So I was Covid vaccine hesitant...

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I would think both those numbers are overly high estimates. The number of cases is almost certainly higher than reported, most estimates seem to have the true IFR seem to be between 0.5 and 1%.

However VAERs is massively over counting vaccine deaths ( its not intended as a count). In UK the similar scheme has around 1500 deaths showing until August but there are only 9 deaths with vaccine recorded as cause on the death certificate.

Doesn't change your main point however.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Of course not. It's the same immune system, regardless of what generates the antibodies.

But about 2% of those that get the disease, die, but only About 0.000246% of those who have been vaccinated die.

Since it is quite likely that nearly everybody will get COVID-19 at some stage in their lives in future, the vaccine is a 10,000 times safer option.

(my calculations are based upon the following: [current deaths in VARES data where vaccine is COVID19] = 18,078, divided by [Current doses administered in Johns Hopkins COVID-19 dashboard] = 7,347,800,422 [multiplied by 100, to get a dose-mortality percentage] = 0.000246 %).

It appears to me that neither of you know much about either relational databases or statistics. Sorry...

ALL of the online places where One might go to search the VAERS database have one serious error in common; NONE of them search for "distinct" "VAERSID". Which is to say that there can be several records with the same "VAERSID". These are all the same record, yet it gets counted several times. To avoid this the SQL language provides the "distinct" directive. It's not perfect, but if one limits the query return to only the "VAERSID" field an accurate count of records can be found.

The actual number of deaths associated with the covid19 vax: 8,268
This was obtained using the current VAERS dataset and this query:

SELECT distinct [VAERS_ID]
FROM [vaersData].[dbo].[allSymptoms]
where vax_type='covid19' and died is not null

Also, chr0naut; you can't use U.S. numbers with Global numbers (Scot...you should have caught this). So...the number of deaths is: 8268 and the number of vaccinations is: 434,486,889 (not 7 billion!) Giving a dose-mortality of 0.0019%.

Unfortunately, unlike what ScepticScot seems to think, VAERS is vastly, almost criminally, under-reported. Some estimate that VAERS is less than 1% of all adverse events. It is my understanding that there are many providers who are either ignorant of the reporting requirement, or choose to ignore it.

Lastly; How do you define a death 'caused' by the vax?

Some questions immediately spring to mind about about your query. For example why would data be held in the DBO schema, why would you not count distinct and is the table structure not normalised that you are using string in your where clause?

Still that doesn't really matter as VAERs isn't a count vaccine deaths so the entire premise of your post is wrong.

ETA _ oh and please either use or don't use square brackets , they are redundant in that particular code but I can still live with them if used consistently as a preference. Switching between using and not makes the code ugly.

Why is the data held in a DBO schema; Partly because it is the easiest, and partly because it is the default on SQL Server. All of the tools I have make it easy to import "CSV" data into Excel and then into SQL Server. This gives me a powerful query engine which can give results far mor accurate than those on-line 'whiz-bangs'. The DBO schema is supplied by my machine; a "CSV" has no schema as it is just data with a list of "columns". Excel applies data typing and thus a sort of schema, but again "DBO" is default.

I have the entire VAERS database from 1990 to now.

"Why would you not count distinct"; I don't know! Distinct is not the default for a query, by not using it One receives all records whether or not it is a duplicate. Distinct isn't perfect either; IF another record is different enough, it may still get reported, even IF that record is logically an "extension" of another "parent" record.

Yes, the database table structure is "normalized", but, I don't know how that might affect whether I use a String in the "where" clause. I use that string because "VAX_TYPE" is an "nvarchar(255)"; so, yeah, a String.

The table "allsymptoms" BTW, is a "view" on the three tables that constitute the dataset. These three (3) tables are "joined" on the "VAERSID" data.

The "square brackets" are supplied by SSMS (SQL Server Management Studio). I typically don't edit those things out...old time saving habit, sorry.

No, VAERS is not a 'vaccine death counting' engine; It is a relational database. Which means that I can import it into a relational database engine such as SQL Server and then use the SQL programming language, along with another (C++ or C#) to extract other data; such as the number of deaths associated with a given vaccine. I can get other information too; like the distribution of adverse events (by vaccine type, lot number, and state), and that just scratches the surface.

This method allows me to "see" things in this dataset that you just can't "see" any other way.

So this is data you have imported into your own server? That seemed unclear as your query references a db called vaersdata It seemed unusual to set up a new db but use default schema.

