Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Are you under the impression posting here is compulsory?

I have already said why reported reactions are so high.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Are you under the impression posting here is compulsory?

I have already said why reported reactions are so high.

You can take a look at the threads we have all created when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread. Then you re asking other for sources and claiming that you provide more sources...

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Are you under the impression posting here is compulsory?

I have already said why reported reactions are so high.

You can take a look at the threads we have all created when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread. Then you re asking other for sources and claiming that you provide more sources...

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Your tendency to repeat yourself has already been observed. Quantity isn't much of an indicator of quality.

As evidenced by your refusal to answer a simple question about a statement you made.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You have to support your fellow vaccine apologist who was refuted earlier in the thread. But I don't see you are attempting to do so.

He cannot use the case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. Need the infection fatality rates. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is completely false. He needs to take into consideration those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor symptoms and never get tested, a large number of people as it seems.


The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....
Magical I would say.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

"It is absolutely not a "general" truth that "actual logical discussion are not possible on this topic"."

You could have fooled me.

Then you're not paying attention...

Also, that was me that said that, not ElectricUniverse.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You have to support your fellow vaccine apologist who was refuted earlier in the thread. But I don't see you are attempting to do so.

He cannot use the case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. Need the infection fatality rates. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is completely false. He needs to take into consideration those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor symptoms and never get tested, a large number of people as it seems.


The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....
Magical I would say.

Did you miss the part where I again agreed that IFR is the superior measure?


Or is it you pay no attention to what people actually post and just keep spam posting the same things over and over?

Maybe that's why you can't answer a simple question.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Are you under the impression posting here is compulsory?

I have already said why reported reactions are so high.

You can take a look at the threads we have all created when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread. Then you re asking other for sources and claiming that you provide more sources...

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Your tendency to repeat yourself has already been observed. Quantity isn't much of an indicator of quality.

As evidenced by your refusal to answer a simple question about a statement you made.

Or perhaps you may want to comment on the replies by a fellow member who also has questions about VAERS.

For the last time, 13 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine has been given world wide.

And he continued when I pointed out that there are at least 5.5 billion people in the planet who have been vaccinated with the junk products. here is the rest

Not my calculation, an actual number by actual credible sources which I've linked. Something you've failed to do even once.

You're pushing an agenda. Q-anon drivel.

I reject your 5.5 billion number. I haven't seen that from a credible source. Facebook doesn't count. Even if so, it only further proves my point.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You have to support your fellow vaccine apologist who was refuted earlier in the thread. But I don't see you are attempting to do so.

He cannot use the case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. Need the infection fatality rates. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is completely false. He needs to take into consideration those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor symptoms and never get tested, a large number of people as it seems.


The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....
Magical I would say.

Did you miss the part where I again agreed that IFR is the superior measure?


Or is it you pay no attention to what people actually post and just keep spam posting the same things over and over?

Maybe that's why you can't answer a simple question.

I think you are trying to evade the conversation about the flawed arguments created by the OP. Everything is wrong. Numbers, statistics, and analysis.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There's no clear comparative data sets and that's the fact. When writing a compare and contrast data analysis you need commonality, in this case there's a clear disparity when looking at several of the factors involved.

First of all you need to create a list of the features that A + B have in common. It appears you're trying to compare the deaths resulting from the vaccine and deaths resulting from Covid.

So our frame of reference would be "Deaths", in order to perform a statistical analysis we need a reliable and trustworthy source of information. Unfortunately the inconsistency in mass testing over time renders the official data obsolete. The initial test data can also be discounted due to a conflict of interest from the gene therapy manufacturers.

So, i ask, how are YOU able to perform a data analytical comparison without meeting the criteria required to do so?

Provide the data sets and i'll do it properly for you. Unfortunately they don't exist as far as i'm aware. From where i sit the data has been deliberately manipulated to sell a product with very little independent research or investigation.

Until Pfizer release the RAW data, until we run independent safety tests using double blind methods i'm dubious to say the least. I'm even less convinced by your simplification of what's a rather complex field and your posturing as some kind of authority.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Are you under the impression posting here is compulsory?

