Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

Is 2/4 the same as 1/2

Asking for a friend.

That is not the point of this. 1 per 800 was used over and over and I asked 3 times where that came from and got no answer. On my own research 12.5 per 10,000 was the only thing I could find in relationship to it and was still out of context to how the 1 per 800 was being used.

So, what is your point again?

Ok

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I know what it is for. You are apparently determined to ignore the huge problem posed when you take into account the huge number of reports, it is statistically impossible for these to not be whosing a huuuge problem, especially when compared to all other vaccines over the last 30+ years.

Well first, a couple of years before the pandemic Harvard did a study and only about 1% of cases were being reported to VAERS. Once the pandemic hit and then the vaccines were rolled out CDC mandated its use and millions of people became aware of it that before never knew it existed, so was the increase in reports due to the vaccines or the mandate and awareness that generated reports more than in the past?

The important takeaway from all this is it doesn't matter how many reports, more the better, the real point is after investigating them only about 1% or less are determined to be related. This is how they can get relationships like 4 per 100,000 for severe events that are too rare to be seen in the initial studies to determine good numbers.

When someone uses the raw numbers and say they are all real cases then that is wrong, misleading, and agenda driven.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

You did get get an answer..... eventually.
This link was provided for you by Asmodeus3...did you miss it?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is a link to yt on the page...... it's written there.

Never saw that, and that came out after I asked first where the numbers came from. Asmodeus3 could have just told me too...lol

From Asmodeus3 post...

The vaccines are still in use eventhough the serious adverse reactions is a massive 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinees!!!

Once again this is used out of context and doesn't represent what cases are actually serious illnesses and is 12.5 per 10,000 a big issue or not. Seems the experts do not see it as a concerning number.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If I am reading that right it is 1 adverse reaction per 800 vaccines. that's a lot.
That's 125 adverse reactions large or small out of a medium sized city of 100,000. The factor goes up even higher when you realise its per vaccine, not per person. and most of hte jabbed have had 3 by now.
so its more like 375 people with reactions out of 100,000 at least.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: Xtrozero

If I am reading that right it is 1 adverse reaction per 800 vaccines. that's a lot.
That's 125 adverse reactions large or small out of a medium sized city of 100,000. The factor goes up even higher when you realise its per vaccine, not per person. and most of hte jabbed have had 3 by now.
so its more like 375 people with reactions out of 100,000 at least.

Yep

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Like the lottery, the more injections you get, the better your chances of hitting the jackpot.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

If I am reading that right it is 1 adverse reaction per 800 vaccines. that's a lot.
That's 125 adverse reactions large or small out of a medium sized city of 100,000. The factor goes up even higher when you realise its per vaccine, not per person. and most of hte jabbed have had 3 by now.
so its more like 375 people with reactions out of 100,000 at least.

So out of 44,000 people in the initial testing they came up with this 12.5 per 10,000. The deal is the list of what they called adverse reactions is huge and that doesn't mean the adverse reactions were actually not mild. How they determine the 12.5 is a little different too. As example they say 6 people out of 44,000 showed signs of myocarditis, but 5 people out of the placebo group also showed signs of myocarditis, so that extra 1 is added into the overall 12.5 even if the cases were easily treatable. I looked up New Zealand that out of almost 12 million shots shows a 3 per 10,000 adverse reactions that once again is off a laundry list of reactions and doesn't imply the actual level of illness with each case other than they had some level of a reaction.

I don't know the real numbers but if the adverse reactions were 3 per 10,000, but only 5% went to the hospital then that there is a truer picture to what is actually safe or not, and why the experts can say serious reactions are rare with 12.5 per 10,000.

As a comparison, normal aspirin has a death rate of 1.4 per 10,000 in men over 50 who use it to thin their blood out, so just think what the adverse reactions might be.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It doesn't matter. No amount of evidence will work.

