[Vaccines kill fewer than 1 in 10 million.]
You live in a dream world.
Not me. You are saying the CDC and every other medical establishment in the world is in a dream world, and you alone know the truth. Plus, every news organization for the last 200 years has suppressed this truth that you alone know, even though hundreds of thousands of people are dying because of it. You must be in awe of yourself! You are legend in your own mind.
Not me. You are saying the CDC and every other medical establishment in the world is in a dream world, and you alone know the truth. Plus, every news organization for the last 200 years has suppressed this truth that you alone know, even though hundreds of thousands of people are dying because of it. You must be in awe of yourself! You are legend in your own mind.
VAERS database had 432 deaths reported in 2016. If we are generous and say that there are 50million kids in the US that is 1 in 100,000 roughly. The truth is, it is worse. Many deaths are not connected by anyone to vaccines. The top reason is few even believe vaccines could be source of injury! (e.g. SIDS)
Who brainwashed you to reflexively support the CDC (i.e. the vaccine industry?)
VAERS database had 432 deaths reported in 2016.
Note: Submitting a report to VAERS does not mean that healthcare personnel or the vaccine caused or contributed to the adverse event (possible side effect).
Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:
432 is the number of people who died soon after getting a vaccine. In nearly every case, the death had nothing to do with the vaccine. This is clearly stated in the website and elsewhere. More to the point, as I showed above, the number of people who die after vaccines is lower than the general population which does not get vaccinated. So it would make more sense for you to conclude the vaccines magically protect people from heart attacks and automobile accidents.
Trial Site News Video (Sept 14) -
Clinical Trials and Research News Weekly Roundup
Ivermectin Moves Towards Mainstream
https://www.trialsitenews.com/…moves-towards-mainstream/
Quadruple Therapy with Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID-19
"Ivermectin,Doxycycline,Zinc and Vitamin D3"
https://www.thehindu.com/news/…id-19/article32601262.ece
432 is the number of people who died soon after getting a vaccine. In nearly every case, the death had nothing to do with the vaccine. This is clearly stated in the website and elsewhere. More to the point, as I showed above, the number of people who die after vaccines is lower than the general population which does not get vaccinated. So it would make more sense for you to conclude the vaccines magically protect people from heart attacks and automobile accidents.
You don't want to believe, for whatever reason you are dead set against any negative evidence to your beliefes. All the billions paid out in injuries is a rouse. The deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine. Nothing to see here.
You don't want to believe, for whatever reason you are dead set against any negative evidence to your beliefes. All the billions paid out in injuries is a rouse.
Billions have not been paid out. That's absurd. No one would pay billions for 432 deaths. Before you get a vaccine, you have to sign an agreement not to sue if you die. You have to acknowledge the risk. That's for their benefit, not yours. A handful of people do die, and the survivors are paid, but not much.
The problem is not my beliefs. The problem is that I speak language. I understand arithmetic. I know what it means when they say most of these deaths were not caused by vaccines. You, on the other hand, apparently do not understand any of this. Either you are a fool, in which case you should stop making comments here, or you do understand and you are liar and a troublemaker, in which case you should stop making comments here.
Billions have not been paid out. That's absurd. No one would pay billions for 432 deaths. Before you get a vaccine, you have to sign an agreement not to sue if you die. You have to acknowledge the risk. That's for their benefit, not yours. A handful of people do die, and the survivors are paid, but not much.
The problem is not my beliefs. The problem is that I speak language. I understand arithmetic. I know what it means when they say most of these deaths were not caused by vaccines. You, on the other hand, apparently do not understand any of this. Either you are a fool, in which case you should stop making comments here, or you do understand and you are liar and a troublemaker, in which case you should stop making comments here.
Vaccine courts have paid out billions. I already told you, injuries do not occur as delta functions around a specific timeframe and around a certain severity -- the injury is not zero everywhere expect a spike.
