pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 15 replies \ @AJ1992 OP 22 Oct \ parent \ on: #NoKings Grand Rapids, Michigan 10/18/25 Politics_And_Law
I do though. It's your side who refuses to believe that vaccines are safe and effective even though 99.9% of vaccinologists, biological scientists, doctors, ect say they are. It's your side that puts some fairy tale religious book ahead of scientifically proven facts.
I'm not on anyone's side. I just think you're acting like a fool.
reply
How? For providing rational thoughts and reasonings into these discussions?
reply
no rational thought or reasoning detected
reply
So wait, taking a quote DJT said himself and showing evidence that proves he lied isn't rational or logical?
reply
that has nothing to do with science. Like I said, ideological, not scientific.
reply
But it's a fact.
reply
reply
Every medication has potential side effects, are you that fucking dense? It doesn't mean the negatives outweigh the positives.
reply
moving the goalposts without providing any actual evidence that the benefits outweigh the negatives
I don't think you are scientific. I think you are ideological.
In fact, if you were born 40 years earlier you'd probably be an evangelical christian haha
reply
I have provided evidence. What claims would you like me to provide more evidence about?
reply
I'd like you to offer convincing scientific evidence that the COVID-19 vaccination mandates and COVID lockdowns were a net benefit to society. You can define benefit, but make sure it's measurable.
reply
Anything else, science denier?
reply
"Here, we included 151 studies estimating the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders (electronic supplementary material, appendix A, Table S13), 119 of which found a substantial benefit resulting in a reduction of the reproduction number (Rt) [16,23,33,35,38,45,48,60–97], incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection [29,50,52,98–129] and mortality [107,116,130–143]."
reply
Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention
You don't know the first thing about science haha. To you science is a google scholar search, but you don't look at the methodology at all, because you're not capable. I also asked for net benefit but you present a single dimensional study that doesn't factor in costs.
It was nice talking to you but I think I'm wasting my time. It's a bit like talking to a religious zealot. Hope you have a nice day :)
reply