Re: OT: Vaccine safety

In article <V7kYP.2$c9k3.1@fx03.iad>, crude@sausa.ge says...

>
On 2025-05-24 9:26 a.m., T wrote:

On 5/24/25 6:05 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-05-23 10:46 p.m., T wrote:

On 5/23/25 12:03 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mKZtotJNAY>
>

>
In that case, I would suggest that you tell Carlos and Chris to stop
spreading their ideas on COVID-19 and the "vaccine" as gospel when, in
reality, their ignorance has hurt people. I was reminded of my wife's
cousin in the Azores who, after taking the "vaccine" was turned into a
vegetable that is now incapable of walking or talking. I was also
informed that my wife's co-worker can handle _two_ minutes of activity
before needing to lay down, not ten. This poison they're promoting is
hurting countless people and none of you are calling these clowns out
on their propaganda simply because it is the safe, accepted government
narrative. It is also the safe, accepted government narrative that
illegal aliens don't commit crimes, but anyone with eyes knows that
isn't true.
>

 

>
Once again, I will not allow these dangerous propagandists to spread
their lies as accepted truth if I can help it. I have no intention of
making a long thread about COVID-19, but people must know that no, the
"vaccines" were not safe or effective and that they played no part
whatsoever in helping or saving people. The words of the clowns you're
protecting could lead others to believe that injecting themselves is a
good idea and therefore to ruin their lives. I won't stand for it. Since
you guys are all content to stand down and let the people behind this
get away with the crimes they've committed against humanity, _someone_
has to speak up.
>

I used the "Perplexity" AI model to ask the question:

"Since the beginning of Covid, what proportion of people have been
harmed by Covid vaccines, compared with those harmed by Covid itself?"

Perplexity is an AI model much liked by academics, as it emphasises
academic research and cites references.  This is what it said in
conclusion (after a lengthy narrative - try it!):

"Conclusion
The comparative analysis of available surveillance data demonstrates
that harms definitively attributed to COVID-19 vaccines occur at rates
that are orders of magnitude lower than the documented harms from COVID-
19 disease itself. While COVID-19 has resulted in over 7 million
confirmed deaths among nearly 776 million cases globally, representing
substantial mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events confirmed to
be caused by COVID-19 vaccines remain extremely rare, occurring in fewer
than 1 in 50,000 vaccinated individuals for the most serious documented
events like anaphylaxis.

The distinction between reported adverse events following vaccination
and proven vaccine-caused harms remains crucial for accurate risk
assessment. While millions of adverse events have been reported to
surveillance systems, the lack of established causal relationships for
the vast majority of these reports contrasts with the definitively
established causal relationship between COVID-19 infection and severe
outcomes including death. This evidence base supports the consensus
among international health authorities that COVID-19 vaccines present a
highly favorable risk-benefit profile, with prevention benefits far
outweighing the rare risks of serious adverse events."

Among the references:

The US CDC (Centre for Disease Control):
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccines underwent the most
intensive safety analysis in U.S. history."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/vaccines/covid-19.html

The Lancet (leading UK medical journal):

"Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that
vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·
7?15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between
Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95%
Crl 19·1?20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths
as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global
reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during
the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market
Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4
million [95% Crl 6·8?7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-
income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42?49) of
deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target
set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111%
(105?118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by
WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)
00320-6/fulltext

So, Crude Sausage, you're talking bollocks, and bollocks that could harm
anyone foolish enough to listen to you.  Whatever motivates you to make
these claims it isn't an understanding of science.  And your fantasy
nonsense doesn't belong in this group.

If you've an open mind, put that same question into any of the leading
AI tools, like Gemini, CoPilot, ChatGPT and so on.  Unless you think
it's all a big conspiracy, in which case you need help.

Now we're here to talk about Windows, so just shut up about this.

--
--
Phil, London