Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Go_Raiders

Go_Raiders wrote: “Decent but not definitive ‘refutations’ of previous data not referenced in this posting. Please present to the class the refutation of the UK data.”

Read the links.


30 posted on 05/07/2022 10:06:02 AM PDT by DugwayDuke (Most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: DugwayDuke

Your links are related to a previous assertion, which was based on the unrelated U.S. VAERS dataset that has huge uncertainties.

From Link 1 - “Their case is built primarily on a VAERs analysis, and one whose results are driven by assumptions of an artificially low background death rate and high underreporting rate with questionable justification.”

No reference to UK data, sport.

From Link 2 - “The analysis relies heavily on data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which documents suspected reactions to COVID-19 shots to detect possible safety issues.”

No reference to the UK data here either, champ.

Perhaps it is you who needs to do some reading, namely the Substack post where he describes how he used the U.K. source data to arrive at his current analysis.


35 posted on 05/07/2022 1:01:15 PM PDT by Go_Raiders (The fact is, we really don't know anything. It's all guesswork and rationalization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson