Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DB said:

Careful, Sunday.

I had a look at the WONDER VAERS reporting system at the CDC here: 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

You need to jump through a number of pages to gain access to the data viewer, but it's clear immediately that the large number (650,077) is the total number of reports to VAERS where COVID-19 is reported as the vaccine that is suspected of causing the reported reaction. It is not the total number of people in the population who have been vaccinated - which stands at about 228 million fully vaccinated in the US. (and a fair number more with only one vaccination).

The VAERS data in the blog gives 0.003% cases of any adverse reactions.

The main problem I have is that I could not replicate the numbers from the blog's table, even with a data search including an extra week of data.

My search yields 618,339 adverse reaction events, with 7416 deaths. So the percentage of reports that result in death is 1.4%, but of the total number vaccinated it's 0.00003%

(There's rounding to 1 sf in the above numbers, but I think the gist is clear.)

The main caveat is that I've never used VAERS so I may be missing something, but it's clear that the 650,000 number from the blog is lines of data in  VAERS, not the total possible sample of vaccinated cases.

Thanks for the courtesy of checking the data.

Yes, VAERS tends to be underreported by a factor of 10 to 20, and the submission of data to VAERS is voluntary. Aesop elaborates on that, and other stuff, here. So when calculating the rates of deaths among the vaccine recipients I took the percentage of vaccinated in the US, that 53.2%, then multiply by the USA population to arrive to a total of vaccinated people, then divided the number of deaths by the number of vaccinated.

That should underrepresent the rate of adverse effects, and the adversaries have to recognize that as a conservative estimate in their favor.

I did that in this post, and arrived to figures worse, at least by an order of magnitude, than the presented by Bojan. I still find that a bit weird, and perhaps Bojan's data and VAERS data are not fully comparable.

Anyway the point made by the blogger is this:
 

Quote

For reference, in the '70s, when the Swine Flu vaccine was rolled out, it killed 53 people, and they pulled it immediately, and never spoke of giving it to anyone again. You could look it up.

There is a BBC article on the swine flu scare of 1976 here. Then the vaccination rate in the US was about 20%.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

25 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Ok, whatever makes you happy, evidently you took an undue risk anyway, let me quote you:

"When a vaccine could make antivaxxer nutjobs look like sensible, rational people, perhaps there is a problem with that vaccine."

Seems we found the next lost dingo.

Pray tell, oh you exalted specialist in risk assessment, what undue risk did I take knowingly when getting vaccinated back in April-May?

Also, how that makes me unable to have a factual-based opinion on the risks of the not-vaccine now?
 

The lack of covid-related pharma shares in my stock portfolio, maybe?

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 2:05 AM, rmgill said:

Rubbish. folks can make an informed risk assessment, it doesn't mean they can predict how all the variables will land. Alcohol and smoking are linked to increased risks of cancer. Have they banned both? or do people make their own choices and take their chances? Does everyone have a specifically quantified gauge of what all of their cancer risks are? Of course not. 

 

My own risk assessment is that I never started smoking, but I do drink moderately, usually, beer, port, scotch, etc Quality over quantity, so never to excess. Thats a risk assessment and a decision tree I make for myself and it’s no one else’s to stick their nose into. 

Sure you can make a risk assessment, anyone can do that. What I'm thinking is that is that risk assessment any use at all?

I could make a risk assessment of a new airplane but considering my limited experience in aviation engineering what good would that be?

Also, considering how many smokers that are surprised that they get cancer, I really doubt that there are a lot of people that can make any risk assessment :)

/R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sunday said:

Seems we found the next lost dingo.

Pray tell, oh you exalted specialist in risk assessment, what undue risk did I take knowingly when getting vaccinated back in April-May?

Also, how that makes me unable to have a factual-based opinion on the risks of the not-vaccine?
 

The lack of covid-related pharma shares in my stock portfolio, maybe?

Like I said, whatever makes you happy. Since you took the time to edit your posts of yesterday, I don't want to bother you anymore, carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rickard N said:

I could make a risk assessment of a new airplane but considering my limited experience in aviation engineering what good would that be?

Are you flying the 737MAX, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DKTanker said:

I can't believe we still don't make general pronouncements based upon anecdotes.

Are you saying that it didn't happen, or are you just mad at me that my observations don't fit your own agenda? I just pointed out with the help of the one example that I have at the most ready that those who focus on mortality as the sole metric are either deliberately playing down the issue because they have made up their minds and seek facts supporting their opinion, or they are lazy in the risk assessment because mortality figures are easiest to come by.

