> a much greater injury and death rate attributable to vaccines than COVID.
Explain Australia then, specifically the absence of nation wide injury and death following the short period in which 98% of a population ~ 24 million or so, got two to three rounds of vaccines with a new definition.
Fantastic case study for such widespread ill effects to clearly and unambiguously show up - the country is isolated and has had world class epidemiology researchers plugged into integrated national health records for 50+ years.
Checking back on this thread and wow. The absolutely rabid energy with which Republicans will fabricate information to evade personal moral responsibility for making the COVID death toll worse is incredible.
We have a completely medically illiterate user citing (one) of an endless supply of studies as evidence that vaccines killed people. The study doesn't say that... which isn't surprising because the rest of the literature doesn't either... and nor does the consensus of qualified medical practitioners...
It's as if the prospect of being responsible for contributing to the deaths of countless innocent people made them hallucinate exonerating text.
I wonder if post-genocide states see similar outbursts of insane flights of fiction about basic facts. I imagine they do.
You sound exactly like a preacher. No math, no science.
Seriously, read the thread. Look how hard it is to get people that claim to be on the side of science to do any science! Just do a little math.
Yet you'll tell scientists to their face they are wrong.
A bunch of people who maybe have a degree in marketing giving political opinion as medical advice.
>nor does the consensus of qualified medical practitioners
According to who? Where did you get this from? Aren't you embarrassed to admit that you got it from a media outlet and you've found no such meta study to cite?
According to the consensus, as it appears from the huge amount of research on the topic, COVID RNA treatments exhibit a much higher rate of negative outcomes than traditional vaccines and a higher rate than COVID infection, which mostly goes undetected and causes no symptoms. That's in line with CDC data, and it's according to the CDC statements about the vaccine as well.
The CDC / FDA never made any statements about this treatment being safer than getting COVID for a healthy child or adult as individuals. The purpose of recommending that the risk of treatment was necessary, is for the protection of those with weakened immune systems through herd immunity. For the public good, essentially.
Everything I've said here is backed by the FDA and CDC websites, and you can very easily confirm it. Please do so.
You WANT to be on the side of science, and I love that, but it looks to me like you are on the side of a media conglomerate instead. They've told you that they are the arbiter of science, and you believe them.
What was that injury rate in Australia, how many of the > 20 million vaccine recipients died or were injured by vaccines.
Where are these deaths and injuries greater in magnitude than COVID deaths and injuries?
I cannot answer for you or your governments odd notions. Feel free to concentrate on actually making and landing a solid point with peer commenter azan.
I've landed inarguable points with azan but I'm sure they aren't a "peer" by any definition. Claiming to have a PhD online isn't difficult. But you'll note they went silent when asked to check CDC data.
What about Australia? Want to check that data? Does Australia have a freedom of information system where we can get their data and is it open for doctors to report or is the data cleaned first before it's published?
Let's download it and see what it really says. Plenty of free SQL servers available, and today even people that don't write code can get an LLM to help.
Jump in and be scientist! Are you willing or were you just here to pose like the media told you to?
Okay. I can't say I care much who he represents. I'm more concerned with the fact that half the country is okay with pardoning a war criminal who committed a biological weapons attack on literally every country in the world, including the US.
If I have to pick between a murderer and literally killing everyone on earth I'll pick the murderer because I'm not a psychopath.
Right but at the end of the day how many people died from the Covid vaccine?
We all need a healthy dose of reality. Yes the vaccine rollout was not perfect. But 1 million Americans died from Covid. And that’s that, if we can’t even agree on reality then there’s no point in arguing.
No, 1M Americans died with COVID. Not from COVID. I'm quoting the CDC on that. And that's a very different meaning.
Anyway, that's counter to the study.
And it's counter to the facts after Pfizer's study. Many people died from the vaccine. You can pull the data from the CDC like I did, and like many many others did. It's available as a SQL db.
27% negative outcomes in the study. Lines up pretty well with the CDC data.
Can you link said study, or, like, any study? Or does it mostly just exist in your mind?
Regardless, this idea that the statistics of Covid were fabricated is just baloney. No, 1 million people died FROM COVID. If you have Covid and the have major lung complications and die, then Covid killed you. Right. If someone has, say, ovarian cancer that has spread to the lungs and they die of pneumonia, then they died from ovarian cancer. That’s how that works.
Covid is a somewhat deadly disease, but not too deadly. That much is true. What it is, though, is extremely contagious and a pandemic. That means hundreds of millions of people got covid in America alone. When that many people get sick, yes, the death toll will be very high.
Yes that’s unfortunate. But that’s what happened, that’s why we had the urgency we had, and ignoring the truth won’t change anything about the past.
