/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14967467
>Is there any reason not to attribute this to the vaccine?
If it were actually attributable to the vaccine, scientists who are way smarter than you would be sounding the alarm bells

>>14967467
OP image is taken from the CDC website.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm#dashboard

More info:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wLu98NygrA

There is an actual pandemic happening, and the media is complicit in distracting from it. It's up to concerned individuals to wake people up.

>>14967471

My ignorant shill, there ARE scientists sounding alarm bells.

Your boss should know you deserve to be fired. You're only helping my cause by being paid to be first post, and letting me expose you for deserving to die in a garbage dump.

>>14967467
Shout out to the guy who made this containment thread

>>14967467
the deviation from the established trendline clearly starts prior to the completion of any coronavirus vaccines, and far before they were used by the general public

also, sage for
>/sci/ - Unhinged /pol/ Ranting

>>14967478
>My ignorant shill, there ARE scientists sounding alarm bells.
Robert Malone and Sherri Tenpenny are not scientists, they are quacks

>>14967505
They are more scientists than you will ever be.

Note, Fauci is absolutely a quack and you have nobody willing to stand in defense of this 'vaccine'.

hello, am I spreading disinformation?

>>14967526

Am I interpreting this correctly, that shows an increase in the rates of numerous kinds of cancers?

Something the 'skeptics' were predicting?

I'd like to make a shout out to all the social media influencing agencies watching this thread.

I'm curious how you plan on offsetting the karma you've earned in trying so hard to silence this topic? Do you not worry about it at all? Haven't you learned from your masters?

Don't you see your employers use meaningless digital dollars to get you to do the dirty work for them, while they keep their hands relatively clean?

>>14967471
This.
Go back to your containment board, OP. We have had these threads everyday on sci for the last 2 years. How much longer do we have to wait until the Bill Gates microchips activate and all the sheeple start dying en masse? Two more weeks, perhaps?

>>14967537

I'm sorry my poor ignorant moron. If you cannot interpret graphs you don't belong on /sci/.

The sheeple are already dying en masse. The evidence is provided.

Your tactics do nothing but earn you hell.

>>14967525
New Zealand only started getting cases once they opened the borders for unvaxxed tourists

>>14967542
So you're saying the vaccine doesn't work?

>>14967467
>Is there any reason not to attribute this to the vaccine?
Well, lack of evidence comes to mind. . .
Correlation is not causation mate. Remember when the summer Olympics were held? Now look at your graph. Coincidence? How are we going to annoy a Dutch clogs painting IRC channel with this info at least twice a day?
PROTIP: All of these are trick questions. Don't actually try to respond.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/yohlyj/covid19_vaccination_helped_to_reduce_the_years_of/

>COVID-19 vaccination helped to reduce the years of life lost among the fully vaccinated by around 88% during the studied period and the registered number of deaths is approximately 3.5 lower than it would be expected without vaccination.

>>14967544
He's trying to point out that the vaccine reduces chance of infection. When the unvaxed trumptarts started to invade the country the number of infections increased (duh).

>>14967607
>Well, lack of evidence comes to mind. .

There is constantly mounting evidence. Bodies are piling up.

>Correlation is not causation mate

Correlation is the primary indicator of causation, and the primary motive for further study.

All of these shill replies ignoring hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world in young people are evil people. You will inherit a world full of nothing but people like yourself, and you will be vampires cannibalizing each other. Have fun.

>>14967467
>2k person increase
Lol, is that all? A measily 2k person increase? How long has it been at 2k? One month? Two months? Lmao nothing is happening you fucking retards.

>>14967505
They are scientists, but thery're controlled opposition leading you down false paths

>>14967505
>I'm right because no scientist disagrees with me.
>Anyone who disagrees with me isn't a scientist.
Now define scientist.

>>14967542
Kiwi here. New Zealand locked down late. Lots of people from Wuhan came to New Zealand before the lock down. We didn't have covid problems until the vaccine rollout.

>>14967607
Correlation doesn't prove causation but it is evidence for causation.

>>14967467
>How do we convince people to pay attention to this?
oh they are paying attention. the silence is defeaning.

>>14967693
>There is constantly mounting evidence. Bodies are piling up.
Where? Is that a burger thing? I live in a developed part of the world and there's no such thing.

>>14967528
Yep, exactly what you think it is.

>>14967842
The Atlantic ran a large article begging for people to forgive them for demanding pandemic measures. They know they're going to be left to dry when their handlers flee.

>>14967467
itz da coof

>>14967896
No, this is a worldwide phenomenon. Stop shilling and read the thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wLu98NygrA

>>14967970
It's important to note that they didn't ask for forgiveness nor even admit guilt. The article pushes for amnesty without making any promises not to do the same thing again nor even admit it was wrong. The article is all about how everyone was "in the dark" so what happened was ok and we should just forget about it.

>>14967471
>>14967505
>>14967537
>>14967542
these anons are RIGHT, masks and vaccines work, the science is settled

>>14967467
Oh so this week you now care about excess deaths? Hilarious.

So tell me, what are the excess death rate of the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated? You know, that thing you ignorant chucklefucks always run to avoid?

>>14967467
Would excess deaths have anything to do with population increase perhaps? I noticed all these graphs use absolute, and not relative numbers.

>>14967467
>especially in younger populations
I got curious and checked the death stats of my own country (Netherlands) a few weeks ago.
All excess deaths here are among people older than 65. Death rates for people <65 are normal (similar to 2015-2019).

>>14967970
If Julius Streicher could be hung for spreading propaganda I'd say that's now the standard. Pharma has legal immunity, I wonder if victims can sue journos if it can be proven that they knowingly spread lies that resulted in deaths?

>>14967836
>We didn't have covid problems until the vaccine rollout
Only post of substance w/o fucked up statistics, midwit allegations and made up curves will be deliberately ignored.
The absolute state of this botnick forum pretends to be /sci

reminder that the official numbers of myocarditis in young males is 1/3000

>>14968255
>Only post of substance w/o fucked up statistics
>Statistics that disagree with me are fucked up
>I am the science
Sure you are bud. Get your narcissism treated.

>>14968295
>reminder that the official numbers of myocarditis in young males is 1/3000
We will tooootally see deaths or any actual consequence of this made up fantasy dream any day now.

Aaaaaaaaaaany day now

>>14968348
You're literally already seeing them and just pretending they don't exist. Get a grip.

>>14968354
>You're literally already seeing them and just pretending they don't exist
Nope. Most of them are due to being unvaccinated. Going to devolve to your usual schizophasia shit next?

It’s just the pandemic doing what pandemics do.

Doctors are overloaded and burned out which lowers quality of care. Also, tons of extra people are clogging up the offices when it used to be only the super ill.

Also, no one is really looking for how Covid affects you long term. We know that it’s your immune system that kills you but nobody is saying if it gets damaged by the encounter.

Lupus is just your immune system getting confused and “Long Covid” looks almost identical symptom wise.

It’s probably a slow killer like HIV that probably won’t kill you the first few times but will eventually leave you on the floor with blue lips.

>>14967467
It's almost as if a deadly virus were allowed to go through the world population largely unchecked.

>not due to Covid
Says you. You long ago lost the argument. The virus killed millions and the vaccine didn't. Nobody woke up one day with brain damage and the inability to breed.

>two more weks!
Go away. You lost.

>>14968357
>Most of them are due to being unvaccinated.
Who even believes stuff like this? You're wasting your time at this point.

>>14968360
They literally have a pathology, narcissism. Since they CAN'T be wrong they will never let it go regardless of the evidence. You see the same thing with flat earthers.

You will get posts like this from the exact same person for 20 years because his whole personality is based on the need to be right.

>>14968348
back in 2021, the FDA acknowledged in their models 1/5000 cases of myocarditis in young males
https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
>an estimated excess risk approaching 200 cases per million vaccinated males 16-17 years of age

Paul Erlich Institute:
https://www.pei.de/DE/newsroom/dossier/coronavirus/arzneimittelsicherheit.html
0.046 per 1000 vaccine doses in the first report
0.046 per 1000 = 4,6/100K doses.
Now its 0.3 per 1000
https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-bis-31-12-20.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6

since the vax damage is accumulative after each jab, it's probably higher now

>>14968367
>back in 2021, the FDA acknowledged in their models 1/5000 cases of myocarditis in young males
And there are wildly different DEGREES of myocarditis. You fucktards lie and pretend it's the worst kind associated with chronic obesity or heart conditions.
>since the vax damage is accumulative after each jab, it's probably higher now
And yet excess deaths do not reflect this. You lost. Go cry about it and get your narcissism treated.

>>14967467
>pic
So, crisis over?

>>14968369
>And there are wildly different DEGREES of myocarditis. You fucktards lie and pretend it's the worst kind associated with chronic obesity or heart conditions.
Heart damage is heart damage. If you get it you don't recover and any further stress can make it worse and kill you. There are many many cases in the clinical literature of "mild" myocarditis turning into a deadly arrhythmia or complete heart failure with no prior signs or symptoms.

