[lazyier]

I donno. Seems like white blood cells are kinda important.

We have a huge number of interactions with bacteria and viruses and all sorts of microorganisms. Hundreds? Thousands times a day? Scratches in the kitchen while preparing food, for example, floods our body with stuff that white blood cells are required to deal with.

Giving up some of the ability to deal with those for a small reduction in the symptoms associated with a specific disease doesn't seem like a useful trade off.

[mabbo]

But the thing is we ran a massive experiment on this called "The covid-19 pandemic".

What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized, and a significant increase in mortality for the non-immunized.

Seems like the data from that experiment should be taken into consideration when deciding if the tradeoff is worthwhile, right?

[treeman79]

Isn’t “unknown cause of death” skyrocketing?

https://youtu.be/F74iqEJnb14

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/58...

[candiddevmike]

What are you trying to insinuate, that the COVID vaccine is causing this?

[User23]

Dishonesty can never satisfy intellectual curiosity. It’s not an insinuation, it’s a scientific possibility that warrants further investigation, especially when boosters are being rushed to market with similarly abbreviated clinical trials. There are some reasons for suspicion. One is the rapid fading of the vaccine’s effectiveness. Why is it so much faster than expected? What’s the mechanism? Another is that every other coronavirus vaccine tested has resulted in decreased immune function due to Antibody dependent engancement. Do we know the current vaccines cause ADE? Not so far as I’m aware. Is it something that should be researched? I’d say so.

[strongpigeon]

Not being aware of any research about ADE doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened… There has been a ton of it and it tends to be something that shows up pretty evidently in clinical trials.

Not a research paper, but a good article talking about ADE: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9164...

[yojo]

Excess deaths are widely considered to be “from Covid” right now. It is possible there’s something else going on, but as the parent said, the numbers you should care about when making a vaccine decision are the mortality rate of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.

Unvaccinated people are dying at a much higher rate. If your biggest concern is not dying, you should be vaccinated.

[base698]

Most of the excess deaths are not covid but attributed from effects of lockdown (drug use, untreated cancers).

[vibrio]

I've not heard this, it is interesting. Do you have information on source/methods/study groups etc?

[treeman79]

I was going through serious medical issues when I lost access to my doctors from Covid.

I got lucky in that the 20th medication they tried just before lockdown ended up working. Would most likely probably be dead if things had shut down a month earlier.

Tons of people in support forums were in a panic over lost access. Needed testing / procedure.

Not fun when brain is swelling and doctors say they can’t see you.

[soco]

Then we cannot attribute them to the vaccine, which was the original point.

[omniglottal]

And, likewise, you cannot NOT attribute them to the vaccine. Inconclusive data is not to be either used as a calibrated measure nor to be simply ignored.

[skyde]

Exactly I assumed everybody knew this. A lot of important surgery .. got postponed by hospitals because of lock-down.

[TigeriusKirk]

But it's a valid concern to know if the vaccinated are dying at a higher rate than pre-2020, and if so, is that attributable to the vaccine.

There's no brushing off this concern, it's vitally important to get this information.

[soco]

There are the CDC stats attached to a sibling comment.

[code51]

There are large crowds that took 2 doses in pandemic period (getting vaccinated properly back at the time) but not receiving boosters.

It would be easy to track:

- 2 dose, no other booster

- all boosters

- no vaccine

and readjust results considering age and other bias etc.

If all booster people have excess deaths, than "not from Covid" ? If 2 dose people excess deaths < all boosted people, than something about vaccine? No vaccine could be control.

[omniglottal]

The unvaccinated have been receiving lower quality of care. The symptomatic have Been diagnosed without PCR accuracy. The data being collected is bad. Let's not treat it as good data, and see assumptions such as this for what they are, which falls in the "not good data" category.

[dapf]

> Excess deaths are widely considered to be “from Covid”

Considered by whom? The funny thing is that there was no non-covid excess mortality in 2020, that stated on 2021, which is the same time the v{censored} started.

> Unvaccinated people are dying at a much higher rate.

Again, where did you see that?

[jat850]

Insurance companies have already begun publishing reports indicating that excess mortality rates are inversely related to vaccine adoption (i.e. higher excess mortality in states with lower vaccination rates).

[ibeckermayer]

Source?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Again, where did you see that?

