I don't think there's harm in reviewing all sources understanding the level of inaccuracy that may exist. But people that come from a background of peer reports/reviews are going to comprehend that better than the general public. If people doubt "field experts" they're going to be driven away from that and they'll go to the fringe reports.
Bronny James had a heart attack at USC yesterday
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
- Status
Come on you claim to be a smart scientist. VAERS data is part of the antivax playbook.
Is there a link to the actual report? This website shows some graphs but it isn't clear if these are graphs that ONS actually made or if "some internet guy" pulled the stats and made his own graphs (I suspect the latter but am willing to read more).
That's not talking in circles, that's explaining to how not all "studies" are created equal.
The fact that you used the phrase "founders of mRNA" makes me not want to waste any more time on you. This is like saying "Ben Franklin invented electricity". (also Malone DID NOT pioneer mRNA vaccines).
No idea what that means. But if you think RFKJ is worth listening to, you are anti-science.
Did you read the JHU link I sent? It explains it quite well. VAERS data is quite useful, but not to just do a raw data dump (which is what you are trying to do).
The 40X higher is because when MMR debuted there was no internet. It's an access bias thing. Most people (including me) had no idea that VAERS existed before covid. So there was far less VAERS reporting. It's just bias in the data. That explains your 40x higher.
Next question?
BS. I know how Studies are created. The studies are shit from shit people That is how we got here
Are you good with over 35,000 COVID vaccine deaths reported and counting? Do you think that qualifies as safe?
Even if you believe that all other vaccine deaths in the last 30 years are under-reported in VAERS, apparently only 1 in 1000 or more deaths must have been reported from all other vaccines for the COVID vaccine to be on the same order of magnitude of any other vaccine rolled out over those 30 years. I can accept some data collection bias but not of that magnitude.
Further, if you accept that data collection bias, surely you know that COVID deaths are massively overcounted as it was worth tens of thousands of dollars to code it as a COVID death.
Last edited:
When Googling the question there are a number of articles, but I can't personally speak to the credibility of most of the sources. I posted below what seems the most credible, and it leaves the question open just as I posed it. You seem to have all the proof you need to make a definitive statement, which is certainly your right.
How do you know? Are you a principal investigator/author? Do you routinely serve as a peer reviewer for a variety of journals? Have you served as an assistant editor of a major journal?
Because I've done all those things. So I'm pretty sure I know what it takes to publish in the peer reviewed literature.
And you have no basis for call the studies (or the people) shit.
And that how we got where? To having successfully navigated a novel global pandemic? Yes, the science allowed us to do that relatively well.
Where are you getting 35K deaths?
Even if that number is true (and assuming you mean just for the US), 613 Million vaccine does were given. That's a 0.00005% mortality rate. That's small enough to be statistically negligible. The risk from covid is much higher.
Most, if not all of us, know the covid data might be accurate, totally made up, or somewhere in the middle. If nothing else the pandemic demonstrated that our national health apparatus is not always accurate - to say the least.
Even the new head of the CDC realizes that the agency needs to rebuild trust. I wouldn't believe data from the CDC, NIH or FDA even if Joe Biden released it. And we all know he would only tell us the truth
I lived it. I saw the many lies over the last few years. I can read spreadsheets. I don’t need known liars telling me what the spreadsheets say.
What spreadsheets are you reading? Reading garbage data isn't useful.
How do you evaluate what is a lie? Why do you think you know more than PhDs who have devoted their entire lives to this?
You're a horrible scientist. For your math to be right, 613 million people would have had to get the jabs.
By your logic, 37,000 people could have gotten 20 jabs each and all died horrible deaths and your mortality rate would be the same.
Because they are on the take as, apparently, are you. I prefer to believe MDs and PhDs who are less compromised.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Please tell my overlords that my bribery check is late.
The beautiful thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not. Your likes or dislikes do not matter. It doesn't matter if it lines up with your political leanings or your business agenda or your religious ideology.
No, because according to you the "jabs" are risky. So each jab carries with it risk. so it's not individuals vaccinated it is number of vaccines given.
