should i even keep talking to her if there's a greater than 80% chance that she's had two or more doses? there are other things like she seems to hold political views that are probably intolerant of mine...

you still have time to delete picrel OP

>>33393443 (OP)

"should I lower my standards so I can get pussy?"

what the fuck do you think

wait, what?
you do actually do ANY business with vaxoids? out of your own volition, free will, too?
you deserve everything that comes to you then
>probably
maybe ask her casually what her opinion was abt the gorona/vaxes.

>>33393443 (OP)
>vaxxoid
i can guess her political opinions then. pump and dump

>>33393443 (OP)
I don't know what is more depressing - that you actually believe that shit, or that you STILL believe that shit when the subject was closed long ago.

>>33395307
you have a room temp iq bud

>>33393443 (OP)
Oh, anon, you didn't let her breathe on you, did you? If you inhaled any of her breath then you've become irrevocably vaxxed yourself.

>>33393443 (OP)
You've been already infected by the vaccine, sooner or later you'll start thinking healthcare should be free and that rights should be equal

>>33395376
>>33395427

If u were him u can fuck her beliefs away. Either way u shouldn't care, they dont truly believe anything

>>33396400
that's not how equal yoking works

>>33393443 (OP)
Stay the fuck away from her and other sane people you rambling schizo

>>33396438

>>33396462
Wow a loyalist to the anti-vaxxer president has conveniently concluded that mrna vaccinations aren't safe. Are you being dense on purpose?

>>33396766
>Wow a loyalist to the anti-vaxxer president
trump is pro vaccine id10t, did you forget who was president during 'operation warp speed'?

calling me dense lmao

i feel so sorry for the vaccine damaged

>>33398499
>>33399350
Antivaxxers being retarded as always

>>33399506

>>33399506
try addressing this>>33396462
actual study finding actual harms

It's 2025, why are antivax virgins still creating cope threads? This is exactly why OP and others like him are still kissless virgin neets. You still keep waiting for two more weeks until vaccines start killing everyone. How many more years are you going to continue holing up in the basement until you finally realize your leaders lied to you the entire time? The rest of the world was living normally while you were shaking in hysterical fear and ingesting horse paste.

>>33395420
>believing a literal who on twitter
This is, unironically, the entirety of the antivax movement. Blindly believing everything on twitter and youtube without ever checking anything.

>>33395420
>>33396462
>>33398499
>>33399350
>twitter screenshots
Lol.
>>33399506
They can't help it. They are perpetually scared, submissive sheeple who will obey their masters in all things. No matter how obviously fake a twitter "study" is, they will believe it.

>>33400162
Just one question. Have you actually read that "study"?

>>33400179
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via%3Dihub read it and weep

>>33400177
>They can't help it
i can't, or you couldn't, when you "had to" get it for a concert, school, or travel?

>They are perpetually scared
scared enough to be coerced into receiving experimental gene therapy and lash out at those who don't?

>submissive sheeple who will obey their masters in all things
all things like 2 weeks to stop the spread? like social distancing, wearing masks, etc?

wat je zegt ben jezelf, met je kop door de helft

>>33400170
you can actually look this shit up yk

but you won't do that, you'd rather blindly believe corpos with a fiduciary obligation to make you sick and their captured regulators in the government

which is more naive

>>33400199
So... you haven't read it? Because it says absolutely nothing that your antivax twitter screenshot said. Obviously, that twitter guy is a liar.

>>33400248
really? sure you're not just full of shit?

thank you scientist, for putting vaxxers to shame

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv1ypynSLzY

>>33400255
>610% increased risk of myocarditis
This is what the guy you blindly believed said. The study said nothing even remotely close to this. He lied, and you believed him because...?

>>33400268
apparently this llm can't parse images lol

How is that girl still alive??? She was supposed to drop dead from the vaccine in 2021 according to my favorite X influencer.

>>33400283
As usual, the antivaxxer can't address simple facts and questions. He just throws more twitter screenshots that he has not checked, that he does not understand, and does not even consider that they are all made up. Yet they make up the core of his cultist beliefs.

Consider this: there are tens of millions of people around the world whose job is to monitor vaccine safety, directly and indirectly. They are all far smarter than you and have actual scientific knowledge. You have zero scientific literacy and knowledge about medicine and vaccines. Yet, only you have discovered these vaccines are dangerous, and somehow all the world's medical professionals have missed it. Explain how that makes sense.

