>>13466215Kinda, but its mostly bending numbers to appease a certain narrative. The 99.67% comes from comparing total population of the place sampled to deaths, instead of infections to deaths (which shoots the % up to 5-10%, depending on the country/state of the statistic, and that's ignoring long term problems and diseases derived from initial infection (said long term problems show, in certain studies, an almost 40 to 50% incidence rate, if we count minor side effects). Ivermectin shows utility when treating the disease, but in most cases only does so for mild cases, where not using it would only extend the time being sick. Apart from that, it still has side effects, they are just more studied and better known than those from the vaxx. (Even if it worked 100% of the time for mild to fairly grave cases, it wouldn't really stop the pandemic, as an infected person still transmits the disease. Vaxxed do too, but at supposedly lower rates, and with much easier recoveries in case they do get infected and not just carry it)
Overall, while the fud around vaxxed is 'kinda' legit, it's mostly blown out of proportion, we have more than enough side studies and prior knowledge to effectively argue that possible long term side effects do not out weight the potential benefits of avoiding infection and transmission, and of course anyone who argues some of the most outlandish side effects, like prions and sudden heart failure is either full of shit/forgot to take his meds that morning. Anyways, I haven't given sources for any of this, so before taking my word, make sure to look it up yourself. I'm away from the computer, if not I would try to get them for ya. Remember, always ask for da sauce. Have a good one pal
