rok-sivante in Deep Dives • 2 years ago (edited)
2 years ago in Deep Dives by rok-sivante
10x more likely to die from vaccines over covid?
Of, show me the absolute figures and the sources, as simple as that:
How many people died before the vaccine and how many died after?
No need to freestyle the data analysis if the number is that big.
Ok, just a brief brush where you totally fail, Mr. Nye. Foremost, VAERS numbers don't indicate actual causal linkage, something you would know if you spent half as much time doing research as you spent on your math. Also, you are pulling numbers from across different variants of covid, when we know the risk profiles are different. I won't bother to check your math or even your reasoning, I assume you can use a spreadsheet, even if your research skills are crap.
No need to check his math, just check the last spreadsheet to see the absurds, it reaches the conclusion that people over 80 that get vaccinated have 50x less chances of dying from heart diseases.
This guy managed to find a cure for heart diseases by failing at math and mixing data classification.
You might want to zoom in on the webpage spreadsheet before you rake him over the coals. The only way you could draw that conclusion is if you missed a 0. The chart states the chance of an 80 year old dying of a heart attack in general is .0032% , compared to from covid .2% and vaccination .02%. So an 80 year old immediately raises his risk 6.25x of a heart attack by getting the vaccine (.02% divided by .0032%), vs 62.5X times from If they contract covid (you have a 100% chance of getting the vaccine when you agree to it vs. a less than 100% chance of getting covid). This is probably why he didn't highlight that part of the table.
where would you say to get sources that "indicates actual causal linkage"?
that you are also be informed: @rok-sivante
To establish causal linkage requires much more intensive research. VAERS acts as potential alarm system, where reviewers can look for statistically anomalous problems among the vaccinated. If such an anomaly does arise, then further investigation is required to see if there is a causal link to the vaccine they took, or if there is some completely different cause. But no one can just blindly look at the VAERS database and come to the kinds of conclusions this poster is doing. He is basically assuming that all these effects are because of the vaccine, but this database isn't reporting that at all.
As a simple example of how this works, there were some anomalous results for the AstraZeneca vaccine among younger people which pointed to a potential risk for blood clots. The EU temporarily halted the administration of AZ until they had done further research and rated the potential risks associated with it. Ultimately it was decided that the risks were low enough compared to the risks from covid that they resumed usage. But they couldn't just determine this from the VAERS database, otherwise they could have just immediately made a decision one way or the other.
do you have a better link to compare?
I think you've missed the point. The data you're looking for isn't just sitting around in an easily consumable form. You're expecting too much in this case. But lack of great data is no excuse for using an obviously unsuitable data source for an analysis of this type.
you mean, there is no source that could confirm anyway?
I don't understand what you are asking: source that could confirm what? Please leave a more detailed sentence.
How do you compare the risks?
By downvoting this post you don't give much credential to yourself.
If you prefer to believe that the virus is dangerous and assume that your government wants nothing but to protect you, that is your business. What do you think should happen to people who don't want to be vaccinated? Have they lost their freedom of choice for you and must they be forced to comply? How would you reconcile that with peaceful co-existence between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people? Countless people refuse to accept the vaccination, that's a fact. Shall they and those pro measurements be at war with each other and make their respective lives miserable?
By downvoting this post you don't give much credential to yourself.
We're talking about life and death consequences for people and you're hung up a few dollars downvote? But just to clarify: I don't vote to gain approval from anyone and that is not something I am concerned about.
What do you think should happen to people who don't want to be vaccinated? Have they lost their freedom of choice for you and must they be forced to comply?
No. People are not being forced to get vaccinated, and I am not advocating for that at all. This is a straw man argument repeatedly being arguing in headlines by anti-vaxxers. Vaccine mandates are not enforced requirements to get a vaccine. If they were, most of the populations of higher income countries that have enough vaccine on hand, such as the US, would probably be mostly vaccinated already.
But if a company requires its employees to be vaccinated in order to avoid risks for other employees and its customers, employees have the choice to leave that job if they are strongly against getting vaccinated This is the essence of freedom of choice: people have the freedom to not associate with other people who put their lives at more risk by choosing to deal with businesses that promise their employees are vaccinated.
