Conspiracies The Covid Narrative

[birdup]

A steady stream of published scientific studies has long demonstrated that vaccines do not prevent the spread of covid. In fact, the latest “VE” rating — Vaccine Effectiveness — to come out of UK data shows the VE to be a negative number of minus 73 percent. This means people who take the vaccine have an increased risk of hospitalizations and deaths compared to those who avoid the vaccine.

If you'd like to respond to the 12 day thing rather than me making the effort to examine your argument and then you totally ignoring my response, I will have a look... but frankly it appears to be pretty retarded.

EDIT: I just had a look at it. It is, indeed, super retarded.

It is the stupidest maths I have ever seen published on the internet and that is really saying something.

At the end of your linked article, it says this:

The Exposé is now censored on
Google, Facebook & Twitter.https://web.archive.org/web/2021082...sing-campaign-we-rely-solely-on-your-support/
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…

We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead we rely solely on your support, so
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism.
It’s quick and easy…

Please choose your preferred
method to show your support

Did you actually read this one, Krinkle?

 

[Skorpio]

Look at the VAERS data. Just google "VAERS covid19 summary" -- it's all there.

I am not interested in coming up with a hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, I would test it against the data and see if I believe it. The onus for making a testable (by analyzing data) hypothesis is on whomever makes a claim.

My response was in context to a source cited that misrepresented data that they cited as a primary source. I care more about that kind of dishonesty than any conclusion because it mars the spirit of inquiry

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

Medical slavery, has a nice, and scary, ring to it…

I thought so too

That is really misleading.

The chart shown where they demonstrate vaccine effectiveness on the source you linked is citing data from the UK vaccine surveilence report (they do link the primary data).

The chart shows more people getting covid after vaccination and they make the conclusion that vaccines don't work.

I find this very dubious because the chart in the primary data demonstrates that people are much less likely to be hospitalized or die after being vaccinated.

Edit for clarity: table 5 on page 20. It has the same initial data as the chart used by the expose but also includes hospitalization and mortality data.

This data was not shown in the "vaccines don't work chart"

If anybody feels like skimming the primary data, it tells a much different story.

Argue about how vaccines go against your personal liberties until the cows come home. But, cherry picking statistics is pretty dishonest. There is enough confusion already in the world.

I reccomend people read primary data as much as possible, so that you don't get misled by those with ulterior motives performing shoddy analysis.

Right...you're more likely to catch covid after the vaccines but less likely to die once you catch it

sounds like a wash to me - so once again, why bother?

 

[birdup]

you're more less likely to catch covid after the vaccines

Fixed it for you.

 

[Foreigner]

I am not interested in coming up with a hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, I would test it against the data and see if I believe it. The onus for making a testable (by analyzing data) hypothesis is on whomever makes a claim.

My response was in context to a source cited that misrepresented data that they cited as a primary source. I care more about that kind of dishonesty than any conclusion because it mars the spirit of inquiry

The VAERS data is what it is, no hypothesis necessary. Back in May 2021 the CDC verified that 6,000 of the 10,000 deaths (at the time) were real after analyzing the cases; and that's not even claiming that the rest aren't real, because they didn't continue the analysis. Simple extrapolation would therefore indicate that many of the curent ~25,000 deaths in VAERS are real. The Yellow Card data in the UK is even more accurate because the reporting standards are more rigorous.

The part in bold, is vague. Are you saying I misrepresented data, or are you talking about someone else? What was the dishonest statement?

These reporting systems are part of pharmacovigilance. It's fine to say that analysis is required to verify the exact nature of reports, but to dismiss the entire thing due to lack of peer-ready analysis is hogwash. This is especially true given that peer reviewed papers have already come out discussing under reporting. The VAERS data is representative of =<5% of reported ADRs. That should trouble all of us.

 

[birdup]

@Foreigner

You still have offered no sensible explanation as to why that data you provided suggests that over 74% of all adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have occurred in America, which is - obviously - wildly inconsistent with the vaccine rollout worldwide.

Also you haven't responded to this:

Here's some more maths for you guys, because I know everyone loves maths.

According to the TGA, there were 612 deaths following vaccine administrations in Australia. They concluded that 9 deaths were caused by the jabs.

Take 612 and divide it by 9. You get 68. Nice clean number.

Now take the reported American deaths - 8,068 (spooky huh?) - and then divide that number by 68 and we get 118 point something.

Now divide that number by 13 to account for the population difference.

What do you get?

The number nine.

1. 9 people died from the vaccine in Australia whereas your data suggests over 8,000 died from the vaccine in America.

2. Your data says three quarters of all adverse reactions happened in the USA.

1 plus 2 = bullshit

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

 

[birdup]

@Foreigner

Look at the VAERS data. Just google "VAERS covid19 summary" -- it's all there.

I did that just now. It directed me to the CDC website which states

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 423 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 1, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 9,367 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.

