People who find this fact insulting will find many truths insulting

The shot killed more than speaking the truth about the shot did.

This is not true What is true is that Covid has many millions worldwide, and measles is back to killing children in the US.

Measles, covid, and polio kill and disable people. The shots save many lives for every person who gets a fever as a side effect.

Wired ran an article debunking this nonsense more than a dozen years ago.

The measles and polio shots are not the same as the covid shots.

Covid 19 was not around a dozen years ago. Allegedly.

And Wired is an amateur webzine that I'd trust for medical information about as much as I'd trust Reddit. I'd take medical advice from 4chan before I took it from Wired.

Yeah I gotta keep dunking on this.

Seriously...Wired? I dunno man, what kind of reviews did CNet give the clotshots?

Brooo, they got Covid tests for sale on Woot!

It wasn't medical advice, it was a thorough, journalistic dig into the underpinnings of the antivax movement. Take medical advice from your doctor . . . who will probably tell you to get the measles, flu, and shingles vaccine in due time.

will probably tell you to get the measles, flu, and shingles vaccine in due time.

But tell you to skip the Covid shot as it is not a vaccine

But tell you to get a Covid vaccine if you're from a high risk group, or Covid is surging in your community. Doctors make judgments like that all the time, using a variety of factors to make their recommendations. Nuance: it's a thing.

Nuance was called "Disinformation" in 2020. Telling people that only high risk individuals needed the shot in 2020 was a social media ban at minimum, a doxxing, and police visits in some countries.

You think we skeptics forgot?

You think we're gonna let the zealots rewrite history? F no.

In 2020, it made sense for everyone to get it, now it doesn't, because it's not as common and most of us have some level of immunity. I'm not rewriting history; doctors' recommendations change as the tides of infection change.

... from Wired. lolno.

Oh the hypocrisy.

Nope.

Meaningless in this stream.

At the contrary. It is very meaningful to me.

If you need the validation that much, enjoy.

The same way misery loves company, the vaccine addicts want everyone to feel the pain

A generation that grew up without these diseases is clutching its pearls at side effects that happen less than 5 times out of 100,000.

It ain't parents who rejected the clotshots at the root of this, it's illegal aliens from 3rd world hellholes steaming in.

Also, do a pic of myocarditis next.

Ahh, myocarditis, a common side effect of Covid infections. As are blood clots.

So the ahot caused it then. Cool.

Explain how a coworker never got a vax for covid, but got covid....and then needed open heart surgury after one chamber swelled up? Go ahead....tell us you only listen to what you want....

It would seem as though the shot, in promoting the body to react as if it was infected by Covid, also prompts the body to develop myocarditis, at about 2x the rate as actual Covid.

"During the study period, 4,635 individuals were hospitalized for myocarditis, 12% of whom were classified as postvaccine, 6% as post-COVID-19, and 82% as conventional myocarditis. About 67% of postvaccine myocarditis patients developed symptoms following the second vaccination dose."

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240828/Myocarditis-risks-linked-to-COVID-19-vaccination-explained.aspx

Who's only reading what they want, again?

Speaking of only reading what one wants, from the same article:

"Clinical outcomes over 18 months of follow-up were most severe in the post-COVID-19 and conventional myocarditis cohorts, both of which resulted in 4% mortality rates as compared to 0.2% in the postvaccination cohort. Hospitalization reports presented similar trends, with 5.8%, 4%, and 3.2% of conventional, post-COVID-19, and postvaccination patients requiring hospitalization, respectively. However, drugs and medical procedures in all cohorts were not statistically different from each other."

Saw it and it does not matter. Uour argument here is "oh, it was only inconvenient myocarditis."

That's a incredibly sad argument and does not refute my point at all.

"Uour [SIC] argument here is 'oh, it was only inconvenient myocarditis.'"

Your imagination, not my words.

"That does not refute the statement 'The shot causes myocarditis.'"

Yes, that's what "I'm not making an argument" means.

And as far as "and failing to do so" goes -nope, try again.

The quote you pulled from the article does not undermine anything I said.

Your claim that I am a hypocrite is unsupported by the quote you pulled from the article.

""I simply made a statement of sequentiality."

... he said after saying

"Have you already forgotten that you accused me of deflection?""

Wow... you were looking right at it and you still got it wrong... that explains a lot.

Strike three. You're out.

