Girl to receive NT$3 million payout for adverse COVID vaccine reaction

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Compensation was awarded for having myocarditis post vaccination. The amount was $97,087

Similar compensations should be awarded to all victims of vaccine injuries and they have to be more generous imo. Myocarditis is rather serious regardless of the attempts to downplay the condition by those who have stakes in promoting these products. And of course the vaccine apologists.

The Israeli study in my signature shows quite the opposite, that it's often so mild that people don't even realize that they have it, and just think that they're a little run down, and that most of the rest simply need bed rest for maybe 3 days.

The actual percentage of people who have it seriously after being vaxxed is around 0.002 percent. Even the most serious cases have a mortality rate of less than 20 percent.

Yes I see how mild these symptoms are...
Debilitating conditions, long term immune suppression, and death.

0.002 percent of people will have very bad reactions, of that 0.002 percent 80 will fully recover.

Which is around the same as with the measles vaccine.

This a well known problem that's actually much more common with the virus than the vax.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Compensation was awarded for having myocarditis post vaccination. The amount was $97,087

Similar compensations should be awarded to all victims of vaccine injuries and they have to be more generous imo. Myocarditis is rather serious regardless of the attempts to downplay the condition by those who have stakes in promoting these products. And of course the vaccine apologists.

The Israeli study in my signature shows quite the opposite, that it's often so mild that people don't even realize that they have it, and just think that they're a little run down, and that most of the rest simply need bed rest for maybe 3 days.

The actual percentage of people who have it seriously after being vaxxed is around 0.002 percent. Even the most serious cases have a mortality rate of less than 20 percent.

Yes I see how mild these symptoms are...
Debilitating conditions, long term immune suppression, and death.

0.002 percent of people will have very bad reactions, of that 0.002 percent 80 will fully recover.

Which is around the same as with the measles vaccine.

This a well known problem that's actually much more common with the virus than the vax.

I think you are still engaging in vaccine apologetics and having complete disregard for reality and truth.

The way you do maths is something new and interesting. It's more like maths for vaccine apologists.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The way you do maths is something new and interesting. It's more like maths for vaccine apologists.

I was trying to figure this out...

Something wasn't working...I thought I was stupid again (or still)!

That fact that you pointed out the math is new and interesting gives me hope...I haven't learned this new math technique yet!

originally posted by: jerryznv
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The way you do maths is something new and interesting. It's more like maths for vaccine apologists.

I was trying to figure this out...

Something wasn't working...I thought I was stupid again (or still)!

That fact that you pointed out the math is new and interesting gives me hope...I haven't learned this new math technique yet!

See my post in the last page.
It's mathematics for vaccine apologists where everything is trivialised and dismissed.

Then a 99.9% 'success' rate is presented for the vaccines. That's more of a 99.9% of those who survive Covid-19.

The member didn't take anything into consideration when doing this maths. He didn't even read the article which points out that these are 70 recently filed cases of claims against the vaccines.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
He didn't even read the article which points out that these are 70 recently filed cases of claims against the vaccines.

Actually, it seems like they did and even pointed out that only 14 of those 70 claims were found to have merit.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
He didn't even read the article which points out that these are 70 recently filed cases of claims against the vaccines.

Actually, it seems like they did and even pointed out that only 14 of those 70 claims were found to have merit.

I don't think he did though. There are 70 recently cases. Not all cases as he thought. He then consider doing mathematics based upon these 14 cases which had merit according to the article.

He doesn't need defending by the way. It's fine. He was wrong.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you take a look at the maths you did and how many conditions you have used to estimate the 'success' rate of these vaccines you will see why you are mistaken.

I'm going to call you on this. If my math is faulty then please correct me. Show me the correct numbers.

You haven't taken into account the massive underreporting and that not everyone pursues a claim against vaccine injuries.

I haven't taken anything into account. I'm citing the sources in my signature. Which are peer reviewed.

I'm also having a little difficulty understanding why somebody wouldn't want to accept what is effectively free money from the government.

You don't even acknowledge that you may get injured but the panel still will not award you any compensation.

Yes, because the injury was something along the lines of "mild cold and flu like symptoms for 3-5 days". Which fall below the threshold for a payment. Absolutely nobody who had a serious reaction was turned down.

Finally the 99.9% applies more to the survival rate from Covid-19. It's actually 99.85% and was estimated by John Ioannidis from Stanford before the vaccines came into play.

Covid has killed over a million Americans, and that's a lowball estimate allowing for people who merely had covid when they died from gunshot wounds or auto wrecks.

In a nation of over 350,000,000 even a 0.1 percent mortality rate is the equivalent of nuking a small city.

Your math about how you find the success rate of the vaccines is wrong.

For the same reasons as before:
I have written then in my last reply.

You haven't taken into account the massive underreporting and that not everyone pursues a claim against vaccine injuries.