Count (distinct ( would give you the total unique count of ids rather than individual records .

I mentioned the square brackets at your switch between using and not using. I assume as you stated in query designer then added the where on afterwards rather than writing the query fully.

The string where clause would then make sense as the csv you are importing isn't normalised.

If you downloaed the data from the VAERs site you would have to have clicked that you have read the disclaimer that explains exactly why you can't use the data to count actual deaths from the vaccine.

If I would also recommend that, if making a comment about people not knowing much about databases, that code is correctly written and formatted just in case one those people does this # for a living.

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You continue to not fully read or comprehend my comments.

I will try again, and I will use some illustrations to help it sink in.The majority of members on ATS, whom we will call the dragon, fanatically defends and promotes a contrary narrative to the wider world…let’s call this the egg, which has control over the dragon. The dragon furiously rejects and battles anything that threatens the egg/narrative, spewing stale flames to keep the one thing it cares about safe. Now I, the gallant knight, has sworn to battle the dragon and destroy the egg.

I am in opposition to the dragon coveting it’s egg, and will challenge it as best I can.

This has nothing to do with the outside world, but more of the fantasy created and perpetuated by a large portion of our community, here.

As any good knight, I equip myself with weapons, tools and wisdom to help me in my quest against the dragon and the egg.

I believe in this fantasy as much as I need to, which allows me to work towards freeing the dragon from the control of the egg.

You sir are in a sad state if you actually achieved any level of credibility and respect. To find yourself here, spreading what ever message you have only further binds the dragon to the egg.

You are like many who have chosen to believe that becoming a lab rat on a global scale is a wise and safe decision to make.

You display an erroneous sense of confidence.

There is zero long term safety studies, period end of story.

The rona has a 99.X% recovery rate for everyone under 70.

Tests are prone to false positives.

Hospitals are incentivized by profit to have everyone diagnosed with the rona.

Ivermectin / HCQ and others are effective therapeutics that have been suppressed from the entire medical/academic/media/governmental regulatory body/social media establishment.

Doctors, Scientists and any honest journalist who try to promote proven therapeutics are censored, their first amendment right completely trampled upon.

Everything about the mandates is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code.

I am happy you have not experienced any negative reactions from taking the jab, I hope it stays that way, perhaps you received the placebo?

However your encouragement of others to become lab rats is unacceptable, as the author of this thread eloquently described, the data is simply not on your side.

Virtually everything stated in this reply is verifiable and can be confirmed with official data.

The truth will eventually win so long as there are people to champion it.

a reply to: ScepticScot


No joking mate, in the many years I have been visiting thus site I have been reading your name as septicscot

Haha, my subconscious is God

Big G

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: ScepticScot


No joking mate, in the many years I have been visiting thus site I have been reading your name as septicscot

Haha, my subconscious is God

Big G

Damn you broke the code to my real identity.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Haha Mon the Scotland anyway, we're going to the world cup

Well I'm not, unless they gave me a vax pass

a reply to: queenofswords

Yes, your friend's experience and statements demonstrate clearly what many already know: Informed consent is not practiced at all in the US, probably in the entire world.

People have been frightened for over a year and desperately take whatever they are told to take. So sad.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I would think both those numbers are overly high estimates. The number of cases is almost certainly higher than reported, most estimates seem to have the true IFR seem to be between 0.5 and 1%.

However VAERs is massively over counting vaccine deaths ( its not intended as a count). In UK the similar scheme has around 1500 deaths showing until August but there are only 9 deaths with vaccine recorded as cause on the death certificate.

Doesn't change your main point however.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Of course not. It's the same immune system, regardless of what generates the antibodies.

But about 2% of those that get the disease, die, but only About 0.000246% of those who have been vaccinated die.

Since it is quite likely that nearly everybody will get COVID-19 at some stage in their lives in future, the vaccine is a 10,000 times safer option.

(my calculations are based upon the following: [current deaths in VARES data where vaccine is COVID19] = 18,078, divided by [Current doses administered in Johns Hopkins COVID-19 dashboard] = 7,347,800,422 [multiplied by 100, to get a dose-mortality percentage] = 0.000246 %).

It appears to me that neither of you know much about either relational databases or statistics. Sorry...

ALL of the online places where One might go to search the VAERS database have one serious error in common; NONE of them search for "distinct" "VAERSID". Which is to say that there can be several records with the same "VAERSID". These are all the same record, yet it gets counted several times. To avoid this the SQL language provides the "distinct" directive. It's not perfect, but if one limits the query return to only the "VAERSID" field an accurate count of records can be found.

