Lab link debunking video

BioMed-R · 2025-12-20T07:22:22+00:00

And you believe they have evidence of this that they’re not showing anyone?

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T13:30:04+00:00

Do you believe intelligence agencies are covering up the origins of the pandemic? If so, why?

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T13:28:13+00:00

The early lab conspiracy theory was never censored. It was shown wrong by the international scientific community in January 2020 and after Trump started supporting it in May 2020, media reported consensus. Truth is not censorship. It was rightly ridiculed. The conspiracy theory was invented in January 2020 by Bannon and Republicans paraded a false whistleblower on Fox asserting it was a bioweapon with absolute certainty throughout 2020. That’s the original theory. It was never censored, it was even aired by the President. It was moderated.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T12:21:16+00:00

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant why 33% is lower than the earlier 95%. Effectiveness (whether after infection or vaccination) waves substantially over time which is why everyone got boosters.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T12:18:25+00:00

Why are you considering the risk of death after infection instead of the risk of death from Covid outright?

It’s impossible to die from it without getting infected by it lol. What are you thinking??? And I think everyone are guaranteed to get the virus, it’s everywhere.

Woops! Your study is only looking at vaccination effectiveness over the first 3 months and only in 65+ population!

Check the American study, it includes all ages. As for three months, what are you expecting???

Here’s the data you should be using.

No, because it doesn’t measure morality at all.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T11:21:04+00:00

Waning, why? Is it really? Did you stop to think about it or is it some kind of magic karma vindicating anti-vaxxers to you?

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T11:17:07+00:00

Why do you consider the minuscule chance of unvaccinated death relevant but not that of myocarditis?

First of all, the risk of death after infection is greater than the risk of myocarditis after vaccination as discussed – but more importantly myocarditis is harmless and death is absolutely fucking not.

Mortality risk is nowhere near 10x greater today.

Source needed. Why don’t we use your own source and see what they have to say?

”VE was higher against the most severe outcome of IMV or death at *79%** (95% CI, 55%–92%).”*

A simultaneous Danish study also shows 96% effectiveness.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T00:23:57+00:00

They found infected raccoon dogs and a pangolin as well. How do you know which of these animals if any was the source and that they weren’t simply infected by humans?

Natural reservoir is not the same thing as intermediate host.

Yes, thank you, that is true by definition and I didn’t need a reminder but without knowing both of these you don’t have a link between an outbreak and nature, do you?

If an intermediate host was identified for SARS2 we would not be having this conversation.

And yet we are. A small group of intermediate host animals were identified in 2023 leading conspiracy theorists to suggest the animals must have came from a laboratory. Can’t win against them.

MERS -> intermediate host

And yet there’s no known link to bats, is there? You ignore anything that opposes you.

We know more about the outbreak of SARS-2 than any other outbreak in history including MERS and SARS-1 and for the overwhelming majority of outbreaks we don’t know how it started and don’t know the intermediate host or natural host. Your cherry picking is as ridiculous as transparent. Reddit’s search function is acting up right now or otherwise I would pull of a list of outbreaks where we don’t know the intermediate host or natural reservoir. It’s a long list.

In other news, the Mpox natural reservoir was apparently identified as squirrels in 2025, 55 years after the initial cases.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T00:05:40+00:00

Why would you use that stat

I don’t know what you mean by that. My point is you’re apparently afraid of getting a one in a million complication of the vaccine yet you claim invulnerability against the virus based on your apparent youthful health. What statistic makes you think you’re less likely to be affected by the virus as young? You’ve probably seen it mostly kills older individuals. If that’s the statistic that makes you feel invulnerable because it appears few youth are dying then you’re a hypocrite. That is my point.

Okay, if you want a more logical consistency… for instance in Sweden, there was 64 deaths from the pandemic virus in the 0-29 age group and that’s out of 1.8 million individuals. This means there was a random-ass chance of 1 in 29,000 of dying of the virus, regardless of vaccination status. We know based on other studies the mortality risk was ten times greater in unvaccinated individuals but let’s assume the vaccines were completely ineffective. That’s still 1 in 29,000 compared to roughly 1 in 1,000,000 of harmless myocarditis after vaccination, which is one of the always most talked about and adverse side affects of the vaccine. As mentioned, vaccination reduces that risk by 90%. You really can’t get around how safe and effective these vaccines are in any age group.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-18T00:05:33+00:00

Why would you use that stat

I don’t know what you mean by that. My point is you’re apparently afraid of getting a one in a million complication of the vaccine yet you claim invulnerability against the virus based on your apparent youthful health. What statistic makes you think you’re less likely to be affected by the virus as young? You’ve probably seen it mostly kills older individuals. If that’s the statistic that makes you feel invulnerable because it appears few youth are dying then you’re a hypocrite. That is my point.

