First: You clearly didn't read the article closely because that statement was made by an associate professor from Auckland who was asked to comment on the study, not someone directly involved in the Washington University study. That is to say it's dishonest skew from a remote profit- and power-motivated spin doctor keen to downplay the fact that this is another side-effect that we were told a while back was a 'conspiracy theory'.
A comparable case are all those, including the corrupted corporatists at the CDC, who suggest that the Pfizer clot shots for kids are 99% effective, when in fact: ""Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred."
Second: "Generally" 'not dangerous' does not mean it's not dangerous, and "general" has never been the standard for medicine. Drugs like Baycol, Belviq, Ergamisol, Omniflox, Posicor, etc., were taken off the market because a few people in each instance died. Their grieving families were also allowed to sue the drug companies responsible. Now, in the COVID-era, there are a shit ton of adverse effects and plenty of deaths as a result of these ineffective drugs and we're supposed to pretend the toll is acceptable.
Third: it should be cause for concern that "vaccine trial protocols do not usually monitor beyond seven days post-vaccination". If they were keeping track, I imagine the adverse effects reports would skyrocket.
Fourth: they're now openly admitting the clot shots affect sperm motility and viability, as well as women's menstrual cycles, but rule out there being any greater impact DESPITE the fact that the medium-to-long-term effects are still unknown, granted these gene therapies have only been on market in the short-term. That is akin to saying the radiation-exposed scientist hasn't had their skin slough off today, therefore they should be fine tomorrow. Lunacy.
Do you have one on where we would be if - as you seem to be advising - no one took the vaccine until at least several years of trials had taken place to determine the long-term effects of the various vaccines?
That’s the problem with people that have your flawed rationale. You imply that the two options are everybody takes the vaccine or nobody takes the vaccine.
Everybody taking the vaccine is the best option if it were to provide herd immunity, which was what was promised at the outset. But it didn’t happen and will not happen with the current covid vaccine.
There are very many experts that advocated for targeting at-risk people with the covid vaccine only. And, we knew who the at-risk people were before the covid vaccines were rolled out.
Here’s the problem with people that are unable to think - CTV News says that everybody should get the covid vaccine and they hand-pick only the experts that support their biased message to show on the TV.
First: You clearly didn't read the article closely because that statement was made by an associate professor from Auckland who was asked to comment on the study, not someone directly involved in the Washington University study. That is to say it's dishonest skew from a remote profit- and power-motivated spin doctor keen to downplay the fact that this is another side-effect that we were told a while back was a 'conspiracy theory'.
A comparable case are all those, including the corrupted corporatists at the CDC, who suggest that the Pfizer clot shots for kids are 99% effective, when in fact: ""Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred."
Second: "Generally" 'not dangerous' does not mean it's not dangerous, and "general" has never been the standard for medicine. Drugs like Baycol, Belviq, Ergamisol, Omniflox, Posicor, etc., were taken off the market because a few people in each instance died. Their grieving families were also allowed to sue the drug companies responsible. Now, in the COVID-era, there are a shit ton of adverse effects and plenty of deaths as a result of these ineffective drugs and we're supposed to pretend the toll is acceptable.
Third: it should be cause for concern that "vaccine trial protocols do not usually monitor beyond seven days post-vaccination". If they were keeping track, I imagine the adverse effects reports would skyrocket.
Fourth: they're now openly admitting the clot shots affect sperm motility and viability, as well as women's menstrual cycles, but rule out there being any greater impact DESPITE the fact that the medium-to-long-term effects are still unknown, granted these gene therapies have only been on market in the short-term. That is akin to saying the radiation-exposed scientist hasn't had their skin slough off today, therefore they should be fine tomorrow. Lunacy.
Your opinions are noted.
Do you have one on where we would be if - as you seem to be advising - no one took the vaccine until at least several years of trials had taken place to determine the long-term effects of the various vaccines?
I'm interested to hear it.
That’s the problem with people that have your flawed rationale. You imply that the two options are everybody takes the vaccine or nobody takes the vaccine.
Everybody taking the vaccine is the best option if it were to provide herd immunity, which was what was promised at the outset. But it didn’t happen and will not happen with the current covid vaccine.
There are very many experts that advocated for targeting at-risk people with the covid vaccine only. And, we knew who the at-risk people were before the covid vaccines were rolled out.
Here’s the problem with people that are unable to think - CTV News says that everybody should get the covid vaccine and they hand-pick only the experts that support their biased message to show on the TV.
Don’t let CTV News tell you how to think.
I missed the part where OP was recommending someone take the vaccine. Sorry. Perhaps they will expand on that in their reply.