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

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Cases are sky rocketing in many countries right now, which is primarily due to Omicron. The exact same thing happened with Delta,

Delta hit Europe during the fall and cases spiked up through the winter. This also coincided with a period where mass gatherings were common and with a lowering of restrictions in places like the UK. We can track this using data from the UK which unlocked much earlier than the rest of Europe and actually had a program encouraging people to eat out in restaurants to boost the economy using subsidized meals (The literature also happens to be in English so it's a good showcase as everybody here can understand it).

ou 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.

Yet in the US the death where vaccination is lower the death rates are much higher. Omicron has a lower mortality rate but a higher morbidity rate. It's less dangerous but more people are catching it, so actual deaths tend to trend upwards.

Plus, also with the UK figures, serious sickness cases were trending below expectations before Omicron hit.

So you're saying that if we just reduce restrictions and let people get more sunlight and exercise it might be beneficial?

No, because it's not the restrictions that are keeping people inside, it's the weather. The good people of NYC are perfectly free to stand outside in the snow and the rain all they want covid or not.

they live in dirtier environments and they live a tougher life in general.

We're talking NCY and Phoenix, not Syria.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's less dangerous but more people are catching it, so actual deaths tend to trend upwards.

As I have just shown in that chart, the case numbers in Australia due to Omicron are several orders of magnitude larger than previous waves. Death numbers are obviously going to trend up a bit as they do in any wave, yet the death numbers have not surpassed any previous wave despite such massive case numbers. That means the lethality of Omicron is ridiculously low, lower than many other common viruses we have lived with for ages.

No, because it's not the restrictions that are keeping people inside, it's the weather. The good people of NYC are perfectly free to stand outside in the snow and the rain all they want covid or not.

So we can agree that seasonality plays a large role in the spread of Covid-19, as I've been saying for a long time. A large part of the reason more people die from viruses in winter is because they stay inside longer, but the cold also makes it harder for the immune system to function properly. That's why I find it somewhat strange the way Omicron is spreading so fast in Australia despite the fact we are currently in Summer.

We're talking NCY and Phoenix, not Syria.

You said countries "like India and a lot of the African countries have fewer cases", I was giving one reason why. Another reason is because India did go through a massive wave which gave them a lot of natural immunity. The Delta strain originated in India before causing big waves all around the world. Another reason densely packed urban countries might experience higher case numbers is simply because the population is more dense. It's not because people are inside more often, they are simply closer together. Your logic would suggest people living in less populated regions would have higher case numbers if they stayed inside more often. The only reason that might be partially true is because people who go outside less often will be less healthy in general.

a reply to: trollz

Meh lazy making, thanks for pointing to the source of source. Most people don't bother to read these posts without opening their mouth halfway down it. Mainly because they rather fight instead of disputing without clicking a link to see what's actually there. If you haven't noticed they still didn't click the source and still call it trash.

XD guess they should of had your name or iamblindtofacts.

But no it is true, I know people who should of died to the virus first wave,myself I closed who are all here.. and I know others that are dying due to the complications of the vaccine; a test study that wasn't going to be finished til 2025 on damages to the liver. But he went and got the vax and is now gravely ill.

I have. Friend who doesn't read and just disputes loads of prerecorded crap(kinda hate her for being this type of person who literally said it was okay for government officials to kidnap kids and force medical treatments on them). She just says "preconditions" and she's a firm believer if you don't die in 5 minutes like a car crash that it isn't vax related. It's like bish please you don't get diabetes overnight.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Poorer countries have lower rates because they rely on expired vaccinations.. cause fpizer and moderna can't make as much money off them so they rely on richer countries to pay more before giving the extras to third world.

The CEO even said it themselves on a Bloomberg interview.

Now that every country has been dumping their monthly delivery to other countries for the past 6 months Africa and other countries like it skyrocketed. Kinda ironic isn't it? They had very little cases then explode just after delivery of non expired medicine.

I'm interested in debating, and I'm taking the side that the vaccine probably has made this disease worse, not better.

I'm just looking at the WORLDOMETER report for USA and comparing these time periods:

It is clear that fall season 2021 was worse than fall season 2020 from both a case count and death count perspective.

It has now become clear that winter 2022 is worse than winter 2021 from a case count perspective. It is still not totally clear that winter 2022 will be worse than winter 2021 from a death count perspective.
I hate to make a morbid prediction. It may take a couple months for a new case to succumb to death. So with such record shattering numbers of new cases, we can probably expect the death toll to get worse in the next couple months.

So now the debate becomes, if it isn't the vaccine that made this pandemic worse, exacerbated it, then what did?

What evidence exists to say SARS COV 2 got worse on its own?

originally posted by: InachMarbank
I'm interested in debating, and I'm taking the side that the vaccine probably has made this disease worse, not better.