The actual number of deaths associated with the covid19 vax: 8,268
This was obtained using the current VAERS dataset and this query:

SELECT distinct [VAERS_ID]
FROM [vaersData].[dbo].[allSymptoms]
where vax_type='covid19' and died is not null

Also, chr0naut; you can't use U.S. numbers with Global numbers (Scot...you should have caught this). So...the number of deaths is: 8268 and the number of vaccinations is: 434,486,889 (not 7 billion!) Giving a dose-mortality of 0.0019%.

Unfortunately, unlike what ScepticScot seems to think, VAERS is vastly, almost criminally, under-reported. Some estimate that VAERS is less than 1% of all adverse events. It is my understanding that there are many providers who are either ignorant of the reporting requirement, or choose to ignore it.

Lastly; How do you define a death 'caused' by the vax?

Some questions immediately spring to mind about about your query. For example why would data be held in the DBO schema, why would you not count distinct and is the table structure not normalised that you are using string in your where clause?

Still that doesn't really matter as VAERs isn't a count vaccine deaths so the entire premise of your post is wrong.

ETA _ oh and please either use or don't use square brackets , they are redundant in that particular code but I can still live with them if used consistently as a preference. Switching between using and not makes the code ugly.

Why is the data held in a DBO schema; Partly because it is the easiest, and partly because it is the default on SQL Server. All of the tools I have make it easy to import "CSV" data into Excel and then into SQL Server. This gives me a powerful query engine which can give results far mor accurate than those on-line 'whiz-bangs'. The DBO schema is supplied by my machine; a "CSV" has no schema as it is just data with a list of "columns". Excel applies data typing and thus a sort of schema, but again "DBO" is default.

I have the entire VAERS database from 1990 to now.

"Why would you not count distinct"; I don't know! Distinct is not the default for a query, by not using it One receives all records whether or not it is a duplicate. Distinct isn't perfect either; IF another record is different enough, it may still get reported, even IF that record is logically an "extension" of another "parent" record.

Yes, the database table structure is "normalized", but, I don't know how that might affect whether I use a String in the "where" clause. I use that string because "VAX_TYPE" is an "nvarchar(255)"; so, yeah, a String.

The table "allsymptoms" BTW, is a "view" on the three tables that constitute the dataset. These three (3) tables are "joined" on the "VAERSID" data.

The "square brackets" are supplied by SSMS (SQL Server Management Studio). I typically don't edit those things out...old time saving habit, sorry.

No, VAERS is not a 'vaccine death counting' engine; It is a relational database. Which means that I can import it into a relational database engine such as SQL Server and then use the SQL programming language, along with another (C++ or C#) to extract other data; such as the number of deaths associated with a given vaccine. I can get other information too; like the distribution of adverse events (by vaccine type, lot number, and state), and that just scratches the surface.

This method allows me to "see" things in this dataset that you just can't "see" any other way.

So this is data you have imported into your own server? That seemed unclear as your query references a db called vaersdata It seemed unusual to set up a new db but use default schema.

Unclear? Really?!!

I gave you a specific SQL query! Since when does any responsible database owner allow random visitors to execute a "user defined" SQL query? Seriouslly, that has been against standard practice forever.

The string where clause would then make sense as the csv you are importing isn't normalised.

Do you even know what "normalized" means in this context?

If you downloaed the data from the VAERs site you would have to have clicked that you have read the disclaimer that explains exactly why you can't use the data to count actual deaths from the vaccine.

Ya know, I don't think I EVER said you could count "actual deaths from the vaccine", What I believe I said was "deaths associated with the vaccine". There is a rather significant difference. Which was why I asked the question; "How do you define a death 'caused' by the vax?"

If I would also recommend that, if making a comment about people not knowing much about databases, that code is correctly written and formatted just in case one those people does this # for a living.

Good for you, I've been at it for 50+ years.

a reply to: Jimy718

I gave you a specific SQL query! Since when does any responsible database owner allow random visitors to execute a "user defined" SQL query? Seriouslly, that has been against standard practice forever.

Your choice of schema has nothing at all to do with random visitors, what on earth are you taking about?

Do you even know what "normalized" means in this context?

Yes,if you did you wouldn't have to ask the question. you have imported a single results table.

