[TennesseeProfessor]

What’s going on:

1) 96 year-old people with terminal lung cancer are counted as COVID deaths if they had a positive test within 90 days of their death from cancer.

2) Said 96-year old is far more likely to be tripple-vaxxed than a healthy 16 year old.

3) People look at the 96-year old who was triple-vaxxed, died of cancer, and was counted as a COVID death. They then look at the healthy unvaxxed 16-year old. They conclude the vaccine makes it more likely for people to die of COVID.

4) For some reason this type of article gets constantly reposted.

[ransomnote]

You cherry picked an anecdote and wish me to assume the entire nation conforms to your ‘happy’ interpretation, even as children die of strokes and heart attacks, athletes drop dead on the green, pilots are grounded, unprecedented levels of peri/myocarditis bloom nationwide, shocking levels of paralysis, death within 2 or 3 days of ‘vaccination’, and you want to just funnel it all through your happy ‘narrative’ instead.

For some reason people like you pretend that Pfizer’s data showed risks that are now born out in human suffering and death.

[Its All Over Except ...]

Wow, so all of them that are the triple vaxxed this article speaks of are 96 years old and have cancer. Who woulda thunk it?

[metmom]

You can prove this is happened and is common enough to account for the stats, or is it just a hypothetical?

[ChildOfThe60s]

Regardless of one’s interpretation of these statistics, and to be sure there is a LOT of information that is missing to make a serious study, NO ONE has been “vaccinated”. People have gotten none, 1 or 2 or 3 shots of an inadequately tested experimental mRNA drug. Criminally inadequately.

The problem with a graph like this is it just ain’t that simple, too many variables are not accounted for. What this graph says is that there should be some serious money allocated for some heavy duty genuine scientific study on this. NOT the BS that Pfizer claims is testing. That is not going to happen because the mRNA pushers do not want to confront the possibility that the drug is not only not effective, but may well be a health negative.

Statistical analysis of things like this are not accomplished by a simplistic bar graph like this, which is further complicated by a pack of lying politicians with an agenda who will not allow proper research. Or even proper compilation of raw data.

[Dr. Sivana]

Said 96-year old is far more likely to be tripple-vaxxed than a healthy 16 year old.

I don't know about the Canadian numbers, but the British numbers yielded similar results, including when broken out by age range. That is a triple-jabbed 80 year old Brit is more likely to get sick, be hospitalized, be hospitalized long-term, or die than a Brit who has been jabbed once or twice or has gotten no shots at all.

[9YearLurker]

Eh, as I recall that was claimed with the UK numbers, but then they teased out the data by age group and the phenomenon still held.

[randita]

Good analysis. Anecdotal: the 65+ crowd I know has already or plans to get triple vaxxed. The younger folks I know are not planning to get triple vaxxed.

[AndyTheBear]

Hey I agree that the data does not prove that getting the jab actually causes one to be more at risk to getting covid-19 for as alluded to you in your example it may well be that people more at risk are more likely to get jabbed.

However the data certainly brings the effectiveness of the jabs into very serious doubt...it just does not quite prove that they have no effectiveness or even negative effectiveness. For myself I would love to see more data to verify or dispel such doubts. But is Pfizer running to the rescue with their clinical trial data? Nope. They are fighting to keep it sealed for as many decades as they can.

[gitmo]

Other analyses have shown the discrepancy is even larger with younger people. The vaccines are more deadly with the young.

[Captain Walker]

Insurance companies with group life policies are reporting sizable and unexpected increases in all-cause mortality among those aged 18-64; it started in the fourth quarter of 2021, after the jabs were mandated.

How would your 96-year-old appear in that statistic?

[JoeRed]

So, are 96 year olds with terminal cancer more likely to have a “ rare breakthrough” infection or is the vaccine ineffective across all age groups and preexisting conditions?

[fr_freak]

What’s going on:

1) 96 year-old people with terminal lung cancer are counted as COVID deaths if they had a positive test within 90 days of their death from cancer.
...
3) People look at the 96-year old who was triple-vaxxed, died of cancer, and was counted as a COVID death. They then look at the healthy unvaxxed 16-year old. They conclude the vaccine makes it more likely for people to die of COVID.

What's hilarious is that this is EXACTLY the scenario that was used to JUSTIFY the whole COVID hysteria in the first place, and sucker people into accepting experimental drugs. Every death was attributed to COVID to inflate the numbers. Now that the inevitable result of exposing so many people to such an experimental drug is occurring, the COVID doomers are trying to dismiss the data by claiming it is derived from their own BS methodology.