I'm just looking at the WORLDOMETER report for USA and comparing these time periods:

It is clear that fall season 2021 was worse than fall season 2020 from both a case count and death count perspective.

It has now become clear that winter 2022 is worse than winter 2021 from a case count perspective. It is still not totally clear that winter 2022 will be worse than winter 2021 from a death count perspective.
I hate to make a morbid prediction. It may take a couple months for a new case to succumb to death. So with such record shattering numbers of new cases, we can probably expect the death toll to get worse in the next couple months.

So now the debate becomes, if it isn't the vaccine that made this pandemic worse, exacerbated it, then what did?

What evidence exists to say SARS COV 2 got worse on its own?

There's no evidence. Viruses mutate to become more contagious and less pathogenic. It should have killed way less people after it mutated in a less pathogenic form

This is a perfect example of why people who've ever done any modelling before and have no understanding of the subject shouldn't do analysis before learning the basics.

They don't even attempt to apply modelling for the spread of a virus (PLEIRS) and their whole copy/paste hypothesis is based on the only difference/variable being the introduction of vaccines which is obviously false.

They should have been able to tell by the wild variation of their results that both their hypothesis, applied modelling and conclusions are all a load of nonsense but can't because the authors clearly have never read/conducted Bayesian models before and have made no attempt to derive a model or equation.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

Read the thread?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
If this has been debunked, just like to the post that debunks it. If you can't, then you are full of crap. it's OK to not have an answer, but when you pretend you do, you look like a pinhead.

a reply to: network dude

The authors applied a model (Brodersen et al) designed to analyse advertising and marketing impact to a pandemic. It's a completely irrelevant model - It's derived from Markov monte carlo chains which is the same stochastic field used in pandemic modelling but PLEIRS models are used to analyse that - not modelling designed for marketing: Broderson paper

It would have been obvious to the authors if they knew any maths but it's clear they've just applied the first monte carlo chainalysis they saw without reading the paper or understanding how those equations are applied or how to correctly derive and apply models to analyse data.

They also disprove their own paper by violating the first rules of mathematical logic by reducing the situation to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum) which is the very first lesson of any maths degree. Their metods and dat input is so oversimplified the conclusions they arrive don't reflect reality.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The vaccine shave killed more people than Covid. I suppose they POSSIBLY did save lives, although with those backing the vaccines I'd say they were more intent on the death count. Would you buy an antidote from the same person that made the poison and gave it to you?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Oh, boy, where to start.

You can say that again.

Let's start with your first actual complaint, just for yucks... that the formulas are "cut and paste." When I use E=IR, E=LI', or I=CE', are those "copy/paste"? If so, every single paper ever written on electronic theory is "copy/paste." Mathematical formulas and algorithms, once proven, are able to be used by others... that is their purpose!

The use of those formulas and algorithms is what is important.

Now, let's look at another complaint... references who were not a contributor. No one ever said they were! They are sources, not contributors.

You posted an hour... 60 minutes... after the OP, already deciding that the paper is useless. I am fairly well-versed in statistical analysis, and I couldn't do a proper job of understanding that paper in that length of time. So i have to assume one of two things is going on here: either

You are one of the greatest mathematicians who ever walked the planet, or

You are just trying to rebut the conclusions of the paper using whatever excuse you can invent, no matter how flimsy.

I do not consider you one of the great mathematicians of our time, so what does that leave?

I will also point out the use of "peer-reviewed journals" (or lack thereof) being used as another excuse. Journals exist for one simple reason: to make it easier for peers to keep up with recent papers. That's it. They do not create "peer reviews" simply by publishing a paper... indeed, it is quite common to see papers published from time to time which are then shown by peer review to be completely inaccurate. Journals do review papers they publish, but typically this is done more to ensure they do not embarrass the journal than anything. New concepts and evidence that goes against the agenda of the editorial staff can be and have been used to keep findings from being published. In such a case, an author/researcher has little choice but to self-publish.

Peer review is review by one's peers... as in, others who have similar knowledge in the fields presented. It has nothing to do with being published in a journal... the journal simply makes it easier for peers to find.

I have peer-reviewed papers on ATS before. I will not do so this time; in the first place, I hate statistical analysis, and in the second, people like you are spreading so much manure around it would be a futile attempt to do so. I will say this, to both you and those who seem to follow you into every thread on this subject: if this report is true (and I tend to think it is a possibility), the results will not be capable of being covered up forever. When and if public opinion ever reverses, you will not be able to live down your blind acceptance and infantile attempts to pretend to be that which you are not. Ever. Period.

Beware of that bed you are making so neatly... it may be sitting over a fire ant hill, and you will end up lying in it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

Read the thread?