A substantial fraction of the arguments made against vaccination seems to be that Covid is a joke unless you happen to be fat, old, or otherwise unfit. An honest assessment will also take into account that there's a substantial number of badly documented cases of long-term illnesses that run under "recovered" and "light case" because they neither required hospitalization nor are they still acutely infectious. It's intellectually dishonest to complain about overblown Covid mortality figures while downplaying the systematical bias in currently available figures about the second order effects. The reality is, as far as Covid is concerned, we still haven't had much time assessing the full picture because we were fully occupied with emergency response. At this point, nobody knows as much about the situation as they believe they do.

What we do know however is the most reliable way to curb the spread of the disease throughout the population is a high rate of vaccination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This blogger, and his wife, has had two bouts of covid, and overcame them using different drugs and antibiotics. He is no spring chicken at all.

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/02/medical-misadventures-and-frustrations.html

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/02/learning-from-medical-misadventures.html

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/02/covid-19-update-im-not-out-of-woods-yet.html

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/08/got-crud-again.html

Incapacitating conditions due to vaccines are also collected in VAERS, and are in the same order of magnitude than deaths.

Edited to add:

This is so cute...
 

Quote

(...)

1 Thing You Shouldn’t Say to Someone Who's Hesitant About the COVID Vaccine

1. “You’re being crazy/selfish/stupid.”

Going into attack mode is the fastest way to ensure that this unvaccinated person will dig their feet further into the sand. Even if it’s how you feel, insulting someone is counterproductive. Rather than being judgmental, try to be patient and realize that, in most cases, convincing someone to get the vaccine isn’t going to happen immediately. Instead, it’s often a longer process, and a discussion rather than a lesson. Instead of condescending to them, try to understand their position and remain as levelheaded as possible.

It’s also important to keep in mind that there’s a big difference between being hesitant about this particular vaccine and being anti-vaccine in general. Those in the latter group are much more set in their anti-vax ways, and likely won’t be swayed by a conversation (or even a series of conversations). Those who are hesitant about the COVID vaccine might be coming from a less rigid place and might be more open to hearing your perspective.

Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, attempting to change someone’s mind about getting vaccinated takes time and patience, but it’s totally worth it.

 

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On semantics, and more.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/frances-long-time-vaccine-policy-chief-covid-policy-is-completely-stupid-and-unethical
 

Quote

Brian Gerrish: This brings us to the crux of the matter. I think it’s important that we say to the audience: in the first place, neither yourself nor Anne-Marie Yim are anti-vaccine. Would you like to tell us a little bit more about your position on that?

Christian Perronne: I am not anti-vaccine, because I wrote the vaccination policy for France for a great many years. But the problem is that the products they call “vaccines” for Covid-19 are not really vaccines. That’s my problem.

Brian Gerrish: Can we just press a little bit further? If they’re not vaccines, what would you call them?

Christian Perronne: Maybe genetic modifiers; I don’t exactly know the proper term from a scientific point of view. But when you inject messenger RNA to produce a huge amount of a spike protein, a fragment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, you can’t control the process. And the problem is that in human cells, we know that RNA might go back to DNA.

Normally, it goes from DNA to RNA—this may be a little bit difficult for a general audience to understand—but it may go in the reverse direction, because we have in our chromosomes, in our genome, genes in our DNA originating from retroviruses, of animal origin centuries or millennia ago, and these can code for enzymes which can code in the reverse direction.

So we now know (it’s officially published), and now we find, in the human genome, sequences of DNA corresponding to the RNA of the virus. That’s proof that what I said in an open letter in December [2020], saying that it was dangerous to inject these products, has now been confirmed. And all the governments continue! To me, it’s a great mistake.

Brian Gerrish: And, Anne-Marie, can we ask you the same question? If, in principle, you’re not against vaccination, what are we facing?

Anne-Marie Yim: Experts in virology and working in the field of vaccines are saying that it’s not a vaccine, because usually when you have a virus—for example, the flu, et cetera—you take the virus and you kill it with formaldehyde or with ultraviolet light (which is called attenuation of the virus), so that it’s harmless. You then inject it, along with a physiological serum and usually an adjuvant, to boost your immune system. And that is the definition of a vaccine.

And then, for the core delivery part of the vaccine, if you like: you can use different vectors if you wish to inject it. But here, with Pfizer and Moderna and BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson [Janssen], [it’s different]: Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech are mRNA vaccines, and AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are DNA viral. Usually, you [start with] the DNA, and the DNA is transformed into RNA, and the RNA is read, and that brings the ribosome to the S-protein [spike protein].

But here, you have a sequence of a gene—and that’s the first time this has ever been done. So clearly, it’s genetic material that is being injected into your body. And it should not be labelled “vaccine”, because that’s deceiving.