>>14968374
>Heart damage is heart damage.
Thanks for admitting you're obviously fucking lying. This is all I need. Anyone who doesn't realize how fucking retarded this statement is will never be convinced by evidence to the contrary.

>>14968374
>turning into a deadly arrhythmia or complete heart failure with no prior signs or symptoms.
>Evidence does not support this
>N-no after the next booster! Two more weeks!

The vaccine simply doesn’t work. If anything, your injecting yourself with something that WANTS to be in your bloodstream and is proficient at dodging your immune system.

We have never been able to vaccinate against a Coronavirus because it mutates too much. The only way to stop that is to stop transmission and short of locking people into their homes you can only do that with proper masking with surgical masks or kn95’s but nobody wanted to do that.

As soon as a vaccine drops it’s obsolete even if they manage to remove FDA approval.

It’s really just a matter of how many bodies will it take for people to decide to do something like we did in the beginning.

Right now everyone thinks only the democrats or republicans are going to die this winter when in actuality it’ll be anyone who allowed themselves to be infected.

Vaccinated or not.

>>14968380
The evidence clearly supports it. Only people ignorant of the clinical data or intentionally trying to falsify it claim otherwise. Which are you?

>>14968381
>Right now everyone thinks only the democrats or republicans are going to die this winter when in actuality it’ll be anyone who allowed themselves to be infected.
Covid is over nigga. Shut up and go back to your hole.

>>14968386
>The evidence clearly supports it.

Remind me again... who is dying the most? The unvaccinated or vaccinated? Because if you're worried about young people, according to Canada, USA, UK, on and on it goes, the most deaths are among the unvaccinated in every age category.

So which cherrypicked dataset are you pulling from?

>>14968389
I realize since you're a dishonest twat I need to clarify. Most deaths as in RATE of deaths associated with covid. Obviously.>>14968386

>>14968389
>>14968393
Tell me what the definition of an "unvaccinated" person is.

>>14968397
>Tell me what the definition of an "unvaccinated" person is.
(a) Someone never vaccinated, (b) someone whose vaccination schedule has lapsed so severely their first vaccination protection has regressed to baseline risk. (effectively no longer protected)

In most studies and government data, or the data I look at, they have breakdowns of each category. You can also download the .csv and do the calculations separately in cases where they don't outright do them for you.

...Assuming you can do basic fucking math. Which I know you morons can't.

>>14968409
You're missing one category. People who have had a vaccination within the last 14 days.

>>14967830
Somebody who practices science, and since the science points to the vaccine being safe and effective, everybody who baselessly disagrees is by definition not a scientist

>>14968415
>People who have had a vaccination within the last 14 days.
...which is also available as a separate category in the data you can download. You can include or exclude it to see what the difference is. You don't just have to accept a number that includes everything.

EITHER WAY the data does not support your bullshit. There's no conspiracy there. You're just inept and wrong.

>>14968418
The Paul Ehrlich Institute department of Vaccine Safety would disagree with your assessment.

>there are shills still pretending that the vaccine doesn't have negative effectiveness after a few months
kek
lmao

>>14968409
>the data says vaccine good

It’s easy to be mislead by raw data.

You guys are always the first to point out that correlation isn’t causation.

The same people who got vaccinated were also the same that wore masks and still practice some sort of prevention.

The anti-crowd would not.

When matched head to head your vaccine sucks compared to any that have come before it.

A vaccine that doesn’t stop infection, hospitalization, or even death in the age groups that need it most is useless.

We’re back to “only the old and sick die from Covid while fully vaccinated” when THOSE are the people who need it most. The virus isn’t a threat to everyone anyway just the high risk.

But vaxxers threw them under the bus and continue to.

ITT people coping and rationalizing why they took the clot-shot.
SAD! IMAGINE TAKING THAT VACCINE AND STILL ARGUING ITS VALIDITY TO THIS DAY LOL

>>14968437
>people who don't get immunized by the vaccine don't get immunized by the virus
>this means the vaccine has negative effectiveness!
Have you ever been honest before?

>>14968437
This is your source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2209371

My image includes what you cropped out. You are lying by omission, as you are excluding the risk of having an infection with no prior vaccination.
>>14968440
>It’s easy to be mislead by raw data.
Which is what you people do.
>>14968446
They're allergic to honesty. That's what narcissism does to a person.

>>14968446
The effectiveness of natural immunity never goes negative.

>>14968452
You don't know what a projection is. Look here >>14968448 and you'll find both infected and uninfected children both end up "in the negative effectiveness".

How's that possible? Because it doesn't mean what your ignorant bitch ass thinks it means. /pol/ lied to you, dipshit.

>>14968454
>You don't know what a projection is. Look here >>14968448 and you'll find both infected and uninfected children both end up "in the negative effectiveness".
They do not, in fact, go into negative effectiveness. Natural immunity has reduced effectiveness against immune escape variants but never increases the likelihood of disease. The vaccine does.

Anyone can read the chart and know you're lying.

>>14968448

>which is what you people do

Eh, I’ve promoted prevention since day one and have been masking long before they had to force people to.

It’s common sense like wearing a condom if you don’t want to get and STD.

Your vaccine is completely ineffective compared to just about every other form of prevention.

For this virus at least.

I wish you guys would call it already and get back to solutions that are actually proven instead of parroting the words of your favorite “expert”

>>14968448
I don't see how the other charts prove your point, but whatever
have fun with your fifth booster

>>14968458
>They do not, in fact, go into negative effectiveness.
Neither truly "go into the negative". Does not mean what you think it means.

But since you're a smug fuckwit who won't listen, what does figure 1(B) say? You fucking retard.

At this point it’s the vaxxers who are the bigger threat. You’ll spread it without showing symptoms.

At least the Trump supporter could barely walk.

>>14968463
>Neither truly "go into the negative". Does not mean what you think it means.
NHS stats from England prove that infections and hospitalizations are higher in the earliest vaccinated cohorts, implying true ADE.

>>14968468
>NHS stats from England prove that infections and hospitalizations are higher in the earliest vaccinated cohorts, implying true ADE.
Ah yes, get caught in multiple lies just move on to making yet more claims.

Flat earthers do the same thing. Not surprised.

>>14968418
People who practice science disagree about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. How exactly does the science point towards the vaccine being safe and effective?

So let's recap!

People full of shit:
>>14967467 doesn't show unvaccinated vs vaccinated
>>14968415 Never posted a source when challenged
>>14968437 Lied outright by omitting source and cropping image, still doesn't know the chart is not absolute effectiveness in spite of the source being posted
>>14968468 Doesn't realize the earliest vaccinated cohorts were the most at-risk and being hospitalized anyway (see also: Unvaccinated cohorts in other countries for similar infection waves)

The struggle to find a single honest non-retarded antivaxxer continues.

Deagel's 2015 prediction was -70% depopulation by 2025.
Two more years :)
https://streamable.com/415q07

>>14968432
Oh no, the Quack institute of Quackology disgrees with me??

>>14968491
Hey look the parapsychology institute of honest research specifically formed by every scientist being investigated for fraud said that James Randi was a fraud!

I trust them completely!

>>14968484
>doesn't show unvaccinated vs vaccinated
I've never actually seen all-cause excess mortality broken down this way. Have you?

>>14968484
I also like how he pointed out that high risk people were the ones who died while fully vaccinated.

They’re the ones who need them to work the most and you’ve admitted that they don’t.

You’re also admitting that a good 10% of the population will die because of you and your peers through no fault of their own.

You’re just like everyone else. No better.

>>14968493
>I've never actually seen all-cause excess mortality broken down this way. Have you?
Yes, there are scientists and people who've run the numbers in various countries doing exactly this kind of comparison. I just googled for a random one: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/complete-vaccine-coverage-us-could-have-prevented-quarter-covid-19-deaths/

There are tons of these in the literature for various countries. In cases where countries do not have the data to do a full comparison, they use estimates based on data they do have.

When the vast majority of excess deaths are accountable for by covid19 infection/death rate, the answer should be fucking obvious to you if you've a single honest bone in your body.

>>14968501
>They’re the ones who need them to work the most and you’ve admitted that they don’t.
I literally said the opposite. Look at risk unvaccinated v vaccinated you dishonest twat.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~50%2B

>the vax (probably) works for me so fuck everyone else!

This guy probably.

>>14968504
>misleading data

You’re looking at vaccination status exclusively and not accounting for previous illnesses.

Your vaccine is saline to someone with Lupus for example. Your data doesn’t account for this.

You’re so busy being a dick you don’t even see an obvious gap in your own source.

>>14968501
>I also like how he pointed out that high risk people were the ones who died while fully vaccinated.
>They’re the ones who need them to work the most and you’ve admitted that they don’t.
Imagine never reading anything, ever, yet speaking with such confidence.

>>14968512
Once again, where are my lines for people on immunosuppressants that have historically made vaccines useless.

It’s a piece of the puzzle you haven’t considered and seemingly don’t want to.

>>14968511
>You’re looking at vaccination status exclusively and not accounting for previous illnesses.
There are studies for that.
>Your vaccine is saline to someone with Lupus for example. Your data doesn’t account for this.
There are studies on that, too.
>>14968518
>It’s a piece of the puzzle you haven’t considered and seemingly don’t want to.
It's a completely irrelevant piece of the puzzle. What exactly do you think 1% of 1% of a completely different topic is relevant to a conversation about the population writ large, as has been discussed?