If you want us to clap for your arithmetic ability and google search savy - the administrators can give you some stickers or something.
Vaccine courts have paid out billions.
Yes, over the life of the program they have. That is for injuries and deaths, but experts say 70% was for nothing. Just to avoid a court case. They probably did not pay much in those cases.
QUOTE:
How many petitions have been awarded compensation?
According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2017 over 3.4 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 6,293 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 4,311 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, approximately 1 individual was compensated.
Since 1988, over 20,629 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 17,875 petitions have been adjudicated, with 6,551 of those determined to be compensable, while 11,324 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.1 billion.
Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. In fact:
You don't want to believe, for whatever reason you are dead set against any negative evidence to your beliefes. All the billions paid out in injuries is a rouse. The deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine. Nothing to see here.
Navid - you are misinformed as to facts here, if you think this proves your argument.
You are claiming that compensation claim amounts imply that vaccines are less safe than Jed (and I) have said. Jed was saying: 1 per million adverse event I think.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/def…ata-statistics-report.pdf
How many petitions have been awarded compensation?
According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2018 over 3.7 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in
the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 7,432 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of
those 5,199 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed,
approximately 1 individual was compensated.
Since 1988, over 22,239 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 19,114
petitions have been adjudicated, with 7,542 of those determined to be compensable, while 11,651 were
dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.4 billion.
So, yes, 1 in 1,000,000 cases is awarded compensation. The total amount paid averages $800K per claim.
No-one is claiming vaccines are risk-free. Nor are any of the medicines you regularly take. These probabilities
are so low you are more likely to be struck by lightning.
Another comparison. The incidence of stroke amongst young people in the US is 20 per 100,000 person years.
As a young person, you are 200X more likely to suffer a stroke in the calendar year you are immunised than to have a
compensatable claim against the vaccine.
PS - and I agree with Jed above - compensatable claims do not mean the vaccine has caused harm, just that there is
some possibility that might be true. The Courts have tended towards paying out regardless.
So, yes, 1 in 1,000,000 cases is awarded compensation. The total amount paid averages $800K per claim.
No-one is claiming vaccines are risk-free. Nor are any of the medicines you regularly take. These probabilities
are so low you are more likely to be struck by lightning.
Trying to suggest vaccines are safe by hard-fought court claims data is not a sound method.
If there are 400 deaths and 10,000 ER visits per year in a vaccine database, you can be sure that at least 10x++ or more in the real world (some estimates are much higher).
That is sound reasoning because few believe or are aware of vaccine injury is even a real thing. They are the last place people look.
Because the injuries are like toxification they need not be immediate onset. Brain injury can be subtle in a baby. Slight ataxia, slight motor delay, slight cognitive deficit --- these things are life-changing and serious, so caution "slight" means hard to detect at such a young age but still serious and life impacting. If I asked someone to lick dioxin and they were fine next week, it doesn't mean dioxin is safe even though dioxin injury may not be compensated. I hope that illustrates the concept by turning up the contrast.
None of this is rocket-science stuff, there is nothing to even debate here. The statistics are vastly understated on first principles. No need to invoke Dr. Google.
Injuries do not occur as delta-functions around a certain time window of hours after vaccine administration with none downstream (even months), and they don't occur as either death or severe disability with no lesser injuries possible.
If there are 400 deaths and 10,000 ER visits per year in a vaccine database, you can be sure that at least 10x++ or more in the real world (some estimates are much higher).
That is sound reasoning because few believe or are aware of vaccine injury is even a real thing. They are the last place people look.
Yes. And you probably have in mind the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study, from 2006 to 2009. Out of 750,000 patients, about 2.6 percent had adverse reaction associated with vaccination, as accessed by Harvard Pilgrim people, who gave the vaccinations and and actively monitored the results. Their conclusion was that VAERS is capturing less than 1 percent of adverse events. This is primarily among adults, who can speak, not infants who cannot, and who have much more vulnerable immune systems.
