BigData Analysis of 145 Countries Shows C-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Using No Vaccines

In this heavily math driven study, predictive analysis is used to extrapolate the impact of using vaccines in 145 countries. Overall the results produce a negative impact from using them versus using no vaccine usage at all. At this point it's not a surprise to anyone who is awake to the reality, but we need to continue to create copious amounts of evidence in an attempt to wake everyone up.

...by utilizing the data for total deaths and cases per million from before vaccines existed and combining that with a synthetic control of countries largely non-participatory in the COVID-19 vaccine program, the R package CausalImpact is able to produce a high degree of certainty in the results.

Results indicate that the treatment (vaccine administration) has a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the values in either y1 or y2 over and above what would have been expected with no treatment. y1 showed an increase/decrease ratio of (+115/-13), which means 89.84% of statistically significant countries showed an increase in total deaths per million associated with COVID-19 due directly to the causal impact of treatment initiation. y2 showed an increase/decrease ratio of (+105/-16) which means 86.78% of statistically significant countries showed an increase in total cases per million of COVID-19 due directly to the causal impact of treatment initiation.

SOURCE

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. NO primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On that alone, I am comfortable to discount this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Wait. How can you reach such a conclusion for the people who is vaccinated? How would we know were they not be they would have died or survive? If we could replay history and go to day zero, then we could run the experiment by not vaccinating people and see what happens. But we cannot do that right now. We need to wait to next pandemics.

a reply to: MDDoxs

But here’s the problem, either you believe what is happening in the world with covid is good or you don’t no matter what the data set is for individual people it really comes down to that if said person gives a # about it one way or the other.

Before I get attacked here let me say this, I’d snort the covid like it was Coca Cola-aine I don’t care about it enough to give two flying #s

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. None primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On the alone, I am comfortable discounting this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***

The problem here is that you have to argue with the math. I'll be waiting on your detailed analysis. Otherwise you can STFU.

Communication begin:

Bahahaha. I am most definitely NOT an expert. I would prefer that real experts actually review and confirm this “study” is credible. Please let me know when that happens and I can read in Science or Nautre.

Emote: Mic drop

***End Communication***

So you need 'Anthony Fauci ' Signature on it or you don't take it serious.

If we ever do an ATS meeting I hope you and all the others like you are there , I'd love to debate you in person.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Do credible and quality studies include these kinds of personal anecdotes?

“Untruth naturally afflicts historical information. There are various reasons that make this unavoidable. One of them is partisanship for opinions and schools. If the soul is impartial in receiving information, it devotes to that information the share of critical investigation the information deserves, and its truth or untruth thus becomes clear. However, if the soul is infected with partisanship for a particular opinion or sect, it accepts without a moment’s hesitation the information that is agreeable to it. Prejudice and partisanship obscure the critical faculty and preclude critical investigation. The result is that falsehoods are accepted and transmitted” (Muhammad ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami 1379

I prefer to rely on quality, reviewed studies. I might as well have written this and posted it on GitHub…would y’all believe me as well?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Please post your work. Its actually YOUR responsibility to defend claims. Deny ignorance indeed. Did no one teach you that in grade school?
Or just post some math-y stuff and call it a fact, and require anyone smart enough to question that (anyone who paid attention in grade school) to refute your claims.

Aliens exist, and both Trump and Biden are reptilians. It's a fact until you prove me wrong. See how that works?

originally posted by: MDDoxs
independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. NO primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On that alone, I am comfortable to discount this entire “study”.

If you had actually taken 2 seconds to look at the link, you'd see that the authors got their information from THIS, which is a widely trusted source of data relating to Covid-19.
Come on, at least try.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Eventually the governments will be apologizing and paying out compensation in a great many nations but as this is an international crime it won't be enough, no national treatise will be enough to protect the culprits behind this and likely an international crimes against humanity trial will be brought against them and the company's responsible, when that happens expect there share prices to become like lead on water.

Currently they believe that they can get away with anything and that we whom suggest this is how it will eventually go are living in cloud cuckoo land but time will tell, the Nazi's thought that they were immune as well until the world turned on them.