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
If this has been debunked, just like to the post that debunks it. If you can't, then you are full of crap. it's OK to not have an answer, but when you pretend you do, you look like a pinhead.

Did you not say that you had not read the paper?

What would be the point of pointing you to where it might have been debunked when you have not read it?

There’s been no studies on all cause mortality as it is too soon to know the truth. The control group is being completely erased, so there will never be a way to know for sure. Almost looks like it was designed that way for a reason. Strange

There could be different batches used to create different “variants”for the foreseeable future, they will always try to tie the origin back to some unvaccinated individual. I’m not saying this is happening, but if it were, there’s no way to know or stop it. The control group is being erased for a reason. The same reason they did it in their own trial. Wonder what that reason could be?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

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.

best ATP post I have read in a long time. Thanks for this. Faith in humanity has been restored.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hmm... As I understand it, a virus mutation is just the newer generation that the older generation has given birth to. I'm not sure if that's correct but it's my understanding for now..

Usually children of their parents wind up being very similar to their parents, don't they? Why would a newer generation of the same virus specie be more contagious and less lethal? Why wouldn't it be pretty much the same?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: network dude

The authors applied a model (Brodersen et al) designed to analyse advertising and marketing impact to a pandemic. It's a completely irrelevant model - It's derived from Markov monte carlo chains which is the same stochastic field used in pandemic modelling but PLEIRS models are used to analyse that - not modelling designed for marketing:

I have news for you, COVID is almost entirely marketing.

Marketing is precisely how we should examine this BS.

originally posted by: macaronicaesar

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

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.

best ATP post I have read in a long time. Thanks for this. Faith in humanity has been restored.

Thank you. You and the rest of the silent majority is why I post. Note that in this thread, and several others, the anti-science pro-vax clowns mostly refuse to answer me directly. They claim to be adhering to the science, but mostly it's just TV telling them what to think. They cannot defend their position with actual science. Total scumbags.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

No it's a virus not a google click advert - ignoring reality, pretending viruses don't exist and how viruses spread and instead trying to analyse the data using a series of equations designed to monitor/predict mouse clicks on google advertising is plain dumb.

It's obvious the authors never read the model they cite, have no idea what they're on about and have no understanding of the maths or how to model correctly. It reads like a computer science student paper.

It's like trying to work out the surface area of a cube using the equation for volume of a sphere - it may look like maths and science to people who don't understand the subject but to anyone who does it's plain dumb and always going to give the wrong answer.

It's fine if you don't understand Markov Monte Carlo as it's an obscure area of maths I wouldn't expect anyone to know unless they had an MSc in Applied Maths but you can't ignore all maths and science and rely on soundbytes if you want to study the sciences.

Here's some examples of MCMC models for repiritory viruses from pre COVID to show how scientific models should be created - note every single equation is completely different to those used in the google ad paper as it's a completely different set of inputs, outputs, interference, recovery, immunity, death, transmission, reproduction etc...so all the derived vector and ordinary differential equations are different.

Bayesian MCMC analysis of SARS
Introduction of MCMC to epidemic models
Stochastic coinfection dynamics of respiritory viruses
Estimating viral spread of respiritory virus using MCMC

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Ksihkehe

No it's a virus not a google click advert - ignoring reality, pretending viruses don't exist and how viruses spread and instead trying to analyse the data using a series of equations designed to monitor/predict mouse clicks on google advertising is plain dumb.

... but you can't ignore all maths and science and rely on soundbytes if you want to study the sciences.

Please show me where I denied viruses exist. You can't because I didn't. All the stereotypes fail because, in spite of what the news and television says, there is an overwhelming amount of science that disproves almost all the fascist narrative.

I have been more realistic about this than all you clowns that said masks and social distancing works, not to mention the vaccination fraud. Never, in the history of public health in the US, has anybody claimed that masking the general population stops the spread of disease. I've said from the outset that it will become endemic and everyone will eventually get COVID. Clowns trying to put me in with the crowd of idiots that denied COVID exists will fail because I never said any of that.

I've been right for two years. You COVID fiends we're much more interested in the television science, the marketing of COVID. I said the vax would be temporary at best and, aside from this marketing campaign, it would have never been approved because it's dangerous garbage.

The chief troll posted a study about masking in Bangladesh. It was a cluster-randomized trial. You know what that's commonly used for? Marketing research. Where are you and all the staunch defenders of sound science in that thread? Nowhere, because it confirms your biases. The cult of COVID rolls on.

Take your revisionist history elsewhere, we aren't buying it. You and your fellow clowns were wrong. The vaccine is trash (remember 95% effective?), they used this all as an excuse to drive MRNA down our throats, and you had a very eager throat. Now that you bought that bs it's yours, you now own it. Denying what happened, how eager you were to swallow it, is all on you.

Enjoy your bimonthly boosters.