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-Cases...

[yojo]

There are definitely excess deaths reported starting in 2020. Started in March. See the chart at the bottom of this page: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

And here’s the total death rate by vaccination status: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-co...

I assume you’ll switch to some CDC conspiracy nonsense at this point, in which case we are done here.

[mizzack]

You're conflating total excess deaths for _all_ vax statuses (in your first link) against COVID death rates by vax status (with your second link).

Neither is what the GP is talking about.

[User23]

Do you mean “Weekly number of deaths (from all causes)?” If so that is such a junk chart I don’t see how it supports either claim. The X axis label is absolute garbage. It’s completely unclear where the new year begins. A naive reading (counting back from 2022) has the excess deaths starting in 2019!

[origin_path]

Two problems:

1. That wasn't a controlled experiment. Observational data < RCTs.

2. You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. It's a common error. For overall mortality the picture is far less clear. For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit.

Also, we now have excess deaths above the expected baseline for long periods in 2022, which is unprecedented. Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. So the data from the "experiment" is not obviously positive.

[zionic]

>You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID.

There's also the problem of governments playing funny games around deaths and "vaccinated". Someone who died from an adverse reaction immediately following their shot would not count as a vaccinated death, because the _definition_ of "vaccinated" meant you completed the vaccine schedule which was multiple shots over time.

[Izkata]

Not just after the last shot, you're not counted as fully vaccinated until two weeks after the last shot: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

(look under "Am I still considered fully vaccinated if I don't get a booster?")

[peter422]

Please show any evidence of this claim.

In trials the vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people where adverse reactions were meticulously recorded and there just isn’t any evidence that the vaccines caused immediate death in anybody.

Then beyond that there isn’t any evidence that there also is a government conspiracy following the first dubious claim.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit.

> Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths.

[citation needed]

[stoneglyph]

There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?

[importantbrian]

There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant.

In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed.

The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.

[stoneglyph]

Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?

[Sohcahtoa82]

17 vs 21 in a study of 40K is not statistically significant.

[stoneglyph]

And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?

[origin_path]

OK. Deaths in the RCTs:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489

[edit: fixed typo in link]

"To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines ... For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)"

Excess deaths in the UK. Useful because (a) it's all in English and (b) the UK authorities do split out deaths by vaccine status unlike most places:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-so...

"For 14 of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged around 1,000 extra deaths each week, none of which are due to Covid. If the current trajectory continues, the number of non-Covid excess deaths will soon outstrip deaths from the virus this year – and be even more deadly than the omicron wave. The Government has admitted that the majority of the excess deaths appear to be from circulatory issues and diabetes – long-term, chronic conditions that can be fatal without adequate care."

Increases by cause of death:

https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-5....

Dashboard that lets you explore the data directly from the source:

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00N...

UK data at first appears to show that the unvaccinated die at a higher rate. However, this is only because they're using incorrect population figures. Although it may seem absurd the government population figures in the UK are officially labelled "experimental" because they are universally acknowledged to be far too low. In some age groups the official population is lower than the number of people who came forward for immunization, so these figures cannot be used and indeed the UK HSA didn't use the official population stats when computing their own effectiveness rates, but rather estimates from NIMS (National Immunization Service). If the same methodology is used then you can calculate chart 4 on this page from officially released data:

https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-...

"The ONS data is interesting because it also includes data on non-Covid deaths by vaccination status ... Using this alternative estimate of the population of England [from NIMS] now suggests that the vaccines substantially increase the risk of death for reasons other than Covid."

Unfortunately and worryingly, even the NIMS estimates are likely to be seriously off. According to NIMS about 9% of the British population refused vaccination but a few months ago the BBC commissioned a professional survey from a polling firm, to ask people questions about their vaccine status and if they didn't take it, why not. They were surprised to discover that 25% of people said they were unvaccinated.

> To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines

[importantbrian]

Did you bother to click on that first link? It's broken because the authors retracted the paper. This kind of stuff is the reason it's hard to take vaccine skeptics seriously.

[origin_path]

Yes, that's how I quoted from it. The link had a number deleted from the end, a mistake whilst editing the post. I fixed it. The authors haven't retracted the paper.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30)

31 deaths with mRNA and 30 deaths with placebo with over 74K people in the trial to me means that mRNA carries zero risk. In a sample size that large, 1 additional death means essentially zero correlation.

