Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

You look at the effectivness of vaccine on the population you wish to consider.

You look at likelihood of comparable reaction from vaccine for same population.

You may want to consider weighting between outcomes.

The point being you have to compare vaccines and the virus to understand the risks and benefits.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

You look at the effectivness of vaccine on the population you wish to consider.

You look at likelihood of comparable reaction from vaccine for same population.

You may want to consider weighting between outcomes.

The point being you have to compare vaccines and the virus to understand the risks and benefits.

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.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

You're a big boy, i'm sure you can fight your own corner without resorting to mud slinging.

I'm reading back through the thread now, there's every chance i might call out Asmodeus for something as well.

Despite what you might think, my brusque approach to debate is generally civil.

And medical issues could just as easily prevent a member posting. So far you haven't called out either of the posters making a point about infrequent posting.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

You look at the effectivness of vaccine on the population you wish to consider.

You look at likelihood of comparable reaction from vaccine for same population.

You may want to consider weighting between outcomes.

The point being you have to compare vaccines and the virus to understand the risks and benefits.

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.

How do they work out if they would benefit without comparing?

a reply to: ScepticScot

The risk to benefit analysis has been covered in one of my threads here


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

It features a well known peer reviewed paper.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No, you would need data preferably from an independent laboratory study which compares unvaccinated outcomes of infection with those vaccinated. Nobody in the medical industry is going to fund such a study, why kill your own cash cow.

If the vaccines offer any benefit at all the fact we're even having this conversation suggests it's minimal.

Until such data is available and such studies are carried out we'll simply never know. If only Pfizer hadn't vaccinated the test subjects before generating the data and rendering the results useless.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

The risk to benefit analysis has been covered in one of my threads here


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

It features a well known peer reviewed paper.

Yet you still can't answer how they do it without comparing.

Strange that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

You look at the effectivness of vaccine on the population you wish to consider.

You look at likelihood of comparable reaction from vaccine for same population.

You may want to consider weighting between outcomes.

The point being you have to compare vaccines and the virus to understand the risks and benefits.

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.

How do they work out if they would benefit without comparing?

You don't make the comparisons the vaccine apologists do. How many people have been killed by the vaccines and how many people have been killed by the virus.

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

Take a look.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

No, you would need data preferably from an independent laboratory study which compares unvaccinated outcomes of infection with those vaccinated. Nobody in the medical industry is going to fund such a study, why kill your own cash cow.

If they vaccines offer any benefit at all the fact we're even having this conversation suggests it's minimal.

Until such data is available and such studies are carried out we'll simply never know. If only Pfizer hadn't vaccinated the test subjects before generating the data and rendering the results useless.

No it wouldn't be a lab study at all.

It would analysis of real world observed outcomes.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

The risk to benefit analysis has been covered in one of my threads here


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

It features a well known peer reviewed paper.

Yet you still can't answer how they do it without comparing.

Strange that.

I have already answered and it is in my thread which I have created long time ago. It's all yours and take a look.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

You look at the effectivness of vaccine on the population you wish to consider.

You look at likelihood of comparable reaction from vaccine for same population.

You may want to consider weighting between outcomes.

The point being you have to compare vaccines and the virus to understand the risks and benefits.

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.

How do they work out if they would benefit without comparing?

You don't make the comparisons the vaccine apologists do. How many people have been killed by the vaccines and how many people have been killed by the virus.

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

Take a look.

You don't make comparisons.

People conducting risk benefits analysis do

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

The risk to benefit analysis has been covered in one of my threads here


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

It features a well known peer reviewed paper.

Yet you still can't answer how they do it without comparing.

Strange that.

I have already answered and it is in my thread which I have created long time ago. It's all yours and take a look.

Yet you can't answer here

Strange.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

The risk to benefit analysis has been covered in one of my threads here


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

It features a well known peer reviewed paper.

Yet you still can't answer how they do it without comparing.

Strange that.

What I find strange is the inability of the vaccine apologists to create any valid arguments and try to deflect in all sort of directions.

You 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.

You don't seem to have pointed out the flaws of the arguments, analysis and statistics.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope, unless vaccination status is factored into the data sets then all you have is speculation.

To perform an accurate comparative analysis you require this factor to be considered.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

I don't know those members or have an insight into their character. Carpy on the other hand is generally civil, even if he's annoying as hell.

He also posted a very similar critique of a post i made which i redacted after reconsidering my approach. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't see how reducing the thread to insults benefits anyone, unless that's the intention?

I will give you benefit of the doubt the irony of this post was deliberate.