This applies doubly to hospital workers, where I think it is outrageous that there are some hospital workers who believe they should be allowed to continue to work in an environment with high-risk patients without being vaccinated (notably this is almost universally staff and not doctors who understand the risk/reward ratios much better). But imagine your surgeon decided that he didn't want to wash his hands with disinfectants before operating on you because he didn't believe in them.
Well, the point is not for me the same as it is for you
We're talking about life and death consequences
From my perspective, I don't talk about life and death consequences. Making this an argument kills all other arguments. Is it actually an argument at all?
I asked you if you thought people should be forced to vaccinate. You answered "no". Are you sure you are voting for "no"? I find some doubt in your answer, especially when you imagine being a patient in a hospital. That leads room for interpreting that being a consumer, might fall in the same range (shopping in supermarket, for example).
You argue that companies that have a vaccination policy are not coercive because the person leaving the company can secure their livelihood on the basis of free choice of occupation, have I understood that correctly? From how I think, that doesn't make the company non coercive. Am I correct?
Are you sure that one can continue to choose freely? When would the time come when such is no longer possible and is that a scenario you completely rule out? Because your example, which you give immediately after the non-existing compulsion, also indicates that you don't seem to be completely free of doubt.
I'll need to investigate your stats, but the argument presented is plausible.
Sources all there available to public, anyone can - and perhaps should - do the math themselves
I just wish people were as skeptical toward the CDC as they are toward VAERS. The Great Barrington Declaration must always be remembered as the untried liberty alternative to what we all are experiencing instead.
It is not. 10x as likely to die? That would push the deaths to the brackets of hundreds of millions. Are we having hundreds of millions dead? No. The goal of freestyle statistics is exactly to confuse you.
I have known many people who contracted COVID and survived with no ill effects in the long term. I am statistically as close to zero risk of death as one can be since I am relatively healthy and well under 50.
Big Pharma and the federal government have earned nothing but my distrust over the past 2 decades. We know both have performed secret medical experiments in the past, and even if their intentions are completely pure here, the fact remains that they don't bear any risk should we suffer unexpected consequences.
It may not be likely to kill you, but dying is not the only risk of covid, there are higher risks of long term debilitation as a result of catching covid. The risks for young people in good health are not exceptionally high, but they are a real risk. And there is still not great data on how risky the latest variants are, but they do appear to be higher than for original covid.
Right. There are risks from the virus other than death, However, even those other risks are extremely low, and known.
What is not known: vaccine risk. This is a new vaccine technology, and the promotion method uses every tactic in the propaganda playbook. The people in power who are pushing it have spent their careers earning my distrust and skepticism. I an open to being shown that my suspicions are misplaced, but we need open source science instead of cults of personality and partisan bullshit.
I think you have every right to distrust politicians. But I disagree that the push for vaccination is coming from politicians. Several of my friends are doctors (smarter than average ones, I will add), and they are all very pro-vaccine when it comes to covid.
And they were not just propagandized into that position. For example, I talked to one when news of the virus in China was first being reported, before it migrated to other countries. She accurately predicted a lot of details about how the virus would affect us, sweeping through the nursing homes, wiping out the elderly. She went into details about how the vaccines would be developed based on current vaccine science and told me that the situation would probably continue until an effective vaccine was created and enough was distributed around the world.
Probably it's blasphemy to say that my decision to not believe in the epidemic and to not let me test nor being injected does not include data, but my own voice which said "no" to all of this ... early on. I don't want anybody to take hold of my body or mind. I refuse to believe in things, many other people believe in. I trust my inner statistician which may sound ridiculous, for one seems obsessed with source naming and the single human is not taking seriously any more, saying that observation of single humans cannot count. One may be wrong in terms for "the whole world" but then the whole world is not of my concern.
People demand reasons, sources, citations, but I am already sick of it. The individuals stand point is being reduced by all this, the individual counts nothing, the collective everything. It's odd and I find it worrying.
I often cannot name exactly or even nearly where my reasonings come from, it's the sum of a lifetimes journey where what I read, experienced and lived through formed my beliefs and un-beliefs. How could I possibly name all the influences and sources by dates and names?
Nevertheless I welcome your text and reblog it. People seem to need it and I don't totally resist that. But for myself, I made up my mind since this whole thing began.
And in exemplifying such innate intelligence, you win more of my respect than the billions who blindly march off the cliff trusting a dying establishment based in lies, distortions, and fear combined.
(I know that may seem/sound harsh to some - especially those in the latter group - but it’s the truth of how I feel on the matter.)