I have already said why reported reactions are so high.

You can take a look at the threads we have all created when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread. Then you re asking other for sources and claiming that you provide more sources...

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Your tendency to repeat yourself has already been observed. Quantity isn't much of an indicator of quality.

As evidenced by your refusal to answer a simple question about a statement you made.

Or perhaps you may want to comment on the replies by a fellow member who also has questions about VAERS.

For the last time, 13 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine has been given world wide.

And he continued when I pointed out that there are at least 5.5 billion people in the planet who have been vaccinated with the junk products. here is the rest

Not my calculation, an actual number by actual credible sources which I've linked. Something you've failed to do even once.

You're pushing an agenda. Q-anon drivel.

I reject your 5.5 billion number. I haven't seen that from a credible source. Facebook doesn't count. Even if so, it only further proves my point.

Changing subject?

If someone has posted that I assume they can't tell the difference between million and billion.

Your turn. How do you do risk benefit without comparing vaccines and the virus?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You have to support your fellow vaccine apologist who was refuted earlier in the thread. But I don't see you are attempting to do so.

He cannot use the case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. Need the infection fatality rates. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is completely false. He needs to take into consideration those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor symptoms and never get tested, a large number of people as it seems.


The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....
Magical I would say.

Did you miss the part where I again agreed that IFR is the superior measure?


Or is it you pay no attention to what people actually post and just keep spam posting the same things over and over?

Maybe that's why you can't answer a simple question.

I think you are trying to evade the conversation about the flawed arguments created by the OP. Everything is wrong. Numbers, statistics, and analysis.

As demonstrated the person evading is you.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

There's no clear comparative data sets and that's the fact. When writing a compare and contrast data analysis you need commonality, in this case there's a clear disparity when looking at several of the factors involved.

First of all you need to create a list of the features that A + B have in common. It appears you're trying to compare the deaths resulting from the vaccine and deaths resulting from Covid.

So our frame of reference would be "Deaths", in order to perform a statistical analysis we need a reliable and trustworthy source of information. Unfortunately the inconsistency in mass testing over time renders the official data obsolete. The initial test data can also be discounted due to a conflict of interest from the gene therapy manufacturers.

So, i ask, how are YOU able to perform a data analytical comparison without meeting the criteria required to do so?

Provide the data sets and i'll do it properly for you. Unfortunately they don't exist as far as i'm aware.

While the data is imperfect it is certainly possible to conduct risk benefit analysis of covid vaccines.

Asmode claimed you compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses. Tha is clearly incorrect.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Provide me with sources of data which you would like a comparison drawn from and i'll do so without bias.

I need a frame of reference, factors, features and outcomes.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Are you under the impression posting here is compulsory?

I have already said why reported reactions are so high.

You can take a look at the threads we have all created when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread. Then you re asking other for sources and claiming that you provide more sources...

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

Your tendency to repeat yourself has already been observed. Quantity isn't much of an indicator of quality.

As evidenced by your refusal to answer a simple question about a statement you made.

Or perhaps you may want to comment on the replies by a fellow member who also has questions about VAERS.

For the last time, 13 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine has been given world wide.

And he continued when I pointed out that there are at least 5.5 billion people in the planet who have been vaccinated with the junk products. here is the rest

Not my calculation, an actual number by actual credible sources which I've linked. Something you've failed to do even once.

You're pushing an agenda. Q-anon drivel.

I reject your 5.5 billion number. I haven't seen that from a credible source. Facebook doesn't count. Even if so, it only further proves my point.

Changing subject?

If someone has posted that I assume they can't tell the difference between million and billion.

Your turn. How do you do risk benefit without comparing vaccines and the virus?

Yes exactly they can't tell the difference between a million and a billion and don't know what the risk benefit analysis is.

You don't compare vaccines to viruses just as your fellow vaccine apologists do. The risk to benefit analysis is something very different and takes into account whether some age or risks groups wil be benefited by vaccination. Not how many people will be killed by either of them.