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-so...

Article is subscribe-walled. Not subbing.

> Dailysceptic

I'm not going to accept "Daily Sceptic" as a source.

> PowerBI

I don't find the data in this dashboard to be very incriminating. Excess deaths are still highly attributed to COVID.

> https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-...

This article is very painfully committing the Base Rate Fallacy.

See https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/154723580144821043... for a good explanation on that.

[origin_path]

"This article is very painfully committing the Base Rate Fallacy."

You didn't read past the first sentence, did you? Embarrassing, because the article starts by explaining the base rate fallacy and pointing out that the social media meme it starts by highlighting is wrong. Then it goes on to do correct analysis, which shows the conclusions I gave. You'd have known this if you read my post properly too, because I have a whole paragraph about the stats involved in correctly calculating base rates. If you think there are mistakes in the rest of the article please explain them, but you do need to actually read it first.

"I'm not going to accept "Daily Sceptic" as a source."

Again you didn't even click the link and look, did you? The image is a table of data from official government statistics, they simply happen to host the screenshot. But I knew I'd get a response like that from someone. Lack of intellectual curiosity around this topic is extreme - for obvious and understandable reasons of course. But still.

Re: PowerBI

Where do you see that? There are virtually no COVID deaths (a.k.a. "had a positive test a month before death") since the end of the winter in the UK. Look at the data for the various kinds of heart failure, for example. You see clear excess where COVID isn't implicated starting around the end of April.

"1 additional death means essentially zero correlation."

After incorrectly snarking about not understanding statistics, you're now demonstrating a mis-understanding yourself (albeit a very common one).

You can't simply look at a small difference and say "not statistically significant therefore there is no risk". That's not how statistics works. Firstly, the overall sample size was very large, it was an RCT. So we can say with great certainty that the vaccines have no effect on mortality, yet, that was the entire purpose of developing them. I see up thread some people are now trying to deny this, claiming that the vaccine trials were never meant to even study death rates! Truly Orwellian stuff. Death is the endpoint that motivated everything.

What we can't say with great certainty is if the vaccines are truly more deadly than the placebo. But statistical significance is not the same thing as significance. This is a really common logic error you see even amongst scientists themselves (when badly motivated). This result means the vaccines might be more deadly than the placebo or might not, and therefore the correct response is to gather more data. The incorrect answer is to say "eh, yolo, let's assume the optimistic result", especially if you're about to force people to take it on a massive scale.

But of course they didn't gather this data. The people who created and run the COVID vaccine programmes think that any expression of doubt about vaccine safety is immoral anti-science anti-vaxx insanity, which in turn means they can't neutrally measure or act on data. Their conclusions are chosen before they even do a single experiment, so they just went ahead and did it.

At any rate, the placebo in these trials was incorrect. They gave the placebo arm vaccines too, just different ones, so this is actually not comparing against reality (=no vaccine) and therefore overly generous to the vaccine under test.

[canoebuilder]

What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized

https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1569648795373166593#m

We are seeing high levels of excess mortality that we shouldn’t be seeing, if the “safe and effective” propaganda was remotely true.

If by “immunized” you mean those who had one or many mRNA injections, then we are seeing high correlation between excess deaths and that population.

And there are many papers detailing likely causal mechanisms between those deaths and those injections.

Sorry people, we were lied to. Was it malice, incompetence, both? Don’t know…

But I see no reason to go on Stockholm syndroming ourselves.

[belltaco]

That's a lot of unfounded speculation. There's as much evidence that invisible space aliens are causing excess deaths as there is for mRNA vaccines.

[canoebuilder]

Really, you think that? There are excess deaths and dropping fertility. What is the cause? People have tried every explanation they can think of and nothing adds up except for one thing few people want to talk or think about, why is that?

We’re not talking about speculation, we’re talking about clear thinking and rigorous deduction of potential causal pathways. The drop in fertility is, horribly so, blindingly obvious. In country after country, 9 months after mRNA injections rollout for young people we are seeing a striking drop in births. We know there is an effect on women’s reproductive system and men’s. Men’s sperm counts drop a study from Israel has shown. Many, many reports from women of their periods having been effected.

