Vaccination Deflection from the core concern: The article headline reports that a healthy 13-year-old boy died just three days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, yet the response immediately shifts away from investigating this tragedy and into a generic defense of vaccine safety. Lack of transparency: Instead of acknowledging the potential link and conducting a thorough public autopsy report, the establishment response is simply "no cause of death determined yet." This delay and obfuscation are common patterns seen when evidence might contradict official narratives. 2. The Misleading "Risk vs. Benefit" Argument The claim that "COVID-19 presents a higher risk than vaccine side effects" is based on population-level statistics that do not account for: Age group differences: Young, healthy individuals have an extremely low risk of severe COVID-19. Pre-existing health conditions: Most severe COVID cases in young people involve comorbidities like obesity, diabetes, or immunodeficiency. Natural immunity: Many young people already had COVID-19 and were at lower risk of reinfection or severe illness than the vaccinated population. CDC’s own data (as of 2021) shows: The survival rate for children and teens from COVID-19 is over 99.99%. Healthy teens rarely experience severe COVID-19, but vaccine-related myocarditis cases have been significantly more common than expected. Conclusion: The risk-benefit calculation varies by age, and blindly applying this logic across all demographics ignores scientific nuance. 3. "Most Cases Are Mild" – A Convenient Downplay of Myocarditis "Most cases are mild" is an irresponsible statement when discussing heart inflammation in teenagers. Myocarditis is NOT a minor side effect: It permanently scars the heart muscle. Even mild myocarditis increases long-term risks of heart failure, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac arrest. Studies show a non-trivial percentage of vaccine-induced myocarditis patients experience lingering heart damage. Contradictory messaging: Before COVID-19, any form of myocarditis was taken extremely seriously. Suddenly, post-vaccine myocarditis is treated as a “temporary inconvenience” rather than the potentially lifelong medical condition that it is. Conclusion: If a healthy young individual dies three days after vaccination, and myocarditis is known to be linked to the vaccine, it is scientifically dishonest to dismiss concerns outright. 4. False Equivalency: COVID-19 Myocarditis vs. Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis The response claims that “myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination”, but this comparison is misleading. Key differences: COVID-induced myocarditis is mostly seen in severely ill individuals with underlying conditions. Vaccine-induced myocarditis is occurring in healthy young individuals who were at near-zero risk from COVID in the first place. The mechanism of injury differs – vaccine myocarditis appears to be an immune overreaction, while COVID myocarditis is a secondary effect in critically ill patients. Real-world studies challenge the claim: A large Israeli study found that vaccine-induced myocarditis rates in young males (16-24) were significantly higher than COVID-induced myocarditis rates. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway suspended Moderna for young people due to myocarditis concerns, contradicting the blanket safety claims. Conclusion: The argument that COVID-19 causes more myocarditis than vaccines is misleading and ignores key differences in affected populations. 5. The "Expert Consensus" Fallacy The bootlicker response relies heavily on an appeal to authority by citing organizations like: The American Academy of Pediatrics The American Heart Association The American Medical Association The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Problems with this approach: These organizations have financial and political incentives to promote widespread vaccination. Many of these groups receive funding from pharmaceutical companies or have direct partnerships with the vaccine manufacturers. Dissenting doctors and scientists who raise legitimate concerns are censored, blacklisted, or labeled as misinformation spreaders. Lack of transparency in the CDC and FDA: The CDC’s own advisory panel initially voted against booster shots for young people, but the decision was overridden for political reasons. The FDA approved Pfizer’s vaccine for kids based on flimsy data with limited follow-up. Conclusion: Consensus is not science. Citing government-backed organizations without acknowledging their conflicts of interest is intellectually lazy and anti-scientific. Final Verdict: The Defense Is Weak and Politically Motivated This person’s response completely dodges the core issue: A healthy 13-year-old boy died suddenly after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Instead of demanding a full and transparent investigation, the response shifts to generic pro-vaccine rhetoric. The argument is based on misleading comparisons, downplaying of side effects, and appeals to authority rather than an honest discussion of the risks. The proper scientific approach would be to: Investigate the case thoroughly instead of brushing it off. Acknowledge uncertainties rather than making blanket safety claims. Recognize that risk-benefit analysis varies by age and should be debated openly. Instead, we get propaganda disguised as medical advice—a tactic that erodes public trust in health authorities. -
25
Why I like Thai people
I never get unfriendly Thais much at all except in a busy tourist spot. Must have met 1000 and very few nasty. Some of the nicest Thais I've ever met were in places like Korat. General kindness no money involved. Last night I went to a night market and you get different vibes off people. 50% to 60% of farangs are fine but 40%+ are angry about something. -
25
-
36
Introspection: Are You a Chronic Complainer, or Are These Just Minor Inconveniences?
Geography is not your strongest subject,is it? -
163
Anti-vaxers kill child in Texas
1. Assumption of Fixed Infection and Severity Rates The table assumes a fixed rate of infection (50% for unvaccinated, 10% for vaccinated), which may not be universally accurate. Infection rates vary based on factors like prior exposure, natural immunity, population density, and testing rates. Natural immunity from prior infection has been shown in some studies to provide equal or superior protection to vaccination. 2. Real-World Data on Breakthrough Infections The table suggests that vaccinated individuals are only 1/5 as likely to be infected, but real-world data has shown breakthrough infections occur at much higher rates. Some countries with high vaccination rates (e.g., Israel, UK, Gibraltar) still experienced large outbreaks, suggesting that vaccines do not prevent infection as effectively as implied. 3. Severity of Disease May Depend on Other Factors The table assumes vaccination dramatically reduces severe cases (20% to 5%), but does not account for: Age distribution – older individuals are more likely to experience severe disease regardless of vaccination status. Comorbidities – obesity, diabetes, and heart disease play a role in severity. Pre-existing immunity – some unvaccinated individuals already have T-cell and natural immunity. 4. Missing Data on Potential Vaccine Risks The table only considers COVID-19 deaths but does not factor in vaccine-related adverse events. Myocarditis, pericarditis, clotting issues, and other side effects have been recorded, particularly in younger age groups. The long-term effects of mRNA vaccines are still being studied, meaning risk-benefit analysis should consider both vaccine protection vs. potential risks. 5. The Death Rate Assumption The table assumes a 5% fatality rate for severe cases in unvaccinated individuals, but this is highly inflated compared to real-world mortality rates: Overall case fatality rate (CFR) for COVID-19 was often below 1% in many studies, and lower for younger, healthier populations. Many early estimates overestimated the risk of COVID-19, failing to adjust for asymptomatic or undiagnosed cases. 6. No Consideration of Population-Level Immunity Trends The table does not account for waning immunity, which has been observed in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Boosters became necessary because protection from vaccines declined over time, leading to reduced efficacy against infection and severe disease. 7. Real-World Mortality Comparisons Countries with high vaccine uptake still experienced waves of COVID-related deaths, suggesting other factors besides vaccination play a role. In some cases, heavily vaccinated populations saw spikes in excess deaths, raising questions about whether alternative explanations (delayed medical care, lockdown effects, or vaccine adverse effects) should be considered. -
10
Thai Victim Hunts for Foreign Hit-and-Run Motorcyclist
Yeah, most members here are unfortunately biased when it comes protecting the foreigner. They just don´t understand we are guests here, and should understand how people do things in Thailand. Not the other way around.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now