Replies

So here is a prime example where the data you are reporting are not your friend

Uo 500 deaths (and it bears repeating that VAERS itself points out these are not deaths provably as caused by the vaccine). This is normalized to 7.1 deaths a day. We are approaching 300M doses of vaccine given so let’s use the number 250M vaccines. Because there is no time limits inn VAERS reporting this means that 71/250 M is the relative risk of death. This marked the safety and efficacy offer vaccine exponentially better by a factor of 4 (10,000x safes using a model of 7/250M estimated as 10/250M just to make the math easy).

Further data reveal that there are approximately 8000 deaths per day on the United States. Assuming that these deaths are a subset of that datum point we arrive at the conclusion that 5/800 deaths or 1/160 deaths are related to the vaccine IF every death in the inflated data set of VAERS was caused by the vaccine which it is not. But for the sake of argument this would represent the MAXIMUM. As defined by VAERS. The only way to go is down in terms of numbers). For the record that’s .6% of deaths per day.
In the year 2020 there were 500,000 excessive deaths year of year compared to 2019. If we annualized the deaths 50 per day across a year we arrive at the number 18,250 seats per year. This represents a 97% improvement in the death rate assuming adequate vaccination. And holy crap in Israel the improvement in death rate tracks at 98%. So there is confirmation of the model I have just built for you with real world data!

Finally at 50 deaths a day traffic fatalities contribute to approximately 110 deaths a day. The vaccines relative risk compared to driving is 2x as safe. And these are using the worst case numbers. So are you still going to give up your car and call people names for engaging in that unconscionably dangerous activity of driving?

What people on your side fail to do is contextualize the data and look for confirmation in a raw number of your theories. You are bastardizing the scientific method of creating hypotheses bases on data. You have jumped to theory and are not looking for data to support you. That’s not who this works.

I have laid carefully out a foundational argument assuming the worst numbers provided by your side and standard data gleaned from numerous sources. The math fits no matter how you look at it.

Your contentions about the safety of these vaccines are thus disproved using real world data and observing real world models.

Please note I have. It called one person an name nor insulted a single set of words or cut and pasted a meme. Usually when you are correct the data speaks for itself as it does in this case. And there is no need for emotion. Remember it’s easy being right. It’s emotional being wrong. With that I would be shocked if there were not a single insulting post in response to this.

Your comments are so thoroughly disingenuous that I took little interest in your calculations.

Going back and reading them now, I see your calculations are as expected – distorted to provide your ‘talking points’ with heft they don’t deserve.

“Because there is no time limits in VAERS reporting this means that 71/250 M is the relative risk of death. “

Uhmm….No.

Right away, your relative risk of death is wrong.

The CDC does not formally set a time limit but there certainly is a functional time limit when looking at the data. Deaths do not get reported out reliably throughout the year. Obviously.

Trolls are quick to make this point when it is noted that 1/3 of deaths occur within the first two days following Covid-19 "vaccination". They say that there is attenuation of interest in reporting that falsely makes it appear that more deaths occur in those first two days, and that deaths were actually occurring in regular daily intervals.

Your estimate was never going to be remotely close because the impacts of the vaccines last the rest of a person's life. You calculate 'annual death rate' as if the impact of the vaccine lasts 12 months and then all risks of suppressed immunity are magically removed.

VAERS records include harrowing ER visits where a person is stabilized and transferred to the stroke wing or some other location, and then the records are not updated if the person dies. People who die at home after leaving the hospital, etc. – none of their deaths count. I don’t have a factor to multiply by here, but any number you come up with is going to be too low.

A data analyst has suggested, based on the games played by the CDC, that there is likely pressure to report to VAERS quickly (e.g., if the patient is dying) in order to reduce the death count, knowing no update will be made once the patient dies.

There is a field in VAERS that says “recovered” but that is often not recorded, and then if filled only replies to the specific visit (e.g.,heart attack) and does not address problems encountered the next days following (e.g., heart attack, stroke, etc).

Then the CDC is selectively withholding hundreds of thousands of reports of adverse events. So it’s necessary to multiply number of deaths to shift from that which the CDC selectively decides to publish from among all reports it received, to actual number of reports of death it received. One estimate of the reported number, even if CDC doesn’t publish it, was derived as if there were no intentional filtering out of negative reports when making the decision which ones to publish. That value was, a few weeks ago, 14,400 deaths – so that is actually the death count one might multiply by 100. But it’s also below the true number of deaths reported because there is evidence that the CDC is selectively publishing less severe reports.

About 1% of actual deaths occurring following any vaccination are reported to CDC. This was before medical services were cut back and overloaded as they are in the present. So multiply whatever death count is used by 100 to shift from “reported” to the CDC, to number of deaths which actually occurred

We have many deaths among the elderly which no one is counting or reporting. This goes beyond ‘business as usual.’ A whistleblower said his patients were “dropping like flies” and nursing home management was grasping at the excuse that ‘we had a super spreader’. This baseless excuse was used to dismiss deaths following vaccination and instead shift those numbers to “Covid-19 deaths.” So the actual death toll is higher still.

There are many accounts of people passing out, being found passed out by family members within 24 hours of injection. Who knows how many automobile or other accidents result from this kind of event. (If nothing else I thought that there must be an increase in ‘skull fractures’ because family members were found on the bathroom floor at night.) All though vax trolls like and say deaths from car accidents are reported to VAERS, they are not. There have been people passed out in their cars in drive-up 'vaccination' sites. THere's no effort to count those experiencing black outs or transitory stroke like symtpoms which occur while driving or in the night.

Let's stipulate that not all deaths in VAERS are caused by vaccines. Yes. I do know that. But far too many are and no one cares - see that's the problem.

There are many reasons why your death calculations are fantasy, and I'll list some below. But I have to wonder why human suffering is of no interest. I've watched grim videos of people trapped in perpetual seizures, exhausted and unable to stop moving. I've read an account in VAERS in which a physician describes an active, engaged elderly person suffering debility upon 'vaccination' and losing his will to live. Young people with myocarditis and blood clots? "Climbing paralysis"? Many strokes, heart attacks and the impacts on that person's quality of life, ability to support themselves and their families etc. Why does this not factor in anywhere when declaring the experimental gene therapies a raving success?

The only raving success is the way in which the guilty have escaped all legal responsibility for killing and maiming. They posture as if they are saving us all (e.g., "You're welcome") while denying the horrendous casualties and dismissing legitimate distrust as ignorant "vaccine hesitancy."

The only reason you ever bother to type anything is to distort the truth. Good thing you’re not a real doctor; with your displayed lack of humanity I would have to fear for your patients.