>>48113330>You are following the biased ivermectine despite the research numbers being inaccurate but are doubting the vaccineI never mentioned ivermectine in this thread. Again putting words in my mouth.
>are you the same anon who posted the reddit links ?No, I already clarified this isn't the case.
> Or the one who argue that the media is pushing for the vaccine ?That's not at all what I actually argued but its close enough to assume that, with your horrible reading comprehension skills, this is what you assume I'm saying.
>but ignore some aspect because you didnt posted them.Why should I defend other people's points?
>Why the fuck are you engaging in it ?Because you fags keep replying to me in promise to educate me while at the same time completely ignoring what I said, insulting me and putting words in my mouth, which is baffling.
> The side effects posted could literraly be reactions from the immune system.But they were side effects. I posted the link because I was asked whether there were side effects being reported, which, as the link proves, is the case. That was the line of discussion. You then proceeded to add irrelevant shit.
>Now you post those and claim they are sufficient to be a concern for the vaccineNot only did I post other concerns, I explicitly said those arent sufficient, twice, in
>>48112984 and in
>>48110968. Its amazing that you want me to listen to you regarding an important health decision and claim science backs you up when you literally can't read basic text.
