CDC identifys new risk with Pfizer jab

[SueDonim]

The Epoch Times is a questionable source. I would have to register to read what they have to say and don't intend doing so.

As was noted above, the Reuters article uses words like "could" and "possibly" a lot. The CDC source article is here https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...sters.html. They are simply reporting that a signal popped up that further investigation is needed. It wasn't sufficient to change vaccine recommendations.

On the other hand, it has been well known for a long time that having covid disease is a serious risk for stroke. So just like we keep saying - the vaccine has a relatively small risk. Being un-vaccinated is a far greater risk full stop.

zqwerty you are exactly right. I'm also still floored at the fact that so few people care enough about their own or other people's health to wear masks in at risk situations. So many people fought against the "mandates" which only needed to be mandated because they were too stupid/selfish to simply do the right thing. And because of it the cost of of the virus in the community is still huge.

To add insult to injury, the doctors justbtell these victims that it's coincidence and in their head!

Very often things ARE coincidence. Every year a lot of people have heart attacks and strokes. If you had either soon after a vaccine you will not know whether it is cause and effect or was going to happen anyway. It's like many of the people who swear by natural remedies that have been proven useless (note the word "that" - many are not useless). People take stuff and feel better. But were going to get better anyway.

This is why the criteria for assessing the credibility of a medical study includes noting the size of the cohort and analysis of whatever other confounding factors may have influenced the results.

The CT zealots continue to spout ignorant opinions in a blind belief that the science is wrong. I'm wondering how many came from an excessively fanatical religious childhood. They might become more balanced as they get older and even leave religion behind them, but may fail to understand that as young children they were indoctrinated with a mindset to favour blind belief over evidence.

Whether or not we are being lied to is easily established. When we are being "told" something we can check the evidence and gain some understanding of how the information has been derived. We understand that experts actually are that - expert. They have a much greater understanding of the workings of the human body than we laymen can begin to imagine. So we respect their knowledge and opinions derived from information that can usually be checked at its source - the actual research that it came from. We are the first generation with an experience of this level of transparency and it's a great thing.

On the other hand, the openness and lack of regulation of the internet has provided others with opportunities to post up websites that counter credible knowledge and capture people who do not have the skills to critically analyse what they see, or the understanding of the wider world needed to see through the garbage. And unfortunately Google's algorithms record what we view and give those inclined to the fringe more of the fringe material they seek until they start to think it's a majority view of the world. For the rest of us, we seek and are given good information. And we understand that being vaccinated mitigates the risks of the virus.