So a lot of scientists are saying it’s a genetic injection. That’s why they [prefer to] call it “a jab”.

Alternative treatments:
 

Quote

Christian Perronne: I think you should put this question to the politicians, because in the history of infectious disease medicine, it has never happened that a state or politicians recommend systematic vaccinations for billions of people on the planet for a disease whose rate of mortality now is 0.05%. That’s a very low rate of mortality! And they’re making everybody afraid that there’s a new so-called “Delta variant” coming from India, but in fact all these variants are less and less virulent, and we now know that [with] this so-called “vaccine”, in the population that is inoculated at large, it is in these people that the variants emerge.

So I don’t understand why the politicians and the various authorities in different countries are asking for mass inoculations while the disease is so mild. And we know that over 90% of cases are in very old people. And we can treat them: we have treatments. There are hundreds of publications showing that early treatments work: there’s hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, zinc, Vitamin D, and so on—it works! There are publications!

So all these products, so-called “vaccines”, are useless, because we can perfectly well control an epidemic. And the best example is in India: there, you have a billion and a half people, with many different states. In the states where they treated people with ivermectin, zinc, Doxycycline and Vitamin D, the epidemic [remained] at a very low rate: it was quite [soon] finished. But in the states where they banned these antibiotic and antiviral treatments which work on the virus, and [where] they promoted the “vaccine” and also promoted Remdesivir (coming from France and Belgium, because Remdesivir was so toxic and not efficacious: the French and Belgians sent planeloads of Remdesivir to the Indian people!), in these areas of India where they used “vaccines” and Remdesivir, the epidemic came back, with new cases of mortality. That’s proof that if you treat early, you can succeed and the epidemic will be over very rapidly.

In all the countries with massive inoculation of these products (I don’t like the term “vaccination”), we see that you have a recurrence of the epidemic, with new cases of death.

That are not the most damning aspects. The whole interview makes for a very sobering read, even if there is mention of graphene content on the jabs, point on which I am quite skeptical.

There are some pretty technical statements related to biochemistry, of whose correctness I could not be sure.

One last thing, Perrone's biography is somewhat open to ad hominem attacks, so popular as of late in the grate sight, but there is objective data that can be checked.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rickard N said:

Sure you can make a risk assessment, anyone can do that. What I'm thinking is that is that risk assessment any use at all?

Well, it's about one having one's own decision making. Do you sit around waiting for other people to tell you what to do? It's storming outside, who do you call to ask permission to leave the house? 

6 hours ago, Rickard N said:

I could make a risk assessment of a new airplane but considering my limited experience in aviation engineering what good would that be?

You prefer a system where a scientist class makes decisions for you?

Personally, having grown up in an aviation family, I have some idea of what to look for. I've preflighted an airplane, a Mooney in fact and I know the gross things to look for. Water in the fuel for example. I can read paperwork and look for basic engine issues and structure and mechanical. So, I'd probably be pretty good to preflight anything around a Cessna and below. Piston engines are piston engines, radios are radios, linkages are linkages, etc. 

6 hours ago, Rickard N said:

Also, considering how many smokers that are surprised that they get cancer, I really doubt that there are a lot of people that can make any risk assessment :)

A lot of people figure things won't happen to them. But then a lot of people get cancer for reasons that are inexplicable. Part of that is the various environmental things that we don't really have awareness of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Well, it's about one having one's own decision making. Do you sit around waiting for other people to tell you what to do? It's storming outside, who do you call to ask permission to leave the house? 

You prefer a system where a scientist class makes decisions for you?

Personally, having grown up in an aviation family, I have some idea of what to look for. I've preflighted an airplane, a Mooney in fact and I know the gross things to look for. Water in the fuel for example. I can read paperwork and look for basic engine issues and structure and mechanical. So, I'd probably be pretty good to preflight anything around a Cessna and below. Piston engines are piston engines, radios are radios, linkages are linkages, etc. 

A lot of people figure things won't happen to them. But then a lot of people get cancer for reasons that are inexplicable. Part of that is the various environmental things that we don't really have awareness of. 

I don't think you need to be vaccine developer or epidemiologist to do a reasonable risk calculation.  You have a known variable (fatality rates for one's demographics and comorbidities) and an unknown variable which is the risk of a novel compound to said demographic.  At that point it's risk tolerance; are you more concerned with the known or the unknown variable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studies have suggested the human body retains a robust immune response to the coronavirus after infection. A study published in the journal Science early this year found that about 90 percent of patients studied showed lingering, stable immunity at least eight months after infection. A smaller study published in June in the journal Nature showed that protection from the coronavirus could last as long as a year after prior infection.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Are you saying that it didn't happen, or are you just mad at me that my observations don't fit your own agenda? I just pointed out with the help of the one example that I have at the most ready that those who focus on mortality as the sole metric are either deliberately playing down the issue because they have made up their minds and seek facts supporting their opinion, or they are lazy in the risk assessment because mortality figures are easiest to come by.

