Vaccines

[cropgrower]

read again that gives number for SERIOUS LOL , and i see you went back and deleted your clueless coment CC , LOL , made you look pretty dumb allright LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

One study does not tell the whole story of vaccine risk!

Why did you change your post from "that isn't what the study says", to "One study does not tell the whole story of vaccine risk!"

Are you conceding that this study does indeed confirm the high risk?

But I understand your logic. The one event tells the whole story is reserved for climate change, not vaccine adverse effects, right? Such as one year of forest fires in one country is indisputable evidence of climate change, as you keep telling us, right?

[chuckChuck]

The real life numbers from Canada vaccination is 1 serious adverse reaction in 9088 vaccinations not 1 in 800 as stated in the study.

Now farmers are qualified to analyze vaccine risk papers? LOL

How many of you actually fully understand all the context, jargon and technical language in the paper?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Adverse reactions include soreness at the injection site. The more important number is serious adverse side effects.

In Canada Out of the more than 99,000,000 doses the number of serious side effects reported were only 10,893 or as stated 0.011%. 1 for every 9088 vaccinations. Significant but the very small risk has to measured against the benefit of saving thousands of lives especially seniors.

If we take your figures at face value, that number is per vaccination. How many vaccinations are the fully vaccinated up to now, 8, 10? Multiply that risk by what, 10 times by now? That would be 1 in 1000.
Statistically speaking, what risk level is considered acceptable to you?

[chuckChuck]

I let the experts on vaccinations decide that.

Many of you thought Ivermectin was the cure for covid!

And now you are telling us about the heightened risk of vaccinations even after real life numbers are very low? LOL

Here you can wade through the Brighton Collaboration on vaccine safety data collection as referenced in the paper when you have spare time!

https://brightoncollaboration.us/covid-19/

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I let the experts on vaccinations decide that.

Many of you thought Ivermectin was the cure for covid!

And now you are telling us about the heightened risk of vaccinations even after real life numbers are very low? LOL

Here you can wade through the Brighton Collaboration on vaccine safety as referenced in the paper when you have spare time!

https://brightoncollaboration.us/covid-19/

No, I'm saying, that if you continue to get boosters regularly, at some point you will have perhaps 100's vaccinations, 1 in 10,000, becomes 1 in 100. At some point, the risk outweighs the risk of Covid. So I am asking, numerically, what risk is acceptable to you?

[cropgrower]

with a very quick internet search i come up with an average of 3.063 jabs per vacinated person in canada , so we will use your number CC of 9088 , and we get one serious adverse event for every 2967 people jabbed , is that a number you are OK with ? i certainly am not

[chuckChuck]

Your choice, but the health professional including all the provincial chief medical officers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are all still recommending covid vaccinations!

Are they all wrong about the benefits vs risk? LOL

And you are more qualified to know?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Your choice, but the health professional including all the provincial chief medical officers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are all still recommending covid vaccinations!

Your choice? Unless of course, you want to travel, go out in public, hold a job, leave the country, etc.

You can buy a model T Ford in any color as long as it is black.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And you are more qualified to know?

I don't claim to be qualified to know. That is why I keep asking you.

You have presented 1 in 10,000 as being an acceptable risk.

Since you have decided that is a risk you are willing to accept, I assume you must have some level or risk which you aren't willing to accept, what number would that be? How did you conclude that 1 in 10,000 is acceptable?