What we also know is that hundreds of millions of Americans received Covid vaccines. If the death toll was higher from the vaccines like you claim, we would see that, but we just don’t. It’s just plainly untrue. I knew multiple people personally who died from Covid. I did not see anyone, or even hear of anyone, who died from the Covid vaccines. After a certain point we need to employ very basic reasoning skills to analyze what’s going on around us. If something sounds ludicrous, it might just be, and we need to do some napkin math to see if it checks out. What you’re saying just does not stand up to even the most minuscule amount of scrutiny.
The 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is common for all vaccines.
If you bother to read the conclusions sections, you’d see the risk is on-par with other viral vaccines AND the covid vaccine is highly effective. If you’re going to reply, please start off by being honest. I’m not going to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, it’s a waste of my time.
> 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue.
That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today).
Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
I'm here to help if you need it. The math is right there, all you need to do is remove the media brainwashing from your eye glasses when you read the research and just read the study as it is, like a scientist.
It's pretty simple. We teach this same method of writing science articles to 8th graders and they get it. But most people failed science in high school (aka C's transfer), then go vote as if Fox and CNN gave them credentials, sadly.
Hopefully, you'll commit to being a scientist and do better than that.
I'll help you along; the people claiming to be "on the side of science" and are widely publicized, are perverting public opinion on real science. And it's costing a lot of lives, because now people that can't do basic math like this think vaccines altogether are bad.
Is that your goal? I sure hope not.
>no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000
MMR? Nearly all regularly administered vaccines, by the traditional definition (not the post COVID definition) using dead or weakened viruses, have a much lower adverse reaction rate than that. You're saying what you're saying, but you're not looking at the research on those vaccines apparently. 1/500,000 is a very high number amongst those vaccines, factually.
>If you bother to read the conclusions sections
You mean if I stop doing math and use the corporate profiteering summary as my moral compass?
No thanks. I'll leave that to the people that can't do math.
I believe in assisted suicide, and evolution. By all means, go get vaccinated.
Just stop telling people that they are stupid for doing math and science.
This isn't your industry. It belongs to the mathematicians and the researchers. YouTube is not the arbiter of knowledge.
Please, if any of this comes off as bad faith, let me correct that. I'm in good faith telling everyone to stop trying to sell me dog shit while calling it an ice cream sandwich.
Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense.
You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects. The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts.
You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagree with the conclusions, great - defend that. No hand wavy bullshit.
You’re ignoring other vaccines. If the placebo has a 12% rate of adverse effects, how could MMR have a rate orders of magnitude lower? Did they beam the MMR vaccine directly into people’s skulls? This just makes zero sense at all, and demonstrates either a foundation gap in reasoning skills or bad faith arguing.
The bigger picture is: I am absolutely not assuming you’re stupid. The exact opposite, actually. You’re a very smart person. What that leaves is that you’re arguing in bad faith. I argue that’s worse, this is an inversion of Hanson’s razor. But it’s obvious to me you’ve thought about this. So, where does that leave us?
The seemingly higher incidence for placebo when compared with MMR can be explained.
1. First, the placebo data comes from an article that doesn't meet several academic standards for peer reviewed research.
The researchers were the reviewers and they all work at Pfizer. So, peer review was not done at all.
AND the results were not published for us to see. So we have to take their word for it that they performed any research whatsoever.
So, you're comparing peer reviewed research on MMR and 30 years of CDC data on MMR, to the unrelated placebo rate reported in a paper on mRNA vaccination that wasn't even peer reviewed.
Can we agree that peer reviewed research is a more preferrable source for information?
2. We're comparing apples to oranges. MMR is around 10% rate for mild reactions. Around one third of the 27% reported for Pfizer's mRNA COVID vaccine. And that's still lower than the reported placebo rate. We need to be careful which symptoms count as reactions to placebo since that differs between studies.
So, COVID vaccine is 3x more likely to cause an adverse reaction when we generally include all mild reactions like fever, even where mild fever is a desirable outcome for MMR but not for COVID vaccine.
We'd need to look at more severe outcomes for COVID vaccine to compare with the severe outcomes for MMR if you want to get to the 300x numbers.
But let's cut to the chase, is 3x more dangerous enough to say that it might not be for everyone? I sure think so.
No response. You don't want to take back the bad faith accusation at least?
I could definitely and more rightfully accuse you now. Right? Good faith and all that?
Honest take, you're angry that you didn't know that the FDA relied on research that wasn't peer reviewed, that they are still hiding the results from that study (ongoing lawsuits), and that your news channel lied to you. But you're directing that anger at me because that's hard to swallow and, well, that same news channel told you that I'm a bad person if I know more about science than their editors who went to a trade school for marketing and graphic design.
