Vaxxed Americans Report Major Side Effects, and Question Efficacy

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

And as usual you can't counter basic math, so you try to change the subject.

People can rise up all they want, but I'm still right, and I've debunked you once again.

You didn't debunk anything ever.

The Rasmussen poll results match the CDC v-safe data which is a 10 million person sample size. The severe side effects rate is 7-8% in both.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Every company you mentioned could shut their doors tomorrow and finance their entire extended families for decades.
They are also part of the robotard replacement workforce push.
They also openly funded BLM.
Bozo the magical subsidized garage bookstore billionaire is on record suggesting using anti union tactics such as hiring an interracial work force.
They are all butt buddies.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

And as usual you can't counter basic math, so you try to change the subject.

People can rise up all they want, but I'm still right, and I've debunked you once again.

You didn't debunk anything ever.

The Rasmussen poll results match the CDC v-safe data which is a 10 million person sample size. The severe side effects rate is 7-8% in both.

The first thing to know is that the Rasmussen poll is considered a conservative organization. You can see that from the fact that nationwide, only about 18% of the population is totally unvaccinated, yet the group that Rasmussen selected reported 32% unvaccinated. Studies from a year ago showed that there is up to a 20 point difference in vaccine acceptance between Blue areas and Red areas of the country, with Blue areas having up to 90% acceptance. So the Rasmussen group appears to be a lot more conservative than average.

The second thing to know is the actual wording of the poll questions. Here's what they asked:

1 How effective are COVID-19 vaccines at preventing infection with the virus?

2 How concerned are you that COVID-19 vaccines may have major side effects?

3 Have you received a COVID-19 vaccination?

4 (Asked of 680 Adults Who Received a Covid-19 Vaccine) Do you believe you have experienced major side effects, minor side effects, or no side effects from your COVID-19 vaccination?

www.rasmussenreports.com...

Look at question #1. If the pollsters wanted to know objectively how effective vaccines are or are not in preventing infection there are a ton of scientific studies out there that discuss this in excruciating detail. A random citizen on the street would have no way of knowing objectively what the mathematical answer to that question is unless they read all the articles and follow the statistical arguments. All they can do is say what their hunch is. Question #3 is the only one that asks about something factual within the knowledge base of the poll respondent and not what the respondent believes or feels. Question #4 asked the people to self-report what they "believed" caused their side effects not what they had a doctors' diagnosis for. Neither did they provide any quantitative definition for "major" or "minor" side effects. Again, there are a ton of scientific research articles out there that use a consistent definition of "adverse side effects" and deal with how many adverse effects are actually attributable to vaccination, after you remove all the other explanations.

The third thing to know is that the public is really crappy at figuring out what caused themselves to experience some kind of adverse effect. Here's a study from 1994 comparing how often people reported adverse effects from getting the flu vaccine compared to people who reported adverse effects from getting a placebo shot:

"Side effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy working adults. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial"

"Background: Concern about side effects is a barrier to influenza vaccination. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed side effects following vaccination among healthy working adults.

Methods: Healthy working adults were recruited during October and November 1994 and were randomized to receive influenza vaccine or placebo injections. Local and systemic symptoms during the week following the injection were evaluated through structured telephone interviews.

Results: Of 849 subjects enrolled in the study, 425 received a placebo and 424 received influenza vaccine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, and 99% of subjects completed interviews to assess side effects after the study injection. No differences were seen between the 2 groups for the systemic symptoms of fever, myalgias, fatigue, malaise, or headaches. Overall, 35.2% of placebo and 34.1% of vaccine recipients reported at least 1 of these systemic symptoms (P = .78, chi 2). Vaccine recipients reported a higher rate of arm soreness at the injection site than did placebo recipients (63.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). Local reactions were mild in both groups and infrequently resulted in decreased use of the arm. After logistic regression, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.5;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1), age younger than 40 years (OR, 1.6;95% CI, 1.2-2.2), and coincidental upper respiratory tract illness (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 3.2-6.6) were independently associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms. In the multivariate model, vaccine again was not associated with systemic symptoms (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.2).

Conclusions: Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults is not associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms when compared with placebo injection. These findings should be useful to physicians and other health care providers as they counsel patients to take advantage of an important opportunity for disease prevention and health protection."

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In other words, 35% of the population will report adverse effects after getting a saline injection. This was true long before Covid and its vaccines ever came along. The fact that 7 or 8% of the conservative population that got vaccinated "believe" that their major adverse effects were due to the vaccine does not mean those effects actually were.

This is not a scientific study of what actually happened, it is a public opinion poll of what the conservative public imagined happened.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Kenzo

What you're seeing isn't an accurate representation of scientific truth, but instead a cross section of public opinion.

