BREAKING: "Long COVID Could Be a Mass Deterioration Event"

I could do the math for the US...I lack the motivation to even try to collect all the international data. The differences are going to be much smaller today than if I did the same exercise for a year ago today.

Well, I'm alive, and I'm sure my most definitions that you're alive, so there's at least a 1 in 3,500,000,000 chance in having survived the last year.

The first clue that this is nothing more than click-baity BS is in the domain name.

Sorry to tell you, but there is a 100% chance you will die.

And 1 in 1 = 100%

06/21/22
•COVID › VIEWS
CDC Admits It Never Monitored VAERS for COVID Vaccine Safety Signals
In response to a Freedom of Information Request submitted by Children’s Health Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week admitted it never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).
I was wrong.
The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).
This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.
If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.
The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”

Pretty sure they are afraid to hook up too.

These are people who are still riding around on their cars by themselves wearing masks.

That's a lie

Ahhhh, but you see, these are nothing but a bunch of “own the libs” red-hat wearing physicians. They couldn’t possibly have legitimate, medical reasons for their skepticism because dissent isn’t science, it’s politics.

Nevermind her Princeton undergrad and Harvard MD or his top award in internal medicine from UChicago. After all, he’s just a nutty oncologist. What does he know about virology, certainly not more than the resident Houston lawyer on these message boards.

please stop bringing science into this discussion

I was like… I wonder why he didn’t post the article itself…

So I googled the headline and it comes from the “Childrens Health Defense” which is described as the following:

“Children's Health Defense is an American 501 nonprofit activist group mainly known for anti-vaccine propaganda and has been identified as one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines. Founded under the name World Mercury Project in 2011, it is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”

Lolz. Lolz. Lolz.

Also, to help you understand VAERS and avoid spreading misinformation in the future, here’s an article about the system:

science.org

Antivaccine activists use a government database on side effects to scare the public

Successful reporting system helps flag real problems but is being twisted in COVID-19 era

Link:www.science.org/content/article/antiva...

Odd to see you using fear and misinformation as a motivator, I thought you were against that. Be better.

How in the world could that possibly strike you as odd? Have you never read C9's posts? The "man" lives to spread misinformation (and to hate Jews).

I know it's hard to follow, but I said over the last year. There is a 0% chance that I died last year.

If we're looking over the next year, there is a non-zero chance that I will die in the next 365 days.

If we're looking over the next century, there is essentially a 100% chance that I will die over the next 100 years.

Retrospective statistics look back in the past and use data that has been collected to answer a question. If I look at 100 people with lung cancer and 100 people without lung cancer and find the prevalence of smoking in each group, I can make certain determinations about the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

Prospective statistics look into the future. We can make certain predictions about your chances of developing lung cancer based on whether or not you smoke.

The old "just because he took the jab and shortly thereafter died does not mean the jab caused his death BS.

What about all the jabbed people who died and were not reported to VAERS or were called Covid deaths?