"I'm explicitly stating something i am not doing. That is literally not projection."

Never said it was; I simply made a statement of sequentiality.

Have you already forgotten that you accused me of deflection?

"I simply made a statement of sequentiality."

... he said after saying

"Have you already forgotten that you accused me of deflection?"

"And there it is. Projection is an ugly ugly thing."

...he said after saying

"But hey, I won't call any death 'statistically meaningless.' You do you, boo."

I'm explicitly stating something i am not doing. That is literally not projection.

"The statement all along was quite simple."

Never said it wasn't.

"The covid shot causes myocarditis."

Never said it didn't.

"Deflect, diminish, ignore all you like."

There's no deflection on my end; in fact, I'm taking your comments and claims head on. As far as diminishment goes, it's not me doing that, it's your own cited source. "Ignore"? Really? That's odd, considering I'm the one taking the entirety of the article into account while you're selectively quoting only the part which plays to an apparent anti-vax agenda.

"The statement is still fact."

Again, never said it wasn't.

"One that no response to my posts has admitted."

Except: "the quote I posted demonstrates that anti-vax screeching about 12% vax-induced myocarditis percentage is essentially meaningless when stood against the differential mortality rates between COVID-induced (4%) vs. vaccine-induced (0.2) myocarditis" acknowledges the myocarditis issue (Some synonyms for admit are: Merriam Webster +1 **acknowledge,** agree, allow, concede, confess, fess (up), etc.) sooooo... oopsie.

"But so long as you have insisted on adding mortality rates into the discussion, let's all acknowledge that the panic stricken overreaction to covid shut down the globe and permanently affected the education of billions of children across the planet for a virus with a mortality rate of...."

Me insisting on "adding mortality rates into the discussion"? Oh, sweetie, it was your source citation did that.

"1% to 2%. But hey, I won't call any death 'statistically meaningless.' You do you, boo."

Nice attempt at false narrative --its okay; I get that you need to try to marginalize me to make yourself look better.

"Nice attempt at false narrative --its okay; I get that you need to try to marginalize me to make yourself look better."

And there it is. Projection is an ugly ugly thing.

"The quote you pulled from the article does not undermine anything I said."

Yes, as I've already stated quite plainly in unambiguous terms.

"Your claim that I am a hypocrite is unsupported by the quote you pulled from the article."

Really? That's odd considering that you talked shit on grounds of "only reading what they want" when the quote I posted demostrates that anti-vax screeching about 12% vax-induced myocarditis percentage is essentially meaningless when stood against the differential mortality rates between COVID-induced (4%) vs. vaccine-induced (0.2) myocarditis. But okay, perhaps I was a bit hasty in calling "hypocrisy" and instead should have called "selective presentation intended to deliberately misinform".

The statement all along was quite simple.

The covid shot causes myocarditis.

Deflect, diminish, ignore all you like. The statement is still fact. One that no response to my posts has admitted.

But so long as you have insisted on adding mortality rates into the discussion, let's all acknowledge that the panic stricken overreaction to covid shut down the globe and permanently affected the education of billions of children across the planet for a virus with a mortality rate of....

1% to 2%. But hey, I won't call any death "statistically meaningless." You do you, boo.

I'm not making an argument, I'm pointing out that you're a hypocrite.

... and failing to do so. That does not refute the statement "The shot causes myocarditis."

What shot? Did you even read the part where he RECEIVED NO SHOTS!

This alleged coworker is part of the 6%.
The people I am talking about are part of the 12%. Twice as many.

Did you read the article? Did you read the quote?

The shots cause myocarditis.

I am over this. The coworker was an avid NO VAX PARTICIPANT. He recieved no shot....but you choose to keep putting it into the equations...you will never solve for X.....

I solved for X. You just refuse to comprehend it.

Rotlmao...yup sure. If you solved for x....say you understand he did not receive a covid vax shot...rotlfmao!!!

I do understand they did not get the shot. Read the article, not just what you want to read.

Now say you understand that twice as many people got myocarditis *from* the shot.

Lmao indeed. The shot. Caused. myocarditis. In people.

What shot did my coworker get?

I'll make this simple even a Public School kid can understand...

6% post-COVID <<<< "coworker"
12% post-shot <<<< people I am talking about

The shots caused myocarditis at twice the frequency Covid caused it.

"The shots cause myocarditis" is a true statement. Your anecdote does not disprove it.