> Not to mention all of the vaccine injuries that do exist but are rarely reported on.
Source?
Source?
Just search in this page for "vaccin":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocarditis
Full disclosure: I'm vaccinated, am pro-vaxx, but every choice has risks.
I would imagine that it's highly likely that people who get myocarditis from the vaccine would have gotten myocarditis from the virus. Certainly more than the general population.
Somewhat orthogonally, I never caught chickenpox, at least nothing symptomatic...
Edit: I think it's also worth noting the history of mRNA vaccines is fraught with toxicity issues [0], and even to this day the stuff I read is pretty damn handwavy surrounding the "modified" pseudouridine toxicity fix which took 7 years to find. One just can't make the argument that the real virus and this synthetic soup of poorly understood nanoparticles are analogous.
> More than 1,300 COVID vaccine-related injury claims are now pending before an obscure government tribunal ... Lawyers tell me the vaccine is so new that there’s virtually no definitive research on injury causation to cite ... In the meantime, people like McFadden face a strict one-year deadline from the date of vaccination to file a claim with the CICP.
Unproven causality, but here's a database of 2021-2022 news reports on heart issues in athletes (missing baseline numbers for prior years): https://airtable.com/shrbaT4x8LG8EbvVG/tbl7xKsSUIOPAa7Mx
Meanwhile the internet is awash with anecdote of severe symptoms following vaccination, and particularly concerning are frequent reports of doctors who are dismissive and/or refuse to submit reports on adverse effects. And then there are occasional claims of specialists in various neurological or heart related disciplines who claim to be seeing an unprecedented spike in certain normally rare symptoms among vaccinated patients.
Yeah, they could all be lying or this could be the nocebo effect or it's an army of bots spreading antivaxx propaganda...or maybe you can't magically accelerate a 5+ year testing and evaluation schedule for a novel technology merely because the president says he wants a vaccine yesterday? Note that the clinical data from pfizer and moderna is not available to the public - we are essentially relying on the manufacturers good faith with respect to the safety data that lead to approval by the FDA (moderna still isn't approved, by the way).
I'm sorry, but this is just classic conspiracy theory thinking. "The very absence of evidence that I'm right is proof that I'm right."
If someone is going to make a bold claim about something generally considered to be safe, actually causing a significant number of injuries, it's irresponsible not to provide a source.
For what it's worth: Sometimes there isn't a source. It will behoove you to entertain an idea without demanding that someone provide a source that you approve of.
You can check VAERS yourself. Asking for sources on something that is so publicly available is... weird.
Being honest, NO amount of testing would be an acceptable amount/duration for a significant portion of that group.
or a more prevalent pop-social affliction: "nonsense amplification syndrome"