The mathematics of adverse events of special interest following mRNA Covid-19 vaccination

They just don't care about the adverse events. The bidens have proven with all their other failures that caused a lot of unnecessary deaths, that they can look anyone right in the eye with a smile on their faces, while one of their people comes up behind you and takes away your life. Just like old school mafioso. Because they are being paid well to do it and likely there is some form of blackmail in there that began some time ago.

They are the type with a career of being bought off and they embraced it to live the lifestyle they currently have. Everyone else as far as they are concerned are to be used up like kitchen paper. It's what they have been doing at taxpayer expense for many decades. Quite the sad legacy.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
But, but, if you just simply go to Google and type in ‘is the Covid’ - you will see that Google auto fills the rest for you: ‘is the Covid vaccine safe?’ And then if you click search on that, you will very clearly see all of pages telling you how safe and effective it is.

So, yeah. There’s that.

I think Google is quickly falling into the same category, as "The "Daily Mail", and the growing list of sketchy websites.Google displays what it is paid to display, truth doesn't have anything to do with it.

originally posted by: Albert999
So glad you made this post.

I'm sure the usual suspects who promote the covid vaccine will purposely avoid this thread line the plague.

When they show up in other threads, I'm just going to post them a link to this thread and say "come back once you have acknowledged this data"

Whenever the conversation is about actual numbers or estimated figures via peer reviewed publications or when actual cases are presented of deaths and vaccine injuries, the vaccine apologists lockdown advocates, and denialists of reality, are usually absent, or if present they try to divert the attention with meaningless conversations.

I have noted they are absent when conversations about the origins of the virus are going on.

originally posted by: Albert999
So glad you made this post.

I'm sure the usual suspects who promote the covid vaccine will purposely avoid this thread at all costs.

When they show up in other threads, I'm just going to post them a link to this thread and say "come back once you have acknowledged this data"

Why, there's nothing new or unusual here?

It shows that serious reactions are exceedingly rare, and that most people will simply have a cold and flu like reaction that's well known with vaxxes in general.

originally posted by: 38181
a reply to: BelleEpoque

I don’t get why they keep pushing the Covid vax when anyone who wanted it or were forced to get it, all have received it by now.

Even in the usajobs government hiring website there’s a disclaimer stating the vax isn’t mandatory at this time.

I keep saying this: Revisit the Deagle world population forecast for 2025 that was published in 2014 then promptly withdrawn.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Albert999
So glad you made this post.

I'm sure the usual suspects who promote the covid vaccine will purposely avoid this thread at all costs.

When they show up in other threads, I'm just going to post them a link to this thread and say "come back once you have acknowledged this data"

Why, there's nothing new or unusual here?

It shows that serious reactions are exceedingly rare, and that most people will simply have a cold and flu like reaction that's well known with vaxxes in general.

Erm... No! They are not! 1 in 800 serious adverse reactions makes it quite common. It would have been rare if you have 1 in a million.

1 in 800 is a major reason why the mRNA vaccines must be withdrawn from the market.

The Swine Flu vaccine and the Rotavirus vaccines were withdrawn from the market for lower rates of serious adverse reactions. And rightfully so.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The CDC stop publishing causes of death in the United States in 2020. Very suspicious.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The CDC stop publishing causes of death in the United States in 2020. Very suspicious.

Scandalous!

a reply to: carewemust

No, no they didn't. You can just plain go ask for them.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

1 in 800 serious adverse reactions makes it quite common.

Can you find me that section of the report that has the "1 in 800" statistic?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

1 in 800 serious adverse reactions makes it quite common.

Can you find me that section of the report that has the "1 in 800" statistic?

You said this isn't a high rate of serious adverse reactions. Which means you accepted the figure. Are you now questioning the same thing you accepted a little while ago?!

Desperate attempts!!

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I understand that you are not an expert. That's fine. I also understand you don't have any qualifications in any relevant areas, and by your own admission. But you should be able, at least to read the paper that you are trying to comment, by engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. You are also defending the pharmaceutical companies.

originally posted by: Albert999

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Albert999
So glad you made this post.

I'm sure the usual suspects who promote the covid vaccine will purposely avoid this thread line the plague.

When they show up in other threads, I'm just going to post them a link to this thread and say "come back once you have acknowledged this data"

I did see that you asked for a thread in relation to the video made by Dr John Campbell. However I have been reading the paper that I have linked and I realised that Dr Campbell has also linked the paper in his video.

So here you have it.

I did wonder! So many thanks ☺️👍🏼

No problem!
It's my pleasure to create these threads.
I know that the vaccine apologists and defenders of the pharmaceutical companies despise these threads... But the truth must be revealed!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

1 in 800 serious adverse reactions makes it quite common.

Can you find me that section of the report that has the "1 in 800" statistic?

You said this isn't a high rate of serious adverse reactions. Which means you accepted the figure. Are you now questioning the same thing you accepted a little while ago?!

Desperate attempts!!

Nope, I'm simply asking you to find me that section of the report that uses the "1 in 800" figure.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I understand that you are not an expert. That's fine. I also understand you don't have any qualifications in any relevant areas, and by your own admission. But you should be able, at least to read the paper that you are trying to comment, by engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. You are also defending the pharmaceutical companies.

You misunderstand.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
12.5 per 10,000?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

1 in 800 serious adverse reactions makes it quite common.

Can you find me that section of the report that has the "1 in 800" statistic?

You said this isn't a high rate of serious adverse reactions. Which means you accepted the figure. Are you now questioning the same thing you accepted a little while ago?!

Desperate attempts!!

Nope, I'm simply asking you to find me that section of the report that uses the "1 in 800" figure.

The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's 1.8/1,000. Which is actually higher than 1/800

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
12.5 per 10,000?

That's actually more basic math than I've seen done on this forum in months.

You win a gold-is star.

For bonus marks, tell me, what is that number once you remove the 97 people who reported serious reactions but who were in the placebo group?

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

But notably includes 97 people who were in the placebo group.