Because the injuries are like toxification they need not be immediate onset. Brain injury can be subtle in a baby. Slight ataxia, slight motor delay, slight cognitive deficit --- these things are life-changing and serious, so caution "slight" means hard to detect at such a young age but still serious and life impacting.
True. And then there are the shorter term effects. There was the study that monitored baby breathing both before and after vaccination, and found that breathing impairment occurred in cycles after vaccination. It clustered : immediately after vaccination, then about 1 week after vaccination, then about 2 weeks after vaccination. These numbers corresponded to SIDS death clustering after vaccination reported in the literature.
You probably know about the Japanese SIDS experience. From
https://truthlibrarydotinfo.wo…ion-on-vaccines-and-sids/
"(d) JAPAN In 1975, about 37 Crib Sudden Deaths were linked to vaccination in Japan. Doctors in one prefecture boycotted vaccinations, and refused to vaccinate. The Japanese government paid attention and stopped vaccinating children below the age of two years. When immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age, Sudden Infant Death cases and claims for vaccine related deaths disappeared. Japan zoomed from a high 17th place in infant mortality rate to the lowest infant mortality rate in the world when they stopped vaccinating. Japan didn’t vaccinate any children below the age of two years between 1975 and 1988, for thirteen years. But then in 1988, Japanese parents were given the choice to start vaccinating anywhere between three months and 48 months. The Ministry study group studied 2,720 SIDS cases occurring between 1980 and 1992 and they established that their very low SIDS rate quadrupled."
It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the markedly lower infant mortality rate in the US during Covid-19 lockdown is due in part to infants not getting vaccinations.
Out of 750,000 patients, about 2.6 percent had adverse reaction associated with vaccination,
What constitutes an adverse reaction can be a complicated issue. According to the on-line info from the manufacturer, most people react strongly to the adult shingles vaccine. It always causes stiffness and pain in the arm. It often causes a low level fever. In my case, the fever lasted two days. That is not an adverse reaction because it is expected; it is unavoidable; and it has no long term or serious effects. These effects were all listed in the permission form I signed, and the instructions I brought home.
It could be the study you refer to considers this an adverse reaction, but the government does not. It is extremely unlikely there are 2.6% serious adverse reactions, or unexpected ones. Or avoidable ones. If there was a way to avoid them, the manufacturer would do it. If these reactions were not expected they would not be listed in the forms.
There were some serious adverse effects listed in the instructions. It said, "if this happens to you, go to the hospital." Fever was not among these effects.
Since the drug cannot work without causing a fever (in me, anyway), I do not consider this an adverse effect. It is an unfortunate side-effect. It shows the drug is working. There is no way to prevent shingles in me without giving me a fever.
The first person to get one of the phase 3 experimental COVID-19 vaccines is a Georgia celebrity, Dawn Baker. I think she said it left her feeling woozy. I think I read that in the Atlanta newspapers. So I guess it was not a saline placebo. The doctor said that is not an adverse reaction.
Trying to suggest vaccines are safe by hard-fought court claims data is not a sound method.
On the other hand, when you study thousands of people, and you find the mortality rate in the months following the vaccination is lower than the general population for every age group, for every common vaccine, that is proof the vaccines are not causing any measurable increase in mortality. What better proof can there be? That study proves beyond doubt that everything you have said here is wrong. I suggest you think about that fact, and then give it up. You have no case. (You will not stop and think think and you will give up any of your delusions, but you should. Facts mean nothing to you and other anti-science fanatics.)
This article gives me the impression that a COVID-19 vaccine will difficult to distribute and administer. It will be expensive. It will take most of 2021 to distribute to developed nations. It will take longer to distribute it to third world countries, especially those without refrigerators or electricity in rural areas.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15…virus-pandemic/index.html
Whatever the cost, it will be orders of magnitude less money than the pandemic is costing us. It will be worth it!
