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

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Thanks for Thread.

Having skimmed the paper and looked at the figures and graphs, the meta analysis is strong and well cited for all source material.

The study found causal increases in both infection and deaths since vaccine roll out and how this is not seen in those countries selected as control group (as they had not initiated the vaccine protocols).

The detractors just make themselves sound stupid and that is their choice, not worth addressing.

a reply to: teapot

How does it amount for the fact that the countries that have not employed decline protocols also have greatly diminished healthcare infrastructure and underreport the number of COVID cases?

How does it control for the near infinite number of other variables in play?

The answer? It didn't. There's a reason why correlation analyses cannot be used to determine causation.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

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?

There's a massive problem with your argument, which is 99% of scientists are scared to oppose the "official narrative". The exact same thing happens with global warming research, no one wants to be the odd man out, because they are heavily scrutinized and censored, but more importantly it might even put their career in jeopardy. A couple of months ago I did an analysis very similar to this one using the same data set and came to a very similar conclusion. I plan to do another analysis using the most recent data soon. The open source data is right there for anyone to examine and the patterns in the data cannot be denied.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: teapot

How does it amount for the fact that the countries that have not employed decline protocols also have greatly diminished healthcare infrastructure and underreport the number of COVID cases?

That's actually a fair point, I did notice in my analysis that most of the countries reporting extremely low case numbers were also some of the most impoverished countries who probably don't have great reporting mechanisms. However, even if you exclude those countries from the analysis, there's still a clear upward trend, which is to say the more vaccinated a country is, the more cases per capita it's likely to record.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Looking at the data, the latest spike in vaccinated people came around the end of May. About a month after that, the beginning of July, we saw the sharpest decline in COVID cases.

On July 9th of last year, there were only about 12,000 positive COVID tests in the US. In comparison, on July 9th, 2020 there were about 56,000 positive cases.

This data doesn't seem to fit with the narrative you're pushing.

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Thanks for Thread.

Having skimmed the paper and looked at the figures and graphs, the meta analysis is strong and well cited for all source material.

The study found causal increases in both infection and deaths since vaccine roll out and how this is not seen in those countries selected as control group (as they had not initiated the vaccine protocols).

The detractors just make themselves sound stupid and that is their choice, not worth addressing.

Yeah, about that. The "paper" fudges things significantly to make it appear that the cites sources are for the conclusions or the data, when in fact they're for the methodologies.

It places authors of cites content in the wrong section to make it appear that they were involved in the paper, and were not merely source material.

It also concludes that deaths increased alongside the vaccine rollout, yet fails do simply things like offer solid projections of the death rate without the vaccine, or even to mention basic things such as European countries began vaxxing during the winter, which is when you would expect to see covid cases rising.

Some of the conclusions don't even relate to the math in the "paper", and therefor must have been reached using data outside of it, which you simply can't do if you want to be taken seriously. That's the equivalent of reviewing a movie based on deleted scenes that nobody else can confirm exist.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I have no clue what you're talking about. At least you admit that the paper in the OP is just bad statistics.

Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about, it's called confirmation bias.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The paper is garbage…period.

Perhaps you'd like to phone a friend to answer my questions about your ability to understand the studies you've presented, maybe we should ask the audience instead?

It sure seems like you and your pals don't want to talk to me directly since things went sideways for your narrative. It's going to get real uncomfortable once the rest of the medical community is telling Biden to move on rather than just the six members of his transition team.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

If you want to play, then just read what you are offering your opinion on it.

Don't carry their water. There are a small group of members that are highly polarized and they are specifically targeting any COVID messages that don't fit the narrative. They give no scrutiny to anything that confirms their bias, but suddenly have become staunch defenders of sound science when confronted with something that doesn't confirm it.

I believe several of them don't understand any of the information they're looking at. Don't defend it. I'm not claiming, never did, that this study is valid. In defending them you become part of their cult. It's not worth it and it doesn't make you scientific to disagree with bad science. We need to disagree with all bad science, not just what goes against our biases.

There's room for an argument for vaccination, but there is also plenty of room for an argument that vaccination for COVID is a bad idea. It isn't as black and white as they'd have you believe. Let these members defend themselves, they're the ones that painted themselves into this corner.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

the more cases per capita it's likely to record.

Yes, but that's often because the more vaxxed a country is the fewer restrictions there are and the lower the death rate.

Take the UK, heavily vaxxed, very few restrictions, sky rocketing cases, but yet the death rate isn't spiking to match.



