@icedquinn

Come on now, I'm pretty sure your smarter than that.. Do you seriously not understand why you'd have to normalize for the total number of people being vaccinated as a absolute minimum to be useful?

Honestly if i thought you just didnt understand statistics I might not care.. but I have a feeling your smarter than the things your saying. You must realize how not normalizing the data for background rate is meaningless.

@nanook @sergeantcat @Pat

@icedquinn @freemo @Pat @nanook @sergeantcat
>multiply VAERS numbers by approximately 100 because less than 1% of cases get reported

@meowski

Meaningless in this case since you'd also have to multiple the other past vaccines by a similar number and thus would not cause any difference int he normalization.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook

@freemo @icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook yes, also do mutiply those numbers by 100 because the stonewalling and denial of the VAERS reporting system is not a new thing.

probable exception to this is the anaphylaxis due to it being fairly hard to deny when someone immediately has an allergic reaction

here you go with this slimy shilling for no good reason again. it's like you psychologically just have to jump in and deboonk even when there's nothing to gain from it. indoctrination at its finest

@meowski

No your missing the point. VARES derived absolute numbers arent really all that important. We care about how it compares to the background rates. The rate for a known safe vaccine compared to the rate for a new vaccine. As long as their prevalence for reporting is similar then the absolute real world values arent needed.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook

@freemo @icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook
no, really the correct absolute numbers are imoortant. you're going to see higher numbers in relation to otyher vaccines because more people have taken this vaccine. we need correct absolute numbers to understand the rate of adverse reactions

@meowski

Absolute numbers are important, but you wont get it from VARES. For that you need double-blind random samples.

Yes you will see higher numbers from this vaccine purely because more people have taken in.. That isnt a problem though, simple normalization adjusts for that. You normalize it to a rate and that becomes a non-issue.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook

@freemo @icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook OH!! lmao, we need double blind controlled studies he says.

yes i think we do. what happened to those studies? right, they skipped them cause muh emergency

@meowski uh, they didn't skip them for the emergency. they don't run them to begin with.

challenge testing is rarely done.

@freemo @Pat @nanook @sergeantcat

@icedquinn @Pat @freemo @nanook @sergeantcat normal vaccines do have controlled clinicial studies. now, their control groups are bogus, which is another story for another day, but they do normally do clinical trials

@meowski CDC was FOIA'd for all of their records regarding A/B testing on children. They never did it. https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020_08_03-20-02002-Final-Response-No-Records1.pdf

@Pat @freemo @nanook @sergeantcat

@icedquinn @Pat @freemo @nanook @sergeantcat the pharma companies conduct their own clinical trials, unfortunately

@meowski

Agreed, we skipped some safety on the vaccines and left a lot of unknowns. That is a problem, as I have said so since the begining.

@icedquinn @sergeantcat @Pat @nanook

@meowski @freemo @Pat @nanook @sergeantcat

> anaphalaxys

they still did! people died ten minutes after vaccination and the immediate response was "ITS NOT RELATED."

@icedquinn

Most cases of anaphylaxis are considered to be related to the vaccine. It is acknowledged as one of the most common forms of death for most vaccines.

But it is also far more common in egg-based vaccines (like that used in the flu), as such its not unusually high int he case of the COVID vaccine, but certainly real.

@meowski @nanook @sergeantcat @Pat

@icedquinn @Pat @freemo @nanook @sergeantcat i'm sure there's some of this that goes on but it's still a lot harder to deny than having a stroke a week later

@meowski no; i have seen the discussions about underreporting but i don't want to deal with trying to argue whether a fuzz factor exists or not.

it's easier to just point that it's anomalous as it stands.

@Pat @freemo @nanook @sergeantcat

@icedquinn @Pat @freemo @nanook @sergeantcat it's not really just a discussion, it's a conclusion and a completely valid one

https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Lazarus-report.pdf

@icedquinn

What precautions do you take to protect yourself and others from COVID-19?