Gotta lie to antivaxx. Here again, topic hopping. First "Noooo it doesn't work on the vulnerable!" and now "Nooo I meant those with LUPUS" are you fucking for real

>>14968502
>When the vast majority of excess deaths are accountable for by covid19 infection/death rate, the answer should be fucking obvious to you if you've a single honest bone in your body.
/thread

>>14968525
>there are studies

It’s interesting how quick you were to link them when you thought you had an advantage.

Where are they?

Or do you want me to find them for you so you can split hairs about the source so you can win somehow?

It’s ok to admit you were wrong. Most people were.

Mask up, move on.

>>14968529
>It’s interesting how quick you were to link them when you thought you had an advantage.
Is your google broken?
>Where are they?
Oh, I'm sorry, they don't exist because I personally didn't bring them up?

So what you're admitting right now is to not doing any research and just ASSUMING your asinine conspiracy theories are true?

>>14968529
>Where are they?
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7127a3.htm

Here, even though you're obviously a dishonest lying twat I went and found one for you.

Ain't I nice?

>>14968537
Forgot to quote because you're a bunch of dishonest lazy motherfuckers.
>During March 1, 2021–February 28, 2022, among nonimmunocompromised patients, patients who were vaccinated had lower odds of death (aOR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.39–0.86) than did unvaccinated patients; among immunocompromised patients, odds of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients did not differ.

Emphasis: DID. NOT. DIFFER.

If your immune system is nonfunctioning, obviously you cannot produce antibodies effectively. Vaccination, however, did not INCREASE your risk of dying either.

vaxxer score: 5
Antivaxxers: 0

>>14968525
>taking examples and running with them as the only arguments

Eh, this is like arguing with rednecks on Facebook now.

I even put “for example” after some of these and you just went on your tantrum anyway while offering no retort of your own.

You were so eager to shit on everyone else…

>>14968540
You’re using almost year old information as evidence? Come on… Back then you only needed one shot and it offered lasting protection.

We know now that that is false.

But digging up those old studies is common. Nothing new.

>>14968502
>I just googled for a random one: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/complete-vaccine-coverage-us-could-have-prevented-quarter-covid-19-deaths/
this doesn't contain what I asked for, it compares covid-19 deaths for vaccinated vs unvaccinated but not overall deaths

>>14968544
>You’re using almost year old information as evidence? Come on… Back then you only needed one shot and it offered lasting protection.
From a two year dataset (almost). A dataset that includes booster doses.

You are so fucking desperate it's just fun to rub it in your face. What, people have to have a 5th booster before you admit it's safe? 8th? How many? Come on, how many?
>>14968542
>You were so eager to shit on everyone else…
I enjoy shitting on narcissists. It's a hobby of mine. You're just upset because I called you out on your bullshit examples. You don't have an argument, and the data contradicts you including your "for examples".

If your examples are all wrong, what does that imply about your argument? Think for a second.

Here, since you obviously lack Googling skills here’s a link that does it for you:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=methotrexate+and+vaccines

It’s surface level info now. You can scroll for hours until you find a study by someone you like.

But either way, your entire argument is invalid just on this.

Go away.

>>14968548
Honestly I dunno what you’re even trying to accomplish. If I didn’t get vaccinated while you guys had the feds on your side and premature data that showed it to be 100% effective for all age groups with NO menstral changes or any other negative effects I’m certainly not going to get it now while fully vaccinated of all age groups are dying regardless of the number of shots they got.

That’s bonified regarded behavior. Doing the same shit and expecting a different result.

>>14968547
>this doesn't contain what I asked for, it compares covid-19 deaths for vaccinated vs unvaccinated but not overall deaths
The fuck you want that for? Excess deaths began to rise before vaccination rolled out. What, you trying to infer excess deaths with no attribution are the vaccine's fault? Well, timing debunks that.
>>14968549
>But either way, your entire argument is invalid just on this.
Who is this for?

>>14968553
>The fuck you want that for? Excess deaths began to rise before vaccination rolled out. What, you trying to infer excess deaths with no attribution are the vaccine's fault? Well, timing debunks that.
Some anon was giving OP shit for not breaking down his overall excess deaths into vaccinated vs unvaccinated, I challenged someone to actually provide these stats and so far nobody has been able to

>>14968552
>Honestly I dunno what you’re even trying to accomplish.
Having fun humiliating idiots pathologicaly obsessed with avoiding humiliation. I dunno, it's a challenge. More engaging than chess.
>>14968552
>If I didn’t get vaccinated while you guys had the feds on your side and premature data that showed it to be 100% effective for all age groups with NO menstral changes or any other negative effects I’m certainly not going to get it now while fully vaccinated of all age groups are dying regardless of the number of shots they got.
Except as shown they die far less often. So you admit the vaccine is effective, and you admit that regardless of it being effective you're a toddler throwing a tantrum because you "don't wanna".

I mean, sure, and I'm frankly happy so many people like you have died so far. You're horrible people, and shockingly ignorant. If you died, and I knew, I'd go "yay".

This is not some saintly mission to "educate the unfortunate". I know you're not unfortunate. You're a shitbag. So I have fun just using facts to demolish your retardation.

>>14968554
>Some anon was giving OP shit for not breaking down his overall excess deaths into vaccinated vs unvaccinated, I challenged someone to actually provide these stats and so far nobody has been able to
...Except timing debunks your association. Most excess deaths are associated with covid, and the rise in excess deaths are associated with covid prior to vaccination.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it is related to vaccination.

>>14968554
I’m not vaccinated but that data is impossible to provide.

Excess deaths are just how many more people than normal are dying and since there’s no database of vaccine recipients there’s no real way to know aside by someone voluntarily offering that info.

The fact that deaths are still this high at all though is just further evidence of the vaccines ineffectiveness.

>>14968559
Why are you ruling out covid-19 and the vaccine itself both causing excess deaths? And do you disagree that excess deaths for younger people were higher post-vaccine than pre-vaccine?

>>14968561
>The fact that deaths are still this high at all though is just further evidence of the vaccines ineffectiveness.
>>14968561
>The fact that deaths are still this high at all though is just further evidence of the vaccines ineffectiveness.
I think you mean "the fact deaths are so high among the unvaccinated is just further evidence of vaccine EFFECTIVENESS" >>14968512

>>14968563
>And do you disagree that excess deaths for younger people were higher post-vaccine than pre-vaccine?
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7116e1.htm
9 in 10 children 5-11 hospitalized were unvaccinated for the whole dataset of 14 states from 2020 to 2022.

Your correlation is debunked. Yes there's data for teenagers and it goes a similar way. Learn to google.

>>14968565
Hospitalized overall or hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed covid-19?

>>14968574
>Hospitalized overall or hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed covid-19?
I gave you the study for lab confirmed as the most stringent control condition. So you couldn't cry "B-buht it isn't confirmed!"

If you want general association on a looser basis, here: https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/Rates-of-COVID-19-Cases-or-Deaths-by-Age-Group-and/3rge-nu2a/data

All the data is public for each category. Crude rates, rate adjusted, age adjusted. If you know how to use excel or librecalc you can do it yourself to validate they did it right (and they did).

You desperate fuckers have nothing. Cry about it.

>>14968577
>>14968574
Also from the same portal you can get hospitalization as well as death. So don't cry that I gave you one and not the other. It'll take you a minute to familiarize yourself with it, but you can no longer claim it doesn't exist.

>>14968577
You are continually providing links showing that unvaccinated people are more likely to be hospitalized / die from covid-19. I am talking about overall excess death rates. You seem like a smart, honest person who is only interested in the truth, so I suspect your bias is clouding your reading ability here. According to euromomo, excess deaths among the young were higher post-vaccine than pre-vaccine. Do you disagree with the data in this chart?

>>14968582
forgot the chart

>>14968582
>Do you disagree with the data in this chart?
I disagree with your inference. "Number go up" does not implicate vaccines, because infection rate also went up.

No, I do not disagree with raw numbers for raw number sake. Don't pretend you aren't drawing that added inference, though.

>>14968564
> I think you mean "the fact deaths are so high among the unvaccinated is just further evidence of vaccine EFFECTIVENESS" >>14968512 #

Now we’re back to you being mislead by gaps in data which you’re trying really hard to ignore but then bust out stuff like this and bring it back up…

You also won’t acknowledge the shifting goalpost in what “vaccinated” even means NOR how the data collection was changed to reflect that.

Further corrupting your data and invalidating your argument that the vaccines are effective.

You allowed yourself to be mislead. Admit it and move on.

I can poke holes in your argument for as long as you want.

Frustrating vaxxers is a personal hobby of mine because of how awful they were to everyone.

Watching you run circles makes me diamonds.