You haven't even read the article which says that the panel considered 70 recently filed cases which implies something very different in terms of the actual number of cases.

You don't even acknowledge that you may get injured but the panel still will not award you any compensation.

You are trying to trivialise the matter unsuccessfully.

You haven't taken into account that complaints and claims against vaccines are not encouraged and that the Pharmaceuticals are very well protected.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't think he did though.

He must have to have known there were only 14 found with merit.

He doesn't need defending by the way. It's fine. He was wrong.

It isn't so much defending them as it is showing how you are wrong.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't think he did though.

He must have to have known there were only 14 found with merit.

He doesn't need defending by the way. It's fine. He was wrong.

It isn't so much defending them as it is showing how you are wrong.

I think you are trying to argue something else which it's usually called a strawman.

His argument was based on 14 cases only out of millions vaccinated. He didn't see that these were 70 recently filed cases from which 14 cases were approved. The number of cases altogether is not 14 as he implied.

Which shows how you and him are wrong.

He doesn't need defending by the way.
And we don't need vaccine apologetics and denialism.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I think you are trying to argue something else which it's usually called a strawman.

I'm saying they had to have read the article, which you said they had not, to know there were 14 claims awarded.

His argument was based on 14 cases only out of millions vaccinated. He didn't see that these were 70 recently filed cases from which 14 cases were approved. The number of cases altogether is not 14 as he implied.

They never said or implied that, that is just what you are claiming.

And we don't need vaccine apologetics and denialism.

We don't need what you are doing either.

All you did in the OP was show that one girl out of millions got a pretty big award. That is just so much meh, any way you slice it.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your math about how you find the success rate of the vaccines is wrong.

OK, first of all, I'm pretty certain that I've never run the math on this one. You're going to need to link to the actual comment. Secondly, I'm calling you on this one, so please show us the correct math.

You haven't taken into account the massive underreporting and that not everyone pursues a claim against vaccine injuries.

We're getting similar levels of reporting from this vax campaign as other vax campaign, so we can conclude that the extent of under reporting is likely to be statistically comparable.

When it comes to under reporting the bulk of it is skewed towards mild side effects. We get a lot of people simply not bothering to report that they had a stuffy head or mild flu like symptoms, because it's not really effecting them all that much.

We get almost no under reporting on serious side effects. Particularly the most serious side effect which is anaphylaxis. This typically happens within 5-20 minutes after the vaccination. Which is why people are often told to wait on site for a while after they get a shot.

Where a side effect is something like a blood clot, we also get minimal under reporting as whoever deals with the person will typically report it through VEARS.

You haven't even read the article which says that the panel considered 70 recently filed cases which implies something very different in terms of the actual number of cases.

Absolutely nothing is implied. The panel concluded that these cases were either completely unrelated to the vax or were people playing up mild symptoms as being more serious in order to get some money out of the government.

What this directly tells us is that they were taking things seriously and that they didn't ignore these 70 cases. They investigated them and found them to be without merit.

You haven't taken into account that complaints and claims against vaccines are not encouraged and that the Pharmaceuticals are very well protected.

Except that in the US and most other first world countries claims aren't made against big pharma, they're made against the government and there is a more or less automatic payout without the need for litigation if you have a strong case.

If you have a serious issue after being vaxxed you don't even need to report it yourself, this can be done automatically through VEARS.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

His argument was based on 14 cases only out of millions vaccinated. He didn't see that these were 70 recently filed cases from which 14 cases were approved. The number of cases altogether is not 14 as he implied.

Yes, but those 70 were found to be without merit. Only 14 met the rather low bar.

Even if all 84 cases were found to have merit that's 84 cases out of over 10 million people who have had two or more shots in Taiwan

That's less than 0.00084 percent of the total vaxxed population of population. Which demonstrates that the vax is exceedingly safe.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
Actually, it was 70 in total. 14 had merit and 56 didn't.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

His argument was based on 14 cases only out of millions vaccinated. He didn't see that these were 70 recently filed cases from which 14 cases were approved. The number of cases altogether is not 14 as he implied.

Yes, but those 70 were found to be without merit. Only 14 met the rather low bar.

Even if all 84 cases were found to have merit that's 84 cases out of over 10 million people who have had two or more shots in Taiwan

That's less than 0.00084 percent of the total vaxxed population of population. Which demonstrates that the vax is exceedingly safe.

You are wrong again and haven't even read the article. You said:

Yes, but those 70 were found to be without merit. Only 14 met the rather low bar.

But it is obvious you have mixed up the numbers for once more.

There were 70 altogether but 14 found to fullfil the conditions (whatever these are in Taiwan) to get a compensation for vaccine damages.

No the cases were not 84! You are mistaken again and confused your arguments.

There were 70 recently filed reports/complaints. This doesn't imply they are the only reports.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: AaarghZombies
Actually, it was 70 in total. 14 had merit and 56 didn't.