Everybody that actually knows about VAERS and public health knows that until these vaccines were approved there wasn't a single credible shred of evidence that adverse events reported were anything other than a small fraction of the real numbers. You can pull testimony from government agencies, which I did, or any amount of data you want and it doesn't matter. I have still yet to see where the source of this "VAERS is way over reported" nonsense is and I have no doubt it's somebody peddling a pharma PR checklist with some purely fictional reason that sounds good to the ignorant. Everybody pro vax wants empircal data, official statements, and peer-reviewed studies, right up until they don't and choose to believe utter tripe that just happened to become "facts" after 2019.

That the CDC seems reluctant to investigate and that the FDA never did any risk/benefit analysis for approving the vax for the lowest risk demographics is all one really needs to know. They have a 50 million dollar pharma PR team embedded at the CDC, but no 50 million dollar pathology team following up on VAERS or doing autopsies of sudden death syndrome. Sentinel data for cancers has identified clusters in the past when as few as a dozen people show clinical similarities. Now we have over a million reports of adverse events after the deployment of an EUA vaccine, using a delivery system that has been a high mortality failure in all previous attempts to prove it safe in normal transparent studies, in a sentinel system and that doesn't merit as much fiscal investment as pharma PR.

Good luck convincing people that believe the same "authorities" that lied about efficacy, transmission, duration, and even down to manipulating trial data. Obviously those liars wouldn't lie about adverse events, fail to properly investigate things that will prove they lied, or make any attempts to discredit information that would show that this is all incredibly abnormal.

a reply to: Xtrozero


No the number 1 in 800 is not out of context. You have confused your arguments again as you have never read the initial peer reviewed paper. With so many actual serious adverse reactions and 98 per 10,000 for both Pfizer and Moderna and 12.5 per 10,000 more then the placebo group the vaccines should have never been released.

The scientists who have written the paper are asking for re-evaluation of the benefit to harm ratio and this has been discussed extensively.

Likewise Dr Campbell asks the same question. Nothing has been taken out of context. It could actually be much more than 12.5 per 10,000 given you don't know the medium and long term effects and certainly you didn't know ALL the short term effects during the trials but some of them which are still a lot.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Never saw that, and that came out after I asked first where the numbers came from. Asmodeus3 could have just told me too...lol

Have you read the link now?
Did you go to yt and watch the video yet?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

If I am reading that right it is 1 adverse reaction per 800 vaccines. that's a lot.
That's 125 adverse reactions large or small out of a medium sized city of 100,000. The factor goes up even higher when you realise its per vaccine, not per person. and most of hte jabbed have had 3 by now.
so its more like 375 people with reactions out of 100,000 at least.

So out of 44,000 people in the initial testing they came up with this 12.5 per 10,000. The deal is the list of what they called adverse reactions is huge and that doesn't mean the adverse reactions were actually not mild. How they determine the 12.5 is a little different too. As example they say 6 people out of 44,000 showed signs of myocarditis, but 5 people out of the placebo group also showed signs of myocarditis, so that extra 1 is added into the overall 12.5 even if the cases were easily treatable. I looked up New Zealand that out of almost 12 million shots shows a 3 per 10,000 adverse reactions that once again is off a laundry list of reactions and doesn't imply the actual level of illness with each case other than they had some level of a reaction.

I don't know the real numbers but if the adverse reactions were 3 per 10,000, but only 5% went to the hospital then that there is a truer picture to what is actually safe or not, and why the experts can say serious reactions are rare with 12.5 per 10,000.

As a comparison, normal aspirin has a death rate of 1.4 per 10,000 in men over 50 who use it to thin their blood out, so just think what the adverse reactions might be.

If you have an issue with Pfizer and Moderna you can write to them and provide your expertise on why did they come up with the numbers provided in the paper you have never read...

Other than that you are still engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

If I am reading that right it is 1 adverse reaction per 800 vaccines. that's a lot.
That's 125 adverse reactions large or small out of a medium sized city of 100,000. The factor goes up even higher when you realise its per vaccine, not per person. and most of hte jabbed have had 3 by now.
so its more like 375 people with reactions out of 100,000 at least.