>vax produces no monoclonal protection:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185186/
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination induces functionally diverse antibodies to NTD, RBD, and S2
Amanat et al

>vax has a waning protective effect:
https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/waning-of-sars-cov-2-booster-viral-load-reduction-effectiveness
Waning of SARS-CoV-2 booster viral-load reduction effectiveness
Matan Levine-Tiefenbrun et al
becomes small and insignificant in the third to fourth months.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35442459/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2791312
Rates of COVID-19 Among Unvaccinated Adults With Prior COVID-19
Ridgway et al
between october 2020 and november 2021
natural immunity was associated with similar protection against mild and severe disease. mRNA vaccines are associated with similar prolonged protection from severe COVID-19 as found in our study, although vaccine-associated protection from mild COVID-19 has been shown to wane at 6 months

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext
Risk of infection, hospitalisation, and death up to 9 months after a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine: a retrospective, total population cohort study in Sweden
Nordström et al
We found progressively waning vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity across all subgroups, but the rate of waning differed according to vaccine type.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1.full.pdf
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta infection
Buchan et al
Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34915551/
Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant by sera from BNT162b2 or Coronavac vaccine recipient
Omicron escapes neutralizing antibodies elicited by BNT162b2

>>14968584
>because infection rate also went up.
after the highly effective vaccine rollout?

>>14968586

>PFIZER STUDY that acknowledges the lower effectiveness of their vaccine against Omicron:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966
Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 omicron and delta variants
Tseng et al

>mRNA vaccines have no effect on mortality:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489
Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?
Ben et al

>mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1.full
The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses
Föhse et al

>>14968585
>>14968585
>Now we’re back to you being mislead by gaps in data which you’re trying really hard to ignore but then bust out stuff like this and bring it back up…
such as.... ? Your desperate grasping at straws of "Buht muh lupus dough"?
>You also won’t acknowledge the shifting goalpost in what “vaccinated” even means NOR how the data collection was changed to reflect that.
except I explained what/why people get included into that category >>14968409 AND in the data you can see they include separate categories you can recombine yourself for either set, and you find the story is still the same.
>Further corrupting your data and invalidating your argument that the vaccines are effective.
Your dishonesty is not my problem.
>You allowed yourself to be mislead. Admit it and move on.
But mashing your narcissistic face in your bullshit is so much fun!

>>14968587
>after the highly effective vaccine rollout?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Any other retarded questions you want to ask demonstrating your ignorance of... everything, apparently?

>>14968409
>someone whose vaccination schedule has lapsed so severely their first vaccination protection has regressed to baseline risk
annual booster shots until the end of time, eh?

>>14968591
What would an ineffective vaccine rollout have looked like?

>>14968591
>>14968587
But no, really, stop and think about that for a second.

1. Vaccines show high effectiveness preventing death and hospitalization
2. More people, notwithstanding, got infected as vaccines rolled out

Your inference is to then, somehow, claim vaccines are responsible for greater infectivity IN SPITE OF reduced hospitalization, reduced death, and faster recovery time?

OR... the age-old well studied concept of risk compensation theory explains it.

Which is more reasonable? A thing you can't explain, or a thing well studied since the 1970s?
>>14968592
>annual booster shots until the end of time, eh?
Luckily for us the virus continues to get less lethal. So, no, eventually the risk will be so minimal most people won't care except those at-risk. Same for the flu shot.
>>14968596
>What would an ineffective vaccine rollout have looked like?
Low difference in hospitalization/death between vaccination and non-vaccination who are infected. Obviously. Something empirically measurable that is not easily fudged by human behavioral changes. Since they already are infected you're ignoring the social variables and can focus purely on how effective the vaccine is in like-for-like age groups and comorbidity.

>>14968599
>1. Vaccines show high effectiveness preventing death and hospitalization
>2. More people, notwithstanding, got infected as vaccines rolled out
>Your inference is to then, somehow, claim vaccines are responsible for greater infectivity IN SPITE OF reduced hospitalization, reduced death, and faster recovery time?
This is in the context of >>14968583 which shows that deaths in the non-elderly did not reduce after the vaccine rollout. Your argument is that there were more deaths in the young because people were taking more risks, but this is a hypothesis, not something you have demonstrated. My hypothesis that many young people started having health problems induced by experimental vaccines. Do you have an argument for why your hypothesis is better than mine?

>>14968601
>This is in the context of >>14968583 which shows that deaths in the non-elderly did not reduce after the vaccine rollout.
That is not what that shows, because it is not comparing the death rate of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated for covid-19. You know that. Stop lying.

>>14968129
That video is Russian propaganda.

Does anyone else feel like this is an ad of some sort?

Like some marketing zealot scraping a few more doses by harassing people on 4Chan with cherry picked data?

>>14967467
really weird how the excess deaths first climb above base rate in march/april 2020 when the vaccine mandates started, and not in the months prior during the first (or any of the latter) covid waves.

>>14968601
>Your argument is that there were more deaths in the young because people were taking more risks, but this is a hypothesis, not something you have demonstrated.
Sigh.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35012968/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33646837/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14782715221103725
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343233992_Is_risk_compensation_threatening_public_health_in_the_covid-19_pandemic
Oh and the 76 citations on that at the bottom
Plus all the citations on the others
Plus the whole field of epidemiology papers assessing risk compensation effects on infectivity, and immunologists, and so on.

But nooo it's just "a hypothesis I have not demonstrated".

Fuck off.

>>14968607
>Like some marketing zealot scraping a few more doses by harassing people on 4Chan with cherry picked data?
Except I literally said I don't care if you get vaccinated because I genuinely enjoy ignorant narcissistic fucks dying.

Ain't no marketing company on earth going to approve that.

>>14968604
>stop lying

It’s also kinda interesting that this guy keeps complaining about lying and narcissism while lying and being the very definition of narcissism…

>muh lupus
So shut up about deaths then because they clearly don’t matter.

Not everyone in a high risk group got vaccinated lmao

So your data is STILL incomplete because it doesn’t account for risk groups…

I can sit here and point that out until you give up.

>>14968614
>So shut up about deaths then because they clearly don’t matter.
Except they do, because they clearly demonstrate effectiveness. You are trying to grab on to a single niche rare sub-group and, what, declaring it ineffective because people with bad/no immune systems can't produce antibodies? The fuck do you think you're arguing?
>So your data is STILL incomplete because it doesn’t account for risk groups…
already went over that >>14968540

Again: What do you even think you're arguing? All the data clearly shows vaccinated people do better, and when you look at people whose immune systems aren't functioning they do no worse.

So, uh, congrats? You lose?

>>14968613
>ain’t no marketing company gonna approve dat

Huh… must’ve been watching a different President saying me and my family will die if we don’t get the juice… probably a different set of TV and radio hosts too…

Or is that part of the amnesty I’m supposed to give you guys?

>>14968620
>Or is that part of the amnesty I’m supposed to give you guys?
Ain't shit on me. Both political parties are full of shit and I hate all of you.

>>14968616
>niche and rare subgroup

I’m using them as an example, which I’ve mentioned several times.

You never even bothered to make the association of Lupus patients being immunocompromised which affects a far broader demographic.

Another thing that I can see you haven’t considered in your vaccine zealotry.

>>14968625
>You never even bothered to make the association of Lupus patients being immunocompromised which affects a far broader demographic.
You never bothered to evidence any of it.
>Another thing that I can see you haven’t considered in your vaccine zealotry.
"Nooo you didn't adopt my burden of proof therefore you're a zealot!"

Fucking kek

>>14968625
Really I just wanted you to expose your apathy toward the at risks to further highlight that you don’t even care about the deaths.

You just want people vaxxed whether it helps or not.

Sounds like an ad.

>>14968629
>Really I just wanted you to expose your apathy toward the at risks to further highlight that you don’t even care about the deaths.
...When there's no added risk in the lupus group?

Are you retarded?

>>14968630
Added risk from vaccination I mean, given the death rates (as linked above) were the same. Fuckers turned off ability to easily delete posts here. You gotta wait like 5 minutes or something retarded. >>14968629

>>14968611
Sorry, I misspoke -- I should have said "solely because people were taking more risks." I agree that risk compensation is a real thing, however I disagree that it is the sole factor. It's also a very annoying copout -- people argue along the lines of "infections increased after the vaccine rolled out, but that isn't proof that the vaccine isn't effective, because they would have increased even more without the vaccine"

>>14968623
Hell yeah, me too. It's nice to meet somebody as smart and enlightened as myself

>>14968633
>I agree that risk compensation is a real thing, however I disagree that it is the sole factor.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate vaccines are also a factor. I said this already. I am not "copping out" I merely pointed out your equivocating our positions was ridiculous.

>>14968626
>you never bothered to evidence it

Should I have to? I mean I even gave you a “let me google that for you” link with studies on the front page.

You can find the info if you want, but you’re arguing in bad faith anyway just trying to prove your vaccine works when it’s obvious now that it doesn’t.

All while being a hypocrite and a narcissist who has repeatedly admitted a complete lack of empathy for anyone not in your clique.

You look like a misinformed asshole just like the MAGA people you’re projecting onto.

and I can sit here and just point this out forever.

Go away. Get as many shots as you want and regret it all when you end up on a vent anyway.

I don’t care about you either super spreader.

>>14968635
>You’re only smart if you agree with my cherry picked information and offer no resistance!

