673
Comments (83)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
Cheesemaker 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not disagreeing especially for a lot of their videos, but this particular article is a good article looking at firm data.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

Actually it's not. He's misreading the data and changes it to meet his needs. He says that the total sample size is 824, but then if you remove 700 of them (for some reason?) you have 124 left. The 100 miscarriages in the group then means that it is Eighty Percent.

That's like saying I have 10 cheeseburgers in front of me. One of them has shit instead of a hamburger patty. That means 10% of cheeseburgers are actually shit sandwiches. Now if we remove eight hamburgers for no particular reason, that means 1 out of 2 are shit sandwiches. That means 50% of all sandwiches are actually shit sandwiches!

It's called misrepresenting data.

We all know the vax is a death shot and horrible, but don't just make stuff up to make it look bad. But, I'm guessing that's not what he's doing, he probably thinks he's actually being clever and uncovering information instead of just making stuff up.

1
Cheesemaker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lets build upon your burger example. Assume you have a 100 burgers eaten by 100 people, 10 cooked rare and 90 cooked well done. 8 people catch food poisoning eating your burgers. Assume all 8 people who got food poisoning also ate a rare burger.

You can either say "8% of the people that ate a burger got food poisoning" or "80% of the people that ate a rare burger got food poisoning" depending upon what you are looking at.

So yes, you remove the "700" because they are people who received the vaccine during the third trimester. The entire point of the infowars article is that the risk was in the early trimesters (1st and 2nd). If you remove the 700 and only look at the 124 the ratio is abysmal.

The conclusion should be do not vaccinated during first or second trimester as there is a very high chance of losing the baby.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

But you can't actually assume they only ate rare burgers. That's just an assumption you've made and not scientific data. You can get sick eating well done meat if the meat was already rancid.

That's the exact point, it's arbitrary to remove those 700 people, he just makes an assumption based on something he says. There's no data to back up what he is saying.

I agree with the conclusion, but you can't just make shit up.

1
Cheesemaker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Umm you clearly misread the entire article. Most of the article is about why the 700 are removed.

The entire purpose is that the evidence is showing a ridiculously high miscarriage/spontaneous abortion rate for the first (and second) trimesters but not in the third trimester.

Therefore if you look only at first trimester it has an 82% chance of losing the baby.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's not at all about that. It specifically says they are all in the study group, the dude making the video just arbitrarily says let's remove these 700 people because I feel like it based on this one number I misread.