So out of 44,000 people in the initial testing they came up with this 12.5 per 10,000. The deal is the list of what they called adverse reactions is huge and that doesn't mean the adverse reactions were actually not mild. How they determine the 12.5 is a little different too. As example they say 6 people out of 44,000 showed signs of myocarditis, but 5 people out of the placebo group also showed signs of myocarditis, so that extra 1 is added into the overall 12.5 even if the cases were easily treatable. I looked up New Zealand that out of almost 12 million shots shows a 3 per 10,000 adverse reactions that once again is off a laundry list of reactions and doesn't imply the actual level of illness with each case other than they had some level of a reaction.

I don't know the real numbers but if the adverse reactions were 3 per 10,000, but only 5% went to the hospital then that there is a truer picture to what is actually safe or not, and why the experts can say serious reactions are rare with 12.5 per 10,000.

As a comparison, normal aspirin has a death rate of 1.4 per 10,000 in men over 50 who use it to thin their blood out, so just think what the adverse reactions might be.

You are clearly trying to find excuses to dismiss the data. Earlier you were claiming that we got the numbers out of some less credible Bitchute videos. You were wrong.

Then you made the maths that 1 out of 1,000 is somehow different than 10 out of 10,000. Quite wrong I would say.

Now you are claiming that number isn't that high when you are admitting there are so many serious adverse reactions and then other vaccines have been withdrawn for lower rates of serious adverse reactions. You are still wrong again.

You are trying desperately to argue against the data but all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics and some weird form of defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Do you know what happened to the Astrazeneca vaccine?? Is no longer available in the country that has created it and most other countries have stopped its roll out. I wonder why?!

a reply to: Xtrozero

So out of 44,000 people in the initial testing they came up with this 12.5 per 10,000. The deal is the list of what they called adverse reactions is huge and that doesn't mean the adverse reactions were actually not mild.

Can you supply a link to where you are sourcing this from please?

I think we might be talking about a different 'testing'....... wires crossed or something?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The deal is the list of what they called adverse reactions is huge and that doesn't mean the adverse reactions were actually not mild.

This is from the paper that is in this link www.abovetopsecret.com... that was provided for you to read..... that talks about the 12.5 in 10,000.

The definition of a serious adverse event (SAE) was provided in each trial’s study protocol and included in the supplemental material of the trial’s publication. [2], [3], [4] Pfizer and Moderna used nearly identical definitions, consistent with regulatory expectations. An SAE was defined as an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions: death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgment.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Then you made the maths that 1 out of 1,000 is somehow different than 10 out of 10,000. Quite wrong I would say.

You keep saying this about my math so please link where my math has ever been wrong.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You can't really go to the hospital if you are dead on the field or public pharmacy or in your house?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The deal is the list of what they called adverse reactions is huge and that doesn't mean the adverse reactions were actually not mild.

AND "medically important event" such as a mild case of myocarditis.... Some are serious I agree, but that doesn't mean all.

a reply to: Xtrozero
The study is about serious adverse events.........

What study have you been reading?
Because you keep missing the word serious.......even using the word mild...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

Well first, a couple of years before the pandemic Harvard did a study and only about 1% of cases were being reported to VAERS.

If you're referring to their Pilgrim study, it covered 2006 thru 2009, so a teeny weeny bit more than a 'couple of years' ago.

So, now all you have to do is prove that "millions of people became aware of it (VAERS) that before never knew it existed"

the real point is after investigating them only about 1% or less are determined to be related.

Sure... if... if you actually believe these very same people who have been lying to the world about every single aspect of this plan/scam-demic.

Anyone who trusts a word these demons say or write ... well, I used to pity people like that, not any more, they have proven to be part of the problem, not the solution.

When someone uses the raw numbers and say they are all real cases then that is wrong, misleading, and agenda driven.

No one - no one - is saying that.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

You can't really go to the hospital if you are dead on the field or public pharmacy or in your house?

How many people died out of the 44,000 in the study?