This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
-
27
-
Randomized controlled trials show that COVID mRNA drugs have no beneficial effect on mortality:
or one can read a 5 minute summary here:The danger of modeling and observational studies (and especially manufacturer studies, IMO) is that anyhing can be shown. Combine that with slanted media articles and you often get manufacturer public relations.
Video: A look at all cause mortality, covid and the risk of death with the covid drugs (worldwide):
Denis Rancourt found that COVID vaccines contributed to 17 million deaths worldwide:A response from an epidemiologist who *disagrees* with with Rancourt:A response to the response largely agreeing with the analysis of COVID vaccine drugs contrubuting to 17 million deaths worldwide:
While one could say that those promoting dangerous, contaminated COVID mRNA drugs (online & offline) are contributing to a massive amount of death and suffering, I believe that there are still some people who were innocently hoodwinked by poor studies, manufacturer PR and legacy media articles.
I don’t know the exact number of deaths caused by the mRNA drugs. I think it’s quite high and the potential for serious long-term effects of cancer, autoimmune diseases, etc. is also quite high given what is known about these drugs.
One silver lining is that more people are getting “injected” with honest information and are largely immune to the BS public relations that appears in the legacy media.
P.S., interesting paper on mRNA technology causing increasing immune system problems:
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.63 -
Harambe wrote:
DanM wrote:
Names ?
“one death is a tragedy, 300k is a statistic” - Stalin
Glad the antivaxxers are now taking pages out of the genocidal communist playbook!
Harambe doesn’t believe the science and data unless it confirms his bias. He and his “bro” will just come back with some snippet of a study that doesn’t conclude what they think it does to try and refute it.
51 -
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
You can just say “no” next time.
You can just say, "I was wrong" and Twoggle has a better command of the data.
So true. He’ll just come back with some snarky comment though or some “data” that doesn’t even support his point.
52 -
twoggle wrote:
Randomized controlled trials show that COVID mRNA drugs have no beneficial effect on mortality:
or one can read a 5 minute summary here:The mRNA data from the vaccine trials isn't sufficient to draw that conclusion. It says as much in the paper you've cited.
It's not clear to me how they get the all-cause mortality confidence intervals for the adenovirus vaccine from the data in table 2, but, without having run the calculations, it doesn't look right.
10 -
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
twoggle wrote:
Randomized controlled trials show that COVID mRNA drugs have no beneficial effect on mortality:
or one can read a 5 minute summary here:The mRNA data from the vaccine trials isn't sufficient to draw that conclusion. It says as much in the paper you've cited.
It's not clear to me how they get the all-cause mortality confidence intervals for the adenovirus vaccine from the data in table 2, but, without having run the calculations, it doesn't look right.
Welcome to the “This does confirm my bias, therefore it can’t be true” club. Harambe will show you to your seat.
31 -
Yolos wrote:
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
The mRNA data from the vaccine trials isn't sufficient to draw that conclusion. It says as much in the paper you've cited.
It's not clear to me how they get the all-cause mortality confidence intervals for the adenovirus vaccine from the data in table 2, but, without having run the calculations, it doesn't look right.
Welcome to the “This does confirm my bias, therefore it can’t be true” club. Harambe will show you to your seat.
Whoops. Wrong club. You’ve joined the “This does not confirm my bias, therefore it can’t be true” club. Harambe will still show you to your seat. 😂
31 -
Denis Rancourt and IgG4 class switching.
Twoggle shows his true self :)I think this one’s over.
25 -
I fail to see how the “better data” is reanalysis of observational data whilst ignoring the controlled trials, matched observational data, and boring population wide statistics.
But it makes sense you have to ignore 99% of the data and focus on 1% to get the crank conclusions you want.
15 -
2600 bro wrote:
I fail to see how the “better data” is reanalysis of observational data whilst ignoring the controlled trials, matched observational data, and boring population wide statistics.
But it makes sense you have to ignore 99% of the data and focus on 1% to get the crank conclusions you want.
Right on cue.
“Ahhhhhhhhh. It doesn’t confirm my bias. Ahhhhhhhhh”
Well done.