Ya know, I don't think I EVER said you could count "actual deaths from the vaccine", What I believe I said was "deaths associated with the vaccine". There is a rather significant difference. Which was why I asked the question; "How do you define a death 'caused' by the vax?"

Cool, if you understand that you can't use VAERs data to count deaths then not sure what the point you think you are trying to make.

Good for you, I've been at it for 50+ years

Good for you I would have thought in 50 years you would have would have learned about using the correct data sources and writing queries correctly. Still there is always time to learn.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Jimy718

Yes,if you did you wouldn't have to ask the question. you have imported a single results table.

Have I now! Do you know what the CDC publishes as this data? I doesn't appear so.

And, actually, it does appear as though I NEEDED to ask that question! So, I reiterate; Do you know what normalization is in a "relational database" context?

Cool, if you understand that you can't use VAERs data to count deaths then not sure what the point you think you are trying to make.

Actually, I wasn't trying to make any point, except maybe that the number that all y'all try to use are incorrect. Primarily because you don't have adequate database tools.

But, since you brought it up; how about we take a look at the deaths associated with the vaccine. I mean, they are kind of ... elevated, don't you think? Then, of course, there is the sheer number of adverse events.

Good for you I would have thought in 50 years you would have would have learned about using the correct data sources and writing queries correctly. Still there is always time to learn.

How was my data source incorrect?
Do you even know what my data sources are?

What was wrong with my query?

a reply to: Jimy718

I do know the CDC publishes the data, I have mentioned it in numerous threads, generally while pointing out you can't use it count vaccine deaths.

The reference to normalised was as you had a string search term from a single table. That would have been a very badly designed database, at that point it wasn't clear that was the results from the CDC that you had imported. As its a single CSV of results It makes more sense as I have already said.

You replied to my post saying VAERs isn't a count of vaccine deaths and would result in massively over counting You said it was I was wrong and it under counted, you don't seem to understand what the VAERs data is.

I have already covered what is wrong with the query it looks like it was partially written in design mode then finished by hand without being properly formatted, suggesting whoever wrote it doesn't really know what they are doing.

Your query also wasnt giving the count of records, it was returning all records, when asked why you didn't seem to understand the question giving a non answer about distinct.

Now maybe you were just trying to make a quick example or maybe you really don't know beyond that level. I don't really care either way. However if you are trying to be condescending about other people's knowledge then you really better make sure that what you have written is 100% correct, or it looks as if you are trying to be smug about knowledge you don't really have.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Jimy718

I do know the CDC publishes the data, I have mentioned it in numerous threads, generally while pointing out you can't use it count vaccine deaths.

The reference to normalised was as you had a string search term from a single table. That would have been a very badly designed database, at that point it wasn't clear that was the results from the CDC that you had imported. As its a single CSV of results It makes more sense as I have already said.

WOW! Just Wow!!! You managed to misunderstand virtually everything I said, and I thought I was being clear.

Yes, that might seem like "bad" database design, it is also a difference in design philosophy, someday you may learn this.

But, it isn't thus, nor is it 'imported query data' from the CDC website. As I explained in an earlier post, that specific query is against a "view". A "view" is in reality aa "join" of 2 or more database tables, in this case three (3) tables (the three (3) tables that constitute a 'given' year in the database).

By using a view or join I can refine search results better than can be done on the CDC website.

You replied to my post saying VAERs isn't a count of vaccine deaths and would result in massively over counting You said it was I was wrong and it under counted, you don't seem to understand what the VAERs data is.

Again you misunderstand! What I said; Online VAERS search system returns are frequently vastly more than should be. This is caused by there being more than one (1) record returned for some VAERSID's in the database. I mentioned something about using the "distinct" directive, but that it is not always as reliable as it should be with this database. And, that basing any "count" of anything on number of records should be done only on distinct VAERSID's.

You're probably still confused...

I have already covered what is wrong with the query it looks like it was partially written in design mode then finished by hand without being properly formatted, suggesting whoever wrote it doesn't really know what they are doing.

Wow!! I don't write those things for Humans, I write them for Machines. I write it in a Human understandable form using the SQL language. But, again, primarily for a machine.

I'm sooooo sorry that it offended your poor wittle Human eyes...not!

Your query also wasnt giving the count of records, it was returning all records, when asked why you didn't seem to understand the question giving a non answer about distinct.

You are correct, sort of. That query returns a list of ALL VAERSID's where the vaccine we covid19 and the person died. And, as previously pointed out, 'distinct' is necessary to prevent the same event being counted (reported) more than once.