>>33400346
look at these pathetic fucks scramble and rack their brains to defend their poor choices, and this is the best they can come up with, a bunch of half baked fallacies

if the extent of your parsing is hitting ctrl+f and searching 610 then i can see why you might come to the false conclusion that that licensed medical doctor would come to the wrong conclusion, but it requires willful ignorance to ignore the screenshot of the actual study text corroborating what was said by the licensed professional

these are not just 'twitter screenshots', they're documenting the dissenting opinions of license professional medical practitioners, who are not in lock step about the vaccine's safety as you so disingenuously claim

all of those "6142% increases" turn out to be "went from 0.0000004 chance to 0.0068 chance" when you look at them

>>33400394
which is an unreasonable risk when dealing with a cold...

>>33400378
>these are not just 'twitter screenshots'
They quite literally are just that and nothing more. As you were shown, they are all lies and made up shit. They are targeted to an audience of the weakest, the most scared, the lowest intelligence. The ones most easily manipulated by disinformation.

>>33400378
The 610% was just an example of the guy blatantly lying. It's simply put, false. But for some reason you believe it.

>>33400435
>As you were shown
lol right, w.e you say bud, get all them vaccines, you got this

the more the childhood vaccine schedule expands the more innately superior amish are to the rest of people

how bad was your covid vaccine batch? now you can look it up

https://knollfrank.github.io/HowBadIsMyBatch/HowBadIsMyBatch.html

>>33400255
Of course the vaccines aren't safe, any more than getting out of bed in the morning or crossing the street are safe: people die doing both those things. But what matters is not whether the vaccine has risks, it is whether taking it increases or decreases the total risks you are exposed to. And that it is a much complex calculation: while the vaccine certainly can cause ischaemic strokes, etc. catching COVID-19 when you're *not* vaccinated can ALSO cause ischaemic strokes. So, having the vaccine might give you a stroke; but vnot having the vaccine and catching COVID might also give you a stroke. What you have to ask is, which of these two scenarios is *more* likely to give you a stroke: having the vaccine or not having it? And the answer is: you are much more likely to have a stroke as a result of not taking the vaccine than you are from taking it.

Here's just one study (of 29 million people) that looked into that: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931 . They concluded that, while the Pfizer vaccine could cause strokes, catching COVID while not vaccinated was 12 times more likely to cause a stroke than the vaccine was.

>>33400483
>>33400483
it's early, self controlled... there's very little information on the group of people studied

with those factors and the ambiguity of the study population i already know exactly how this can be manipulated to generate that outcome and headline

focus on the obese who are at a much greater risk of stroke in general and cytokine storm, throw in a bunch of people who received ventilator treatment with deadly wrong protocols, boom you can present the virus as causing "12 times!!!" the stroke risk as the vaccine, but when you factor in people of a healthy weight who weren't the victims of hospital malpractice and the numbers change

>>33400605
It's a legitimate scientific study. Funny how antivaxxer will screech autistically at any scientific study that proves their beliefs wrong, and at the same time blindly believe everything they see on twitter and youtube. If someone posted a twitter screenshot summarizing that study, would you be more receptive to it?

>>33400628
with a 50% retraction rate you have to focus on what is replicable, peer review means nothing, i learned that in university upon recognizing that my peers are retarded

the study is from 2021 with a few months of cherry picked data

but my study with more than 3 times the sample size: 'hurrr durrr twitter man lied, i checked with ctrl+f!'

the vaccine damages are real, more real and significant than covid damages, and the totality of the research, which you're entirely ignorant of, is on my side, if you want to go study for study, you still have more to post to catch up

unless you're morbidly obese or severely immunocompromised covid is a mild cold, never mind the fact that it's a bioweapon leaked from a weapons lab (likely intentionally)

>>33400605
>there's very little information on the group of people studied
It was every person in the UK who had been vaccinated up till that point, and every person in the UK known to have had COVID up till that point. A total of 29 million people. You're seriously calling a study of 29 million people "early"?

>with those factors and the ambiguity of the study population i already know exactly how this can be manipulated to generate that outcome and headline
Except that the British Medical Journal is one of the most well-respected scientific journals in the world, with an exceptionally rigorous peer-review process, so there's no possible way the study *could* have been manipulated without every scientist in the world being up in arms about it.

What you are saying is that, no matter how large, how rigorous, and how exactingly peer-reviewed a study is, you will refuse to accept its conclusions unless they agree with your pre-existing prejudices. And if that's >>33400605
your position, fine; but please state it explicitly, and don't try to claim you are following the science.