Narcissist.

>>14968640
>Should I have to? I mean I even gave you a “let me google that for you” link with studies on the front page.
Yes, YOU need to provide your argument. I have no idea what you've been trying to establish, given I've thoroughly established no added risk from vaccination in the immunocompromised group. This contradicts your thesis regardless of what cherrypicked evidence you think you have, because it is not born out in the whole ecological data.

Let's say for example there is some condition where the opposite is true, and vaccination has added risk in a time window due to stressing it. Okay, and? What does that have to do with the tea in China? Since when is that relevant to vaccine effectiveness? You see in broad ecological data worldwide the vaccinated are doing better. What the fuck are you arguing?

I keep asking this, you keep side-stepping it: What the fuck are you trying to argue?

>>14968630
Heh, you’re only talking to me for half of your post…

Just like you’re only seeing half of the data picture…

Every post you highlight more and more of your ignorance…

>>14968644
Since when is it narcissistic to be smarter than everybody else and look at you all with disdain?

>>14968637
>The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate vaccines are also a factor.
I suppose it's possible that at least 96% of VAERS reports submitted in the last few years are fake, but that seems like an implausible amount

>>14968648
So… you didn’t use my premade link to find the information you needed…

So how can you be sure you’ve bothered to go past the couple of charts you’ve posted lmao

You’re admitting that you don’t even pursue new information even if it’s spoon fed to you.

You’re nothing more than a mad vaxxer.

Go. Get your tri-annual booster and super spread to your loved ones like you did last year.

#whathappensnextwillshockyou

>>14968658
Damn you can’t even look up a definition? Who’s the idiot here?

Even a toddler can do that…

>>14968648
You have completely ignored OP's pic this entire time. Please explain the excess deaths.

>>14968658
You’re not smart tho you’re a parrot at best.

and apparently polly needs to update its information.

>>14968661
>VAERS
Since you're retarded I guess you don't realize VAERS is just an association database that reports literally everything up to and including "getting hit by a car".

>>14968668
>So… you didn’t use my premade link to find the information you needed…
Because your hypothesis is falsified by the data I gave you. You cannot have a contradiction, like you can't have a square-circle. In the data, those who are immunosuppressed fared no worse or better. Therefore, any claim they fared worse is falsified as it is not shown in the largest dataset for the country. It's noise.

That is not "ignoring", it is not "being mad", it's basic reasoning. You can't have something be both true and false at the same time.

>>14968679
So you think 96% of the reported deaths actually had nothing to do with the vaccine?

>>14968674
Ironic coming from an antivaxxer. Despite what you think, I believe in vaccines because of my own interpretation of the data, not because someone else told me to

>>14968683
>all of Google is false because of this study I picked out.

Ok. Retard.

I dunno how you get off calling yourself smart most middle schoolers can do better than this…

>>14967542
Kiwianon here. We(NZ) didn't open our borders to unvaccinated tourists until around August/September 2022. Stop spreading misinformation chud.

>>14968690
>ur an antivaxxer

Wrong again. I’m pro-vax for most diseases however many are poor candidates.

Coronaviruses are one of those poor candidates.

I didn’t want a false sense of security and simply waited to see if you vaxxers caught the disease and died anyway and in what numbers.

and no matter how you move the goalposts you’ll never be able to rationalize these piece of shit vaccines as successful.

Be a narcissist and a dick all day if it makes you feel better. You are still wrong.

>>14968695
And look what happened after you did, cases increased exponentially

>>14967505
>Robert Malone and Sherri Tenpenny are not scientists
Go seethe, sheep-boy. Baah! Baaaaaaah!

>>14968699
Just because he took a bunch of credit for other people's work does not make him a legitimate scientist

>>14968703
>Just because he was the lead author in dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles doesn't mean I will accept objective reality if it contradicts what CNN told me to think.
Please be sure to take EVERY booster.

>>14968698
Oh, you're a moron...

>cases increased since Aug/Sep 2022
No. Check google or government stats
>exponentially
I don't think you know what that word means

>>14968713
>Oh, you're a moron...
POWERFUL rebuttal! Very scientific!

>>14968688
>So you think 96% of the reported deaths actually had nothing to do with the vaccine?
Burden of proof. VAERS is an ASSOCIATION reporting system, it does not establish causality.

You are literally not even at the grade 6 "correlation does not imply causation" level of understanding. It's fucking hysterical how stupid you are. "Number go uppy!" yeah so did infection rates dumbass. How do you distinguish between the two? In VAERS, you can't, because that isn't what it's for. drool less read more.

Vax shills on turbo mode in this thread

>>14968720
You didn't answer the question though. Do you think 96% of the reported deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine?

>>14968720
>correlation is not causation

Take your own advice narcissist anon. This whole thread is you deriving causation for a correlation and ignoring anyone that points that out.

Hypocrite, narcissist, retard.

Go away. At this point you’re only convincing us just how badly you retards got this wrong.

It’s getting sad.

>>14968731
>You didn't answer the question though. Do you think 96% of the reported deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine?
I did answer. "Causation cannot be established from VAERS". I have no reason to think that, no.

>>14968706
>What is alphabetical order

>>14968740
>Take your own advice narcissist anon. This whole thread is you deriving causation for a correlation and ignoring anyone that points that out.
Narcissistic projection. I've posted numerous studies that both use correlation and statistical methods to derive different degrees of strength of inference. The world is not black and white just because you're a moron. No, I have not been doing that, you're just stupid.

>>14968744
Oh shit I broke it.

Now it’s just parroting vocabulary…

>>14968749
>Doesn't know there are degrees of strength for inference of causation
>Thinks his ignorance means it's word salad
Okay anon

>>14968741
Are you saying VAERS death reports increased 2000% because of people dying from covid?

>>14968759
>Are you saying VAERS death reports increased 2000% because of people dying from covid?
That is what I would conclude based on the death rate established from covid in other studies, yes. On VAERS alone you can establish nothing.

>>14968762
>That is what I would conclude based on the death rate established from covid in other studies, yes
Covid increased death rates by anywhere close to 2000%? Citation needed

>>14968749
You need to upgrade your vocabulary you broken parrot...FATAL ERROR: unhandled exception at line:668 in AutoReply4Chan.java

>>14968756
>Personal attacks

See narcissist anon I can do it too :)

You’re a bit smarter than average I’ll give you that but you’re the stupid one here hahaha

Keep posting and proving it for everyone else here! Even a cursory skim through this thread will show how ignorant you are.

>>14968768
>Covid increased death rates by anywhere close to 2000%? Citation needed
I was going with your hyperbole. I've no idea where you got that "2000%" from. My point is "Yes I think the evidence shows the death rate, as seen in excess deaths, is adequately explained by covid". If you want me to comment on that death rate you need to actually show me what you're talking about, or explain it better.

>>14968776
I got it from the chart, dummy >>14968661

>>14968776
>the excess death rate is covid

That’s exactly what it is. Covid and people dying because of degradation of care DUE to Covid.

I.e. WHY you don’t let a preventable respiratory illness spread unmitigated. ESPECIALLY with a vaccine that doesn’t stop transmission or infection.

and this year will probably be the worst.

>>14968491
It's the federal vaccine authority for Germany you retard.

>>14968799
I highly doubt that

>>14968589
They'll never respond to you because they can't find an answer that makes them look good.

>>14968789
>I got it from the chart
The chart has no way for you to derive that 2000% number. You have no starting number or ending number just an approximation at best.

>>14968810
The increase from 2020 to 2021 is objectively more than 2000% as plotted on that chart, I was rounding down to be polite. Are you so bad at reading graphs that you can't see that? How would you estimate the increase from 2020 to 2021 if not 2000%?

>>14968797
>and this year will probably be the worst.
2 more weeks right?

>>14968789
>I got it from the chart, dummy >>14968661
Okay. I still don't see what you think that demonstrates.

And, yes, again, worldwide data and research suggests to me it is entirely reasonable to suppose that increase is due to coronavirus. Given worldwide data for delta, the period that covers or so I infer from the end date being 2021, was quite severe.

You keep trying to dance around your burden of proof. Ain't going to work.

>>14968800
Not unexpected from someone stupid enough to take the jab.
https://www.pei.de/EN/home/home-node.html

>>14968815
As can be seen in that post, it was a response to "The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate vaccines are also a factor". The fact that they resulted in death reports increasing by 2000% is evidence that they are also a factor.
>And, yes, again, worldwide data and research suggests to me it is entirely reasonable to suppose that increase is due to coronavirus.
The increase of 2000%? Covid didn't cause an increase in deaths nearly that large

>>14968818
A German website, for the German government... in English? Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical

>>14968810
>The chart has no way for you to derive that 2000% number.
I'm the guy poking fun at the narcissists here. It is entirely possible if your baseline deaths are very low. It's just a percent change, after all.
>>14968822
>The fact that they resulted in death reports increasing by 2000% is evidence that they are also a factor.
Well, no, because VAERS does not establish causation. You have no way to know from VAERS if vaccines are a factor or not, especially because delta was so lethal (so you've an obvious major confound).