America is saturated with fake stories about people who have been harmed by the vax, people are merely reflecting that. You get the same thing when asked about rape on college campuses. The truth is that most are actually safer than the US in general, but the surveys show that people think that they are more dangerous.

There is no much truth in what you are saying.
America is actually saturated with fake stories that the vaccine is safe and effective and by getting vaccinated you protect yourself, others, and granny.
The campaign of vaccination has failed.
There is no need to fight this one. This is a lost cause.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

And as usual you can't counter basic math, so you try to change the subject.

People can rise up all they want, but I'm still right, and I've debunked you once again.

You didn't debunk anything ever.

The Rasmussen poll results match the CDC v-safe data which is a 10 million person sample size. The severe side effects rate is 7-8% in both.

The first thing to know is that the Rasmussen poll is considered a conservative organization. You can see that from the fact that nationwide, only about 18% of the population is totally unvaccinated, yet the group that Rasmussen selected reported 32% unvaccinated. Studies from a year ago showed that there is up to a 20 point difference in vaccine acceptance between Blue areas and Red areas of the country, with Blue areas having up to 90% acceptance. So the Rasmussen group appears to be a lot more conservative than average.

The second thing to know is the actual wording of the poll questions. Here's what they asked:

1 How effective are COVID-19 vaccines at preventing infection with the virus?

2 How concerned are you that COVID-19 vaccines may have major side effects?

3 Have you received a COVID-19 vaccination?

4 (Asked of 680 Adults Who Received a Covid-19 Vaccine) Do you believe you have experienced major side effects, minor side effects, or no side effects from your COVID-19 vaccination?

www.rasmussenreports.com...

Look at question #1. If the pollsters wanted to know objectively how effective vaccines are or are not in preventing infection there are a ton of scientific studies out there that discuss this in excruciating detail. A random citizen on the street would have no way of knowing objectively what the mathematical answer to that question is unless they read all the articles and follow the statistical arguments. All they can do is say what their hunch is. Question #3 is the only one that asks about something factual within the knowledge base of the poll respondent and not what the respondent believes or feels. Question #4 asked the people to self-report what they "believed" caused their side effects not what they had a doctors' diagnosis for. Neither did they provide any quantitative definition for "major" or "minor" side effects. Again, there are a ton of scientific research articles out there that use a consistent definition of "adverse side effects" and deal with how many adverse effects are actually attributable to vaccination, after you remove all the other explanations.

The third thing to know is that the public is really crappy at figuring out what caused themselves to experience some kind of adverse effect. Here's a study from 1994 comparing how often people reported adverse effects from getting the flu vaccine compared to people who reported adverse effects from getting a placebo shot:

"Side effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy working adults. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial"

"Background: Concern about side effects is a barrier to influenza vaccination. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed side effects following vaccination among healthy working adults.

Methods: Healthy working adults were recruited during October and November 1994 and were randomized to receive influenza vaccine or placebo injections. Local and systemic symptoms during the week following the injection were evaluated through structured telephone interviews.

Results: Of 849 subjects enrolled in the study, 425 received a placebo and 424 received influenza vaccine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, and 99% of subjects completed interviews to assess side effects after the study injection. No differences were seen between the 2 groups for the systemic symptoms of fever, myalgias, fatigue, malaise, or headaches. Overall, 35.2% of placebo and 34.1% of vaccine recipients reported at least 1 of these systemic symptoms (P = .78, chi 2). Vaccine recipients reported a higher rate of arm soreness at the injection site than did placebo recipients (63.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). Local reactions were mild in both groups and infrequently resulted in decreased use of the arm. After logistic regression, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.5;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1), age younger than 40 years (OR, 1.6;95% CI, 1.2-2.2), and coincidental upper respiratory tract illness (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 3.2-6.6) were independently associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms. In the multivariate model, vaccine again was not associated with systemic symptoms (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.2).

Conclusions: Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults is not associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms when compared with placebo injection. These findings should be useful to physicians and other health care providers as they counsel patients to take advantage of an important opportunity for disease prevention and health protection."

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In other words, 35% of the population will report adverse effects after getting a saline injection. This was true long before Covid and its vaccines ever came along. The fact that 7 or 8% of the conservative population that got vaccinated "believe" that their major adverse effects were due to the vaccine does not mean those effects actually were.

This is not a scientific study of what actually happened, it is a public opinion poll of what the conservative public imagined happened.

Thanks for you biased opinions but we don't need vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and truth.

The Rasmussen Organisation is a conservative organisation??

Well the CNN and most other major MSM are left wing organisations that shape public opinion and base their tactics on fear, terror, deception, hysteria and paranoia.

If you are not sure of how effective are the vaccines for preventing transmission and infection it is better to ask Pfizer! They forgot of course to check as they were moving at the speed of science! It doesn't matter as we know their products don't prevent transmission and infection nor they reduce it significantly.

