Quote from: ramzifcb47 on Today at 06:48:46 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on Today at 05:34:33 PM

Quote from: ramzifcb47 on Today at 05:04:26 PM

And for OP, your post is SO scientifically innacurate because there are no studies that shows that getting vaccinated increases your chance of catching the flu (or any other virus in this manner) so you may want to support your claim with some studies (if you could find any) otherwise it wont be taken seriously.
...

And those that do (e.g., like in the 2nd post of this thread) are invalid because they show some issues and since we know that vaccines are don't have any issues we also know that such studies are invalid. Thus, they don't exist.

the sutdy u showed is not related to what OP is saying, he claimed that vaccines somehow make people more vulnerable to the novel coronavirus (which is just a wild claim without proofs) and you are talking about some vaccines trials that went wrong (it does happen sometimes), so i cant see how this prove that vaccines are dangerous and must be stopped.

I even quoted where they said 'no vaccine interference...except in the two cases where there was.' Weasely of them, but they had to put it that way or get called out because statistics are statistics and they'd get called out for flat-out lying. Or I should say, never admitting the truth since they favored the 'short version' in several other places.

One of these two instances of statistically relevant interference was coronavirus. At that time 'coronavirus' was in the worst case a few sniffles.

Actually I suspect that at the time of the study (post Ft. Detrich being closed) coronavirus was already more than that in the U.S. (and Northern Italy), but this little factoid was only known to a either a few of the people who did the study, or their bosses who order the study.