They basically concluded this: 50% of fatalities following vaccination occur within 48 hours of injection. 80% occur within one week
1. The first would be the temporal relationships, so I told you, in time, it's really closely related to the injection.
semimojo wrote:
If the doctor understands VAERS I'm a little surprised he doesn't see the fallacy in this temporal relationship line of thought.
ransomnote: He's not quoting fallacy, he's quoting traditional tenets used to determine causality. It's so basic, so obvious. You know, one dog sees another eat from a dish and keel over and no longer wants to eat from the same dish.
semimojo wrote: Since VAERS is all based on self-reporting and not on ongoing surveillance it's a given you'll see more events reported close to the vaccination date.
ransomnote: But it's not a given that this will occur to a bizarre degree for the first time and only for Covid 'vaccines'. 500 million vaccines total injected per year averaging around 150 - 200 deaths. Covid 'vaccines' come along and we had 20 times that number for the first 26 million 'doses'. The numbers continue to climb beyond all imaginings and we're only at 7 months now.
If VAERS Data is, as you say, entirely based on 'self reporting', can we assume people paralyzed, dead or stroked/incapacitated reported soon after the event rather than later? Just curious.
semimojo wrote: It's simple human nature. If some medical issue arises you'll be much more likely to connect it with a shot you got yesterday than a shot you got 10 days ago.
ransomnote wrote: Read post #1 wherein his qualifications pound your silly ponderings into the dust with credentials, experience and success.
You are asserting it's self reporting - in many cases it's medical facilities, but often doctors don't have time to report it so it goes entirely unreported. Check the dates on the reports.
Your assertions are baseless. There's no way to explain away the fact that all other vaccines do not have this catastrophic die off either in 2 days after injection or in sheer numbers (thousands) of deaths. Medical facilities often report these deaths when they get around to it, it's not people breathelessly retelling the tale of their ER visit. That's what V-Safe is for. The CDC created a phone app called V-safe to capture and keep confidential as many reports of harm as possible directly from those who experience it in order to shield it from public view and deny harm.
semimojo: The only way this analysis has validity is if you actively monitor people getting the vaccine and consistently document issues, and then compare those numbers against a control group that didn't get the vaccine.
ransomnote: No. That's patently false. You're describing trial data. It's been done and falsified.
Now we're in administration of toxic 'vaccines'. There's normally a data review board monitoring administration, but the CDC did away with such traditions and announces secret meetings after the fact, with annonymous doctors, all of whom insist that not one of thousands of Covid vaccine deaths are at all related. None can be quoted or cited - for some reason we're not to know who has rendered these judgements.
Dr. McCullough is vastly more qualified than you are, and more qualified than Dr. Fauci, so I find it unintentionally humorous that you start with 'if the doctor understands VAERS' and then your ridiculous assertions that he did it all wrong, it's just the excitement of getting to report vaccine harm etc. Yours is complete distortion and fabrication. It's what you do.
I can't help but note you didn't say a word to address my criticism.
People, including doctors, are much more likely to connect a particular medical event to a shot the closer in time it occurred to that shot.
Is that observation in any way controversial?