UK Health Security Agency , the propaganda arm is doing vaccine propaganda , using Christmass & Santa . Has the UK gone Full mad ?


Santa gets boosted

a reply to: AaarghZombies


Did you have the Pfizer jab ? 1p36 deletion syndrome is listed in Pfizer adverse events...

1p36 deletion syndrome, which results in severe intellectual disability

a reply to: Kenzo

After decades of dumbing down its population via severely underfunded day-borstals (sorry, I mean comprehensive schools), and a steady diet of 24/7 junk culture I can confirm that the U.K. has indeed gone FULL mad

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
America is saturated with fake stories about people who have been harmed by the vax.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The 8% is in line with the 7.7% reported by the v safe data base that had a sample size of 10 million.

Game over.

And what do you consider to be a serious side effect?

What do you consider to be a fake story?

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
America is saturated with fake stories about people who have been harmed by the vax.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The 8% is in line with the 7.7% reported by the v safe data base that had a sample size of 10 million.

Game over.

And what do you consider to be a serious side effect?

What do you consider to be a fake story?

I can answer this with confidence!
What the vaccine apologists and lockdown advocates consider a fake story is one which doesn't support the narrative in relation to the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines and the massive success of the lockdowns.

Lately we have noted a lot of Pfizer defenders...

Eventhough there would be more and more vaxxed Americans and generally vaxxed people all of the world who will be reporting more and more unpleasant side effects and debilitating conditions, there would be also more and more desperate attempts to defend the pharmaceuticals and apologise for the various vaccine injuries.

Just watching the latest video release from Dr John Campbell in the UK.
For those of you not familiar with him, he has followed the whole plandemic since 2020. He has gone from espousing the jab to diametrically the opposite view.... well, as far as You Tube regulations allow him. I love what he has as a 'backdrop' to his videos btw, very clever!
Anyhoo, this current video (posted yesterday at time of my writing) is really interesting. He's taking a look at the Chinese vaccine. As most of you know, China did not adopt the mRNA technology, but preferred to stick to the 'old fashioned' vaccines.
At 8 minutes in, he asks a very pertinent question, "Why didn't we adopt this method of vaccination?" Bam! I had a lightbulb moment: What if one of the vaccine control groups wasn't even say saline, but the Chinese vaccine? See where I'm going with this?

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: McGinty


Sadly , i am afraid it is larger trend Globally, and not just UK .

a reply to: nugget1

I'm fairly certain I have ANA tests as part of mine as the medication I'm on can harm the immune system, alongside anti-coagulants and liverfunction tests.

Not sure how things work in the US but in UK/Europe every professional medical body has conducted multiple studies and gathered data as part of Phase IV monitoring and developed treatments - neuro stuff comes under RaDAR, clots under HDR-BHF etc....with a dataset of 46m adults in UK plus longitudinal studies and evidence shows rates are ~1 in 1,000,000.

Pretty certain the US has their own internal professional review systems but unsure of their names myself.

a reply to: angelchemuel


Yeeh Dr.Campbell has show how views should change as more information comes from vaccines. It's great that person can change view, and in public.


I dont have knowledge about the control groups , so hard to comment . Did you mean like Pfizer trial control groups ? The recent wde lockdowns in China makes doubt their vaccines efficacy....thought i dont have information how much vaccines were even used there.

I believe we are not getting over this disease until we get acclimated to it using current medication.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Putting the motives, good or bad aside, i think it's difficult to deny that the narrative has been highly controlled and manipulated in favour of the vaccines. To suggest that anti-vaxxers have had anywhere near as much control over the narrative is disingenuous.

Maybe those doing the official manipulating have good intentions and believe it's our best chance - i'm sure many on the front lines do.

But the force, reach and indoctrination of message has been, but for a squeezed margin, one-way traffic

a reply to: angelchemuel

I'm too dense to work out where you're going Jane, but i can i come?

If the UK was ruled by honourable folk, then Dr Campbell would be on the xmas honours list. He's been a consistently impartial source of priceless commentary on current medical events. I love the guy - what a gent!

But of course we live in a land ruled by greedy lords and their venal dogsbodies in parliament, so the honours as usual will go to has been celebrities who are future stars of Yewtree and anyone that's turned a blind eye to a poedo aristocrat, or facilitated a dodgy contract for a tory

One question for vaccine proponents. Do you still believe that any of the vaccines are effective? By effective, does the vaccine prevent infection or transmission? I mean that is the whole point of a vaccine, right?

originally posted by: panoz77
One question for vaccine proponents. Do you still believe that any of the vaccines are effective? By effective, does the vaccine prevent infection or transmission? I mean that is the whole point of a vaccine, right?

In their ads and in what everyone said it was safe and effective because you couldn’t get it or transmit it.