Can Pro "Vaccine" People Answer A Simple Question???

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If all that you posted were true, then why is it that Pfizer has pleaded guilty in court to criminal medical fraud twice at least since 2004?

If they are the angels you describe, why are they and the Sackler family such crooks?

You are viewing your favorite industry through rose-colored glasses.

a reply to: Salander

Given their size, pleading guilty to fraud twice in almost 20 years pretty much proves me right. That represents less about 0.01 percent of what they do.

That's like finding one pedophile in the clergy, it proves that the organisation as a whole is clean.

The sacklers are crooks, sure, but the sackler aren't the ones making vaxxers, they're just the ones selling them. The people who make the drugs generally do so for the right reasons, it is the corrupt execs who commit the fraud.

The people who make the vax genuinely want to save lives.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I’m sorry, is this reply intended as a joke? I hope it is.

#1. Holy everlasting f*** STOP CHERRY PICKING. Just because Pfizer has PLEADED GUILTY, TWICE, doesn’t mean they have not been FOUND GUILTY of multiple multiple other charges. You say 0.01 percent like it’s accurate when it’s actually laughable. Not to mention OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENTS. You are literally defending a big pharma company for what? Cause you might be wrong? Suck it up and move on. And since you like percentages so much I’ll share one with you in a minute.

#2. I guess you don’t understand what a clergy is. A clergy is made up of the religious and spiritual LEADERS of an organization. If you are sitting there, telling me that there are 10 clergymen and 1 is a pedophile, guess what, that’s 10 percent AZ. Is that really an acceptable percentage for you of clergyman raping children? Cause that’s what you are saying, that heck, if there’s JUST ONE, then that’s ok?? Seriously? This literally made me angry because now you are (possibly unknowingly, hopefully) defending pedophilia. Guess what? If there is a leader in any organization anywhere that is a pedophile, the entire thing should be looked at if it means PROTECTING CHILDREN.

#3. I actually agree with you on one thing. And that is that the people actually making the vaccine were trying to save lives, yes. However, when a vaccine usually takes 10 years to safely produce for people and those scientists are rushed to make a “vaccine” (with newer technology mind you) in about 6-12 months things go wrong as we have seen and are seeing. Care to calculate what that percentage is AZ? What percentage quicker did scientists have to get this “vaccine” through? THAT’S RIGHT! THAT IS 2,000 PERCENT FASTER than other legitimate vaccines that have come before. Don’t you just love how you can put things into percentages? So if I asked you to do data analysis two thousand percent faster you wouldn’t make any mistakes at all right? Laughable, laughable, laughable.

Pfizer's out of court settlement

Pfizer admits to bribery in 8 countries

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Jimy718

 a simple export from their database is all I would require. That way, I can make my own analysis, and NOT rely on theirs.

When you make a foia request someone needs to go analyse multiple record sources in order to pull that data out, they then have to compile it into a suitable form.

The raw data that you think that you want would most likely be meaningless to you because you would need the meta data to go with it in order for it to make sense, and that has to be added in when the foia request is made.

Hmmmm, can YOU tell what kind of data it is by looking at the file name? I can. Do you have any idea "how" meta data is constructed? Prolly not, and in some of these current instances, neither do I, But, I have the skills to figure it out.

You should also bear in mind that a lot of what exists isn't data, it's letters, emails and other correspondence. Given that much of this is done using EU standards we're talking pages as in A4 paper, scanned or printed. For example people will want to see communications between pfizer executives or between pfizer and people like Faucci. They want to know who said what to who, who knew what and when, and other related things.

Well, actually, they probably would not use EU standards; this is America, so we tend to use ANSI instead, but, fear not, EU copied much of what we have.

Of course, since you are requesting "data", this does beg the question: Do you actually know how to clean data or to do statistical analysis on it?

Do you know how to find statistical trends?

Could you tell the difference between a rise in covid deaths because of a new variant, or because it was summer and people were closing their windows and turning on the AC instead?

Would you even think to look?

I think I've said this before, but, perhaps you didn't read.

I'm a 75YO retired Software/Hardware/Data Engineer, I've been at for nearly 50 years. Over the past 30 years I've been involved in bringing "data" to the fore, and making it available for those who might want to understand it. This had necessarily involved quite a lot of statistics, and Data Mining. I still, on occasion, provide custom data management, mining, analysis tools to those in need.

So, yes, I know a little bit about data analysis, management, design...

For someone who claims to have a background in data analysis you don't seem to understand how laborious the process of cleaning and compiling records is.

Maybe you had a junior to do this for you. But I assure you that collating this data isn't just a matter of emailing a couple of excel spreadsheets out to everyone that asks.

No need for "junior", remember, I write software, so; that is what I do. There is NO "cleaning" process, as any modification to the original data corrupts it. Since the data I wish to see already resides in a SQL based relational database, I would require nothing more than a "CSV" or an "XSLX"; the CSV I can import into Excel and produce the "XSLX" (a "real" Excel file). That can be imported directly into my SQL database engine (SQL Server). So, you should understand that the process isn't "laborious", it is as hard as running a bit of "ware"...and it has a "wizard" to help simplify the process.

What methodology do you plan to us, what are your tolerances, what is your boundary for statistical significance?

My methodology; simplified statistics, data mining, explicit queries. You need to understand that once I have data in my SQL engine, that I can do things that are impossible with any other tool.

originally posted by: vNex92

How do Unvaccinated pose a greater risk of infecting others than vaxed? when vaccinated in some cases were infected three times? how does that make any sense?

Yes it does, because unvaccinated people, when they get infected, have a higher viral load (viral loads are measured logarithmically so high viral loads can be thousands of times more viral particles) than previously vaccinated people and are more infectious to others for longer because there are more viral spores being produced and being emitted.

a reply to: mbkennel

Source: sfist.com...
As the Associated Press notes, Walensky cited data from the last few days, still unpublished, taken from 100 samples from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID infections. They found that the amount of virus in the noses and throats of vaccinated infected people was nearly "indistinguishable" from what was found in unvaccinated people, confirming what some experts have suspected. The increased viral load associated with theThey found that the amount of virus in the noses and throats of vaccinated infected people was nearly "indistinguishable" from what was found in unvaccinated people, Delta variant appears to make vaccinated people equal spreaders of the virus. Walensky said that the data was "concerning enough that we feel like we have to act."