Now maybe you were just trying to make a quick example or maybe you really don't know beyond that level. I don't really care either way. However if you are trying to be condescending about other people's knowledge then you really better make sure that what you have written is 100% correct, or it looks as if you are trying to be smug about knowledge you don't really have.

What I've written IS 100% correct, it seems that it is either your eyes are offended by my "style" (not acceptable), or that you are the one trying to be 'smug'.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Jimy718

I do know the CDC publishes the data, I have mentioned it in numerous threads, generally while pointing out you can't use it count vaccine deaths.

The reference to normalised was as you had a string search term from a single table. That would have been a very badly designed database, at that point it wasn't clear that was the results from the CDC that you had imported. As its a single CSV of results It makes more sense as I have already said.

WOW! Just Wow!!! You managed to misunderstand virtually everything I said, and I thought I was being clear.

Yes, that might seem like "bad" database design, it is also a difference in design philosophy, someday you may learn this.

But, it isn't thus, nor is it 'imported query data' from the CDC website. As I explained in an earlier post, that specific query is against a "view". A "view" is in reality aa "join" of 2 or more database tables, in this case three (3) tables (the three (3) tables that constitute a 'given' year in the database).

By using a view or join I can refine search results better than can be done on the CDC website.

You replied to my post saying VAERs isn't a count of vaccine deaths and would result in massively over counting You said it was I was wrong and it under counted, you don't seem to understand what the VAERs data is.

Again you misunderstand! What I said; Online VAERS search system return is frequently vastly more than it should be. This is caused by there being more than one (1) record returned for some VAAEERSID's in the database. I mentioned something about using the "distinct" directive, but that it is not always as reliable as it should be with this database. And, that basing any "count" of anything on number of records should be done only on distinct VAERSID's.

You're probably still confused...

I have already covered what is wrong with the query it looks like it was partially written in design mode then finished by hand without being properly formatted, suggesting whoever wrote it doesn't really know what they are doing.

Wow!! I don't write those things for Humans, I write them for Machines. I write it in a Human understandable form using the SQL language. But, again, primarily for a machine.

I'm sooooo sorry that it offended your poor wittle Human eyes...not!

Your query also wasnt giving the count of records, it was returning all records, when asked why you didn't seem to understand the question giving a non answer about distinct.

You are correct, sort of. That query returns a list of ALL VAERSID's where the vaccine we covid19 and the person died. And, as previously pointed out, 'distinct' is necessary to prevent the same event being counted (reported) more than once.

Now maybe you were just trying to make a quick example or maybe you really don't know beyond that level. I don't really care either way. However if you are trying to be condescending about other people's knowledge then you really better make sure that what you have written is 100% correct, or it looks as if you are trying to be smug about knowledge you don't really have.

What I've written IS 100% correct, it seems that it is either your eyes are offended by my "style" (not acceptable), or that you are the one trying to be 'smug'.

Badly written and incomplete code is a design choice?

Interesting perspective.


Also doesn't change the fact that you can't use VAERs data to count vaccine deaths. My original point you seemed to take exception to.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Jimy718

I do know the CDC publishes the data, I have mentioned it in numerous threads, generally while pointing out you can't use it count vaccine deaths.

The reference to normalised was as you had a string search term from a single table. That would have been a very badly designed database, at that point it wasn't clear that was the results from the CDC that you had imported. As its a single CSV of results It makes more sense as I have already said.

WOW! Just Wow!!! You managed to misunderstand virtually everything I said, and I thought I was being clear.

Yes, that might seem like "bad" database design, it is also a difference in design philosophy, someday you may learn this.

But, it isn't thus, nor is it 'imported query data' from the CDC website. As I explained in an earlier post, that specific query is against a "view". A "view" is in reality aa "join" of 2 or more database tables, in this case three (3) tables (the three (3) tables that constitute a 'given' year in the database).

By using a view or join I can refine search results better than can be done on the CDC website.

You replied to my post saying VAERs isn't a count of vaccine deaths and would result in massively over counting You said it was I was wrong and it under counted, you don't seem to understand what the VAERs data is.

Again you misunderstand! What I said; Online VAERS search system return is frequently vastly more than it should be. This is caused by there being more than one (1) record returned for some VAAEERSID's in the database. I mentioned something about using the "distinct" directive, but that it is not always as reliable as it should be with this database. And, that basing any "count" of anything on number of records should be done only on distinct VAERSID's.