Have you ever disagree with Dr Fauci ?
Have you ever disagreed with the cdc ?
Have you ever disagreed with anything on cnn ?
Have you ever disagreed with pelosi , Biden or soros ?
I prefer to rely on people who don’t have an agenda . What reason are you hear parroting all the things cnn days daily ???????????? Don’t you ever want to critically think and actually know what’s going on . Is it not worth the time ???????? They say time is money right

originally posted by: Fryguy
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Please post your work. Its actually YOUR responsibility to defend claims. Deny ignorance indeed. Did no one teach you that in grade school?
Or just post some math-y stuff and call it a fact, and require anyone smart enough to question that (anyone who paid attention in grade school) to refute your claims.

Aliens exist, and both Trump and Biden are reptilians. It's a fact until you prove me wrong. See how that works?

but you are totally correct. Now what do we do?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The problem here is that you have to argue with the math. I'll be waiting on your detailed analysis. Otherwise you can STFU.

Oh, boy, where to start.

Let's start with, it's fake. Then it's garbage.

The formula are a copy and paste, the people who are writing it are trying to blind you science in the hope that you don't understand it and will simply take their word for what it is supposed to be saying. They probably took it from another paper and then changed a few words.

The variables are pulled out of the air with no explanation as to how they were obtained, or why they are so wildly speculative. The methodology is missing or is cut and pasted from elsewhere.

Th data is ... it's ... well I don't know how to describe it. Out context, "cleaned" using a process that's not descried to us, cut and paste from an open source library at best.

Then there's this statement

we can be most statistically confident in due to the direct increase of COVID-19 associated deaths and cases after vaccine administration, where prior to vaccine administration there were few or none. Notably, the results we can be least statistically confident about are many of the results suggesting a negative causal impact from vaccine administration (e.g. Saudi Arabia, China, Nigeria, Belize, etc.).

I haven't seen anything in the methodology that could lead to this conclusion, I'm not even sure how you would calculate this based on the data on the page. There isn't even a section saying how the account for the fact that the epidemic was already well under way when the vaccine was introduced (And I don't know where to begin determining that based on the data supplied).

They're essentially saying that the vaccine causes more an increased mortality rate because more people die after it is introduced, but forget to take into account that more people are also getting sick.

Haven't any of you ever read an academic paper before?

a reply to: network dude

but you are totally correct. Now what do we do?

This one is actually quite simple, take the conclusions and the methodology and run them backwards to see if you can rebuild the original data out of them.

If not, then it's just a cut and paste form another paper and the writers are hoping that you will simply take for granted what they are telling you.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. None primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On the alone, I am comfortable discounting this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***

The problem here is that you have to argue with the math. I'll be waiting on your detailed analysis. Otherwise you can STFU.

The problem here is that you pretend to understand the "math".

When it is plainly pseudo science wrapped up in nonsense with a side order of gibberish?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Ah, yes, here's a biggie.

The "paper" cites several big names, including Jim Koehler (bro is real good at math), making it appear like they are party to the paper, but no. They're not. They wrote several sections that were cribbed in this report, and are improperly cited as if they were contributors.

This a profound quote that was listed in the OP's link......

“Untruth naturally afflicts historical information. There are various reasons that make this unavoidable. One of them is partisanship for opinions and schools. If the soul is impartial in receiving information, it devotes to that information the share of critical investigation the information deserves, and its truth or untruth thus becomes clear. However, if the soul is infected with partisanship for a particular opinion or sect, it accepts without a moment’s hesitation the information that is agreeable to it. Prejudice and partisanship obscure the critical faculty and preclude critical investigation. The result is that falsehoods are accepted and transmitted” (Muhammad ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami 1379, 1–2).

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. NO primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On that alone, I am comfortable to discount this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***

You used a study from Bangladesh to say masking would have spared us 6.5 million cases.

You also never answered when I asked what a cluster-randomized trial is.

If they posted a peer-reviewed study it's not going to suddenly make you understand science.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It's been a while since I had to go over something like this ... but basically it looks like they've cut and past out of another paper or a digital text book and then tried to change it to make it fit their narrative.

Frankly, I can't see how they reached their conclusions based on the analysis, or even how some of it is supposed to relate to the rest of it.

I can't even find some of the data that some of their conclusions are supposedly based on, and they've completely failed to take into account that the pandemic was well under way before the vaccine was introduced, they're acting as if they both started from a level playing field, not that the pandemic was ramping up exponentially.