Thank you - I have been saying that for days. There can never be a control group since there is no way to tell what covid would have done before and after a vaccine to the same person. Idiots going around saying, "Oh it would have been so much worse without the vaccine."
Think about the climate hoax. The scare is that everything is getting warmer then when you get down to details, you find that you need to know just how much Arctic nights are wrming to get a handle on things. How can Joe Public ever find out for himself how much Arctic nights are warming? You need to trust the scientists.
Why does the vaccine effect need to be evaluated on an individual basis like that? You can use other people of a similar demographic to test the conditions and generalize the results. That's how nearly every medication study in history is done.
The control group would be the group of unvaccinated individuals who get COVID. The experimental group would be the group of vaccinated individuals who get COVID.
If fifty experimental and fifty control subjects all get COVID around the same time (from the same variant), then you'd compare the illness severity between the two groups. If the control group (unvaccinated) is getting sicker, requiring hospitalization more often, and has a higher incidence of death than the experimental group, then it would be fair to conclude that the vaccine lessens infection symptom severity.
You don't need to prove within a single individual both experimental conditions when that individual's health profile (reaction to both COVID and the vaccine) is considered generalizable enough to the entire population, and when you have a large enough population size, that becomes apparent pretty quickly based on whether you have a stable average profile per group or not.
There are plenty of studies that compare the rate and severity of hospitalization-level COVID infections in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals, but since they are formal studies by scientific and medical organizations, they tend to be dismissed here as being compromised and untrustworthy.
Even so, these types of studies absolutely have been done and are available for your review.
Unless your opinion of the trustworthiness of the “mainstream” data is incorrect, in which case it’s the complete opposite. Until the Storm occurs, I suppose that appears to remain an open question.
To be fair, the skin application 'spot' is the place for Ivermectin in cattle.
Also, cattle are treated better than humans. Vet treatments are carefully and collectively monitored in order to improve animal health. IF s drug was killing cattle, it would soon be discarded.
So, for example, the magnesium supplements for horses are an excellent supplement for humans. Many such examples, BTW.
Furthermore, vets are some of the most humane people I have ever met.
I read r/vaccinelonghaulers and r/covidvaccinated several times per week to keep up on what is going on with the injured vaxxed. There are a lot of them who said they got covid early on, and it wasnt terrible. they later got the shot and were injured. They then got covid again, and said the covid was WORSE after being vaxxed. seems like such a mess
There is absolutely a scientific way to test that.
You find 100 people who have COVID who are vaccinated, and 100 people who are unvaccinated. Then you record which people get worse.
If the unvaccinated group suffers from more severe COVID symptoms than does the vaccinated group, then you can safely say that the vaccine appears to reduce the severity of symptoms in infected individuals, and therefore, based on these results, "it would have been worse if you were unvaccinated."
That's how you'd test it scientifically. The hypothesis is either correct or incorrect, and through observation and data, you can reach a conclusion.
Is there any data comparing the severity of COVID infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations?
Saying you don't trust the tests or the data that exist is not the same thing as it being impossible to scientifically test your hypothesis. And thank goodness, since a testable, falsifiable hypothesis is the only kind that can be considered researchable.
I don’t know a single person who was any more inconvenienced by the vaccine than a day of nausea and a sore arm, and I work in places where vaccination is required. We were all vaccinated pretty early on last year, and we are all doing fine.
My story doesn’t matter any more than yours, because we only have one perspective and determining vaccine efficacy by simply observing whether things look weird around us isn’t scientific.
VAERS has a “how to use this data” page that directly states it doesn’t verify a single report in it. That database cannot be used to prove the vaccine harms anyone. It’s a starting point for clinicians to examine isolated lots and demographics that might spike from the baseline.
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
VAERS does not know the difference between a vaccine injury and a coincidence. VAERS cannot confirm it holds data for even a SINGLE vaccine injury, and it states this openly. You simply are incorrectly interpreting VAERS data under the mistaken assumption that some fraction of the cases must be legitimate. No, they don’t, and VAERS can’t help you prove otherwise.
Which is why no researchers who understand what VAERS actually is (just a tip line) are freaking out about it.
I'm not certain how you're defining the word "anecdote" in the context of your answer. My statement discourages believing worldviews based on informal observations and "what I remember to be true" rather than formal data collection.
Anecdote is "I'm looking around me and I don't see anyone dying of COVID. I don't know anyone who died of COVID. The people I know who had COVID said it was just a flu."
That's an anecdote. It's just a story you heard. You didn't collect formal data on it. You didn't verify anything. You establish and compare demographics or classify variables. You just are suggesting that you hear a lot of stories, and you assume you'd know a bunch of people who died if COVID was so dangerous. You can't use that data to establish whether or not COVID is actually dangerous, because you don't know anything except your subjective interpretation of what you informally observe.
