Pfizer vaccine data. Of particular interest is page 30: full pages of known adverse effects…
(twitter.com)
💉VACCINE DATA RELEASE 💉
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (209)
sorted by:
That is 100% true.
In fact, there almost certainly ARE legitimate vaccine injuries in that data. Probably quite a few of them.
But what we can't establish AT ALL based solely on this data is what percentage of these reports are wrong. Because NONE of them are verified. We can only guess.
All anyone can do with this data at this point is plug in numbers for X. u/zeitreise wants to plug in a very high number, because he believes it's a valid assumption. I believe a far lower number is probably more valid.
But we both have to drawn on outside sources to establish these percentages, because we CANNOT do it from the data provided by the databases.
So far, the only source I've gotten from Zeitreise that proves his assumption true is his assurance that he's Very Smart and knows Predictive Algorithms and the rest of us are too stupid to understand and that we should just trust that he knows data science well enough to assume the proof.
Yes, I agree there are potential side-effects. The empirical data so far that has tested the potential for these effects has estimated them to be very low.
I know you don't trust these studies or the people behind them, which means my evidence is useless to you. But you don't need my evidence if you have better evidence anyway that the vaccine injury rates are catastrophic.
But the VAERS data and this Pfizer report are mathematically incapable of providing you that evidence. The data here gives me absolutely no idea how bad the vaccine side effects actually are. I can't even determine WHAT the vaccine side-effects are, because I don't know which of these reports was actually caused by the vaccine.
Are you seeing the problem here? The data that many people here are using to prove vaccine injury can't actually tell you ANYTHING about vaccine injury.
Only the studies that actually go look at verified cases of vaccine injury in their specific contexts can offer that kind of data. And so far, I have seen very few studies even trying to make the claim that vaccine injuries are an unexpectedly serious problem, and of those, none that have even attempted to prove it.
So if you have such studies, I'm happy to look at them. But until then, I have to decide between using data that you don't like, or spitballing into the wind using unsupported mathematical assumptions.
And since I don't assume that literally every scientist on the planet studying this, from established giants in the field to lowly unknown grad students, is in on some conspiracy to hide "the real data", I will choose to stick with the data that I have.
When it stops accurately predicting reality, then we can talk.
But so far, I can't see any evidence that it has. Including observing that I, one of the earliest-vaccinated people in the country, one of the earliest-boosted people in the country, have suffered none of the theorized problems on none of the theorized timelines, nor have any of my coworkers. I have promised to let you know if that changes, but I made that promise a while ago and have not yet had to deliver.
Yes... there are a higher percentage of people who suffer vaccine injuries in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated population.
I'm... not sure why you stated that. But you did. So I guess we established that.
In other news, nobody who eats an entire pack of razor blades has ever died from cancer. Therefore, eating razor blades must prevent cancer.
Silly, right?
But you are making clear why this is confounding you. You believe that COVID is nothing, and therefore, the vaccine protects you from nothing. Which means side effects, even extremely rare ones, are not worth it.
Which means, of course, that this conversation will never go anywhere, because as long as you don't believe that the vaccine actually protects against a more significant threat, then there will never be a reason to take it.
And that's a conversation far outside of the purview of this.
IT doesn't excuse you for continually refusing to empirically prove the assertions that make up the foundation of your argument on the mathematical certainty that the vaccines are causing significant damage. But the context of the seriousness of COVID is always going to qualify what level of side effects are going to be considered acceptable.
But again, that goes nowhere, because you are someone who believes the mere existence of a data set in the mainstream media is enough justification to dismiss it completely as a fabrication. Which, honestly, isn't any better than the idiots you talk about who believe everything they see on television.
Nope. I would have said this from the beginning.
That doesn't bring us anywhere, because merely admitting that side effects probably exist in a population gives us no information regarding the PERCENTAGE of the population of adverse reports that is actually experiencing these side effects because of the vaccine.
(Population here refers to the total number of adverse reports, NOT the population of the country.)
You say it's a high percentage. In fact, you said it's 100%.
So... how do you know?
Because if you can provide this evidence, then you won the argument!
See? Falsifiability. I not only know how you can defeat my argument, I am telling you how to do it, exactly.
Show me in this data that a VAERS report (or even THIS report) correlates directly to a "CONFIRMED" side effect of the vaccine. Prove to me you made this statement based on evidence from the source, and not an assumption.
Until then, I really don't have time to keep dancing in circles with you. I'm not asking you of anything I wouldn't ask from any other researcher in any Q or non-Q setting, and if you aren't able to participate in that context, then I can find someone around here who will.
Lol, wtf do database keys have to do with this that you're so fixated on this? How does reference GUIDs, or database indexes have to do with any of the data the database actually contains? Database keys are nothing more than internal reference points between data objects within the database. Any sort of analysis of data held in a database wouldn't ever be affected by database keys.
Wait.
I'm sorry, your mystery strategy that was too complicated for me to even fathom was just correlating publicly accessible data of two known datasets?
This is the skill set that is beyond anyone but truth-seeking autists and the Cabal scientists who are bribed not to do this?
Are you assuming that this kind of analysis isn't done as part of a daily Excel report by some bored intern at every major medical research facility on the planet?
That nobody already using VAERS data ever considered perhaps drawing from a secondary data source looking at the same thing? That's an intelligence relegated only to your level of expertise?
I'm just not exactly certain how you think "proof" attained by that means could possibly be covered up. It definitely does not take your claimed level of expertise to conceptualize or execute that analysis.
The reason it's not freaking anyone out could be because it doesn't represent what you think it does, and therefore does not display the level of terrifying catastrophe you believe is occurring.
Or maybe not. Maybe you are just so much smarter than everyone else that your brain allowed you to stumble upon such an unnervingly-obvious solution as correlating one data set to a second similar data set and to find mind-blowing "proof" through this somehow untried statistical method to reveal a truth unattainable by literally anyone else.
I just have a hard time rectifying your "I am so much smarter than everyone, I know more than you, don't even question my level of understanding of everything" attitude with your claims to be a truth-seeker and adherent of Q's socratic philosophies. You cannot get smarter if you do not believe that it's possible to be wrong about things that matter to you.
I am here because I understand that. You should be here for the same reason.