|
|
|
|
|
|
by vampirical
1788 days ago
|
|
|
Your claims are pretty extraordinary and demand extraordinary evidence. How exactly are they not adequate? How are they being treated as if they aren't working? How are they dangerous? The one source you provide is embarrassingly poorly founded. It takes garbage input sources, obscures even the meager data in them and then decreases the quality of the claims even further with misleading representations. Here's just one example to show explicitly what I'm taking about with my claim. "A recent analysis by researchers at Queen Mary University in London found that even in senior citizens, about 85% of deaths reported to VAERS were definitively, likely or possibly caused by the vaccine." That language implies heavily "85% scary!" when in fact that the claim by the paper is "15% were confirmed to have nothing to do with the vaccine" and as you read further their results show even less than that. I'm just going to go in order through my notes from a critical read of the paper for more background, these are not prioritized or meant to be hard exclusion criteria on their own but rather straws on the camels back. The project this paper was published under is not specialized in this area, making me suspicious that they are qualified for this analysis at all. "PAMBAYESIAN is a 3-year EPSRC funded project to develop a new generation of intelligent medical decision support systems based on Bayesian networks. The project focuses on home-based and wearable real-time monitoring systems for chronic conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes in pregnancy and atrial fibrillation. The project has the potential to improve the well-being of millions of people." Looking through through the credentials and publication history of all the authors seems to confirm that they may not have the relavant foundation for this work. There is absolutely no statistical analysis anywhere in the paper and the authors acknowledge their data set is what I would call almost but not quite entirely useless "This process is ongoing, as there are 1644 deaths in the dataset that have been reported in patients who had recently received their first or second COVID-19 vaccination, and over 28,000 serious adverse events that did not result in death. This interim results paper presents information on the first 250 reported deaths that have been reviewed and coded by our team. Obviously, these results cannot be generalised as the sample is heavily biased - these were all people vaccinated very early in the programme when only the elderly, those with significant or chronic health conditions and frontline health service staff were being vaccinated." And finally the actual claim that is attempted to be made by the paper authors is "But there are some important findings. that the only patients where a vaccine allergic reaction be ruled out as contributing to death were 34 (14%) who were all either already bedridden, at end of life, and expected to die anyway from a serious comorbid like lung cancer or were on palliative hospice care. We also found that for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%), a vaccine allergic reaction was indisputably the most likely direct cause for the symptoms and patient outcomes described." They found 13 very ill people whose deaths, in a third party's interpretation of case notes, were contributed to by an allergic reaction to receipt of the vaccine. 5% of the most delicate people had a normal reaction to receiving any vaccine and because of their extreme poor health or their quality of care were not able to be helped with standard intervention for such a reaction. Shocking stuff that. I think you should take a serious critical look at this data source swprs.org and how much of things you think you know have been influenced by it. |
|
|
Firstly, the claims aren't extraordinary. There is a long history of vaccines being suspended for being more dangerous than is worth it, for example here's a CNN archival story about that:
https://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/30/swine.flu.1976/ind...
"ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- The man who led the response to the 1976 swine flu outbreak is defending the vaccination campaign that led to more deaths than the disease, but says he's sorry for the people killed or sickened ... the program was suspended after at least 25 people died from vaccine reactions"
In 2010 there was another Swine Flu scare but not much was learned: Pandemrix was authorized and sold in Europe but turned out to occasionally create narcolepsy in teenagers. Although rare, swine flu was sufficiently mild that this was much worse for the affected people than actually getting the disease would have been. There was a coverup and the true nature of what happened only came out 5 years later thanks to lawsuits.
So there's nothing odd about the idea that a vaccine may yield more injuries or deaths than it can save. It's happened before.
Now, I've already cited the evidence you require: the data from national vaccine reporting systems. That's the graph at the top of the page I linked. You appear to have simply ignored the graph and then gone off on some other link to a paper you found there, which isn't what I was referring to, and at any rate seems to actually support my point. Multiply the Y axis of the graph by 0.85 if you want - the numbers are still radically higher than the normal expected rate of vaccine side effects. Or don't. But actual government data cannot be handwaved away with an argument of the form, "some random paper looking at the data has some limitations that it openly admits to" because I wasn't basing my point on that paper to begin with.