Vivinavi : World : () World

• 入れ込み過ぎてギャグですか？笑
• 2021/05/27 (Thu) 07:59
• Report

Speaking of > playing, it's interesting to see the desperate resistance of those who want to refute a spurious point, but can't. They always post a bunch of garbage without a pause and try to get their point down to a display position where it can't be seen by the public. Every time, without fail. It's really a pattern of delusional personality attacks.


The guy who goes this far is sickening, but the bystanders who are analyzing him are also at a very bad level w creepy🤢.

• 傍観だけでは終われなくなった3
• 2021/05/28 (Fri) 15:50
• Report

> I'd like you to find out for yourself
I don't have that much time or interest,

> Pfizer study results
> with vaccine, without （ placebo ） infection rates
just your explanation (placebo = fake drug), what you I could only imagine what you could have seen.

> 99% of people are not infected whether they hit it or not
I guess Pfizer had published some validation results that could be interpreted that way, in a mock test way. But that is under specific conditions, and it is up to you ？ how far you take it.

> I'm not talking about infection rates in other states or CA
If we take Pfizer's story as it is, the infection rate should be less than 1% of the population at most, isn't that strange ？ The reality is that in some states it is closer to 20%. The thing is that something like this can change with one shot of environment or condition.

You seem to be in a bad enough situation as I think "weak-minded" is the group that believes without considering the credibility of the source. I also thought it would be wrong to casually call others "weak-minded" without knowing them, so I pointed this out to you.

> The disadvantages are so strong that we don't even need to discuss the advantages
It seems that for some people, the lottery wins on the merits and side-effect risks, so you can no longer forcefully call it a "general theory. I guess it's impossible to call it a "general theory" anymore. Of course, you are free to say what you think. I agree with you about the risks of vaccines, as long as it's not some weird conspiracy theory, but I didn't share your writing style at all, and I didn't feel like going through with it. It just seemed to me that you were saying that vaccinating = stupidity. And I expect that most of the people who actually did vaccinate, many of them chose to hedge against the risk of serious illness. From now on, though, they may be looking for a lottery ticket.

• 残念ながら
• 2021/05/28 (Fri) 18:56
• Report

191
> Come on by, it would be more meaningful to look into detoxification methods. Take care of yourself.

I can't give you a vaccine this time.

• 結論
• 2021/05/29 (Sat) 16:55
• Report

> I agree with you about the risks of vaccines, as long as it's not some weird conspiracy theory, but I didn't share your writing style at all, nor did I feel like going through with it. It seemed to me that you were saying that vaccinating = stupidity. And I expect that most of the people who actually did vaccinate, many of them chose to hedge against the risk of serious illness. From now on, though, they may be looking for a lottery ticket. I still judge people who jump on vaccines without first doing any information or research as unconditionally weak-minded.
This is not limited to vaccines.

>> 99% are not infected whether they are or not
Pfizer must have published some verified results that could be interpreted that way, in a mock test. But that is under specific conditions, and it is up to you ？ to what extent you take it seriously.

It is the FDA that publishes the data, and
if I were to consider getting the vaccine, I would be forced to "reference the manufacturer's data"as well.
I don't know why a manufacturer would put out information that works "against"themself, so I think Pfizer's data that 99.3% were not infected without the vaccine has some credibility.

> If we take Pfizer's story as it is, wouldn't it be strange if the infection rate wasn't at most 1% or less of the population ？ The reality is that it is up to almost 20% in some states. The thing is that something like this can change with a single shot of environment or condition.

It is strange, but it is possible.
The question is what is the cause of this difference. Is it due to differences in conditions, is it that more people are actually infected with the virus as the numbers above indicate, is it a different infection testing method, is it a clinical trial error in the lab, or is it an infection count error, etc. There are many possibilities, but we need to have the cause determined in the FDA's way. It would be shortsighted to interpret this as "more people are infected with the virus, so the FDA's published data is false".

> And I would expect that the majority of people who have actually been struck would be those who have chosen to hedge their risk of serious illness.

There are of course such people, but I think they are in the minority.
I think there are a few who can speak of at least a direct （ benefit ） if any of vaccination.

> I may be looking at a lottery ticket from now on.

From the comments here and from what I hear from various people,
I think that many people are inoculating themselves with the indirect benefits of vaccine passports and lottery tickets, without any direct benefits, and that many people are inoculating themselves with the wind without even thinking about it. I think that there are many people who are inoculated by the wind without even thinking about it.

• けんかをやめて
• 2021/05/29 (Sat) 16:55
• Report
• Delete

The purpose of this Topic is not to argue.

We are asking you to "report vaccine side effects" of someone close to you.

Please do so.