When a death is reported to VAERS following a vaccine, it is not clear whether or not it is related to the vaccine. There is clinical attempt to link deaths to vaccines at this point. They then take the data and determine how many people died from the vaccines.

As I've said already, most people who ended up on the adverse reaction list in Australia were over 65 years of age and there was no evidence that they died from the vaccine. Considering we are vaccinating 6 million people every month, it makes sense that there are going to be coincidental deaths occurring.

If you guys (again generally speaking here) are going to claim that the deaths are being over-reported for the same reason you need to be consistent.

EDIT: also... last time I checked: 9,367 does not equal ~25,000

 

[Skorpio]

The VAERS data is what it is, no hypothesis necessary. Back in May 2021 the CDC verified that 6,000 of the 10,000 deaths (at the time) were real after analyzing the cases; and that's not even claiming that the rest aren't real, because they didn't continue the analysis. Simple extrapolation would therefore indicate that many of the curent ~25,000 deaths in VAERS are real. The Yellow Card data in the UK is even more accurate because the reporting standards are more rigorous.

The part in bold, is vague. Are you saying I misrepresented data, or are you talking about someone else? What was the dishonest statement?

These reporting systems are part of pharmacovigilance. It's fine to say that analysis is required to verify the exact nature of reports, but to dismiss the entire thing due to lack of peer-ready analysis is hogwash. This is especially true given that peer reviewed papers have already come out discussing under reporting. The VAERS data is representative of =<5% of reported ADRs. That should trouble all of us.

I was referring to a source Mr. Krinkle posted from a website called the exposé.

They selectively cited data from a chart in a report on vaccinations in the UK discussing covid rate among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. They excised data showing that vaccinations decreased death and hospitalization frequency to conclude that vaccines make one more vulnerable to severe covid.

I was dismissing the conclusions from that because the analysis did not seem to be conducted in an honest manner.

My response to you was referring to you saying look at the data without providing a hypothesis. It looks like the hypothesis you are deceiving from the data set is that at least 6,000 deaths are attributable to vaccine side effects based on the vaers dataset. Is this correct?

 

[Las Veghost grower]

They still got it to almost zero…thank you pharma

 

[Deleted member 521610]

Everyone go read this new study about the spike protein from sweden. I cant believe no 1 fucking investigated this shit till now after shooting us all with the spike protein. im so fucking pissed!!!!

SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, severely affecting public health and the global economy. Adaptive immunity plays a crucial role in fighting against SARS–CoV–2 infection and directly influences the clinical...

www.mdpi.com

tdlr: even spike protein without covid 19 attatched to it harms our dna repair pathways leading to increased cancers and other dieases requiring dna repair. They even offer an alternative solution to make new vaccines.

 

[Xorkoth]

@AutoTripper

Maybe we've just been fooled into thinking we've been fooled.

Yeah that's about it. I think you guys are being fooled into thinking there is a giant conspiracy because someone wants people to think there is a conspiracy. Conspiracy is in these days. For some, everything is part of a giant conspiracy they are smart enough to see, placing them intellectually above the rest of the sheeple. The result is a slow but increasing wave of societal destabilization. You are not one of the people I worry about as you seem to be pretty sensible overall but some people are ready to take up arms and execute the sheeple, we have even had Bluelight posters calling for that. Someone benefits from that, but it's not any of us, nor those who are so worked up that they are ready to go to war over it.

 

[Las Veghost grower]

a revolution WILL happen at the rate we are going, it’s just a matter of when really, bes to be prepared

 

[Deleted member 521610]

whatever happens this is leading the way for a new world a new system, people no longer want this old fucking corrupt system

 

[Las Veghost grower]

 

[Foreigner]

My response to you was referring to you saying look at the data without providing a hypothesis. It looks like the hypothesis you are deceiving from the data set is that at least 6,000 deaths are attributable to vaccine side effects based on the vaers dataset. Is this correct?

I don't know why you keep using the word hypothesis. We're not designing an experiment. It's not a hypothesis to say that the stated deaths due to the covid19 vaccine in VAERS are due to the covid19 vaccine, lol. Even the CDC admits that. Please go look at VAERS and then get back to me, since it's clear you haven't even done that much. If there's something specific you wish to ask, then please ask it.

When a death is reported to VAERS following a vaccine, it is not clear whether or not it is related to the vaccine. There is clinical attempt to link deaths to vaccines at this point. They then take the data and determine how many people died from the vaccines.

As I mentioned above, back in spring of 2021, the CDC already ran that analysis of the then ~10,000 VAERS deaths and found at least 6,000 to be verified. I can't seem to find that link on their website now, it is literally gone, and I am not making that up.

As I've said already, most people who ended up on the adverse reaction list in Australia were over 65 years of age and there was no evidence that they died from the vaccine. Considering we are vaccinating 6 million people every month, it makes sense that there are going to be coincidental deaths occurring.

The death rate is higher than coincidence, and people who have been seriously injured (i.e. permanently disabled) is much higher than that.

