[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

I don't know your son, and I am relieved to know that he grew up.
You seem to be acquainted with stipulating "semantics" on many topics so I presumed that my use was permitted. Now that I know better, I will bow to those that are All Knowing.

Have a great day
I still consider the statement as "scare tactics" since there was no limiting terms used such as "some, instances, percentage, etc."

Mrs. Bean here. I did not get into specifics as I just reiterated a headline I read. I did invite anyone who was interested to do the research and find articles on the subject. It was quite interesting to find that heart damage shows up a year later in Covid survivors; I never said all Covid survivors. I left it up to anyone interested in the findings to read about it themselves.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

As a knight of the round table, I was honor bound by the code of chivalry to defend her

I'm happy to say it again........GE, you are my hero!

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Dana1963

Well you came to the right site for information/misinformation.

Agree 100%

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Why does information regarding the damaging effects of Covid become "fear mongering"? The information is there to inform, not to cause fear. Why is it being informed is referred to as "fear mongering". I just do not understand that mantra and I'm truly tired of hearing it. I've heard it so much, I have become numb to the silly term, "fear mongering".

Then I guess if someone was to put this article on here, and say that folks should not wear a mask because of.....................

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Well, you and I both know, and I'm pretty sure MRS. Bean knows as well, that "side effects" are not something that affects 100% of those that take a medication, usually less than 1-2 %, unless the "side effect" is somatic, such as headache or fatigue, in which case it generally runs about 15%, which is the same rate as the placebo arm of the studies.

How dare you resume their gender!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Well, you and I both know, and I'm pretty sure MRS. Bean knows as well, that "side effects" are not something that affects 100% of those that take a medication, usually less than 1-2 %, unless the "side effect" is somatic, such as headache or fatigue, in which case it generally runs about 15%, which is the same rate as the placebo arm of the studies.

And while on the subject, "Person Bean" should be more precise in their language.

If you read these threads (and I know that you do), you will see that people are constantly using incorrect statistics to try to back up their claims...

Simply saying "some", or "a few", or "studies show the XX%" would go a long way in substantiating a claim...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Who is "Mr. Bean"?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Mrs. Bean here. I did not get into specifics as I just reiterated a headline I read. I did invite anyone who was interested to do the research and find articles on the subject. It was quite interesting to find that heart damage shows up a year later in Covid survivors; I never said all Covid survivors. I left it up to anyone interested in the findings to read about it themselves.

And that is the problem...

Headlines.... They are meant to elicit a reaction, not give information (in most cases)...

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Well......he is not me. Just sayin'. LOL.