If you were taking data and formally entering it into a database and running algorithms on that, then you weren't using anecdotes to draw conclusions about the world. You were formally turning anecdotal reporting into formal data and then doing math on it.
It's not a problem just because data comes from an anecdotal source. That's how surveys are collected. It's a problem when you try to suggest a reality about the world based on your informal observations and connections you build based on what YOU notice and what YOU happen to remember. That's not useful scientifically.
The problem is in your fundamental assumptions about VAERS, which again, go against what VAERS itself says about its own data.
Yes, the data is underreported, but that doesn't suggest that the underreported data is filled with legitimate vaccine injuries. That is an assumption you make because of your already-established conclusion that they're trying to hide something.
This is what it's saying:
VAERS wants a LOT of data. It literally wants to know about every single medical problem that happens within a few months of a vaccination for EVERY SINGLE vaccinated person in the country. Every case of the sniffles. Every headache. Every tooth that falls out of a child's head (just in case). Every time someone has to update their glasses. Every time someone gets food poisoning.
EVERYTHING.
This is why everyone is allowed to submit a report, and why doctors are required to submit a report. Because if a 98 year old alcoholic with liver cancer dies three weeks after a vaccine, VAERS wants to know about it. JUST IN CASE.
The reason that the data is considered underreported is because VAERS does not get all of this data. In fact, when you consider that it wants to know every time you have an allergy attack to pollen randomly after getting the vaccine, then yes, it absolutely makes sense it's only getting 1% of the data it wants.
Because it wants to know fucking everything. JUST IN CASE. Because that's the point of VAERS. It's just a tip line so that researchers can establish a baseline, and the more of these random aches and pains they can record, the more stable and robust that baseline will be.
There is nothing in VAERS to suggest that the underreported data consists of even a single vaccine injury. VAERS cannot confirm it's ever registered a single vaccine injury. It asks for data that it knows can be 100% comprised of unrelated coincidences, and it still wants that data. Because that's what VAERS is for.
Your fundamental assumption about the data you're using and what it represents (and therefore, how you can work with it) is incorrect, and this confirmed by VAERS itself.
If you think you can build an empirical picture of confirmed vaccine injuries from data that is incapable and unwilling to take any measure to confirm that ANY vaccine injuries exist within its dataset, then you are trying to do magic, not math.
Thank you - I have been saying that for days. There can never be a control group since there is no way to tell what covid would have done before and after a vaccine to the same person. Idiots going around saying, "Oh it would have been so much worse without the vaccine."
it's one of the stupider things they say
The technique is, however, completely standard.
Think about the climate hoax. The scare is that everything is getting warmer then when you get down to details, you find that you need to know just how much Arctic nights are wrming to get a handle on things. How can Joe Public ever find out for himself how much Arctic nights are warming? You need to trust the scientists.
Which ones? Is the salient point
Why does the vaccine effect need to be evaluated on an individual basis like that? You can use other people of a similar demographic to test the conditions and generalize the results. That's how nearly every medication study in history is done.
The control group would be the group of unvaccinated individuals who get COVID. The experimental group would be the group of vaccinated individuals who get COVID.
If fifty experimental and fifty control subjects all get COVID around the same time (from the same variant), then you'd compare the illness severity between the two groups. If the control group (unvaccinated) is getting sicker, requiring hospitalization more often, and has a higher incidence of death than the experimental group, then it would be fair to conclude that the vaccine lessens infection symptom severity.
You don't need to prove within a single individual both experimental conditions when that individual's health profile (reaction to both COVID and the vaccine) is considered generalizable enough to the entire population, and when you have a large enough population size, that becomes apparent pretty quickly based on whether you have a stable average profile per group or not.
But no one has done that and yet the comment persists. a lie
There are plenty of studies that compare the rate and severity of hospitalization-level COVID infections in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals, but since they are formal studies by scientific and medical organizations, they tend to be dismissed here as being compromised and untrustworthy.
Even so, these types of studies absolutely have been done and are available for your review.
Thanks!
Unless your opinion of the trustworthiness of the “mainstream” data is incorrect, in which case it’s the complete opposite. Until the Storm occurs, I suppose that appears to remain an open question.
To be fair, the skin application 'spot' is the place for Ivermectin in cattle.
Also, cattle are treated better than humans. Vet treatments are carefully and collectively monitored in order to improve animal health. IF s drug was killing cattle, it would soon be discarded.
So, for example, the magnesium supplements for horses are an excellent supplement for humans. Many such examples, BTW.
Furthermore, vets are some of the most humane people I have ever met.
I read r/vaccinelonghaulers and r/covidvaccinated several times per week to keep up on what is going on with the injured vaxxed. There are a lot of them who said they got covid early on, and it wasnt terrible. they later got the shot and were injured. They then got covid again, and said the covid was WORSE after being vaxxed. seems like such a mess
There is absolutely a scientific way to test that.
