You «jump[] to a biased conclusion» only when the conclusion is held - which you cannot conclude. The poster should keep it open: you should do the same. As you are mandated by the guidelines and the constraint against weak interpretations.
The vaccination status questions appear, because the theories about this being caused by covid vaccination flew over internet in anti vaccine circles. Just like every time famous person dies. The the whole political goal of these questions is to imply he was killed by vaccination while not needing to prove anything.
And it IS manipulative political question. We don't know his vaccination status nor when he was vaccinated. That happens to be private health information.
On the contrary, there are cases where people flying through multiple countries which have different approaches to health treatments have ended up taking multiple pharmaceutical interventions, one per nation-state sanctioned regime, where there have been zero clinical trials on that specific combination of treatments.
To be pro or anti "vaccine" is as meaningless as being pro or anti "software" or "chemical" or "food". Details matter. We are currently in the world's largest, unprecedented scientific experiment, and we are fortunate that the vast majority of participants have been healthy. Data from the outliers will be studied for decades to come and future generations will honor their sacrifice and contribution to science.
> To be pro or anti "vaccine" is as meaningless as being pro or anti "software" or "chemical" or "food". Details matter.
We are specifically talking about covid-19 vaccines.
? We are currently in the world's largest, unprecedented scientific experiment, and we are fortunate that the vast majority of participants have been healthy.
You are lying. Practically, it is not experiment.
> Data from the outliers will be studied for decades to come and future generations will honor their sacrifice and contribution to science.
What does that have to do with whether trying to imply vaccines are responsible for Kim Jung Gi? Literally for no reason other then "I want it to and it would confirm my priors".
The U.S. NIH says otherwise, e.g. here is one of the ongoing clinical studies, which continues through March 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04848584
Study Type: Observational
Official Title: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness Study - Kaiser Permanente Southern California
Actual Study Start Date: May 15, 2021
Estimated Primary Completion Date: March 31, 2023
Estimated Study Completion Date: March 31, 2023
WHO lists 11 vaccines and 4 types, each with different mechanisms of action, effectiveness and safety, https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/agency/who/
Protein subunit
RNA
Non Replicating Viral Vector
Inactivated VirusAlso there are way more then just 11 vaccines all in all.
It means that the outcome of vaccine studies which complete in 2023, e.g. medium-term adverse effects, identification of specific risk pools, mitigations for adverse effects, will primarily benefit those who receive treatment after the studies complete in 2023.
Any beneficial information from a study completing in 2023 would self-evidently not be available in 2021 and 2022, i.e. science would have yielded new scientific knowledge. Participating in an ongoing scientific procedure with partial data is a risk-benefit decision, but that does not make it any less of an experiment, when there is ongoing, parallel research, clinical trials and scientists working diligently to answer open questions.
It is. Vaccine trials cannot be speed up. Human biology is not changeable as some sources trying to tell you. You need time to observe for example changes in fertility. walterbell gave you links for more info.
"Literally for no reason other then "I want it to and it would confirm my priors"."
Sorry, but that is your biased deduction.
Only for those who are healthy and suddenly die because of chest pain. Also when you know personaly people that are seriously ill or dead because of vaccines, than it is really hard to not ask questions.
"That happens to be private health information."
It was and it should be. But since our governments decided to make those information mandatory for for/entrance to various places/etc., it is not private anymore.
Cardiovascular and heart disease information:
https://www.who.int/health-topics/cardiovascular-diseases/#t...
You speak about how political vaccines are and share links to most political institutions we have. How ironic is this?
It is quite unlikely he got vaccination shortly before his hearth attack. He would have had to have it while traveling for it to be close enough rather then, more sensibly, him taking vaccine at home around time most people took one.
Well... Maybe your conclusion is biased.
"Covid/vaccine related questions should best be left to topics concerning large scale studies, not a single tragic instance."
Why? I prefer individual, non-anonymous source of data. Without conclusions.
Covid/vaccine related questions should best be left to topics concerning large scale studies, not a single tragic instance.