Unfortunately, there is nothing speculative about this. Nobody wants this to be the case. That this was pushed the way it was on young people is criminal and insane.

In terms of death or injury there are definitely cases where it is entirely clear cut just hours or days after an injection somebody is dead or severely debilitated in a way clearly linked to the shot.

Those are deaths or injuries that had no business occurring and yet they did, why?

In the aggregate/macro overview we’re seeing it in data where it can’t be hidden and in the day to day. Just do a search for something like “unexpectedly died”

Again, who wants this thing so many went fanatical about a year ago to have caused this?

Something did cause it though, and at this point the most likely and parsimonious explanation is the shots. And not for lack of trying alternative explanations. Why stick your head in the sand if that leads to more death and destruction. We’ve found ourselves in a hole in terms of societal health, let’s stop digging.

This is the first I’ve heard of the invisible space alien theory. What is the evidence for it?

[manwe150]

> The drop in fertility is, horribly so, blindingly obvious. In country after country, 9 months after mRNA injections rollout for young people we are seeing a striking drop in births.

The US birth rate continues to climb after the introduction of vaccines, for the first time in decades.

I have yet to see a chart that shows a decline that wasn’t painfully manipulate to hide the fact it declined much less after vaccinations than it had in the decade leading up to it. Though I have only seen articles for a handful of countries.

[canoebuilder]

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/dramatic-decrease-in-birth...

https://igorchudov.substack.com/archive?sort=search&search=f...

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-birth-rate-data-w...

https://alexberenson.substack.com/?sort=search&search=fertil...

[dapf]

> What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized, and a significant increase in mortality for the non-immunized

Where did you see that?

[robbiemitchell]

Here's just a few seconds of searching re: increased mortality for non-vaccinated:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-co...

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-Cases...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/02/08/omicron-dea...

[dangerlibrary]

Over a million people, in the U.S. alone, died in under two years after being infected with this virus.

Even granting the unlikely possibility that this mouse model is reflective of the immune response in humans, whatever other microorganisms people were encountering were demonstrably less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2.

Unless you know of some other highly infectious microorganism that rapidly spread to hundreds of millions of people and killed 1-2% of those it infected?

[taolegal]

> Even granting the genuinely unlikely possibility that this mouse model is reflective of the immune response in humans, whatever other microorganisms people were encountering were demonstrably less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2.

The mouse model is apparently enough for the new booster.

[peter422]

So they ran the phase 2/3 trial in >1000 humans for fun?

The problem with anti-vaxxers is you just imagine a world in which everything is underhanded and a conspiracy when all the science and data is out there in the open, just ignored.

[taolegal]

Anti-vax? You have no clue what my beliefs are on this, I'm not anti-vaccine. I remember just last year the Biden administration forced through the booster shots (after a propaganda campaign predicated one & done, that then extended into mandates, which Biden, Pelosi & others said were never on the table or illegal, later to be proven unconstitutional by the supreme court).

Senior officials at the FDA resigned over the insufficient evidence of efficacy. Not only was it unclear that they should be approved for seniors, they just opened it up to everyone. It's only gotten worse now. It's not even remotely clear to me that the average healthy person (not on the standard American diet, chronically ill with the typical stuff like diabetes & obesity) needs upwards of 4 vaccines, and counting, for a virus that's much more attenuated & practically everyone has some form of immunity at this point.

Also: to answer your question, from what I can tell the studies haven't shown efficacy. They only show that antibodies rose, which we know isn't absolute proof of efficacy with regards to infection or disease.

[peter422]

I never said the trials showed efficacy, though there are multiple high quality trials which do show serious benefits of 3rd/4th shots in various age groups. I just say they ran human trials, which your comment implied they didn’t.

Also:

- no good evidence the virus is attenuated (lower hospitalizations/mortality likely driven by increased population immunity)

- a lot of FDA/CDC officials agreed with the decision too, and I think on the whole were proved right to offer to the booster to older populations before all the studies were completed.

- nobody is forcing you to get the 3rd/4th shots, why do you want to prevent other people from getting them if they want them? You are sooo sure they are bad?

[taolegal]

Sure let people get them voluntarily. My point is that all this irrational exuberance is very clearly precipitously eroding trust in public health authority & science generally.

[scarface74]

How is the booster even a political talking point? Even Trump has been advocating the booster.