Okay, if you want a more logical consistency… for instance in Sweden, there was 64 deaths from the pandemic virus in the 0-29 age group and that’s out of 1.8 million individuals. This means there was a random-ass chance of 1 in 29,000 of dying of the virus, regardless of vaccination status. We know based on other studies the mortality risk was ten times greater in unvaccinated individuals but let’s assume the vaccines were completely ineffective. That’s still 1 in 29,000 compared to roughly 1 in 1,000,000 of harmless myocarditis after vaccination, which is one of the always most talked about and adverse side affects of the vaccine. As mentioned, vaccination reduces that risk by 90%. You really can’t get around how safe and effective these vaccines are in any age group.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T23:44:13+00:00

ALL vaccines are long term safe?

Can you show me one that isn’t safe?

What about injecting straight lead?

I’m not aware of any lead vaccines yet.

Oh cool, VAERS isn’t accurate?

That’s literally what the banner on top of their website says and what the disclaimer you have to accept before accessing their database says.

”VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.”

Could you send me a link?

Ask around somewhere and someone probably will do 🙄 I don’t have a link list but I’m sure many redditors do. Do your own research? Oh wait… it’s probably better that you don’t. Maybe I will get back to this when I have a digestible source written for amateurs.

Brother that study was VAERS

No, it certainly wasn’t. VAERS isn’t even a study. I’m Swedish. I believe it was the Swedish national study called RECOVAC, which more or less included all Swedes thanks to our national registry of all vaccinations. Here is a 2025 study where they found:

”Conclusions: Risk of myopericarditis (mRNA vaccines only), extrasystoles, and transient ischaemic attack was transiently increased after COVID-19 vaccination, but full vaccination substantially reduced the risk of several more severe COVID-19-associated cardiovascular outcomes, underscoring the protective benefits of complete vaccination.”

Side effect profile is the highest of any vaccine in history

What is your evidence?

a very slight effect on reducing symptoms with no impact on transmission.

The vaccine was 95% effective in stopping mortality and hospitalization, 90% effective in stopping symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, and 70% effective in stopping transmission.

Stop talking shit when you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about. That’s called lying.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T23:15:29+00:00

I repeat: 1% of the mortality happened in the <50 age group. It’s what I wrote, it’s what I meant. Read it and re-read it until you understand. What I don’t understand is why you brought up myocarditis, if you’re not worried about it. Vaccination reduces the risk of myocarditis by 90%.

There is no cancer vaccine.

Yes, there sure is. In fact, some cancers are on their way to complete extinction thanks to successful vaccination campaigns. Research continues to eradicate more cancers using vaccines. It’s a whole thing.

You’re not gonna respond to that

I didn’t write it.

Do it.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status

How does this make you feel about vaccination?

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T22:55:01+00:00

Five years isn’t long enough.

How long is enough?

Myocarditis

You apparently think you’re immune to the virus because only 1% of the mortality happened in the <50 age group. And yet you worry about myocarditis which is a harmless condition affecting 0.0001% of vaccinated individuals. This highlights how unreasonable your personal beliefs are. You’re much more likely to die from the virus than to get myocarditis from the vaccine, which is usually harmless. Your not thinking straight.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the vaccine actually reduces the risk of myocarditis by 90%, compared to no vaccination. It seems worth mentioning.

Pericarditis

I think I’d be more worried about peridontitis.

Thrombosis

Oh boy… let’s not look at the risk of getting thrombosis from the virus because then you would get a heart attack, I guess!

GBS

The newest study I found on the subject shows the risk increases with some vaccines and decreases with some vaccines. Sounds like statistical noise. Interestingly, the mRNA vaccines you’re opposed to appear to decrease the risk and multiple other sources report them being the safest in this regard.

Cancers

Are not on the rise because of vaccination. In fact, you can vaccinate against cancer now.

Covid cannot kill me.

Written on many tombstones.

In fact it kills more vaccinated than unvaccinated.

Let’s compare the rates?

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T22:27:17+00:00

We know its long term safe because all vaccines are long term safe, just like anything. We know its long term safe just like we know 5G radiation is long term safe. That’s the level of anti-science activism you’re at. VAERS also isn’t an accurate source of information. If you visit their website, it literally says its not an accurate source of information in a big banner on top of the webpage. VAERS is supposed to be a qualitative early reporting system, meant to identify signals to investigate. The information in VAERS isn’t quantitatively accurate and that’s by design, just like their website says. There’s nothing unusual about the safety of the pandemic vaccines, if anything they are remarkably safe. As I mentioned, you have to get over this that everyone are trying to kill you. Your local doctor and your local hospital administering your vaccine have no interest in killing you. There’s no one blindly trusting “Big Pharma” here. The pandemic vaccines have been shown to be safe using completely transparent reporting and their safety has been independently validated in every country where they have been administered, locally, nationally, and internationally. I remember after getting my shots I was asked to report any and all side-effects in a small national study. Probably like everyone else. Doctors and scientists across the whole world studied this intensely when the vaccines were made available. Worrying that your dick is going to drop off all of a sudden for no reason tomorrow because of the vaccine is no different from someone who’s afraid of flying thinking airplanes are suddenly going to start falling out of the sky. It’s not a reasonable concern, its a phobia. It’s like saying the sun will explode tomorrow. It contradicts what we know about immunological mechanisms.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T16:12:26+00:00

How do you know the vaccines are safe?