If you guys (again generally speaking here) are going to claim that the deaths are being over-reported for the same reason you need to be consistent.

I'm not clear on what you're saying here. I'm claiming that deaths and ADRs are under reported, not over. And my only purpose in citing all this is to emphasize that there is ample reason for some individuals to choose to not get vaccinated, not that they actually require a reason. The vaccine mandates are wrong and the vaccine one-solution policy by the government is racketeering.

EDIT: also... last time I checked: 9,367 does not equal ~25,000

I'm not sure where you got the 9,367 number from. The ~25,000 is the number of permanent disabilities caused by the vax. Anyway, here is the data table if you'd like to look at it.

 

[birdup]

@Foreigner

Okay I got my wires crossed a bit. I will clarify stuff tomorrow. I'm trying to knock myself out with etizolam to compensate for withdrawals.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

Yeah that's about it. I think you guys are being fooled into thinking there is a giant conspiracy because someone wants people to think there is a conspiracy. Conspiracy is in these days. For some, everything is part of a giant conspiracy they are smart enough to see, placing them intellectually above the rest of the sheeple. The result is a slow but increasing wave of societal destabilization. You are not one of the people I worry about as you seem to be pretty sensible overall but some people are ready to take up arms and execute the sheeple, we have even had Bluelight posters calling for that. Someone benefits from that, but it's not any of us, nor those who are so worked up that they are ready to go to war over it.

I think that's just people getting carried away....but that's always gone on....anytime anything major in the world happens, there's an alternate story or 4


i just think (or i know) that this whole vaccine deal is money driven...and that's all you really need to know...

everything else plays itself out if you sit back and watch it develop....and it's clear to see the propaganda behind it and the censorship along with it

it was misleading to say that the end is here, we have the vaccines! and they're over 90% effective and we will have herd immunity when we hit 70%! and their won't be any mandates!"

those are all lies - and big ones too....nevermind the lies that have been told before and a lot of people died because of those lies

pain was suddenly a vital sign and everybody was writing scripts just a very short time ago...i mean cmon

how can you not look at things being highly suspect overall?



now they're coming for the kids.....and some parents are running to be the first in line....that's twisted

 

[Skorpio]

I don't know why you keep using the word hypothesis. We're not designing an experiment. It's not a hypothesis to say that the stated deaths due to the covid19 vaccine in VAERS are due to the covid19 vaccine, lol. Even the CDC admits that. Please go look at VAERS and then get back to me, since it's clear you haven't even done that much. If there's something specific you wish to ask, then please ask it.



As I mentioned above, back in spring of 2021, the CDC already ran that analysis of the then ~10,000 VAERS deaths and found at least 6,000 to be verified. I can't seem to find that link on their website now, it is literally gone, and I am not making that up.



The death rate is higher than coincidence, and people who have been seriously injured (i.e. permanently disabled) is much higher than that.



I'm not clear on what you're saying here. I'm claiming that deaths and ADRs are under reported, not over. And my only purpose in citing all this is to emphasize that there is ample reason for some individuals to choose to not get vaccinated, not that they actually require a reason. The vaccine mandates are wrong and the vaccine one-solution policy by the government is racketeering.



I'm not sure where you got the 9,367 number from. The ~25,000 is the number of permanent disabilities caused by the vax. Anyway, here is the data table if you'd like to look at it.

The vaers data doesn't report causality at all. I would reccomend looking at the CDC vaers page and not one that interprets the data for you.

From CDC:

VAERS - Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data

vaers.hhs.gov

• Providers are to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.

The numbers you are referencing are all cause mortality after vaccination, not linked cases due to vaccination. If you could show me that the CDC verified cause 6,000 of these reports then it would be something (also please show primary data and not analysis by a person or group).

 

[Foreigner]

The numbers you are referencing are all cause mortality after vaccination, not linked cases due to vaccination.

That's the same argument that so many health care providers are using to not report, though. They said the same thing about myocarditis and pericarditis in the U.S. until Israel reported that it was real, after much blowback. So on the one hand the number of covid deaths is exaggerated along with the "unvaccinated" numbers in the hospital (the definition of unvaccinated was changed twice in the U.S.), but they're under reporting ADRs.

You can't just put your head in the sand because of a statistical technicality. The ADR numbers are huge. The same standard of evidence you're requiring for proving the ADRs has not been applied to covid deaths, which is: autopsy/post-mortem. Also, some of the PCR tests that were used the first 6 months of 2020 were pulled from the market by the FDA because of too many false positives. Yet we're not supposed to question those data sets, but should instead focus all our critique on the VAERS system whose sole purpose is to track vax ADRs, as is the only system for doing so.

I'm only mentioning these other factors to show you that the gathering of statistics during covid has been extremely biased. If you factor in under reporting to the ADRs, your hair splitting technicalities won't matter because the numbers would be way higher than the current VAERS actual anyway.