You also need to take account of the fact that Covid is an "indoor" disease. So countries that are very outdoorsy like India and a lot of the African countries have fewer cases, while densly packed urban countries have more (Take NCY as an example), plus covid cases rise in the winter in cold regions when people go indoors, and in summer in hot regions when people shut the windows and turn on the AC.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

They're right, the paper is garbage.

It cite authors of methodologies as if they were contributors, it cites sources for methodologies as if they supported conclusions.

It reaches conclusions that there isn't even math to cover. For example, without a projection of covid cases without the vax you can't determine whether the vax made any difference at all as you have nothing to compare it to.

The math looks like it's been cut and paste in by somebody who doesn't really understand it, and then they changed some of the words to make it appear covid related. Some of the charts have been copied from other sources, but in a scale so obfuscated that you can't actually use them as there simply isn't the granularity to extract meaningful numbers.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐

I didn't offer an opinion on it, haven't read it all the way through.

I'm asking where the ethics violations are so I can look at them. Why bother reading the whole thing if it's unethical bunk, I'm sure somebody can just point it out for me. Right?

They already have. Did you not read this thread either?

Improper citation is not grounds for an ethics violation from a atudent, students make mistakes all the time. Is there something deliberate in the text?

I want to know where they made deliberate efforts to make it appear that uninvolved parties were authors. Using messed up citations isn't an ethics violation outside academia. If they quoted and cited, no matter how they did it, I don't know what the issue is. Saying it violates ethics is a big deal, not a small thing.

Has anybody claimed this was peer-reviewed? Was it suggested? Half the people here, being generous, that request peer-reviewed studies for everything have no idea what they're even looking at. They have no idea what it means.

They cite multiple people in the top right of the "paper" as if they contributed to it, when in fact it's merely their methodologies that are being used. They didn't actively contribute to it.

They should be cited right at the bottom. This is something that freshman should know not to do. It's something that can't be done by accident and therefore is an ethics violation as it's the academic equivalent of Stolen Valore.

The "paper" also cites the sources of methodologies as if they were sources for the conclusions reached. Which is also an ethics violation.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's the thing though. His paper falls apart before he even gets to the analysis. He breaks the cardinal rule of a correlation analysis. Correlation does not imply causation. And then, on top of that, he does nothing to control for the infinite number of lurking variables.

I don't know if undergrad poly sci students are required to learn statistics, but if I know if turned in a paper with as many foundational errors when I was a psyc undergrad it would've gotten an F.

If you turned in a paper that cited sources of your methodology as if they were contributors you'd have gotten a seat in the Dean's office.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's the thing though. His paper falls apart before he even gets to the analysis. He breaks the cardinal rule of a correlation analysis. Correlation does not imply causation. And then, on top of that, he does nothing to control for the infinite number of lurking variables.

I don't know if undergrad poly sci students are required to learn statistics, but if I know if turned in a paper with as many foundational errors when I was a psyc undergrad it would've gotten an F.

If you turned in a paper that cited sources of your methodology as if they were contributors you'd have gotten a seat in the Dean's office.

Worse yet it seems cut and pasted from another source especially the formulas I suspect they repurposed someones elses work and didnt quite understand the purpose of the formulas. If one of my students turned this in we would have a serious issue.

Thats why Im having a seriously hard time trying to follow there logic as they draw conclusions unsupported the data.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Yes, but that's often because the more vaxxed a country is the fewer restrictions there are and the lower the death rate.

That's not true at all, some of the countries with the harshest restrictions have the highest vaccination rates because they also tend to have the harshest mandates.

Take the UK, heavily vaxxed, very few restrictions, sky rocketing cases, but yet the death rate isn't spiking to match.

Cases are sky rocketing in many countries right now, which is primarily due to Omicron. The exact same thing happened with Delta, but it seems as though Omicron is an order of magnitude more contagious than Delta. This most recent wave in Australia is making our last 3 waves look like tiny bumps in comparison. And despite the massive spike in cases, death numbers haven't spiked any higher than the last wave.

You seem to be suggesting that the vaccine is the reason why, but the primary reason is due to the much lower lethality of the Omicron strain. It's crystal clear Omicron is no more a threat than a common flu. We can determine exactly how effective the vaccine is at reducing severe cases. It does appear to reduce severe symptoms based on the data, but it also results in more cases, canceling out any benefit it may have.

We also have high vaccination rates in Australia but unlike the UK we have some of the harshest lockdown laws in the world. They were eased a bit for the holidays but they are quickly tightening restrictions again now that cases are exploding. But it's having zero impact on the wave, it just keeps following the same curve like it always does regardless of what restrictions we put into place.