On the other hand, when you study thousands of people, and you find the mortality rate in the months following the vaccination is lower than the general population for every age group, for every common vaccine, that is proof the vaccines are not causing any measurable increase in mortality. What better proof can there be? That study proves beyond doubt that everything you have said here is wrong. I suggest you think about that fact, and then give it up. You have no case. (You will not stop and think think and you will give up any of your delusions, but you should. Facts mean nothing to you and other anti-science fanatics.)
That is likely a specious claim. Why don't you provide such data and we can assess its credibility.
When you feel compelled to tell others they are deluded or fanatics, and then uplift the dominion and flag of science, you are taking on far too much responsibility. You sound like the towne-crier of science.
That is likely a specious claim. Why don't you provide such data and we can assess its credibility.
I listed the source above:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/
Quote:
"A study published in 2013 using electronic health record databases reviewed health information on over 13 million vaccinated persons and compared causes of death in the vaccinated study population to the general US population. The death rate 1 or 2 months following vaccination was lower than that in the general US population, and the causes of death were similar [28]. This study provides convincing evidence that vaccinations are not associated with an increased risk of death at the population level."
Display MoreI listed the source above:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/
Quote:
"A study published in 2013 using electronic health record databases reviewed health information on over 13 million vaccinated persons and compared causes of death in the vaccinated study population to the general US population. The death rate 1 or 2 months following vaccination was lower than that in the general US population, and the causes of death were similar [28]. This study provides convincing evidence that vaccinations are not associated with an increased risk of death at the population level."
This paper states this: "increased from the 0-1-day to the 0-60-day interval following vaccination."
This doesn't look protective to me.
The death rate 1 or 2 months following vaccination was lower than that in the general US population.
This looks specious. The death rate in the population in general is influenced by economics. How do you know that white people don't have the money and health plans to vaccinate, and that blacks are not vaccinating as much. The reason this is important is because you are mixing all signals (socioeconomic, race) and saying "vaccinated people have less death rate." So the question is, how did they control for these factors?
Attached is death rate per 100,000 people for blacks vs whites but a similar table for socioeconomic groups would be similar if not worse.
Navid, Mark_U
Neither of you have posted any eveidence to substantiate your spurious claims that vaccines are dangerous.
I actually agree with you, Jed's point above does not prove less riskbecause of selection effects, but it least it gives a baseline not obviously dangerous assurance.
You repeatedly claim high vaccine danger on no evidence. I loom forward to your posting what you think is evidence. i will point out tomorrow why (unlike Jed's post above, Jed's and my post of the adverse events claims data) you have no evidence at all to support your assertions.
THH
THH, I have shown you privately (some months ago) a multitude of papers, including vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies, that show significant vaccine injury.
This is not the forum to drag this out on. It is clear to me you don't really want to know. Just know this: the same databases that were accessed by the study from Jed's link contain the information needed to perform a nation wide comparison of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. The NIH has been asked to do this vaxxed vs unvaxxed study (by, iirc the AMA), but they refuse. Think on that. BTW, the obvious flaw in the study referenced by Jed is something called "health bias". In short, people battling an illness are not supposed to get vaccinated ; they have to wait until they are well. These are the very people who are more prone to die in the next month or two, so it should be no surprise that the general population has a higher mortality rate. This 'health bias' is also a main reason the Danish studies on the safety of their MMR vaccine are flawed.
THH, I have shown you privately (some months ago) a multitude of papers, including vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies, that show significant vaccine injury.
This is not the forum to drag this out on. It is clear to me you don't really want to know. Just know this: the same databases that were accessed by the study from Jed's link contain the information needed to perform a nation wide comparison of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. The NIH has been asked to do this vaxxed vs unvaxxed study (by, iirc the AMA), but they refuse. Think on that. BTW, the obvious flaw in the study referenced by Jed is something called "health bias". In short, people battling an illness are not supposed to get vaccinated ; they have to wait until they are well. These are the very people who are more prone to die in the next month or two, so it should be no surprise that the general population has a higher mortality rate. This 'health bias' is also a main reason the Danish studies on the safety of their MMR vaccine are flawed.