You find 100 people who have COVID who are vaccinated, and 100 people who are unvaccinated. Then you record which people get worse.
If the unvaccinated group suffers from more severe COVID symptoms than does the vaccinated group, then you can safely say that the vaccine appears to reduce the severity of symptoms in infected individuals, and therefore, based on these results, "it would have been worse if you were unvaccinated."
That's how you'd test it scientifically. The hypothesis is either correct or incorrect, and through observation and data, you can reach a conclusion.
Is there any data comparing the severity of COVID infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations?
Saying you don't trust the tests or the data that exist is not the same thing as it being impossible to scientifically test your hypothesis. And thank goodness, since a testable, falsifiable hypothesis is the only kind that can be considered researchable.
The plural of anecdotes is not data.
I don’t know a single person who was any more inconvenienced by the vaccine than a day of nausea and a sore arm, and I work in places where vaccination is required. We were all vaccinated pretty early on last year, and we are all doing fine.
My story doesn’t matter any more than yours, because we only have one perspective and determining vaccine efficacy by simply observing whether things look weird around us isn’t scientific.
VAERS has a “how to use this data” page that directly states it doesn’t verify a single report in it. That database cannot be used to prove the vaccine harms anyone. It’s a starting point for clinicians to examine isolated lots and demographics that might spike from the baseline.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
VAERS does not know the difference between a vaccine injury and a coincidence. VAERS cannot confirm it holds data for even a SINGLE vaccine injury, and it states this openly. You simply are incorrectly interpreting VAERS data under the mistaken assumption that some fraction of the cases must be legitimate. No, they don’t, and VAERS can’t help you prove otherwise.
Which is why no researchers who understand what VAERS actually is (just a tip line) are freaking out about it.
I'm not certain how you're defining the word "anecdote" in the context of your answer. My statement discourages believing worldviews based on informal observations and "what I remember to be true" rather than formal data collection.
Anecdote is "I'm looking around me and I don't see anyone dying of COVID. I don't know anyone who died of COVID. The people I know who had COVID said it was just a flu."
That's an anecdote. It's just a story you heard. You didn't collect formal data on it. You didn't verify anything. You establish and compare demographics or classify variables. You just are suggesting that you hear a lot of stories, and you assume you'd know a bunch of people who died if COVID was so dangerous. You can't use that data to establish whether or not COVID is actually dangerous, because you don't know anything except your subjective interpretation of what you informally observe.
If you were taking data and formally entering it into a database and running algorithms on that, then you weren't using anecdotes to draw conclusions about the world. You were formally turning anecdotal reporting into formal data and then doing math on it.
It's not a problem just because data comes from an anecdotal source. That's how surveys are collected. It's a problem when you try to suggest a reality about the world based on your informal observations and connections you build based on what YOU notice and what YOU happen to remember. That's not useful scientifically.
The problem is in your fundamental assumptions about VAERS, which again, go against what VAERS itself says about its own data.
Yes, the data is underreported, but that doesn't suggest that the underreported data is filled with legitimate vaccine injuries. That is an assumption you make because of your already-established conclusion that they're trying to hide something.
This is what it's saying:
VAERS wants a LOT of data. It literally wants to know about every single medical problem that happens within a few months of a vaccination for EVERY SINGLE vaccinated person in the country. Every case of the sniffles. Every headache. Every tooth that falls out of a child's head (just in case). Every time someone has to update their glasses. Every time someone gets food poisoning.
EVERYTHING.
This is why everyone is allowed to submit a report, and why doctors are required to submit a report. Because if a 98 year old alcoholic with liver cancer dies three weeks after a vaccine, VAERS wants to know about it. JUST IN CASE.
The reason that the data is considered underreported is because VAERS does not get all of this data. In fact, when you consider that it wants to know every time you have an allergy attack to pollen randomly after getting the vaccine, then yes, it absolutely makes sense it's only getting 1% of the data it wants.
Because it wants to know fucking everything. JUST IN CASE. Because that's the point of VAERS. It's just a tip line so that researchers can establish a baseline, and the more of these random aches and pains they can record, the more stable and robust that baseline will be.
There is nothing in VAERS to suggest that the underreported data consists of even a single vaccine injury. VAERS cannot confirm it's ever registered a single vaccine injury. It asks for data that it knows can be 100% comprised of unrelated coincidences, and it still wants that data. Because that's what VAERS is for.
Your fundamental assumption about the data you're using and what it represents (and therefore, how you can work with it) is incorrect, and this confirmed by VAERS itself.
If you think you can build an empirical picture of confirmed vaccine injuries from data that is incapable and unwilling to take any measure to confirm that ANY vaccine injuries exist within its dataset, then you are trying to do magic, not math.