You're probably still confused...

I have already covered what is wrong with the query it looks like it was partially written in design mode then finished by hand without being properly formatted, suggesting whoever wrote it doesn't really know what they are doing.

Wow!! I don't write those things for Humans, I write them for Machines. I write it in a Human understandable form using the SQL language. But, again, primarily for a machine.

I'm sooooo sorry that it offended your poor wittle Human eyes...not!

Your query also wasnt giving the count of records, it was returning all records, when asked why you didn't seem to understand the question giving a non answer about distinct.

You are correct, sort of. That query returns a list of ALL VAERSID's where the vaccine we covid19 and the person died. And, as previously pointed out, 'distinct' is necessary to prevent the same event being counted (reported) more than once.

Now maybe you were just trying to make a quick example or maybe you really don't know beyond that level. I don't really care either way. However if you are trying to be condescending about other people's knowledge then you really better make sure that what you have written is 100% correct, or it looks as if you are trying to be smug about knowledge you don't really have.

What I've written IS 100% correct, it seems that it is either your eyes are offended by my "style" (not acceptable), or that you are the one trying to be 'smug'.

Badly written and incomplete code is a design choice?

LOL!!! You are one of the funniest I've seen in a while!

Son, my code is neither badly written, nor, incomplete. You are objecting over square brackets that are, in this instance, irrelevant.

"Mixing" square brackets does not make for "bad code", just something for you to complain uselessly about while trying to masks the truth about your skills.

Using a string in the 'where' clause is not "bad" code, in fact, it's quite common place.

You complained about the "DBO" schema; do you know what the "DBO" stand for? Did you know that the database (yes my copy) has the same schema as the CDC's? Do you even have an inkling of how that schema is generated?

Of course not...

Also doesn't change the fact that you can't use VAERs data to count vaccine deaths. My original point you seemed to take exception to.

I didn't take exception to that, YOU did. I was taking exception to the incorrectly large numbers y'all were trying to throw around. I mean, ANYBODY with ANY database skills should have already known that, and probably argued for the correction.

Anyway; it's NOT 800,000 and change reports; it is only 600,000 and change!

If you don't know the value in clean (and complete) code I can only assume you gave never had to code in any kind of professional capacity. Your comment about coding for machines not people confirms that.

There is nothing wrong with that but as I already said if you are trying to be superior better be 100%. Sadly you aren't even close

You also seem to have completely forgot what it was you originally claimed.

Unfortunately, unlike what ScepticScot seems to think, VAERS is vastly, almost criminally, under-reported. Some estimate that VAERS is less than 1% of all adverse events. It is my understanding that there are many providers who are either ignorant of the reporting requirement, or choose to ignore it.

Now it's incorrectly large numbers?

I didn't check the numbers in the same way wouldn't check the arithmetic of someone using astrology. The basis of using it is far out to make it pointless.

a reply to: ScepticScot

How many psychological characteristics/traits/attributes of someone who's BS has failed can you display?

Son, I'm not trying to be "superior" than you or anyone else, just weed-out truth. You should do the same...it's good for the Spirit.

We done.

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: ScepticScot

How many psychological characteristics/traits/attributes of someone who's BS has failed can you display?

Son, I'm not trying to be "superior" than you or anyone else, just weed-out truth. You should do the same...it's good for the Spirit.

We done.

Another memory fail.

It appears to me that neither of you know much about either relational databases or statistics. Sorry..

Yeah, the easiest analysis to assert decisions is...

If the government (which is a business before anything) is involved with medical, it simply cannot be accurate and efficient enough to help millions. As they preposterously pretend.

Unless you like eating soup sandwhiches on burnt toast and bills written to control how much campbells goes on each corner while some weird old white guy caresses the bread as it is given to soup kitchens, in manners that would make David Carradine cringe, be my guest.

If the economy isn't a good enough example for how the big wigs operate for you... then it is a great opportunity, getting whatever they're pushing. ::

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: GenerationGap

Well good for you I guess making the decision. Heaping a bunch of junk conclusions in this post was probably not needed. You could have just said " I dun trust them gooberments" and we would have understood.

I find it funny that both sides of this debate, vaccinated and unvaccinated, like to spout a bunch of less than accurate facts as to why they choose to do one thing or the other. Just confuses the whole thing.

You should have just made you decision and not rushed to all your social media streams so you can get some interwebz points.

....