teknoman2

the media has a habit of spreading misinformation about anything they decide we don't need to know, this is not an opinion its a proven fact. i simply pointed one example of it happening by accident because of the need for a clickbait title.

the news site is Greek so you won't find it if you search the title in English i didn't generalize about the media, i simply stated one example of how they end up spreading misinformation even if unwillingly. way too many people make an assumption based on an article's title without reading it and if the title is misleading it could start a huge wave of misinformation. I've already heard people referring to that article by only having read the title and thinking that AZ doesn't trust their own vaccine. one of them even said that he will postpone his vaccination to wait for a free slot for another vaccine. all because of a clickbait article name... that he didn't even click on here's a very well written summary of why many people refuse the vaccine https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/vaccines-konstantin-kisin who's right and who's wrong only time will tell. but there's plenty of reason to not trust and very little, if any, to trust anything unless you see it with your own eyes.

@Gromnir its from a greek news site.

here, vaccine cards have a QR code that if scanned leads to a government site with all the relevant data that proves its real. if you want to make a fake you have to also make a fake site and a QR code and hope they don't double check

are we in "Plague inc."?

Here's one way the media spread misinformation. Article name: AstraZeneka employees to be vaccinated with competitor vaccines only What the article actually says: AZ is making vaccination mandatory for employees but because the AZ vaccine is not yet FDA approved, the employees of AZ in USA will have to use one of the other vaccines that have approval. Someone who reads just the title will assume that AZ don't trust their own vaccine.

because they had no external enemies to fend off and no internal disputes that required an army. after 1000 years of that you tend to forget that "if you want peace, prepare for war"

everything moves faster today and as time passes it will keep accelerating. in order for the US to declare its independence to the king of england, they had to wait over 2 months for the round trip to get the reply. if they did it today they could just make a phone call and be done with it in a few minutes. also, for the king to mobilize the army and send it to suppress the rebels it took several months, today the army would be landing on the US shore 3 days after the phone call.

prophets of 4chan

that would be my ideal life.

i simply replied in kind. Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think anyone in here is a scientist involved in the R&D of covid vaccines, we just know what the news tell us. As such i found it frustrating that some of the replies were given with an air of authority on the matter.

I don't cherry pick, the point of an argument is to present something that supports what you say and i simply said that there are several prominent people who work in medical research that consider the vaccines unsafe and was met with mocking replies as if i was some flat earther who "did his own research". I didn't claim to know who is right nor to have done any research myself, i simply follow the news

You think that the people at Oxford university who made the study are not scientists?

Right, myocarditis, i got the name wrong. You're probably right but still, when an emergency situation requires a solution built from scratch and involves tens of billions of taxpayer money i get a bit skeptical... especially if the goalpost seems to be moving in favor of accelerated spending (recent raise in the price of the vaccines). Anyway, i read that Oxford studies show that vaccines lose around 35% effectiveness against D in 3 months from the second shot.

@majestic Since you seem so knowledgeable on the subject, here's a question: Pericarditis! Regardless of rarity, why did nobody know this dangerous side effect existed until 2 months after the vaccine was approved and used en masse? Did they know and hide it or did they not test the vaccine enough to know its there? I can't think of a 3rd option. And this sums up my problem with the whole situation.