I know you are trying too hard to give some credit to your friend but he hasn't even read the article and he is making one mistake after the other.
Good try though.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I think you are trying to argue something else which it's usually called a strawman.

I'm saying they had to have read the article, which you said they had not, to know there were 14 claims awarded.

His argument was based on 14 cases only out of millions vaccinated. He didn't see that these were 70 recently filed cases from which 14 cases were approved. The number of cases altogether is not 14 as he implied.

They never said or implied that, that is just what you are claiming.

And we don't need vaccine apologetics and denialism.

We don't need what you are doing either.

All you did in the OP was show that one girl out of millions got a pretty big award. That is just so much meh, any way you slice it.

His arguments are definitely confused.

He doesn't even know how many reports were filed.
He thinks it's 84 where in reality it's 70.

He then divides the number of approved complaints by the millions who got vaccinated.
However he fails to see that there were 70 recently filed reports which means these aren't all the reports in Taiwan.

Then he fails to see the other issues which I am posting them again

''You haven't taken into account the massive underreporting and that not everyone pursues a claim against vaccine injuries.

You haven't even read the article which says that the panel considered 70 recently filed cases which implies something very different in terms of the actual number of cases.

You don't even acknowledge that you may get injured but the panel still will not award you any compensation.

You haven't taken into account that complaints and claims against vaccines are not encouraged and that the Pharmaceuticals are very well protected''

So no, attempts have failed again.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
I wasn't even talking about any of that in the post you replied to. I was just commenting on your assumption that someone else had not read the article.

Besides, both 14 and 70 end up being less than 99.999 percent of the millions jabbed in Taiwan, which is what they said.

You have no idea how under-reported vaccine injuries are in that country.

Talk about not reading the article, you seem to have missed the part where it says: "For this reason, the panel said, it was unable to conclude that the girl's symptoms were correlated with the vaccine, but it nevertheless decided to award her NT$3 in compensation". So yeah, your thread is full on meh.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
I wasn't even talking about any of that in the post you replied to. I was just commenting on your assumption that someone else had not read the article.

Besides, both 14 and 70 end up being less than 99.999 percent of the millions jabbed in Taiwan, which is what they said.

You have no idea how under-reported vaccine injuries are in that country.

Talk about not reading the article, you seem to have missed the part where it says: "For this reason, the panel said, it was unable to conclude that the girl's symptoms were correlated with the vaccine, but it nevertheless decided to award her NT$3 in compensation". So yeah, your thread is full on meh.

You seem like the other member Mr Zombies not to read the article or even the opening page.
For your last part

The panel decided to award her compensation but could not establish causation as the symptoms appeared 11 days after the vaccine was administered, which as it seems in Taiwan is considered a longer period of time.

That's in my opening page. I have mentioned it as you can see. So you are wrong again. Read the article and the OP before engaging in vaccine apologetics.

The fact is that these are 70 recently reported cases. And not 70 cases altogether which was assumed by your friend when he did this bogus mathematics.

Underreporting is a serious and global phenomenon and the pharmaceuticals are well protected.

In addition just because a panel doesn't award you compensation doesn't mean you have not been injured by these products. You just don't meet the threshold that is used in this country.

This is the second time you have come to my threads. I don't remember having any exchanges with you in general apart from that time. I find it bizarre that you come to defend another member whose arguments are in a turmoil and also engage in vaccine apologetics.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
So, if you know the panel couldn't conclude it was the vaccine what makes you think you are in a position to say it was? It makes the thread pretty pointless.

I am not engaging in vaccine apologetics. It is common knowledge that some people will be harmed by most, if not all, medications. What I am here saying is that the article does very little to support the fear mongering.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
So, if you know the panel couldn't conclude it was the vaccine what makes you think you are in a position to say it was? It makes the thread pretty pointless.

I am not engaging in vaccine apologetics. It is common knowledge that some people will be harmed by most, if not all, medications. What I am here saying is that the article does very little to support the fear mongering.

The panel awarded compensation though and the thread is not pointless. They have awarded compensation as they think this is the most likely cause of her injuries. If they didn't think it was the most likely cause they wouldn't have given anything and probably rejecting the claim earlier.

It's good to post about vaccine injuries as not many of us are convinced about these products and their safety and effectiveness. There are several questions about pretty much everything. To put it differently and using the words of one of the Italian members of the European Parliament: This is the greatest medical scandal in history.

The fear mongering and the climate of paranoia and hysteria did exist and were emenating from the establishment in the past 3 years where a relatively mild disease for most of us become a weapon for curtailing basic freedoms and liberties and for coercing everyone in some ludicrous experiment where we had to be injected with products we knew nothing about. They were going at the speed of 'science' as Pfizer admitted. They even forgot to test for transmission.