|Go back to previous topic|
|Forum name||General Discussion|
|Topic subject||mRNA vaccines aren't the ones linked to clots. |
13451219, mRNA vaccines aren't the ones linked to clots. |
Posted by Cold Truth, Thu Jan-06-22 03:06 PM
>No proven connection between mRNA and blood clots? LOL why
>have they been removed from Finland Norway Sweden etc?
>Literally because they cause blood clots. C'mon, you talk
>misinformation? This is A LIE and a half...
Well, it didn't take long to learn that the vaccine that's linked to blood clots is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine- which doesn't use mRNA.
In fact, the CDC specifically reccomends mRNA vaccines over the J&J one for this very reason:
Here's another source stating that the J&J vaccine isn't mRNA based:
YET AGAIN: you got it exactly backward.
Moreover, the at-risk population for this appears to be concentrated on women under 50:
Which is good information to have, meaning that people within this group should definitely NOT take the J&J vaccine, and opt for one of the other available options.
For all your chest out bravado, you're 0-2 for the only two claims I've checked so far.
I keep telling you that you have things backward, and I'll cite my source for that:
You keep proving that assertion to be correct. You proved it here with your assertion that the claim that mRNA vaccines cause blood clots, when your 1 minute google challenge showed that to be false.
You proved it above, when you said that more people died from the vaccination in the Pfizer trials than the did from the placebo- and, wonder of wonders, you had it *exactly* backward.
twice, in fact:
First, 2 deaths in the vaxxed group to 4 in the placebo group
Second, They died during the trial, and yet there was no demonstrable link to the vaccine or the placebos.
So the assertion, or even an implication, that the trial itself is the cause of those deaths is just plain false.
You have so much bravado about all this, and yet it took such little effort to show that you're completely wrong in two pretty significant assertions so far. It's like your determined to believe even the slightest drop of alternative opinions on this, simply because it's the alternative opinion.
Almost like you're leading cherry picked evidence, instead of allowing the evidence to lead you.
It's almost like it's right out of the antivaxx 101 playbook.
It's almost like, people have good reason to lump you in with the broader antivax sentiment, because you continue to demonstrate that you do all the things that would fall under that umbrella.