I'm not saying it didn't happen.  My agenda?  What is my agenda?  Oh, you mean about making policy decision based upon anecdotes?  Yeah, I'm all for it.  Perhaps people use anecdotes because they are too lazy to research the numbers to make their case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nitflegal said:

I don't think you need to be vaccine developer or epidemiologist to do a reasonable risk calculation.  You have a known variable (fatality rates for one's demographics and comorbidities) and an unknown variable which is the risk of a novel compound to said demographic.  At that point it's risk tolerance; are you more concerned with the known or the unknown variable?

Also, as the unknown variable is going to be less unknown, the risk should be reassessed.

Data quality is very important for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, rmgill said:

All those ladies with Cervical cancer. It's from Human Papilloma viruses. Quick, let's ban all pre-marital sex. Seriously, I remember a friend's mom warning me my freshman year of college about the risks of HPV and cancer risks due to pre-marital sex.  Did or DOES anyone seriously entertain restricting/discouraging college age sex? 

No that sounds unlikely to work, so we vaccinate against HPV...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, glappkaeft said:

No that sounds unlikely to work, so we vaccinate against HPV...

So HPV passports to prove vaccination status prior to engaging in any activity that might ultimately result in sexual activity?  I'm really surprised that Dr. Fauci, who was at the forefront of the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, didn't recommend mandatory abstinence of sexual activity.  Or, short of that, a weekly or bi-weekly testing regime of all that were post-pubescent to prove their negative infection status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glappkaeft said:

No that sounds unlikely to work, so we vaccinate against HPV...

Now we do. But it's not by federal mandate. Neither are laws against pre-marital sex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be really interesting, if true.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/huge-uttar-pradesh-india-announces-state-covid-19-free-proving-effectiveness-deworming-drug-ivermectin/

The article hints at using Ivermectin as preventive drug.

Quote

Uttar Pradesh is the leading state in India to use Ivermectin as early and preventatively in all family contacts. And this state is one of the five lowest COVID cases of all states in India despite having only a low vaccination rate of 5.8% fully vaccinated compared to the USA that has 54% fully vaccinated. 

Seems they were using Ivermectin in that manner since May: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

you mean about making policy decision based upon anecdotes?

Since this is the second time you bring it up, I suppose you also have an example ready where I promoted a specific policy that I justified with the observations that I made. Take your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ran across an interesting stat today.  The deaths from Covid in the US should surpass the deaths from the Spanish flu in about a week.  Of course the US population is a bit more than 3 times higher so percentage wise it's not in the same league.  I suppose if the president were a Republican the approach of the milestone would be getting more play in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

Ran across an interesting stat today.  The deaths from Covid in the US should surpass the deaths from the Spanish flu in about a week.  Of course the US population is a bit more than 3 times higher so percentage wise it's not in the same league.  I suppose if the president were a Republican the approach of the milestone would be getting more play in the media.

OK, Mr. Jones...does the 'vid' actually take the lives or does it contribute to the other comorbidities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

And the difference for the people who die is?

The politics of the  'count' of course. Did the illness kill 'em or did the cancer/diabetes/heart disease do 'em in? You recall the stories of how guys killed in car wrecks got clocked with a "death by vid", due to a ++ test result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus the importance of consistent data standards. Here in Spain, the standards changed about three times during the first few months of the pandemic, so I resigned myself to not keep an independent tracking.

There is the case of the Cuomo deaths in retirement homes around NY state, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another day, another case of the nutjobs in charge in Australia:

https://joannenova.com.au/2021/09/tga-bans-largely-safe-drug-because-people-might-not-get-vaxed/
 

Quote

The unelected, unaudited and unaccountable Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia has decided that consenting adults and fully qualified doctors should not be allowed to use a drug off label that’s so cheap and safe the discoverers won a Nobel Prize. Something like 200 million people use ivermectin each year. After 33 years and 3.7 billion doses of use, it qualifies as one of the safest drugs around.

The TGA says it hasn’t found any evidence that ivermectin is useful against Covid, but then we have to ask, has the TGA looked?

Ivmmeta.com lists 60 studies involving 25,000 people that show its useful and 3 that don’t:
(...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...