It's insane what's happening.
You're convinced so much that your first reaction (read above) was to claim that the research didn't say anything close to what I'm saying.
But it's the exact opposite, isn't it? It doesn't say anything close to what you thought it says.
I think many of us are in a place where editors at a media and marketing company command many people's religious belief so much that we can't even read research without stopping in the middle to go "Aha! I knew it. You're a bad guy for being a scientist!"
And that's really what I am trying to say. Science is not that.
Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy.
If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling.
And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself.
Please prove me wrong.
Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one).
I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
Seriously? There is only one study that the FDA cited to claim that it was safe and effective submitted by Pfizer. But let me help then. Let's ignore the fact that the head of the FDA was fired and replaced because he refused to say so. Let's just look at the research directly.
If you can't actually say explicitly what your argument is, that is a very strong signal that you don't know what you're talking about and are likely to be wrong.
If you claim you don't have time, or it's not your job to educate us... that is an obvious copout, as you have already written hundreds of words and were the one to introduce this topic.
I can't point to anything while HN limits the number of comments we can post.
Now that the waiting period has passed, you can read the study or my other comments to discover that nearly a third of participants in the treatment group had negative outcomes.
It is absolutely my job to educate you, because if I don't you'll force me to take medications that produce exponentially worse outcomes because you refuse to read the study that the manufacturer provided with the treatment.
Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
Name another vaccine (pre COVID definition) that has a similar statistical outcome.
Pre-COVID routine vaccines have a 1/500,000 or less negative rate. Hell, even 1/10,000 would be reasonable in an emergency (should be optional at that rate though).
1/3 is not okay. That's far worse than the disease it's supposed to treat.
You need to have horns and a tail to call 1/3 safe. There is no justification for that.
And look what happened as a result. People stopped trusting their govt and vaccines altogether and we have outbreaks of things we never saw in our lifetime.
Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.
The Democrats killing people point is about the NIH investment in illegal research in Wuhan, covering it up, releasing it, and preemptively pardoning it, robbing the public of a fair trial and justice. You're conflating two separate points.
To the point you're ignoring, this study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. And nearly all conditions of COVID are also very much reversible so that's not a good comparison point in favor of the treatment anyway.
I don't get from you that you're reading in good faith.
Be a scientist. Read it critically. Poke holes in it, like you would a lab partner or a student. Remember, this was not peer reviewed! The reviewers are the researchers. The study itself doesn't meet the basic threshold for scientific rigor as it is. YOU need to review it.
This wasn't a no big deal incidence rate. Find another approved vaccine with a number that high.
You can't.
Pull the CDC data into any SQL server and see if any treatment in history has anywhere near the number of negative reactions. These are not "got a red spot" or "said ouch" incidents.
These are cases of permanent paralysis, heart attacks in unusually young patients, strokes, and death.
Just filter for those specifically and you'll see that the rate of incidence is 100s of times greater than other vaccines.
> This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible.
Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like transient fever, numbers for myocarditis is much lower for vaccine vs covid, and for death it's much, much, much lower. I'm sorry but you hold your views only because you don't understand what you are reading. People who told you to do your own research owe you an apology - you are not capable of even reading very simple scientific article.
> Again, if this was a no big deal incidence rate, find another vaccine whith a number that high. Good luck.
But I don't care about transient fever or transient fatigue and why would anyone care?
Anyway I'm ending this discussion - you clearly have absolutely zero idea about medicine. Shame that you can't see how stupid your opinions are and feel urge to share them.
I was still writing my comment during your emotional outburst. Reinforcing stereotypes about the Left it seems.
You haven't addressed any of the research or the CDC data. And you've conflated two data sets.
You're also still ignoring the actual study to claim that the incidences reported didn't include fatalities when they did. (That number went up dramatically in the CDC data, even if it was low in the study by comparison but still insanely high when comparing other vaccines.)
I'll excuse your emotions, but I'll not excuse you for valuing them more highly than the data.
If you'll get mad and make decisions to discontinue discussion without clear understanding, then you'll just as soon make decisions that kill the public, which is why I've stopped voting left. It's YOUR behavior that reinforces for me that the left is not composed of scientists, but angry religious zealots.
So respectfully, I hope you're not a PhD, and not in politics. Based on your responses, I think you're just asking ChatGPT to summarize for you and it simply doesn't have the CDC data. Use a MySQL connector and feed it the data.
Come back after you've compared the CDC data with other vaccines. At least give me the name of the SQL database to prove that you checked and you aren't a fraud.
Go do the legwork to prove to yourself and others that I'm really wrong, the scientific way. That is, no shortcuts, go download the data.