Why are you laser focused on a database that can't do what you want it to do?

>>14968825
This is bait, right?

>>14968826
>especially because delta was so lethal
It wasn't though. Death rates barely changed at all. The delta = deadly panic was just a smoke and mirrors act to disguise the fact that it was an immune escape variant that decimated vaxed people but had no enhanced effect on unvaxed with natural immunity and the immune naive.

>>14968830
>It wasn't though. Death rates barely changed at all.
The hell are you talking about? I already posted a link discussing some of the death rate in association with each virus.

You can clearly see delta's death rate spike here: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklydeaths_select_00

The fuck are you smoking?

>>14968826
>rationalizing making up a number while projecting that your arguments are logically sound and fact
>lying, admitting that you lied, and rationalizing it

Ok angry vaxxed narcissist anon.

I suggest you reach out to the people in your personal life that you talked shit to and apologize for being so cruel.

That’s all they want anyway.

The internet is a nice place to let off steam, but you’ll never feel better until you make shit right.

gnite

sage

>>14968835
Waitin for you to make an argument sissy

>>14968826
>You have no way to know from VAERS if vaccines are a factor or not, especially because delta was so lethal
Elaborate on what you mean by this. Delta is so lethal that it results in a death increase of 2000% for the vaccinated?

>>14968828
I don't think what I said was any dumber than claiming Robert Malone is some kind of German government official

>>14968841
>Elaborate on what you mean by this. Delta is so lethal that it results in a death increase of 2000% for the vaccinated?
Given VAERS baseline deaths were very few, yes, I fail to see what's unexpected about that. And I already posted an overall assessment, among many, such as https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm
>During April 4–December 25, 2021, a total of 6,812,040 COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated persons and 2,866,517 cases among fully vaccinated persons were reported among persons aged ≥18 years in 25 U.S. jurisdictions; 94,640 and 22,567 COVID-19–associated deaths among unvaccinated and fully vaccinated persons, respectively, were reported by December 4 (Table 1). Average weekly, age-standardized rates of cases and deaths (events per 100,000 population) were higher during periods of Delta predominance and Omicron emergence than during pre-Delta and Delta emergence periods and were consistently higher in all periods among unvaccinated persons (range = 64.0–725.6 [cases] and 1.5–11.4 [deaths]) than among fully vaccinated persons (range = 7.4–230.9 and 0.1–0.7).

The average weekly incidence of death IRR for unvaccinated during delta predominance was 11.4. That's incidence rate ratio. https://www.statology.org/incidence-rate-ratio/

If the death IRR during delta for the unvaccinated, of which initially most people were, was 11.4 as reported it is wholly unsurprising.

>>14968846
>Given VAERS baseline deaths were very few
why so much higher in 2021? Again, I agree that covid increased death rates somewhat but definitely not by 2000%

>>14968855
>why so much higher in 2021? Again, I agree that covid increased death rates somewhat but definitely not by 2000%
Why not? 20,313 fully vaccinated people died during delta predominance (vs 78,256 unvaccinated). VAERS is an association reporting database. Why is it unbelievable patients who died had their doctors report it given it happened within the window of VAERS reporting? That is literally what VAERS is for.

>>14968862
>Why is it unbelievable patients who died had their doctors report it given it happened within the window of VAERS reporting? That is literally what VAERS is for.
Then the amount of increased post-vaccine deaths from 2020 to 2021 should be proportional to the amount of increased overall deaths from 2020 to 2021, should it not?

>>14968866
>Then the amount of increased post-vaccine deaths from 2020 to 2021 should be proportional to the amount of increased overall deaths from 2020 to 2021, should it not?
If you want analysis on that sort of thing people have already done it. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

This dashboard means you don't even need to use librecalc or learn to use excel, if you don't know how. It includes the data, its definitions, and so on. Including details on how "excess death" is defined, which is not as simple as you might think given it depends wholly on the whims of how states report cause of deaths on death certificates and so on. This page goes into that heavily if you want those kinds of answers.

>>14968879
>In 2020, approximately 3,358,814 deaths† occurred in the United States.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm
>In 2021, approximately 3,458,697 deaths† occurred in the United States.
>https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e1.htm
>Deaths spiked almost 19% (535,191) between 2019 and 2020, from 2,854,838 to 3,390,029.
>https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/03/united-states-deaths-spiked-as-covid-19-continued.html
An increase in VAERS death reports by 19% would be explained by this data (except for the year lag -- wouldn't post- flu shot deaths have been included?). But an increase by 2000% is not.

>>14968866
>>14968879
Here, the prior page gives you a clearer more direct answer. I was not aware of that. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm

Usually I just get the data on the page I linked before. 90% of the deaths through 11/5/2022 (of ~1 million) listed covid-19 as the underlying cause of death OR contributing (probably "died with positive test").

I think that is an affirmative "yes" as to proportionality for your question, right?

>>14968889
>An increase in VAERS death reports by 19% would be explained by this data (except for the year lag -- wouldn't post- flu shot deaths have been included?). But an increase by 2000% is not.
I don't think you're understanding what's going on there. VAERS reports vaccine associations within a given reporting period. Prior to coronavirus, we did not have massive deaths from diseases we could vaccinate. During delta, ~20,000 people vaccinated died. Of those, apparently ~10,000 ended up being reported in VAERS.

Literally, yes, "an increase of 2,000%" is completely explained by that. Since you're going from some low amount of death during a non-pandemic to a very high amount.

>>14968895
VAERS also reports flu vaccine associations within a given reporting period, right?

>>14968898
>VAERS also reports flu vaccine associations within a given reporting period, right?
It isn't as simple as that. Check the VAERS website: https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html
This is what is reportable events listed in the PDF: https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf

For seasonal influenza, the only thing reportable are anaphylaxis, shoulder injury, vasovagal syncope, and what's on the manufacturer insert. Or death or acute complication related to what I just listed.

Not many people are going to die within the reporting window for VAERS for influenza vaccination, as they get it before the flu season. Meanwhile, people were getting vaccinated in hospitals and so on during delta and well within the reporting window. I don't think you can make a comparison between the two.

>>14968845
Nobody said that, you're just confused.

>>14968909
Those aren't the only things reportable, those are the only things that the doctor is required by law to report

>>14968930
>Those aren't the only things reportable, those are the only things that the doctor is required by law to report
Well, I did miss a note at the bottom of that it seems.
> In addition, healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any clinically significant or unexpected events (even if not certain the vaccine caused the event) for any vaccine, whether or not it is listed on the RET.
I don't see what that changes about what I said, though. People are getting vaccines months before they might get sick or die from influenza, so they're likely not being reported as "vaccine associated" to VAERS regardless.

This is also factually verifiable given there are some years of 50k deaths from influenza (say, 2015-2016) and very few reports to VAERS. Same for 2017-2018.

>>14968930
And even then most of these effects don't get reported. VAERS has a fairly well accepted severe side effect report rate of under half for normal vaccinations. Since the covid vaccine was so politicized and doctors were encouraged to cover up symptoms to promote vaccine acceptance, the under-reporting rate should follow similarly politicized vaccines like the flu shot (13% severe adverse event report rate) or the infamous MMR shot (25% report rate).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/

>>14968940
What exactly is the time frame for covid vaccines? I don't see that on the VAERS page you linked

>>14968943
I would think the event report rate would be much lower for covid, since those vaccines were much much more politicized than either of those

>>14968943
>And even then most of these effects don't get reported.
Again, it's just an association reporting system. Clinically it's fucking worthless, as it is worthless scientifically. On its own anyway. For this very simple reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
>>14968946
>What exactly is the time frame for covid vaccines? I don't see that on the VAERS page you linked
I think that is covered under the footnote for "effective march 21, 2017" I quoted from. The law would be 42 USC 300aa-25 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-25

The law includes a timetable for mandatory reporting which is likely where most reports stem from. I don't know offhand if VAERS publishes report source or how many are reports within mandated reporting window or not.

>>14968947
I think that's fair to say, however let's use 25% as a conservative estimate to give the best possible look to vaxoids. Multiplying the reported adverse effects by 4x makes this one of the most deadly non-narcotic medicines sold in recent history.

>>14968952
>Correlation is causation

>>14968956
Read the study, fag.

>>14968957
>Read the study, fag.
I did. I also explained why VAERS is worthless >>14968951 you are effectively declaring "correlation is causation". No, you smoothbrained neanderthal goatfucker, obviously reports of association do not establish causation let alone "the most deadly medicine sold in recent history".

>>14968959
You are effectively declaring "correlation doesn't mean anything"

>>14968418
kek, holy shit

>>14968959
Correlation indicates an anomaly that ought to be investigated instead of brushed aside with brutish grunts and babbling.

>>14968964
>You are effectively declaring "correlation doesn't mean anything"
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Congratulations, you now know at least as much as a 6th grader.

>>14968972
>Correlation indicates an anomaly that ought to be investigated instead of brushed aside with brutish grunts and babbling.
And there've been worldwide investigations by tens of thousands of scientists. Probably hundreds of thousands by now over the past few years. Which you plug your ears and go "la la la" to ignore. But no, not on the basis of fucking VAERS.