You also need to take account of the fact that Covid is an "indoor" disease. So countries that are very outdoorsy like India and a lot of the African countries have fewer cases, while densly packed urban countries have more

So you're saying that if we just reduce restrictions and let people get more sunlight and exercise it might be beneficial? Lmao the logical gymnastics is becoming quite laughable at this point... the main reason is probably just because they have better immune systems, they live in dirtier environments and they live a tougher life in general. That's why I don't go out of my way to avoid germs, it helps me maintain a strong immune system.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I do believe that less restrictions indeed will slow the virus. We are creating a prolem through panicking ad over reacting, People should be spending more time outdoors instead of locked in there homes. Open up parks and recreational areas outdoor events and i suspect the cases will drop. As it is now people go from work to home catch it at work spread it through their family. And i suspect once the virus enters a home it finds a suitable environment to survive for months. i suspect thats part of the reexposure rate i know someone that has had it 3 times this past year. Find a relatively warm day and open all your windows.

a reply to: dragonridr

I was being sarcastic, obviously sunlight, exercise, and social interactions are good for your mind and body... we shouldn't even need to debate those obvious facts of life, but yet some people insist we require extreme lock-down measures because they live in absolute fear and trust everything the MSM says. And despite all of our futile actions new variants continue to come along each year and cause a spike in cases just like the flu. They can live in fear forever if that's what they wish, I've already chosen to go on living a normal life and if I die as a consequence so be it, life kills us all eventually. If we give up everything that makes life worth living then I don't really want to live anyway.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Here's the equivalent case and death charts for Australia:

When Delta first appeared it made our first two waves look insignificant, just like Omicron made the waves before it look insignificant. The effect is more pronounced in nations like Australia because we are so isolated from the rest of the world and we have such strict rules, we don't have nearly as much natural immunity as places such as the UK or the US. The result is we get hit hard when we do get hit, and the same trend can be seen in other isolated nations with strict rules.

What's also interesting about this latest spike of cases in Australia is that it's happening during warm weather. Our last waves happened over winter and then completely died out when the warm weather arrived. You can see the same thing almost happened with Delta but then Omicron came along and it's spreading like wildfire regardless of the weather. But we can also see neither Delta or Omicron are killing more people than earlier strains despite the fact they spread so rapidly.

Some of the decline in severe cases probably is a result of the vaccine, but I'm willing to bet money the primary reason is because Omicron is a much less deadly strain. I'm sure there are rigorous statistical methods to determine the magnitude of each contributing factor, if I had access to the right data I could probably do it myself but I don't really have the time or motivation because I doubt it would change any minds anyway, it would just be more mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

They're right, the paper is garbage.

It cite authors of methodologies as if they were contributors, it cites sources for methodologies as if they supported conclusions.

Where?

As I said it's VERY common to cite previous methodologies and standards in a paper, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Where did they imply those people were involved with this specific study, where did they misrepresent?

I'm not supporting the thesis here. I'm just asking questions. "The paper is garbage" might be acceptable to COVID fiends, but I want details. You've spent two years buying anything they sell if it supports your narrative. I want to know details since they were meaningless for two years. Please illuminate me.

As I said, if you clowns gave 1/10th the scrutiny that you placed on this study on the COVID bs we wouldn't be where we are. Why does this one trigger your thirst for science? We have 60 years of "science" that says masks don't work. Why is this study so problematic, you accepted all the other bs with no questions asked.

These Important results have materialized more than once, only to be suppressed each time.

Best of Luck, and I Sincerely say "Thank you!"

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It's been a while since I had to go over something like this ...

So, when was the last time you 'went over' advanced math? I'm guessing never!

Both you and Oldcarpy2 are talking like you have some 'understanding' of this, when your very statements say otherwise.

This analysis makes use of some rather advanced math, and a programming language that is not quite common in use ("R"). It appears they also used a "R" package to do most of the work, it all looks good to me. And, I do have a working knowledge of both the math and the language.

I find it kind of interesting how people like you and some others can be 'experts' in so many different fields. I mean; I thought you were a 'Health care worker' of some sort, and carpy an attorney of some sort. Neither of which would have the advanced math, or computer science necessary to have a basic understanding of this analysis.

No, I fear y'all only attack that which you don't like, which is to say that you attack any idea that goes against what narrative you have selected and based on a less than decent understanding of the actual science involved.

So, perhaps y'all should regroup and try to 'attack' this with a more scientifically sound approach i.e. disprove the math and or the process. As opposed to the 'crying' you do most of the time.