| Thanks for your response. > 1. VAERS data & co. Every year, there's also very many other vaccines administered, e.g. Influenza, so the numbers aren't that off. I'm not sure about how many others besides Influenza. See:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-supply-historical.ht...
https://openvaers.com/covid-data 2019 there was around 170M Influenza vaccine doses with 605 deaths.
2021 there's 430M Covid vaccine doses or 223M people with at least 1 dose and there's 18400 deaths. Usually VAERS would be expected to be very under reported.
I agree there's a lot of misinformation that's been going on, but the people who vaccinated mostly thought it was very safe so there's lower likelihood of placebo etc.
Another thing is that it's not very easy to create reports in VAERS and it takes time, doctors may not always have time or believe that some death or adverse effect was linked to the vaccine in the first place. Overall this data alone is definitely not enough to conclude for sure that covid vaccines are not safe, but at least to me it definitely throws some red flags, in combination with all the other things, there seems to be a pattern. Your points may be valid, but I can't determine that and unless this data is properly addressed and debated over, I don't think it's safe enough. So I would urge heavier debate and analysis of this data. I think vaccine has to be proven safe rather than me having to prove that it's dangerous. There should be enough resources to debate and analyse this properly. Same thing --- there should be more resources allocated to debating people who claim vaccines are not safe. Seemingly no debate doesn't inspire any confidence in me. There should be full time groups of people dedicated for this, not just writing articles, but doing live debates. Debate has to be proper back and forth. Not "fact checkers" which often concentrate on one single part that can be most easily argued against and leave some other parts which usually interest me the most out. Right now there's one side that is bashing the other side, full of strawmans and ad hominem attacks. There's no proper debate going on. Why? If these vaccines are very safe and effective and would save the world from the pandemic, I imagine it would deserve at least 10M+ to be invested into live debates. I see a lot of investing in censoring, but no debates. 2. Myocarditis If incidence rate was 0.0006%, meaning 1 out of 1,666,666, it would be extremely rare that a couple on this earth would have both people getting this. Even if incidence is 1 out of 100,000 like I have seen claimed by official sources multiple times, from 1 billion couples, chance of there being at least 1 couple where both individuals had this would be 10%. I have seen multiple anecdotal reports of couples both having issues. Danielshep60 being one who has gone on video with all the evidence and stories. It's difficult to understand frequency from anecdotal reports where people alone claim they have had it, but if you consider couples it makes it possible to at least calculate how statistically rare that would have to be. So either a) Danielshep60 must be lying. And I don't think he is based on what I've seen, I'm usually good at spotting discrepancies and lies. b) Chance of myocarditis is far bigger than 1/100,000. c) Something extremely, very, unlikely has happened, and all the other anecdotes are definitely lies. I assume you would guess it's a), but I can't conclude that myself based on also other video stories I have seen, and everything seems to match. > As well as that, recent theory suggests it may be linked to administration method (erroneous administration into vein instead of muscle) instead of the vaccine itself. Yes, this is possible, but it also means I wouldn't get the vaccine before it's officially acknowledged that they should do aspiration and this indeed reduces chance of myocarditis occurring.
In very many anecdotal reports where people have gotten myocarditis, they have felt metallic taste just 15 seconds after the vaccine, so it does seem that in their cases it probably has entered bloodstream, unless there's some better explanation. > I know you said you "don't believe" the statistics, but... that's just not really how statistics works? I believe "statistics", I love poker, I love numbers, I love making decisions based on probabilities, I just don't believe that numbers coming from trials are correct. For example, maybe people weren't properly checked for myocarditis, and this matches some reports from trial participants. I think statistics are great, I just don't trust that everything was done properly, and it seems BMJ confirms it at least for 1 subcontractor. Now this is not final evidence that trial data may not be correct, but it's enough for me to postpone the vaccine. > I know hundreds of people who've gotten the vaccine, none of which have gotten myocarditis.
You may very well know and this wouldn't disprove that myocarditis's frequency could be for example 1 out of 300. You would still more likely have 100 friends who never got myocarditis, but these odds are for example very worrying. If what Danielshep60 says is true, it can be statistically proven that what numbers are coming from e.g. Pfizer's studies or some other studies are wrong, as such a combination of a couple + a relative of theirs having the diagnosis would be extremely unlikely. Also another survey, for people who had post vaccine injury, the claim for 10% of them was that they also had a relative who had persistent adverse effects after the vaccine. If they had 10 relatives on average, it could mean incident rate to be around 1%. > 3. Fatigue & brain fog
> I should start by noting that fatigue & brain fog are widely documented to be common symptoms of the long COVID syndrome, which affects old and young. Long COVID is also alarmingly common. Yes, totally agreed! I believe different studies say that getting long covid could be 5% to 65% chance depending on the definition and requirements for long covid. I definitely wouldn't want to get covid. > I'm sorry to report that a subreddit does not consist of any kind of valuable correlative indicator when talking about the medical domain. There is just such a swarm of flaws in such analysis that it must be discarded entirely (biased sampling, placebo, and fabrication being the top three). Yeah, it's impossible to determine the exact frequency, but considering everything, I see it being possible that getting covid vaccine could ruin running 1 out of 1,000 cases or more. Once again, I don't have evidence for it, but this is based on my intuition. Yeah, will see what happens with BMJ trial. It's definitely possible I will take this vaccine in the future, but I need more data & analysis. Trust me, I'm not happy about spending so much time on deciding this, and I kind of wish I maybe should've just taken it in summer, so I didn't have to spend so much time and energy trying to research this. Unfortunately my research has only opened more question marks, but I'm not feeling good about taking it any longer. |
For what it's worth, thank you for actually analysing the evidence and not blindly falling into conspiracy or groupthink against the vaccine. While I object to some of your points, your hesitation is your right. I also appreciate the fact that you're open to taking it in the future once your questions are addressed.
As someone who took both shots 6 months ago and had absolutely zero issues, if you decide to take it, I hope your journey will be the same as well!
:)
Edit: I just noticed something interesting. You said something about the fact that if the incidence rate was 1/1 million, it would be statistically unlikely for a couple to both get it. If the aspiration theory was true though, would this really be the case? It would be very likely that both partners got vaccinated by the same provider, perhaps even by the same person. That drastically increases the chance of aspiration not occurring for both people! Just an interesting observation about how the mathematical theory of statistics is not always immediately applicable to RW situations.:)