>>14968975
>And there've been worldwide investigations by tens of thousands of scientists. Probably hundreds of thousands by now over the past few years. Which you plug your ears and go "la la la" to ignore. But no, not on the basis of fucking VAERS.
And they say that the incidence of severe adverse effects is around 1 in 3000. See: German health ministry.

>>14968977
>And they say that the incidence of severe adverse effects is around 1 in 3000. See: German health ministry.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-misrepresentation-of-germanys-data-on-unverified-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects/
Man you can't even do better than a lie that factcheck.org debunks? Christ you're not even special stupid, you're BORING stupid.

>>14968980
Their "debunking" is just saying "it's true but we don't like it so it's not actually." They admit that not only is the data true, they admit that it's per dose which means the more times you get vaxed the more you compound your risk.

You're really stupid.

>>14968983
>You're really stupid.
And you're just a liar.
>But, again, as the report explains in the methodology section, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut encourages all reports of possible side effects even if the link to vaccination is questionable. Doctors are “legally obligated” to report post-vaccination complications to public health departments if they “are not obviously the result of other causes,” the report said.

Literally, it is not true (because it's actually 0.2 per 1,000) and it's no better than VAERS.

>>14968973
You are effectively doubling down on "correlation doesn't mean anything"

>>14968987
>You are effectively doubling down on "correlation doesn't mean anything"
On its own it means nothing. You are correct. Correlation does not imply causation.

>>14968985
>it's actually 1 per 5000, not 1 per 3000

>>14968990
I've gotten a bit turned around in this bitchfest. What observed correlation are you saying is spurious?

>>14968992
Still running from the truth I see. It's no better than VAERS. From the horse's mouth,
>“[P]lease pay attention to the fact that the report rate refers to all suspected reports, i.e. a causal connection with the vaccination has not yet been confirmed with the report of suspicion. The reporting rate indicates how many suspected cases of adverse events have been reported and will be evaluated by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut thereafter,” the institute told us in a statement via email.
>It also noted that “one reported case of a suspected adverse event may involve several reactions (e.g fever, headache, muscle pain), and the reporting rate is calculated per vaccine dose, not per vaccinated person.”
>>14968994
>I've gotten a bit turned around in this bitchfest. What observed correlation are you saying is spurious?
VAERS.

>>14968994
The correlation that VAERS statistics under-report severe adverse effects (which are theoretically legally mandatory to report) by up to 10x, as per a clinical study of traditional vaccine recipients.

>>14969002
>The correlation that VAERS statistics under-report severe adverse effects (which are theoretically legally mandatory to report) by up to 10x, as per a clinical study of traditional vaccine recipients.
Mmnnnnope I'm talking about the irrational inference you morons make from VAERS such as
>>14968952
>Multiplying the reported adverse effects by 4x makes this one of the most deadly non-narcotic medicines sold in recent history.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. VAERS does not establish causation. Under-reporting is completely irrelevant.

>>14968995
>VAERS
VAERS is a database, not a correlation. What correlation are you talking about?

>>14968995
>and the reporting rate is calculated per vaccine dose, not per vaccinated person.”
that makes the rate per person higber

>>14969013
>that makes the rate per person higber

>>14969016
Do you disagree with the content of the statement or are you just being pic related?

>>14969030
>Do you disagree with the content of the statement or are you just being pic related?
Per vaccination with multiple effects listed per vaccination greatly multiplies the rate above the per-person rate. Because it is counting both multiple vaccinations plus multiple reports from the same vaccine as individual reports. That means the rate per person would be lower.

Are you really this retarded?

>>14969041
>Because it is counting both multiple vaccinations plus multiple reports from the same vaccine as individual reports.
If it counted multiple effects per person instead of per vaccine, it would be higher, mathlet

>>14969055
>If it counted multiple effects per person instead of per vaccine, it would be higher, mathlet
Lol okay bud

>>14969061
if you're not baiting and genuinely need this explained to you, consider asking 100 people to roll 6 dice. On the one hand you can count the rate of rolls that land on 1 (which should be about 1 per 6), and on the other you can count the rate of people who get at least one 1. Do you think that number is higher, lower, or equal to 1 per 6?

>>14969065
>It also noted that “one reported case of a suspected adverse event may involve several reactions (e.g fever, headache, muscle pain), and the reporting rate is calculated per vaccine dose, not per vaccinated person.”

Rate of adverse event... multiple can be reported per dose... people receiving multiple doses...

>>14969065
Do you GENUINELY not realize the WHOLE POINT was that it made the rate per person higher, or... ??? Because you're being taken for a ride right now you goddamn smoothbrain.

>>14969041
>Because it is counting both multiple vaccinations plus multiple reports from the same vaccine as individual reports
>>14969076
>one reported case of a suspected adverse event may involve several reactions (e.g fever, headache, muscle pain), and the reporting rate is calculated per vaccine dose, not per vaccinated person
someone's lying

>>14969041
1 person gets vaccinated 6 times. The rate is 0.2 per 1000 per vaccination. The actual risk to the person the risk per vaccine multiplied by the number of vaccines, which is higher than the reported risk the media uses (which assumes you only ever take one shot, despite there being a minimum of 4 mandated shots).

>>14969084
>someone's lying
Nobody is lying. It's the incidence of adverse reaction, and the adverse reaction COUNT is tabulated from total reactions any individual has for any individual dose.

So if a person has one dose, and 4 reactions, that's a rate of 4 reactions per person. Just hypothetically.

Now, maybe the original german report reads different. I haven't gone to check. Just saying, nobody's lying.
>>14969088
>The actual risk to the person the risk per vaccine multiplied by the number of vaccines
If there were any causal inference to the vaccine, yes, which VAERS cannot establish. As already noted. I might've gotten you mixed up with another anon given things. Apologies for that. That's why some of the replies may seem nonsensical if I thought the context was another post.

>>14969092
>If there were any causal inference to the vaccine, yes
Holy shit are you still on this nonsense? How many people have to die before you accept you were wrong and admit that it does cause adverse events? Because Pfizer lists them on the label already, and has since it was released to the public.

>>14969092
>which VAERS cannot establish
What could?

>>14969097
>How many people have to die
That depends, how many have you actually established are dying due to vaccination?

Stiiiillll waiting on that.

>>14969133
If we made this same demand of covid deaths, the numbers would be much lower

>>14969167
According to the British office of national statistics this would result in covid deaths being lower than the 2018-2019 flu season.

>>14969167
According to the British office of national statistics this would result in covid deaths being lower than the deaths caused by the 2020-2021 flu season.

>>14968360
>Nobody woke up one day with brain damage and the inability to breed.
VAERS shows you are wrong and there have been literal videos of healthy people collapsing dead soon after being given the vaccine.

>>14969231
The Norwegian health ministry has effectively banned vaccination for people under 30. You can't get it from national health anymore and since nobody is going out to private clinics to pay for a vax nobody is getting it.

>>14967471
>If it were actually attributable to the vaccine
What is the process that determines (non)attributability?
Could this process miss a harmful vaccine?
I'm sure you love looking at data with error bars and circle jerking when underpowered studies show other medicines aren't effective.
What are the error bars on the process that determines (non)attributability in this case?

>scientists who are way smarter than you would be sounding the alarm bells
You are very ignorant.
You should acknowledge the problem that we don't know how inaccurate our hospital death data is.
Many vaccine deaths are likely disguised as other forms of death (covid, heart attack, stroke).
Excesses in these forms of death could be rationalized as being caused by something else (confounders).
Anyone that has evidence of possible vaccine harm would be buried with arguments about confounders.
People were subjected to stress, isolation, the virus, missed doctor appointments, lack of exercise, etc. throughout the pandemic.
Given all of the unprecedented societal changes that happened during the pandemic, it is really only guesswork determining how big of an effect the confounders had on the excess death categories.
Even if the vaccine was secretly known to be 0.1% lethal, the same canned confounder arguments would be used.
How lethal would the vaccine need to be in order to break through the confounder arguments?
The answer to this question is basically the lethality that you implicitly endorse by relying on your attributability process.

tl;dr
Given all of the possible confounders, vaccine safety is un-falsifiable at this point.
As covid subsides, the societal changes revert, and the vaccines keep being pushed, we will get a less noisy picture.

>>14969167
>If we made this same demand of covid deaths, the numbers would be much lower
Antivaxxers admitting they have no evidence. Again. kek

>>14967471
Would they though?
I thought scientists were human beings who are selected for unusual compliance through higher education.

>>14969331
The only way that is the admission is if you are admitting you have no evidence that a virus even exists.

>>14967478
>"We have a serious point here"
>Death threats against people who question it
Yeah buddy, thats how you convince people that your crusade is a sane one

>>14969331
Do you disagree though?

>>14969355
Oh no a d-d-d-death threat! Maybe that 4chan poster will trace my IP and come get me!

>>14969348
>The only way that is the admission is if you are admitting you have no evidence that a virus even exists.
Dude I'm not even going to BOTHER arguing with "virus don't real" guy. You're either taking the piss or I am genuinely sad for just how you're the single most retarded person on all of 4chan. It'd be like kicking a puppy.