How can we overcome the enmity between the camps and still maintain dignity? It's like living in parallel worlds where there seems no access to each other. I try to find a middle way but that's not easy. Trying to ask direct questions or avoid the topic all over when I sense that otherwise another bridge would be closed.
Have a good day and thank you again for the research.
From one angle, I could see that as an unrealistic aim. (At least in regards to bringing all people in alignment.) That there are some people who’ve went so far into one extreme or another and may not be willing to seek the middle ground of peace between camps.
From another... perhaps it’s simply a matter of doing so individually - knowing that it’d be impossible to get everyone on the same page, but walking in our personal truth regardless as an example of that higher degree of character we’d like to see more of in the world.
My favourite astrologer, The Leo King, was just saying last night how he foresees the V not getting approved - and how that actually might be a catalyst to healing the divide. I’d personally like to see that unfold, as then it’d be pretty hard for people to keep denying.
Either way, perhaps just a matter of “staying in our own lanes” while honouring that’s others are in theirs, taking their own journeys to different destinations, and emanating compassion irregardless of what others choosing to aggressively reinforce the division are doing. Perhaps each shall come to see different levels of Truth in their own timing - or not - and best just surround ourselves with those whose embodiment supports what we need for our own highest/best growth. Blah Blah Blah. 🤷♂️
:) HaHa, I like it when you put a Blah Blah Blah behind your sentences. Shows your humor.
From one angle, I could see that as an unrealistic aim.
And it probably is. So it's always a pick and see, no? I try to go by the way you mentioned here. Oftentimes I am able to do that, more than the other way around. The thing is, I feel, that I am holding myself back when I question another person and assume, he or she might not do me the same favor. That's the aggravating component in social contact. Trying to still learn to stay true.
Iam not so good in english, but that seems to be a good work. Would you say, that openvaers is a good source? I try myself with adrreports, but that is really difficult, to get the data you want.
Don't worry about the trolls, You see, they have no arguments. And if they do like they would, it is just a insunuation of facts, without facts.
Great post. Useful. Reblogged.
One thing I noticed. In comparing COVID vs VACCINE chart you used the death/fatality rate when comparing it to all of the other things. Some of those things the chance of happening from COVID should have been 0%. Such as Bell's Palsy. Also those other things likely have lower numbers than you have there. The only direct comparison I'd think would be Death.
I thought I'd mention this because that makes the chart even worse than you have presented it to be. The vaccines are FAR more dangerous than COVID across ALL age categories when you factor in that detail.
The sad part is: those who actually think we’ll go back to “normal” are gonna be quite disappointed...
It goes to show you--it's not how many smarts you have, it's what you do with the smarts you have that counts.
and meanwhile... the person with the alleged 'highest IQ out of anyone that's ever been tested' can't figure the meaning of this cartoon out... and proceeds to brag about how much he works out.
rather hilariously ironic, given the nature of the cartoon, isn't it? 🤣👏🤓
Every academic I know criticises the government.... The trumpets and bolsominions (brazilian version of trump pets) all were crying against science exactly because the scientists said the government was handling bad the pandemic both in USA and brazil, by not restricting correctly and by delaying vaccinations....
Think before you meme. Think. Maybe if you are against most people that dedicated their entire lives to research biology throroughtly then maybe, just maybe, you are the brainwashed one....
Scientism: When Science Becomes Religion
Wiser people than you realized most people are ignorant and can only approach (even without reaching) the truth by trusting and working with others.
You can question, but from what I have read you are most likely, best case, just wrong and dumb, worst case you are knowingly putting people at risk.
Boy, did I hit the nail on the head...Okay, okay, "I'm convinced", how about you?
I followed this exchange.
So you are saying that most of these people have dedicated their lives. Personally, I don't know any such passionate people who devote their lives to their profession, for instance. Do you?
It seems to me like an ideal of the selfless researcher who devotes his time and energy to nothing but altruistic motives. Whereas the reality of life is rather that one has to pay the rent, buy food, bear running costs. On top of that, there is pressure to adapt, both socially and economically. Add to this the interests of those who, by virtue of their corporate form, wield far greater influence than you and I, and their profitable interests, and then consider what their priorities might be.
The moment you insult someone you meet online as stupid and inconsiderate, however, you disqualify yourself. Would you do the same in direct contact with your fellow human beings vis a vis?
