The 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is common for all vaccines.

If you bother to read the conclusions sections, you’d see the risk is on-par with other viral vaccines AND the covid vaccine is highly effective. If you’re going to reply, please start off by being honest. I’m not going to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, it’s a waste of my time.

> 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue.

That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today).

Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I'm here to help if you need it. The math is right there, all you need to do is remove the media brainwashing from your eye glasses when you read the research and just read the study as it is, like a scientist.

It's pretty simple. We teach this same method of writing science articles to 8th graders and they get it. But most people failed science in high school (aka C's transfer), then go vote as if Fox and CNN gave them credentials, sadly.

Hopefully, you'll commit to being a scientist and do better than that.

I'll help you along; the people claiming to be "on the side of science" and are widely publicized, are perverting public opinion on real science. And it's costing a lot of lives, because now people that can't do basic math like this think vaccines altogether are bad.

Is that your goal? I sure hope not.

>no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000

MMR? Nearly all regularly administered vaccines, by the traditional definition (not the post COVID definition) using dead or weakened viruses, have a much lower adverse reaction rate than that. You're saying what you're saying, but you're not looking at the research on those vaccines apparently. 1/500,000 is a very high number amongst those vaccines, factually.

>If you bother to read the conclusions sections

You mean if I stop doing math and use the corporate profiteering summary as my moral compass?

No thanks. I'll leave that to the people that can't do math.

I believe in assisted suicide, and evolution. By all means, go get vaccinated.

Just stop telling people that they are stupid for doing math and science.

This isn't your industry. It belongs to the mathematicians and the researchers. YouTube is not the arbiter of knowledge.

Please, if any of this comes off as bad faith, let me correct that. I'm in good faith telling everyone to stop trying to sell me dog shit while calling it an ice cream sandwich.

Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense.

You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects. The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts.

You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagree with the conclusions, great - defend that. No hand wavy bullshit.

You’re ignoring other vaccines. If the placebo has a 12% rate of adverse effects, how could MMR have a rate orders of magnitude lower? Did they beam the MMR vaccine directly into people’s skulls? This just makes zero sense at all, and demonstrates either a foundation gap in reasoning skills or bad faith arguing.

The bigger picture is: I am absolutely not assuming you’re stupid. The exact opposite, actually. You’re a very smart person. What that leaves is that you’re arguing in bad faith. I argue that’s worse, this is an inversion of Hanson’s razor. But it’s obvious to me you’ve thought about this. So, where does that leave us?

The seemingly higher incidence for placebo when compared with MMR can be explained.

1. First, the placebo data comes from an article that doesn't meet several academic standards for peer reviewed research.

The researchers were the reviewers and they all work at Pfizer. So, peer review was not done at all.

AND the results were not published for us to see. So we have to take their word for it that they performed any research whatsoever.

So, you're comparing peer reviewed research on MMR and 30 years of CDC data on MMR, to the unrelated placebo rate reported in a paper on mRNA vaccination that wasn't even peer reviewed.

Can we agree that peer reviewed research is a more preferrable source for information?

2. We're comparing apples to oranges. MMR is around 10% rate for mild reactions. Around one third of the 27% reported for Pfizer's mRNA COVID vaccine. And that's still lower than the reported placebo rate. We need to be careful which symptoms count as reactions to placebo since that differs between studies.

So, COVID vaccine is 3x more likely to cause an adverse reaction when we generally include all mild reactions like fever, even where mild fever is a desirable outcome for MMR but not for COVID vaccine.

We'd need to look at more severe outcomes for COVID vaccine to compare with the severe outcomes for MMR if you want to get to the 300x numbers.

But let's cut to the chase, is 3x more dangerous enough to say that it might not be for everyone? I sure think so.

No response. You don't want to take back the bad faith accusation at least?

I could definitely and more rightfully accuse you now. Right? Good faith and all that?

Honest take, you're angry that you didn't know that the FDA relied on research that wasn't peer reviewed, that they are still hiding the results from that study (ongoing lawsuits), and that your news channel lied to you. But you're directing that anger at me because that's hard to swallow and, well, that same news channel told you that I'm a bad person if I know more about science than their editors who went to a trade school for marketing and graphic design.

It's insane what's happening.

You're convinced so much that your first reaction (read above) was to claim that the research didn't say anything close to what I'm saying.

But it's the exact opposite, isn't it? It doesn't say anything close to what you thought it says.

I think many of us are in a place where editors at a media and marketing company command many people's religious belief so much that we can't even read research without stopping in the middle to go "Aha! I knew it. You're a bad guy for being a scientist!"

And that's really what I am trying to say. Science is not that.

Think about it.