>>14969383
No, your demands and standards are just untenable and would disprove everything.

>>14969404
>No, your demands and standards are just untenable and would disprove everything.
>Noooo you have to accept my correlation because otherwise you disprove everything!
>Babby's 1st rigor disproves everything
I'm fucking saving this thread for the sheer black-hole level of mass stupidity. From which not a single clever thought could possibly escape your immensely stupid head.

>>14969444
Sure when you are disproving someone else, there needs to be the highest standard of evidence and logic, but when someone questions your bias, it is not even worth bothering arguing or providing evidence or logic.

>>14969452
>Sure when you are disproving someone else, there needs to be the highest standard of evidence and logic, but when someone questions your bias, it is not even worth bothering arguing or providing evidence or logic.
I did that throughout the entire thread. Not only providing and explaining my evidence but sometimes providing OTHER people THEIR evidence and explaining why IT doesn't work either.

Pure narcissistic projection on your part. Typical.

>>14969470
No or you would be proud enough to link the posts that contain your unassailable evidence, but you can't because no such posts exist ITT, the only thing you have posted so far is a string of cliched insults that you thought were clever or something at the time.

>>14969483
>Hey do my work for me so I don't have to read the thread
I ain't half as dumb as you are pal. I don't give a siiiiiiiiiingle shit. Do your own homework.

>>14969489
I read the thread and see no proof either way just a bunch of mud slinging by people with poorly thought out arguments, but feel free to keep pretending like you have added anything useful since that is clearly the only way you can have any self esteem.

>>14969503
Imagine being this pathetic and unable to argue

>>14969518
Imagine being the type of retard who claims a higher level of efficacy and safety than even the manufacturers while providing zero actual evidence or arguments other than [insert mean names].

>>14969523
Tons of evidence above in the thread. All you can do is throw a narcissistic hissyfit. bawwwwwww

>>14969526
Yet you can't point to a single post with real evidence even though you claim to be the expert.

>>14967544
We had strong correlation between covid deaths, excess deaths and vaccinations per day.
https://www.nsi.bg/bg/content/18121/basic-page/%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B2-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8

>>14967607
>Correlation is not causation mate.
Yes it is. There are three types of causation - A causing B, B causing A, C causing both A and B. Correlation means one of these.

>>14969652
Causation is a type of very strong noticeably sequential correlation.

>>14968610
>march/april 2020 when the vaccine mandates started
Vaccination didn't start until 2021 anon
March/April 2020 was the first covid wave for most countries

>>14968610
WHO declared pandemic and countries locked down around march 2020. vaccine mandates came end of 2020/all through 2021.

>>14969789
It took them an afternoon to design the vaccine, drug trials started almost immediately, they declared a pandemic in the US before there were even any positive cases to report.

>>14969794
ok? not my problem. I'm just clearing up anons confusing where he thought the mandates started in march 2020.

>>14967467
>Is there any reason not to attribute this to the vaccine?
Could be the vaccine, but you'd need data that isn't being confounded with shit like draconian social policies, reduced accessibility of healthcare, diet/exercise changes during the pandemic, COVID infection, etc. It's a pretty convenient racket, all in all.

>>14969798
It doesn't really clear anything up when they were drug trialing vaccines at an unprecedented rapid pace and going out of their way to invalidate the double blinding in the US before cases even began to be reported stateside because it would be unfair for the placebo group to be unvaccinated with a compound that is still in the trial stages to this day.

>>14969804
Ok? None of that has any relevance. The anon thought that vaccine mandates started in March 2020 but they started mid 2021.

>>14969805
True, his wording was off, there was never a universal vaccine mandate outside of a few employers and a couple of states in the first place, but his point still stands that they were administering massive amount of vaccines by the time the death rate climbed so its hard to separate the populations in the statistics.

>>14969818
Ok, fantastic, but the point remains that the anon thought the mandates which started in 2021 started in 2020. Also, why did you select my comment and not >>14969766 ?

>>14969820
I probably should have, but your reply was also misleading and it was the one I saw and clicked on.

>>14969766
see
>>14969794

>>14969824
My reply is not misleading. Anon thought the mandates were in March 2020 - they were not. Not sure what you are confused about.

>>14969829
There was still widespread vaccination before mandates that were not even all that widespread, correcting the mandate misrepresentation doesn't mean that you can easily separate vaccinated from unvaccinated populations and compare to the general rise in excess deaths, so you didn't really fix the problem by correcting the misrepresentation around mandates.

>>14969836
Yes I know but they are clearly not the mandates the anon is talking about. Is english your first language?

>>14969836
Let me make this as simple as possible for you.

Anon thought vaccine mandates started in March 2020.

But vaccine mandates started in 2021.

That's literally it. Anything else is like when trials started or whatever else is moot.

>>14969840
Its not moot though because it still means large numbers of people were being vaccinated with experimental drugs at that point.

>>14967467
non-vaxxed people, obviously (this is the reason no one cares anymore). and that is a GOOD thing.

>>14967467
>You'll also note a spike in 2021 not due to COVID.
But it is due to Covid. The virus is why death rates are elevated. It probably would have been much worse and longer lasting without the vaccine.

Idiot governments have stopped taking infection counts and tracking deaths closely, so we as the common man cant exactly tell if it's due to Covid. However the line has been just as elevated over normal for the past 2 years as it was at the beginning of the pandemic all the way back to March 2020 when there was no vaccine.

>>14967471
>scientists who are way smarter than you would be sounding the alarm bells
And risk potentially ruining their careers? BAHAHAHAHAHA YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>14969887
Bulgarian here. Turbo covid mortality dissapeared when we closed the covid wards. We have 30-something % vaccinated, lowest in EU. We don't have excess mortality now.
I personally know people with heart and immunity issues that blame it on covid vaccines and I know like 10 or less vaccinated people.

>>14967467
that's a weird spike in 2021
>As of July 2021, vaccination mandates have largely been enforced by means of employers, including private businesses and governmental divisions,[7][8]
nevermind.

>>14969766
>>14969789
my mistake. the spike followed the first lockdowns.
the increase in 2021 followed the mandates.

>>14968332
>Sure you are bud. Get your narcissism treated.
One more idiot that ignores the obvious and has to get personal. Why are you total brainwashed retards here? Got to reddit or any other forum were facts you dislike were censored .

OP here coming back the next day, surprised to find 270+ replies.

I note that this thread only has 42 posters.

That means 1 paid shill has been spamming this thread relentlessly.

All that money and effort tells you we're on point, and they are desperate to bury this.

Thank you for keeping my thread alive, you low quality peon.

>>14970029
>paid shill
Stop using newfag buzzwords. There is not a single human on this site receiving monetary compensation to push an agenda. Bots for days, sure. Paid shills? Non-existent, post proof or fuck off.

>>14970035
>post proof or fuck off.

Ok, Paid shill.

Do you ever get tired of just exposing yourself further?

>>14970035
You yourself think so lowly of your 'vocation' that you feel the need to lie about it anonymously. Not only are you ashamed about it IRL, as you should be, you are so ashamed of it you cannot even admit to it in an environment that is a superior recreation of a Catholic confessional.

That's how scummy your entire life is. Think about that. Murderers can more easily confess to a priest through a screen than you can confess to how you get your paycheck here.

>>14970029
>1 paid shill
I do it for free.

Note the continued narcissism of the antivaxxer. Everyone already knows but it's fun to point out. Doesn't read the thread, just calls the person wasting time on you dipshits "a shill".

>>14970175
Are you narcissistic?

>>14970240
Of course he is.

>>14970301
>>14970240
Yes, I am totally the one who is completely mathematically illiterate, scientifically illiterate, yet alleging greater knowledge of a subject than the consensus of professionals worldwide.

I find it funny your delusions run so deep

>>14970304
That's not what I asked, I just asked if you were narcissistic. Are you?

>>14970319
Which one of us is doing this:
>Yes, I am totally the one who is completely mathematically illiterate, scientifically illiterate, yet alleging greater knowledge of a subject than the consensus of professionals worldwide.
There's your answer.

>>14970323
I didn't ask "which one of us is narcissistic", I'm just asking whether you are. Which I'm guessing you know you are, since you haven't given me a simple "no"

>>14970304
>Yes, I am totally the one who is completely mathematically illiterate, scientifically illiterate, yet alleging greater knowledge of a subject than the consensus of professionals worldwide.


As OP, and on behalf of /sci/, thank you for finally being honest about posting nothing but ignorant drivel, desperately trying to waste the time of posters and distract the conversation from the thousands of people dying every week from your employer's fraudulent 'therapy'.

It's the first thing you've posted worth reading.

Another collection of data showing the vaccines killing children worldwide.

Note the shill tactics: now that the thread is at reply limit, he stops spamming.

Take lessons from this, lurkers. Your posting habits matter. The smarter you prune their threads, the more you make their multimillion memetic media corporation a joke.

>>14967693
>going to sleep

>>14967505
robert malone invent the method of injecting and maintaining rna acid inside a tissue.
fauci is not even practice medicine or research he just writing policies he is a bureaucrat not a medical doctor or a scientist