4 ms·

A follow up to the post.. https://drowningindatadotblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/linking-excess-deaths-and-sars-cov-2-vaccinations-in-scotland-26-may-2021/ htt

by spadez 5y ago

A follow up to the post.. https://drowningindatadotblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/linking-excess-deaths-and-sars-cov-2-vaccinations-in-scotland-26-may-2021/ https://drowningindatadotblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/linki... And there is also one from CDC data.. https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/

rpz 5y ago
Interesting thanks for sharing not sure why this is being downvoted but I'd consider myself a layperson on this matter. Could someone help explain why this post above is worthy of downvotes?
- eloff 5y ago
  It's not worthy of downvotes. But people vote with their emotions, not based on any rational criteria. The OP also seems to be the submitter - that explains it. People are downvoting because they don't like the article ( and you can't just downvote a submission, strangely.)
  - ksherlock 5y ago
    If you have enough fake internet points you can flag a submission.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Does one flag low quality or flawed content? I'm not sure that's against the rules. > If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Seems to pass that.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  Well, take the second link for example: https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ 1) The chart shown mixes up lipid concentrations for protein spikes from the original cited paper and data 2) R00-R99 coded deaths will always be higher for "new" data. Over time, these are revised and coded differently. So if you look backwards from today, it will always seem like this number has gone way up the last month or so. The author notes this in his post (good), but leaves the original one in its place (also fine, but just be aware). The author's hypothesis is not supported by data, and the arguments put forth are based on misunderstanding or misinterpreting things. Also if the fear here is the mRNA vaccines are dangerous, there's always the more traditional Janssen (J&J) vaccine which does not use mRNA.
  - spadez 5y ago
    This page seem to be updated https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ with the information about observation of increase in R00-R99 deaths for current time. But the article does not appear to believe that it changes their reading of the data.
- manwe150 5y ago
  I scrolled though a bit wondering that too. Seems that buried in the post is a graph that shows it actually was a dramatic plunge in deaths correlated with the vaccination. I say ‘buried’ because it is surrounded by graphs and text concerned about a relatively much smaller increase in uncategorized deaths. It looks intellectually lazy. Similar stuff has been posted many times and this doesn’t appear to add to the discussion of COVID. The links may confirm anti-COVID biases and confuse laymen, but does not seem likely to withstand rigorous analysis.
  - spamizbad 5y ago
    And that much smaller increase is because a death may initially be coded as uncategorized and later revised. So at any point in time, the most recent data you look at will show this phenomena - COVID, vaccine or not.
  - spadez 5y ago
    >a graph that shows it actually was a dramatic plunge in deaths correlated with the vaccination. Please share the link to the page and section heading under which this graph is present. Also this page seem to be updated https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ with the information about observation of increase in R00-R99 deaths for current time. >but does not seem likely to withstand rigorous analysis. But where is this rigorous analysis?

by spadez 5y ago

rpz 5y ago

Interesting thanks for sharing not sure why this is being downvoted but I'd consider myself a layperson on this matter. Could someone help explain why this post above is worthy of downvotes?

eloff 5y ago
It's not worthy of downvotes. But people vote with their emotions, not based on any rational criteria. The OP also seems to be the submitter - that explains it. People are downvoting because they don't like the article ( and you can't just downvote a submission, strangely.)
- ksherlock 5y ago
  If you have enough fake internet points you can flag a submission.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Does one flag low quality or flawed content? I'm not sure that's against the rules. > If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Seems to pass that.
spamizbad 5y ago
Well, take the second link for example: https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ 1) The chart shown mixes up lipid concentrations for protein spikes from the original cited paper and data 2) R00-R99 coded deaths will always be higher for "new" data. Over time, these are revised and coded differently. So if you look backwards from today, it will always seem like this number has gone way up the last month or so. The author notes this in his post (good), but leaves the original one in its place (also fine, but just be aware). The author's hypothesis is not supported by data, and the arguments put forth are based on misunderstanding or misinterpreting things. Also if the fear here is the mRNA vaccines are dangerous, there's always the more traditional Janssen (J&J) vaccine which does not use mRNA.
- spadez 5y ago
  This page seem to be updated https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ with the information about observation of increase in R00-R99 deaths for current time. But the article does not appear to believe that it changes their reading of the data.
manwe150 5y ago
I scrolled though a bit wondering that too. Seems that buried in the post is a graph that shows it actually was a dramatic plunge in deaths correlated with the vaccination. I say ‘buried’ because it is surrounded by graphs and text concerned about a relatively much smaller increase in uncategorized deaths. It looks intellectually lazy. Similar stuff has been posted many times and this doesn’t appear to add to the discussion of COVID. The links may confirm anti-COVID biases and confuse laymen, but does not seem likely to withstand rigorous analysis.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  And that much smaller increase is because a death may initially be coded as uncategorized and later revised. So at any point in time, the most recent data you look at will show this phenomena - COVID, vaccine or not.
- spadez 5y ago
  >a graph that shows it actually was a dramatic plunge in deaths correlated with the vaccination. Please share the link to the page and section heading under which this graph is present. Also this page seem to be updated https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ with the information about observation of increase in R00-R99 deaths for current time. >but does not seem likely to withstand rigorous analysis. But where is this rigorous analysis?