The facts on the ground changed around July 2021 with the advent of the variants.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> It's not even remotely clear to me ...

and the reasons why it should be clear to you are what, precisely?

Do you have some particular expertise in public health? Or are just another person who believes that applying their own intelligence and internet sleuthing skills are sufficient to allow them to question the decisions made by people who make this sort of thing their life's work?

[spookthesunset]

Science requires participation to work. If these “experts” cannot explain their data and people can’t reproduce their results… something is badly wrong.

[peteradio]

I'm sure the Army would love to have the draft and would make it their life's work to get every American to be all they can be. Every American has to sleuth their way through the rat race or you will be taken for a sucker.

[spookthesunset]

It doesn’t require a conspiracy to think something is majorly wrong with how the last 2.5 years were handled. Everybody played to their incentives and thought they were doing the right thing. The outcome was a complete disaster and a horrific overreaction. But people thought they were doing the right thing.

It’s kind of like a modern engineering failure. It takes multiple failures to bring down complex, redundant systems. That is what happened here.

> when all the science and data is out there in the open, just ignored.

I lost count of the number of times somebody yelled or called me “dangerous” for showing this data. Most of the public data goes directly against the narrative people like to push. It gets tossed right into the “conspiracy” bin. Virtually nothing about our response was based on science or data.

[peter422]

> Virtually nothing about our response was based on science or data.

Virtually nothing?

So the thousands and thousands of studies on vaccines, treatments, mask policies, vaccine policies, school policies, air filtration techniques, etc, etc… those were just done for no reason?

To say we live in an imperfect society with imperfect leaders and imperfect citizens is a fair point. Incorrect decisions were and continue to be made for political reasons or religious reasons or whatever else. That’s what happens in an imperfect society. To say “virtually nothing” about the response is based on data is just ridiculous.

Again, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists make up a world where decisions are made in secret for suspicious reasons when generally all the data and arguments are out in the open and are just ignored.

[spookthesunset]

> anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists

Are all the highly esteemed professors, scientists, politicians, healthcare workers, and researchers who signed the great barrington declaration anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists?

Do you have any idea how many people in real life yelled at me and called me incredibly nasty things for suggesting that maybe, just maybe this myopic fixation on Covid was going to have some serious long term effects and maybe, just maybe we are overreacting?

You can’t speak against the narrative. Speaking out against what we did was and still is career suicide if you are in healthcare, science or research.

There has been a continual incredibly strong push to label anything that goes against “the narrative” as misinformation, “anti-whatever”. Speaking out as a member of the medical/science community gets you blacklisted. Beware of any research that got published in the heat of this mess—there were strong incentives to only publish research that supported “the narrative”.

[omniglottal]

Do not make such assumptions - it is against the guidelines and is abusive to the notion that we can engage in dialogue here in good faith.

[omniglottal]

Why not plural microorganismS? Although a neglible increase of mortality across countless events where broad-acting immunity protects us may be outside your ability to calculate, it's still readily applicable to recognize that a lot of straw exists on a camel's back without simply studying just the one which broke it. An overall increase in mortality from all causes is congruent with valid scientific theory and is a hypothesis worth evaluating without eschewing existing data. Your question is unneccessarily leading with false premises by which you define the answer without accepting the known truth. If you're looking for just one organism which would need to spread, then you're looking in the wrong place for how, i.e., people were killed by myocarditis, or inability to stay nourished while suffering vaccine-induced side effects, including inability to defend with the same metabolic fervor from the flu.

[canoebuilder]

I donno. Seems like white blood cells are kinda important.

Relevant: https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1568951911084072960#m

[manwe150]

As another commented pointed out, we have hundreds of millions of data points in people now post-vaccination and post-boosters, which haven’t detected a problem, and only 12 here in mice, that the authors suggest warrants further study. Which hypothesis are you saying has “no data”?

[FollowingTheDao]

It is hard to see a problem if you are not looking for it or if the cause is distant from the reaction.

An Example: My friend had undiagnosed alpha gal for months because the anaphylactic reaction happened to him more than 12 hours after eating red meat so they did not know the connection.

Is Long Covid actually not from COVID but from this weekend immune system having to fight off old latent viruses it once had not problem with?

