No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–3 of 3 posts
Re: undefined
#2Can any Hacker News health experts refute any of the points documented and referenced in the above link made by Steve Kirsch? Any health experts willing to debate him for $1,000,000? Why is there such dead silence on these topics? Is it unimportant? Has society been turned away from real science and rational thought?
Re: undefined
#3Still reading through this, but so far, the entire article is written from the point of view of someone who seems to believe anyone who disagrees with him is part of a conspiracy to "silence the truth" and harm everyone. Not really a good mindset to start from, but I'll keep reading to see if there's any evidence he actually provides...
EDIT
Checking out some of those "1,200 peer-reviewed studies showing the harms of COVID vaccines" now. First one specifically says the side effect in question (neurological issues) is rare, which makes me feel the need to point this out: no one with any medical background would ever say a treatment is 100% safe and side-effect free. The question is whether the risks of spreading COVID are worse than the risks of side effects. If a side effect is rare enough, then it shouldn't be considered a reason to reject the vaccines or to say they're "not safe". Specifically in this first source, it says the effects were seen in 7/37000 (0.018%) of the mRNA vaccine trials; in the J&J trial, ONE patient had the effect in the vaccine group, but also ONE patient had the same outcome in the control group, so that's irrelevant. They list effects reported in the wild as of March 2021, but all of them are numbered less than 200 (most less than 35) out of the many thousands of people who had received vaccines by then.
In other words, his argument seems to be "side effects exist, therefore these aren't safe", without regard for the risk-vs-benefit analysis; but that's not a sound definition of safety.
The second source is a case study of literally one person. A sample size of 1.
The third source has a sample size of 2. After reading that, I'm done analyzing this any further, as I think I've gotten the gist of this man's argument.
"This medical treatment has a nonzero risk of side effects, therefore it's unsafe and we should think twice about giving it to people, regardless of the greater risks if we don't. Anyone who disagrees with me or doesn't want to bother arguing with me about it clearly is part of a conspiracy to cover up the truth from good people like me!"
I'm not a medical expert, though I do have a bit more background in medicine than most non-experts, but this guy can go pound sand with his persecution complex and dangerously invalid logic.