Ok, so let us then for public record leave it as this. I read what you posted (at least the bits you said were most persuasive) with interest. They did not, on analysis, show what you thought they did, and i posted there at length why I believed that. Perhaps a good summary would be "lies, damned lies, and anti-vax statistics!"
Navid, above, has rightly pointed out the difficulties in trusting the pro-Vax argument based on looking at differential death rates between those who are and are not vaccinated. The problem is that those who choose to be vaccinated are a selected group that may be less at risk of mortality for other factors: social, environmental.
The same problem cuts the other way. Those who choose to be vaccinated may be more at risk, for example there are illnesses that make children more susceptibe to childhood diseases - and other things. Those children will be much more likely to be vaccinated than others.
Similarly: looking within a population across time for correlations between vaccination and mortality is a mugs game.
The anti-vaxers bring this on themselves by pushing a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, and almost no way to obtain evidence: vaccines are causative of various long-term somatic changes that cause later harm. I think the reason they do this is that with such tenuous linkage there is also almost no way to disprove the hypothesis!
So how about a compromise. I like compromises; they are usually made by people who can sympathetically understand both sides of an issue.
Consider the difference between vaccination, and catching the disease for which the vaccine primes the immune system. It is pretty clear to me that there are similarities, and differences. The similarities are enough to make the vaccine efficacious (as is proven by phase III trials). the immune system is incredibly complex and unintended consequences of vaccines might be good or bad. Just as unintended consequences of actually catching a full-blown disease might be good or bad. There is a great variety of vaccine technologies, and also great difference - unpredictably - in how any specific vaccine actually affects people. That is why you need that long process of careful testing. Some vaccines are much closer to the diseases they protect against than others. Exactly the same variability exists for diseases; great variety of different viral or bacterial attack mechanisms. Great variety in what long-term effects diseases leave. Saying "vaccines bad, disease good" is every bit as unthinking as Orwell's communist satire: "Four legs good, two legs bad".
I agree that evidence here is not as good as we would like, there is always uncertainty. That applies to both unrecognised long-term effects of diseases and long-term effects of vaccines. the difference is that vaccines have a smaller effect than diseases, by design, would would hope that to make a difference. Also, vaccines are very carefully tested looking for side-effects in a way we do not bother with diseases.
That is why, in spite of the inevitable difficulty of proof, I side strongly with the pro-vax side here. yes vaccines are dangerous - but as long as we do not allow politicians to push the medical processes they get very carefully tested. those that pass are much less dangerous than the disease they protect against (and yes - that protection many be temporary, as with Flu, but still life-saving and worth it).
Big pharma has no interest in pushing unsafe vaccines. the reason vaccine companies stood up to Trump is not just altruism. It is that if they release an unsafe vaccine it will prevent vaccine update of all future vaccines for a long time. Their long-term financial interests align with giving us safe vaccines - even when you might argue the world would be better off with an effective but less safe vaccine.
THH
PS - where I do not compromise, and have little sympathy, is with the emotional basis for anti-vax fears. The idea that Western governments wish to control people by making them ill, and vaccination is all part of a sinister plot, is just silly. The idea that big Pharma peddles bad medicine for profit is true, but that actually cuts the opposite way. Vaccines are not great things for pharma since they prevent diseases and are difficult to develop. More profitable is drugs to treat diseases multiple times. Yet that view, and a paranoid view of the world, is I think what lies behind such strong animosity towards this one aspect of medical interventions. I'd have more sympathy with people who reject medicine entirely, reckoning that God designed diseases, and our response to them, interfering with that using medical science leads to peril. At least that view is consistent (though wrong).
