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

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Why? Are you implying that this minuscule amount of variance would sway someone from making a fatal mistake by either taking or not taking an experimental shot that the government really wants you to take but also makes sure to not make it necessary for themselves to take?

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Why? Are you implying that this minuscule amount of variance would sway someone from making a fatal mistake by either taking or not taking an experimental shot that the government really wants you to take but also makes sure to not make it necessary for themselves to take?

I'm demonstrating that people on this forum don't understand the data that their reading.

You see the headline number, and don't understand that 1 in 4 of those people hadn't even had the vax.

Now factor in the number of people who actually had covid, and the number of people who issues that were completely unrelated to the vax and suddenly that 1 in 800 starts to drop dramatically.

This information is included in the report, but either don't seem to have read it, or you read it and didn't understand it.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

What number is too high for you 1 in what?

Answer it I dare you.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

So Dr. Campbell, who is trained in statistical analysis, doesn't know what he's reading??

Come on man. I know it gets harder and harder as the days go by, and deaths and evidence mount, to find ways to avoid the truth that is staring you in the face, but surely you can do better than that.

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.

Please address why you think this vax shouldn't have been pulled like previous ones, where way less people were affected.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Why? Are you implying that this minuscule amount of variance would sway someone from making a fatal mistake by either taking or not taking an experimental shot that the government really wants you to take but also makes sure to not make it necessary for themselves to take?

I'm demonstrating that people on this forum don't understand the data that their reading.

You see the headline number, and don't understand that 1 in 4 of those people hadn't even had the vax.

Now factor in the number of people who actually had covid, and the number of people who issues that were completely unrelated to the vax and suddenly that 1 in 800 starts to drop dramatically.

This information is included in the report, but either don't seem to have read it, or you read it and didn't understand it.

You a freaking nobody will not be allowed to say he is incorrect. Please provide a source with qualifications better than his to say his interpretation is false.

And answer my question and quit acting like a coward.

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.

Have a look at the paper itself that I have provided and then do a simple division. Then have a look at the video by Dr Campbell if you can't divide the numbers.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Answere the question.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: AaarghZombies

So Dr. Campbell, who is trained in statistical analysis, doesn't know what he's reading??

Come on man. I know it gets harder and harder as the days go by, and deaths and evidence mount, to find ways to avoid the truth that is staring you in the face, but surely you can do better than that.

The same user in other threads has been going around and has been claiming that herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be achieved or has been achieved in his country! This was part of the narrative to justify mass and mandatory vaccinations.

However nobody claims anymore (apart from very few exceptions) that herd immunity can be achieved via vaccinations.

The arguments presented by Mr Zombies have been repeatedly refuted.

Let's see some of the literature here
All the links can be found in my other thread: The Myth of Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2
You can find them in the opening page.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

Herd immunity, where a pathogen can no longer efficiently spread in a population, is achieved when a large proportion of the population becomes immune, making the spread of infection from person to person unlikely and protecting those without immunity. Despite the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, the failure of virus- and vaccine-induced immunity to prevent transmission, combined with the emergence of antigenically distinct variants, has made herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 unachievable thus far

I am impressed with the level of denialism in this thread and in the other thread which discussed herd immunity.

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.

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?!

You arguments are in a turmoil.
Take a look at how Dr Campbell has derived the simple result. It's a rather basic calculation. You don't seem to be reading any of the papers and you are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

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?

In this post I am amazed someone has given you a star!!!!

It seems it's not only you who can't read or doesn't want to read the literature or even some basic information.

Not only I provided the link from the National Institutes of Health but I have given the link to Dr Campbell's YouTube video who discusses these numbers and gives the same links.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Answere the question.

He doesn't seem to able to answer the question or he can't as the answer doesn't suit his narrative.

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

What that might be??
Please bring the supercomputers as we are having serious issues with such complex calculations. And back to the queue for the your fourth, fifth, and sixth booster.

I just want him to say 1 in _____ is not acceptable.

Very reasonable and would prove a lot of things about the validity of his post.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
I just want him to say 1 in _____ is not acceptable.

Very reasonable and would prove a lot of things about the validity of his post.

I wonder about the statistic that he 'couldn't find'.

Regardless of what someone thinks of other vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market with a lower rate of serious adverse reactions, the 1 in 800 is a massive number for any vaccine and we only talk about the short term effects.

This was apparent after Australia locked down for ‘two weeks to flatten the curve’ and then after our politicians excused themselves from having to be vaccinated I stopped listening, reading or complying.

I did have limited success and this is about the only place I blabbered and whinged about mans inhumanity to man.

It was (is) a scam and an evil being perpetrated through diabolical marketing.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

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 would hazard a guess and say that the vaccination stats aren’t as high as they claim, all lies like the rest of the putrescence they vomit.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Why? Are you implying that this minuscule amount of variance would sway someone from making a fatal mistake by either taking or not taking an experimental shot that the government really wants you to take but also makes sure to not make it necessary for themselves to take?

Yes.

That's the implication.

Makes perfect sense...

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Why? Are you implying that this minuscule amount of variance would sway someone from making a fatal mistake by either taking or not taking an experimental shot that the government really wants you to take but also makes sure to not make it necessary for themselves to take?

And is indemnified against taking responsibility for!

I just want him to say 1 in _____ is not acceptable.

Very reasonable and would prove a lot of things about the validity of his post.