“ Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths”
A lot of choices were made about which data to use, to get to those numbers - all were in the same direction, of reducing the benefit to risk ratio of the vaccines.
In judging the benefits of the vaccines, they included the lower numbers measured during the process of vaccination (e.g. a week after a first shot) as well as once fully vaccinated. Most people reading the dramatic 2 for 3 headline will assume it was for fully vaccinated people.
Then they used a time window of only 4-6 weeks, to determine how many cases and deaths from COVID were avoided. Clearly vaccine protection extends far beyond that short window, and more cases and deaths would be avoided, beyond six weeks.
When it came to assessing the risks of the vaccine, they chose the extreme outlier among European data sources, the Dutch, which reflects a rate of adverse effects almost twenty times higher than the German.
Clearly, this was an agenda driven study.
You post lies every day. Your whole agenda is lying.
I see your ‘agenda driven study’ and raise you an ‘agenda driven study’.
Ohhhh...wait: I forgot. YOUR studies are ‘scientific’, redefining ‘outlier’ to ‘inconvenient data’.
Got it. /s
Well you better get yourself appointed to the peer review!! They obviously needed your opinion!