Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other words, you cannot tell us why those journal articles are not trustworthy. Did you even look at the institutions that collected the data? Check the credentials of the authors? What is wrong with the science?
I don’t know, that’s my point. I find it humorous that you are so sure in your conviction that they are true.
In some ways, I wish I could see the world in that way, that an organization that publishes a medical journal must be trustworthy and must have our well being in mind.
But I live here in the real world where corporations put their own self interests ahead of all else. Universities, government, corporations, they all serve themselves.
You may not know. The doctors and statisticians will figure it out.
Long term takes time to know, but there is no reason to suspect that mRNA vaccines are any more dangerous than older vaccines, which is to say not dangerous at all, especially compared to COVID-19.
If it's only capturing about 1%, that isn't very useful.
Where do you see DCD VAERS is only 1%? Because it says:
"Healthcare providers are required by law to report any conditions on the RET to VAERS,"
VAERS is really the best we have right now reporting adverse effects, and started Dec 31 for the new vaccines. CDC admits that vaccines in 2019 reported 10% severe reactions (death, hospitalization, disability, etc). Those are standard type vaccines before the RNA new types.
It's a bit of pain to get data from it's database so this site takes care of gathering the data, which I find very easy to use with simple sorting options, but may have some data mistakes:
I don’t know, that’s my point. I find it humorous that you are so sure in your conviction that they are true.
In some ways, I wish I could see the world in that way, that an organization that publishes a medical journal must be trustworthy and must have our well being in mind.
But I live here in the real world where corporations put their own self interests ahead of all else. Universities, government, corporations, they all serve themselves.
The argument devolves again to conspiracy theory and science denialism.
In other words, you cannot tell us why those journal articles are not trustworthy. Did you even look at the institutions that collected the data? Check the credentials of the authors? What is wrong with the science?
It is easy to show why those journal articles are not trustworthy. Deceptive statistics, for one thing. The drug companies announced approximately 95% effectiveness, which is a RELATIVE risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction in their studies, on the other hand, was about 1%. NOT quite so impressive.
"a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%."
The argument devolves again to conspiracy theory and science denialism.
Kind of like those 200 health care "experts" who signed a letter saying the BLM riots could not possibly spread the Wuhan virus even though the people violated every rule of safety?
You are just naive if you think today's scientists have the same ethics as 20 years ago.
Where do you see DCD VAERS is only 1%? Because it says:
"Healthcare providers are required by law to report any conditions on the RET to VAERS,"
VAERS is really the best we have right now reporting adverse effects, even though it's only started Dec 31.
It's a bit of pain to get data from it's database so this site takes care of gathering the data, which I find very easy to use with simple sorting options, but may have some data mistakes:
VAERS is only one reporting option and it cannot determine causation. There is also the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which uses actual medical records from physician offices, ERs, and hospitals, in addition to the just for COVID vaccine V-safe.
No, it's not possible. If you recall, the vaccines were tested in double-blind tests comprised of thousands of participants. Some had fairly bad reactions for a day or two, similar to how some people reacted to the regular flu vaccines. If a lot of people died during the testing, they would not have approved it!
As that site says very clearly, it has collected anecdotal evidence. By now, millions have been vaccinated (including myself), and clearly the vast majority had no bad reaction to the vaccine. But some people are just more allergic to "stuff" than other people. I have no allergies. I had utterly NO REACTION to the first OR second dose of Pfizer vaccine. That is anecdotal evidence.
I'm sorry you guys are so distrusting of the mainstream media. How much of that do you think is simply a result of Trump's four-year campaign of slander against the MSM? I think it's pretty clear to most Americans that the lies, mistruths, and misdirections were coming from Trump, not the MSM. And the reason was clear. Narcissist Trump wanted to you to believe only him. Think of the power that gave him!
But jeez, you've got to consider your sources. Getting your "news" off some known-to-be-biased website on the internet is sure to disinform and misinform you. CNN might "select" what news it wants to put out there, but you can be damn sure they check and double-check whether there's evidence or confirmation to back up what they're telling you. Some random website, not so much.
This was emergency approval.
This drug would never have been approved under standard procedures. They haven't had years of studies to see if there are long term effects.
I think its worth the risk. But if you don't understand there are risks beyond a normal vaccine, you seriously need to expand your selection of media sources.
If YOU can read and understand medical journal articles WHY do you think I can't???? I have a PhD in a field that depends on statistics, so I might be MORE qualified than you to understand research.
If you say so....but you think no one but you can understand the definitions of absolute differences and relative differences. We're not ALL as stupid as you think. Apparently your PhD is not in a health-related field because you have complete disdain for "scientific medicine" as though it is tainted. Perhaps it is in a "hard" science and you're not aware of research techniques and how they differ across disciplines.
Where do you see DCD VAERS is only 1%? Because it says:
"Healthcare providers are required by law to report any conditions on the RET to VAERS,"
VAERS is really the best we have right now reporting adverse effects, and started Dec 31 for the new vaccines. CDC admits that vaccines in 2019 reported 10% severe reactions (death, hospitalization, disability, etc). Those are standard type vaccines before the RNA new types.
It's a bit of pain to get data from it's database so this site takes care of gathering the data, which I find very easy to use with simple sorting options, but may have some data mistakes:
Ok, thanks. So this is considered official, or reliable, vaccine risk data?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