Twitter screenshots like this >>33400255 on the other hand, clearly can be discounted, because it makes no attempt to contextualise the risks: any study that does not compare the risk of being vaccinated with the risk of catching COVID when you're not vaccinated should obviously be ignored: that is overtly sloppy science.

>>33400715
>and every person in the UK known to have had COVID up till that point
wrong

it's every person treated for covid

the people treated are more likely to be obese and have compounding factors that can't be properly controlled for with the data that they have

population bias is all this shows

also, this >>33400255 is a screenshot from this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via%3Dihub which is not a twitter post, disingenuous twat

>>33400715
As you can see he is not interested in facts. His shield of denial of reality is far too strong. This is how indoctrinated antivax cultists are. He will blindly and obediently believe everything that confirms his cultist beliefs, no matter how big of a lie.

>>33393443 (OP)
Those are superficial reasons to reject her and you don't actually know why she holds onto those beliefs, but it's probably because they're socially advantageous to her environment. What matters is if she has good bones. Ask her hypotheticals that don't trap her into a socially convenient conclusion. Can she reason? Does she take care of herself? Does she respect herself? Is she loyal? Loving? Can you have a disagreement but still treat each other with respect?

If the answers to those questions are, "yes" then you can lead her into being based and trad. It's unlikely you're going to find a based Zoomer chick whose ex boyfriend didn't make her that way. If you make her feel safe and loved she'll adapt socially to the relationship.

My wife used to be a libtard. Now she bakes sour dough, calls bums retards, says troons are degenerates, and fuck the government for stealing her paycheck to fund PrEP treatment so faggots can take AIDS infested cream pies. She got vaxxed after we had 3 kids together, though.

GL bro.

>>33400764
>antivax cultists

>>33400744
You mean the article you didn't read? Because your scientific literacy is zero? Or why did you post a twitter screenshot with complete falsehoods?

>>33400772
this is why i want to give her a chance and the benefit of the doubt, miraculous healing is well documented and i don't believe that those who are vaccine injured are beyond help or saving, and she does have a lot of amazing qualities, but it's up to her how much she comes around and it's up to me to not get too attached or hurt if or when we conclude we're not compatible, i'm just really questioning if i should put myself through all that

>>33400784
>complete falsehoods
prove they're falsehoods, you never did that. the study plainly states significantly higher risk, i didn't parse exactly how 610% was derived by the epidemiologist belonging to the mccullough foundation, but it's congruent with the plain text.

nvm i found it "ncreased OE ratios fulfilling the threshold of prioritised safety signals for myocarditis were consistently identified following a first, second and third dose of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) (Table 4). The highest OE ratio was observed following a first and second dose of mRNA-1273 (3.48; 95 % CI: 3.00, 4.01 and 6.10; 95 % CI: 5.52, 6.72, respectively)"

moron

>>33400744
Uh huh. And where in your "study" do they compare the risks of the vaccine with the risks of contracting COVID when not vaccinated?

>>33395427
Good thing, you warned him!

>>33401716
such a comparison is loaded

the unvaccinated data pools are poisoned with factors that aren't properly accounted, they're mostly made up by the sick, elderly, and obese who received treatment from hospitals, but when you factor in that basically everyone got the virus at some point you can infer from general population data that there was little significance in any jump of myocarditis in people... until the rollout of the vaccines

>>33401716
here is a data pool that isn't poisoned which finds no increase in myocarditis risk from the virus https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810v1.full.pdf

>>33400803
>miraculous healing
>vaccine injured
Dude, seek help. You're literally mentally ill. Forget about girls, you're never going to get one unless you get cured.

>>33401896
girls have pretended to have my 'mental illness' to get with me so i'm not worried bud

as i said there are many inexplicable, modern, medically documented instances of miraculous healing, but you won't bother to examine any of that, it's much easier deny it and label me as "mentally ill"

>>33401810
So, in other words, they don't, which makes the "study" necessarily invalid.

>>33401816
You are hilarious! This is a study that exclusively looks at people under the age of 15 - and you think that doesn't constitute "poisoning the data"?

Not too mention little gems like this: "all
COVID-19 related critical care admissions were in the unvaccinated group". Yeah, no shit, because the vaccine protects you from COVID! This does not demonstrate what you think it demonstrates.