But even let's say you are correct (you are not). If the average person got 3 "jabs" then that would boost the mortality risk ALL the way up to 0.00015%. Still staggering low risk.
It's clear it's being brushed under the rug. It's either the jab or covid itself.
That's right Dr. Fauci seems to have forgotten that. Or, he wants to go down in history as the world's greatest mass murderer.
I linked the data from the VAERS website, apparently you weren't paying attention.
please don't talk about science. All we heard during covid was "follow the science". It turns out that the science we were following was not accurate. In spite of what we were told, people who got the vaccine DID get the virus and they were able to pass it to others.
To the uninitiated, the "science" was what the loudest person said it was and if anyone disagreed, they were deniers.
Not necessarily. But as I showed above, it's more likely to be covid than the vaccine.
LOLOLOLOLOL @ "please don't talk about science."
That's what this is all about: science.
If you don't want to talk about it, don't engage in the conversation.
And what about the science wasn't accurate?
Again, you cannot use the VAERS data that way. I've shown you why.
But even if you do use that number the risk is statistically negligible.
The hundreds of thousands of COVID patients denied Ivermectin, HDQ, Vitamin D3, etc, so his precious could get it's EUA. That's just for starters.
I'm not. I'm using your numbers (which are way too high) and using your logic ("jabs are dangerous").
Ivermectin doesn't work.
Frontiers | Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19; Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials
BackgroundIvermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing...
www.frontiersin.org
Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19
This randomized clinical trial compares the efficacy of ivermectin vs placebo in shortening symptom duration among adult outpatients in the US with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19.
jamanetwork.com
At a Higher Dose and Longer Duration, Ivermectin Still Not Effective Against COVID-19
A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.1 Since May 2022, an additional 3 large randomized clinical trials including...
jamanetwork.com
Do you mean HCQ? I don't know what HDQ is. HCQ doesn't work either and may actually hurt.
Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: Efficacy in the Treatment of the COVID-19 - PMC
Chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), have attracted wide attention for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, conflicting outcomes have been found in COVID-19 clinical trials after treatment with CQ or HCQ. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
There is some data that vitamin D3 does reduce the severity of Covid. But that's certainly not enough to not have a vaccine. Same thing with Paxlovid (which actually works really well) -- it doesn't mean vaccines aren't needed.
A pandemic made possible by the good people at UNC Chapel Hill.
Man, you are just about the least objective person I can imagine on this topic!
They have failed. Royally
If all of the science is so clear and irrefutable (dare I say peer reviewed), why all the censorship and documented lying by Fauci and company?
Why did all these geniuses lie and censor?
1930s Germany has the world’s best scientists and engineers. All peer reviewed if I were to guess. How did that turn out?
Who knows, but FWIW, this topic is discussed by UK Cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra on Rogan. Great discussion on hearts and C0VID. He specific cally addresses heart issues caused by viral vs vax and why the vax is most likely the greater cause, toward the end... IDK remember exactly, but it was covered in the last 30 mins
Re: COVID, most docs never treated a COVID patient. They were told to stay home and do nothing until they needed to be hospitalized. That was too late for many. India showed that early intervention was huge.
I posted a podcast with a UK Cardiologist above. He makes the case that most docs got their COVID info from CNN....no joke. They certainly didn't get it from treating patients or from clinical evidence.
History is written by the victors so who knows how this goes down, but if history is based on reality, it seems clear that the vax was a net bad for humanity.
I don't think LeBron would ever acknowledge that himself. He has too much riding on it, and would never want to offend China!
Never thought of that irony. China probably made him twice as rich but possibly has ended his son's career and almost his life.
PSU2, I think your logic is sound, but it seems to me that many who have dedicated their whole lives to this sort of thing will say and do anything if the $$$$$ is right!
You aren't allowed here in the US, Big Pharma is in charge. Other countries have been doing these studies and that's exactly what they have been reporting, cardiovascular injuries in young healthy people from the jab.
- Status