Why do you comment in this way? I suppose you don't assume that your interlocutor, addressed in this way, will change his mind and reply: "That's right, I'm stupid and I'm a reckless person"? Where is the gain for you in your comment? I do not understand it.
By dedicating their lives I mean they focused on a field of research. You seem to imagine I meant they worked 18 hours a day, so no. If you want to get a masters degree, a Phd and discover something you have got to put effort in working and studying at the same time, does not necessarily mean you won’t do anything else.
Yes, I do know people that dedicate their lives to science because they study and work the same field at the same time, it is quite common for doctorates. How is this not dedication? I plan on doing the same. If I planned on not dedicating I would, for example, finish my degree and just work a good paying job in computer science, but I plan on studying and working in parallel until I die.
And yes, I expect people to reflect “well, actually yes, some people spent years studying something on real labs doing real math and peer reviewing and getting scrutinized at each step to get a masters or PHD or publish a paper, maybe they know more than me about vaccines and infections”
If I did not expect to change someone’s view I wouldn’t write. We all expect to make a difference. For instance, why did you reply? Did you want me to reflect on what I said? Did you write just want to waste electricity? What was the goal of writing to me?
No idea what you wanna say. What i understand does not fit to me
(says the person with the alleged highest IQ out of anyone that's ever been tested.)
I might be the first man you ever „met
I worked out 4 hours today like almost every day (sometimes just 2-3...)
every day, that'd typically be excess for my body type, but get enough of the types for what works well for it.
I can't answer your first question, what is "healthy food"?
when it's 100 % organic, I must tell you, that probably nobody eats 100 % organic food, even if they think they do. You must be a farmer and a miller, for example, producing your own soil (growing plants) and wheat in oder to be certain that what you eat is 100 % organic.
What is "work out"? Is it doing sports? Is it that you excersize bodily efforts like carrying stuff, bending, stretching in your household, using muscles to cook, bake and take care of yourself and others. Ride your bike to work or walk by foot.
The thing is that people get more sick the older they become. You can eat all kinds of crap and industrial food in young age and it has not a very high impact on you (in terms of death), other than you might gain weight. It becomes more of an obstacle the older you become, that's true. Then weight also is a problem.
It may very well be that people of the past lived longer than we do in modern days. Maybe 80 on average is already a reduced life expectancy compared to time when food and diet were more organic.
I don't know and so no one really does.
I cannot help but to support the "degenerative mainstream lifestyle". I have no farm, no land, no food on my own. I depend on extern supplies. To eat nearly what you suggest, I would have to spend more money on food, which is impossible as we are forced to spend the major amount of income in rent. The "organic"-label on food is nice and may lower a bad consciousness but I think that's often only a promise but not reality.
Having said this, I think, for me it's easier to accept that I live in a world, where food is no longer organic, that I may become sick and die sooner than later. That's the world we inherited. Though I need not force it. Whenever I can get hold on self produced lokal food, I enjoy and welcome it. But I live in a big city and do not fool myself that what I buy in the shops cannot guarantee 100 % organic.
It’s rather arrogant projecting your assumptions about how exactly I’m living my life, telling me to do what I’ve already been doing, you know?
Wow. A high IQ really doesn’t always translate directly to intelligence. 😹
Though for the sake of entertainment, please go ahead and proceed gaslighting - errr, I mean “educating” - me on:
exactly how I’m poisoning myself (after already answering your questions yesterday on how I take proper care of my health - which you either forgot or dismissed because they didn’t live up to the standards of an inflated ego bent on proving itself and looking down upon anyone who exercises anything less than two hours every single day or eats mostly in organic like your all-infallible self at 100%)
how exactly I’m “sick” (based on whatever magical psychic assessment you’re using without having any details whatsoever)
exactly how I’m “lazy” (when you have zero clue of how I actually invest 99.99% of my time & energy and what my results actually are - which are of nobody on the internet’s business)
Please do humour me with your “genius” insight into a life you know perhaps 0.001% about (as you hypocritically puff away on your morning cigarette).
Looking forward to either having my mind surprisingly blown or just more laughs...
And on a side note...
I appreciate the circle back and the real-life demonstration of this lesson in having failed it today - a wonderfully-inadvertent reflection of having slipped by even bothering to reply in the first place, and great reminder for next time the tests come. 🙏