>>33402186
>invalid
no it is very valid in that it highlights some of the risks of the mrna vaccines

the study you posted showing higher risk in virus infected individuals isn't reflected in general population data showing that the sample they used to study the unvaccinated doesn't represent the general population and actual risks

you're really not very good at this i suggest you give up but i do appreciate you trying

>>33402225
there are more than enough vaers reported deaths resulting from covid vaccination to pull any vaccine off the market prior to covid hysteria

and no, kids are a much better representation vs the already sickly, elderly, and obese ?

i understand you don't have the faculties to comprehend this and that's ok, just realize the experts aren't in lock step, and i can autopilot this whole argument with appeals to authority because there are plenty of researches and doctors that went against the forced covid narrative you're doing such a poor job of defending

>uh oh cancer rates are though the roof, quick let's blame it on everything but the vaccines

>>33402252
>there are more than enough vaers reported deaths resulting from covid vaccination to pull any vaccine off the market prior to covid hysteria
There aren't. Once again, are you lying or are you just ignorant? Your covid hysteria is unhealthy, you should have realized years ago that your antivax cult leaders were lying to you.

>>33402227
>>33402252
Look, guys, it's not rocket science, okay? If you take the vaccine, Bad Stuff may happen; if you don't take the vaccine and catch COVID while not vaccinated, Bad Stuff may happen. Sometimes it may be the same kind of Bad Stuff, in other cases different Bad Stuff; in both cases, if you're healthy, the risk is quite low; but either way, there are risks. The job of people who recommend vaccines (or not) is to look at all the available data, including everything you have access to, and figure out which is the BIGGER risk; and the answer to that is that not taking the vaccine is significantly more risky than taking it (the sole exception being if you are known to have anaphylactic reactions to vaccines).

And it really is that fucking simple. Yes, the vaccines can cause problems; everyone knows this; no one has ever tried to deny it; there's no cover up, no conspiracy. It is simply that not having the vaccine is always a bigger risk than having it. No study yet conducted suggests anything else, including the ones you have posted. So can we let this go?

>>33403660
>>33403778
look at this naivete

>>33403778
>no one has ever tried to deny it; there's no cover up, no conspiracy

are you fucking retarded

ive worked in hospitals and seen reputable docs get censored or straight-up forced out of positions for trying to report heart inflammation, now its stamped on the label as a significant risk

>get the vaccine, get two! its safe!
>astrazeneca gets discontinued for blood clots
>not that one! get the other ones!
>J&J gets discontinued for strokes

you are legitimately fucking retarded if you think pharma companies would not lie about anything and everything, including the vaccine administered to billions being a crock of shit

>>33403816
i had three separate offers from health professionals to have a doctor document me as vaccinated while throwing the vaccine in the trash

wise doctors and nurses dodged that vaccine like a bullet

>>33403660
nah, iirc the swine flue vaccine was pulled after 6 deaths and others were pulled for less

you're the ignorant one

>>33403816
>ive worked in hospitals and seen reputable docs get censored or straight-up forced out of positions for trying to report heart inflammation
No you haven't, you're just making shit up now.

If you want an illustration of this, look at the UK early in the pandemic. At that point the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were expensive and in short supply, so the first-line choice was the AstraZeneca one. Within a month or two, reports began to come in that it might, very rarely, cause something called a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. The chances of this happening were very low: around 1 in 100,000. But nonetheless, this wasn't something that could be ignored. So they ran the numbers: if you were over the age of 50, the chances of dying from COVID if you caught it while unvaccinated were *much* higher than the chances of getting a CVST from the vaccine; so, with other vaccines in short supply, they continued to give the AZ vaccine to middle-aged or elderly people; but for younger people, while the risk from the AZ vaccine was still lower than the risk from COVID, the numbers were sufficiently comparable that there was no longer a clear case for it; so for people under the age of 40 they began using the more expensive Pfizer vaccine instead.

The important thing to note is that, at every single step of the way, there was perfect transparency. Nobody tried to hide anything; nobody could have hidden anything. We knew the names of every single person in the country who had been vaccinated; outcomes were tracked. The moment there was any suspicion about the AZ vaccine and CVSTs, it was in the papers for everyone to read; and the government and NHS acted on the information immediately.

If the kind of conspiracy you people like to imagine actually existed, we wouldn't know about this, and the studies you like to quote couldn't have been published. We know there is no cover-up because issues with vaccines HAVEN'T BEEN covered up.

So take off the tinfoil hats, please.

>>5930677