21 -
Yolos wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
I fail to see how the “better data” is reanalysis of observational data whilst ignoring the controlled trials, matched observational data, and boring population wide statistics.
But it makes sense you have to ignore 99% of the data and focus on 1% to get the crank conclusions you want.
Right on cue.
“Ahhhhhhhhh. It doesn’t confirm my bias. Ahhhhhhhhh”
Well done.
I’ve added his study to the data, unfortunately there is already too data on the side of COVID vaccines preventing death and disease for that study to move the needle much.
I recommend reading the previous 500 pages to get a sense of the sum of the data!
Remember one data point rarely proves or disproves anything!
Enjoy learning :)
14 -
2600 bro wrote:
I fail to see how the “better data” is reanalysis of observational data whilst ignoring the controlled trials, matched observational data, and boring population wide statistics.
But it makes sense you have to ignore 99% of the data and focus on 1% to get the crank conclusions you want.
The lies, obfuscation and BS have been going on for a considerable length of time.
Example: It's been one year since this news story:
21 -
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
twoggle wrote:
Randomized controlled trials show that COVID mRNA drugs have no beneficial effect on mortality:
or one can read a 5 minute summary here:The mRNA data from the vaccine trials isn't sufficient to draw that conclusion. It says as much in the paper you've cited.
It's not clear to me how they get the all-cause mortality confidence intervals for the adenovirus vaccine from the data in table 2, but, without having run the calculations, it doesn't look right.
How I read that study is that the randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no mortality benefit for COVID mRNA drugs with the following limitations:
1. It doesn’t show longer term effects because the manufacturer unblinded the trial over time and gave the drugs to the control group. The drugs could have shown an increase in mortality over time (or a decrease) and we’ll never know since the trial was stopped and the drugs were released to the general population.
2. These RCT’s had an overall healthier population. The drugs could create more death for a less healthier population.
3. A third potential limitation that was not mentioned in the paper is that any RCT that was done should have used the contaminated product that is given to the general population.
4. A final limitation, in my opinion, is that having the manufacturer involved creates opportunities for scientific fraud. One can find articles and videos online about Pfizer whistleblowers.
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.21 -
Yolos wrote:
Harambe wrote:
“one death is a tragedy, 300k is a statistic” - Stalin
Glad the antivaxxers are now taking pages out of the genocidal communist playbook!
Harambe doesn’t believe the science and data unless it confirms his bias. He and his “bro” will just come back with some snippet of a study that doesn’t conclude what they think it does to try and refute it.
300k preventable deaths is a fact. You are desperate to discount it because it’s blood on the antivaxxer hands. Even the most hardened contrarian feels guilty about mass death.
13 -
Yolos wrote:
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
You can just say, "I was wrong" and Twoggle has a better command of the data.
So true. He’ll just come back with some snarky comment though or some “data” that doesn’t even support his point.
This dude hasn’t even made an argument. He’s just hiding behind the backs of the other antivaxxers like a little kid.
But hey, if I had a proven increased risk of autoimmune disease, cardiovascular issues, and cognitive problems after my multiple unvaxxed COVID infections…. I’d be coping and seething and rage posting too13 -
Antivaxxer: posts rancourt, Hoeg, Weinstein, and pretends to understand IgG class switching (injecting tons of bias by saying it’s a “problem”).
You simply are not sending your best. All you can do is cast doubt on real data and post deeply committed antivaxxers frothing over each other as “consensus.”
Prof Morris is a trained biostatistician and has done a good job explaining the nuances of looking at things like mortality data. Way better than a lay person trying to sell a substack subscription (I hope you don’t pay too much on those….)
The analysis here is significantly more than I would trust a layperson blogger to handle, and this prediction has been correct. There are so many horrible analyses by antivaxxers not even pretending to think about the data for a minute.
13 -
Oh yeah here’s Morris eviscerating Rancourt and his comically fraudulent 17 million deaths claim
Amazing what actual training and an IQ over 90 can do for these types of thinking.
Remember: antivaxxers wished MORE people would have died of COVID. That was the world they wanted.
13