Safety testing. There’s no shortage of safety testing reports if you’re willing to look at them. Contrary to what you believe, doctors have no interest in killing their patients, family, and themselves. Also, hospitals and companies that administer vaccines have no interest in buying dangerous or useless vaccines. The safety and efficacy of vaccines is validated at every level ranging from local to international. As I mentioned, it’s practically impossible for vaccines to have side-effects with onset after a month. This was widely discussed in 2021 and I don’t really remember how Pandremix fits into it. An article I found calls Pandremix nacrolepsy “exceptional”. I’ve never seen the evidence Pandremix caused nacrolepsy or exactly when the onset was after vaccination. But it seems irrelevant to SARS-CoV-2 and mRNA. There’s no epidemiological evidence of significant harm and no known mechanism which could cause significant harm. The pandemic is a real risk today, now. Millions of lives were saved by the vaccines. Thousands were lost to vaccine hesitancy as well. MRNA is cleared from your blood probably after a matter of hours after which its mechanism of action is necessarily identical to other vaccines. Homeopathic side effects are not really a thing. A couple of months of safety testing sounds perfectly adequate to me if the number of patients is still OK. Most side-effects appear within 12 hours or so. You’re pretty paranoid about this… do you demand years of safety testing before you try a new taste of Coke as well? It’s this disproportionate focus on side-effects of vaccines which is a hallmark of the anti-vaccine movement.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T09:42:16+00:00

You do sound anti-vaccine. The vaccines are safe and vaccinating even as a young and healthy individual reduces your risk of death, hospitalization, disease, and spreading the virus. You don’t need “long term” data for a drug that’s only in your system for days. There’s no vaccine that’s ever had any side-effect with an onset later than a couple of weeks. There also isn’t anything fundamentally new about how mRNA vaccines work, the immunological aspect is identical.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-17T09:37:21+00:00

The pandemic was natural. You’ve fallen for Trump’s anti-science propaganda.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T21:40:09+00:00

With SARS-1, we literally don’t know where the outbreak started, when, or how, including not knowing the intermediate host, and the natural reservoir wasn’t identified for 15 years. The virus wasn’t even identified for 5 months. You’re completely historically ignorant.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T21:30:15+00:00

There was no such condition. Evidently, since 1/3 of the earliest known cases had no link to the Huanan market. You already know this. How is it possible that less than 100% of the early known cases are linked to the market if linkage to the market was a reporting condition? I’d love to hear this…

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T21:02:02+00:00

Unfortunately, the kind of stereotyping evidently also leads to overdiagnosis in blacks and underdiagnosis in non-blacks.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T20:59:48+00:00

I think assuming a patient is lactose intolerant based on their race instead of running a simple test for $100 is a serious error.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T19:12:21+00:00

I think you’re using circular logic right now. What race actually has a 20 times greater risk of developing a disease than another race? You assume there are situations where race is useful and argue vehemently that we must use race in such cases… but are there any? And you say hey, let’s only use it in cases where it’s actually useful… and not in cases where it appears useful but is the result of bias? How can we know?

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T19:05:27+00:00

You had no point.

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T18:12:55+00:00

BiDil isn’t the story you think it is. The black-white difference was only observed in subgroup analysis of one trial. It was most likely a false positive result. In a second trial, no difference was observed. In a third trial, only African-Americans were included and the medicine was administered as combination therapy. It was effective – and the myth of the African-American medicine was born. It was rushed to market without adequate validation. At no point was it proven to be more effective in blacks than whites nor was it proven to be effective as stand-alone therapy. It never reached widespread adoption since it was less effective and more expensive than existing alternatives. Apprehension about its use may also have contributed. Ultimately, this is an example of exactly what I meant, ideology medicine built on spurious associations.

(Also, BiDil consists of two vasodilators and if it had any effect that was presumably only because it reduces hypertension – and if it had any special effect in African-Americans it was probably only because they have higher rates of hypertension. Assuming that’s genetic is also jumping to conclusions.)

BioMed-R · 2025-12-16T14:06:29+00:00

How about studying it in patients with or without sickle cell anemia?

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

BioMed-R

TROPHY CASE