[peyton]

It took only 12 mice to find unexpected effects? How was the vaccine tested again?

[yojo]

You’d be amazed at the number of unexpected effects I could find studying just a single mouse!

Having a small number data points means that a single outlier can impact your results. And since “no results” typically doesn’t get published, the rare events end up disproportionately represented in journals.

The smaller the sample size, the more likely the “effect” you’re seeing is just random chance.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> It took only 12

That's a very small sample size.

Also, it's mice.

[dragontamer]

You're welcome to post the other pandemics that occurred in 2020 through 2022.

Flu was practically wiped out for example. COVID19 was more fit, and many people were taking precautions (ie: masks) that also hampered the spread of Flu.

If mRNA vaccines really inhibited general immune response to other viruses / bacteria, it should be demonstrable. Just line up the number of people who died / got sick of non-COVID19 diseases in 2020 through 2022 and compare them to the COVID19 vaccine patients, stratified for age/sex/race.

[zionic]

>Just line up the number of people who died / got sick of non-COVID19 diseases in 2020

This is _extremely_ difficult to do, as a mix of both incentive structures and poor policy lead to any death with a positive PCR test being counted as a COVID death.

It's practically impossible now to go back and figure out how many were _actually_ "killed by COVID" vs "died _with_ COVID".

[dragontamer]

> It's practically impossible now to go back and figure out how many were _actually_ "killed by COVID" vs "died _with_ COVID".

Have you ever read a death certificate?

They don't even read "killed by COVID19". The direct cause of death is _NEVER_ COVID19.

https://dphhs.mt.gov/vitalrecords/certificationofcovid-19

COVID19 doesn't even play a role until 2 or 3 lines later. Doctors write down "Killed by X" which was caused by "Y" which was caused by "Z". COVID19 is never "X", its always Y, Z, or later.

---------

Because we have these statistics, we can correlate "X" causes. If "X" is "blunt force trauma to the head", it is unlikely that "Y" or "Z" will be COVID19.

But don't take my word for it. There's plenty of death certificates, and such data has been coallated together.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm

See Table 2 in this list, as an example. You can see that the immediate cause of death for most COVID19 patients is Pneumonia, unspecified (J18.9), followed by Acute respiratory failure (J96.0).

Which of these ICD codes do you think is being misclassified as a COVID19 death? Please be specific. Any such large scale misclassification would be obviously in the data here.

[peter422]

Most people who had covid and died probably wouldn’t have died so quickly if they didn’t have covid.

Why you do the mental gymnastics to pretend this isn’t true is so baffling.

[autoexec]

You're right. At one point I read it was as high as 10 years that the average person who died of covid could have otherwise lived on for. I suspect that number has changed a few times over the pandemic, but even a few years more years with a loved one is priceless, losing anything close to a decade would be a massive loss.

[spookthesunset]

I’m sure George Floyd would have lived a little longer if he wasn’t Covid positive when he died.

It doesn’t matter anyway. The data required to support our mitigations stopped mattering a long long time ago. ..Sometime back when the “4% kill rate” predicted by the imperial college paper turned out to be very very wrong and when all those temporary military hospital things got closed because they weren’t being used. That might have been a good time to reevaluate what the fuck we were doing but instead of celebrating the fact that Covid wasn’t nearly as bad as predicted we just doubled down for a year and a half more instead.

Honestly it’s best to just take the numbers at face value and assume any overcount is balanced by undercounts.

[dragontamer]

> I’m sure George Floyd would have lived a little longer if he wasn’t Covid positive when he died.

George Floyd tested positive for COVID19 before he died, but its not listed in his cause of death.

Is that really the best counterexample you've got of an improper death certificate?

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/711012da318e49...

There's not even any COVID19 listed on here.

[peter422]

I said most, not all.

If 95% of people died from covid, and 5% died with covid, then basically for all intents and purposes and how we use this data, the distinction is irrelevant.

[spookthesunset]

I agree. I just take the numbers at face value. Trying to suggest they are under or over counted is a fools errand. It will take decades of distance from this event for cooler heads to tally up what really happened.

[jat850]

> It's practically impossible now to go back and figure out how many were _actually_ "killed by COVID" vs "died _with_ COVID".

No, it's not. Which is why some health regions are going back and doing exactly this, to reflect the distinction.