And keep in mind that the Pfizer trial showed this might save 10,000 lives (best case). So we are killing 15 people to maybe save 1 death from COVID. And they are mandating we take it.
Considering the bias in VAERS reporting, claiming the left skew of deaths sampled in VAERS is a valid and accurate representation of the underlying population is really stupid. It's interesting you ignore the number of deaths reported within 3 days is about 2500 out of 200+ million vaccinated persons. That makes the VAERS raw risk of death, from ABSOLUTELY ANY (Yeah, that's how VAERS works...obviously) physiological cause within 3 days of vaccination, a whopping 0.1%. I thought a 99.9% survival rate is what anti-vaxxers used to argue we didn't need COVID lockdowns, but if it's related to vaccines, suddenly it's an outrage that we need to huddle in fear from. The ironic hypocrisy is hilarious.
Frankly, out of 200 million people, the number that die due to sheer bad luck within a few days of the shot should be in the thousands. And doctors/family of decedents will clearly be more biased to reporting entirely random deaths within 5 days of the shot than those within 30 days, due to temporal contiguity bias (the bias you're falling for now). Temporal contiguity bias in reporting decisions is enough to make that skew wholly artificial. Your analysis on the meaning of the left skew is entirely bunk and is closer to anti-vax wet-dreaming than rigorous statistics.
Perhaps it's much more simple. Forget all these calculations. If Pfizer's data indicates that over 20k people need to be vaxed to save one life, then shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? 900k people in the US supposedly died "from" covid. Let's assume that's true and they didn't just die "with" covid. So in order to save those 900k people, we would have had to vaccinate 900k x 20k = 18 billion. Uh... there are only 7.5B on the planet. If we vaxed everyone with Pfizer, we save 375k people. And this is for a virus with an IFR of ~0.4%. So not only does almost everyone who gets it survive, but we're going to vax everyone to get almost no benefit, whether there are adverse reactions or not. What am I missing?
People keep calling it a "vaccine". I don't believe they know the meaning of that word... It IS NOT a vaccine, by any level of definition.
As you know, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CHANGED its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website. Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce IMMUNITY to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce IMMUNITY to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” This is what's known as BULLSHITE!
Can you also explain why you chose to use the VAERS reported deaths as of Jan 5 2021, which is 9623 or (D) in your equation. As of 2022, the VAERS reported deaths is over 21,000. Assuming other variables in your equation don't change much, wouldn't your equation suggest that over 800K people have died from the vaccine, which is almost as many as those who died from COVID in the US? Or maybe its not a linear relationship? Or maybe your equation is fucking bullshit?
The JAMA study that you cited used a cohort where 31% of the recipients of the vaccine had allergy histories and have had prior anaphylaxis. That 31% is much larger than the 5% of the general population who have severe food allergies and 1% of the population with severe drug allergies (also cited by the study). The JAMA study also stated that no one in the study actually died. So my criticisms are that
1) you have not properly established that the rate of anaphylaxis is a relevant proxy for the rate of death in covid vaccines
2) even if we accepted the premise that the rate of anaphylaxis is a relevant proxy, you have not used a study with a representative population to establish the baseline from which you derive your URF
Either way, I can't accept your conclusion that the covid vaccine has killed over 150,000 people based on your methodology.
Steve. I agree the vax seems marginally helpful at best and there are way too many deaths from the vaccine, particularly in younger ages where they would have no problem with COVID. However, looking at excess deaths each year doesn't seem to allow the huge numbers you are projecting. small errors become huge when projecting from smaller samples. Vaccines only became available in January so timeline doesn't match up well either.
1.3million people have long covid now! Wonder whether that started before or after being vaccinated or whether these are just the unvaccinated after being infected. 🤔🤫
The result... Doctors are purposefully ignorant killers which cannot be trusted, and are too risky to use beyond life and death emergencies. 2021 will be remembered as moment self doctoring took over.
I am a nurse and submitted a VAERS report and taught a PA in my ER how to use the system as well. Easier to use the PDF download method so your session doesn't timeout, if anyone would like to know. I don't know any doctors that use it (but I know many that blindly blame the unvaccinated for our hospital being overwhelmed, never mind the nursing shortage and vaccine injuries)
If the actual # of US vaccine deaths is 300,000, and 230mil have been vaccinated, it's killing approx 1/750 people....and that's just within 30 days I believe. We need different data sources to see additional adverse events and deaths over a 1-year, 2-year period, etc
There is a typo in your link in the section starting with: “Why the huge spike in adverse events including death? Is it just overreporting? Now let’s look at the numbers from Openvars.com ”
Unless a man is BORN AGAIN he canNOT see the kingdom of God--(John 3.3, 33-34-)--
Considering the bias in VAERS reporting, claiming the left skew of deaths sampled in VAERS is a valid and accurate representation of the underlying population is really stupid. It's interesting you ignore the number of deaths reported within 3 days is about 2500 out of 200+ million vaccinated persons. That makes the VAERS raw risk of death, from ABSOLUTELY ANY (Yeah, that's how VAERS works...obviously) physiological cause within 3 days of vaccination, a whopping 0.1%. I thought a 99.9% survival rate is what anti-vaxxers used to argue we didn't need COVID lockdowns, but if it's related to vaccines, suddenly it's an outrage that we need to huddle in fear from. The ironic hypocrisy is hilarious.
Frankly, out of 200 million people, the number that die due to sheer bad luck within a few days of the shot should be in the thousands. And doctors/family of decedents will clearly be more biased to reporting entirely random deaths within 5 days of the shot than those within 30 days, due to temporal contiguity bias (the bias you're falling for now). Temporal contiguity bias in reporting decisions is enough to make that skew wholly artificial. Your analysis on the meaning of the left skew is entirely bunk and is closer to anti-vax wet-dreaming than rigorous statistics.
Perhaps it's much more simple. Forget all these calculations. If Pfizer's data indicates that over 20k people need to be vaxed to save one life, then shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? 900k people in the US supposedly died "from" covid. Let's assume that's true and they didn't just die "with" covid. So in order to save those 900k people, we would have had to vaccinate 900k x 20k = 18 billion. Uh... there are only 7.5B on the planet. If we vaxed everyone with Pfizer, we save 375k people. And this is for a virus with an IFR of ~0.4%. So not only does almost everyone who gets it survive, but we're going to vax everyone to get almost no benefit, whether there are adverse reactions or not. What am I missing?
People keep calling it a "vaccine". I don't believe they know the meaning of that word... It IS NOT a vaccine, by any level of definition.
As you know, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CHANGED its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website. Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce IMMUNITY to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce IMMUNITY to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” This is what's known as BULLSHITE!
Can you also explain why you chose to use the VAERS reported deaths as of Jan 5 2021, which is 9623 or (D) in your equation. As of 2022, the VAERS reported deaths is over 21,000. Assuming other variables in your equation don't change much, wouldn't your equation suggest that over 800K people have died from the vaccine, which is almost as many as those who died from COVID in the US? Or maybe its not a linear relationship? Or maybe your equation is fucking bullshit?
The JAMA study that you cited used a cohort where 31% of the recipients of the vaccine had allergy histories and have had prior anaphylaxis. That 31% is much larger than the 5% of the general population who have severe food allergies and 1% of the population with severe drug allergies (also cited by the study). The JAMA study also stated that no one in the study actually died. So my criticisms are that
1) you have not properly established that the rate of anaphylaxis is a relevant proxy for the rate of death in covid vaccines
2) even if we accepted the premise that the rate of anaphylaxis is a relevant proxy, you have not used a study with a representative population to establish the baseline from which you derive your URF
Either way, I can't accept your conclusion that the covid vaccine has killed over 150,000 people based on your methodology.
Looking forward to reading the part Ii!
Steve. I agree the vax seems marginally helpful at best and there are way too many deaths from the vaccine, particularly in younger ages where they would have no problem with COVID. However, looking at excess deaths each year doesn't seem to allow the huge numbers you are projecting. small errors become huge when projecting from smaller samples. Vaccines only became available in January so timeline doesn't match up well either.
Thank you!
https://rumble.com/vrxlt4-govt.-data-reveals-over-946k-people-suffered-injuries-or-death-from-covid-1.html
New spin being banded in UK !
1.3million people have long covid now! Wonder whether that started before or after being vaccinated or whether these are just the unvaccinated after being infected. 🤔🤫
The result... Doctors are purposefully ignorant killers which cannot be trusted, and are too risky to use beyond life and death emergencies. 2021 will be remembered as moment self doctoring took over.
I am a nurse and submitted a VAERS report and taught a PA in my ER how to use the system as well. Easier to use the PDF download method so your session doesn't timeout, if anyone would like to know. I don't know any doctors that use it (but I know many that blindly blame the unvaccinated for our hospital being overwhelmed, never mind the nursing shortage and vaccine injuries)
If the actual # of US vaccine deaths is 300,000, and 230mil have been vaccinated, it's killing approx 1/750 people....and that's just within 30 days I believe. We need different data sources to see additional adverse events and deaths over a 1-year, 2-year period, etc
There is a typo in your link in the section starting with: “Why the huge spike in adverse events including death? Is it just overreporting? Now let’s look at the numbers from Openvars.com ”
Should be Openvaers.com
I think number 4 needs to be Jan 5, 2022, not 2021.