4 ms·

Look at the graph of post-vaccine deaths. It's vertical: https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

IAmEveryone 5y ago
Wow, this whole issue so low... In the years before, how often were you vaccinated? Exactly: you probably weren't. Millions of vaccinations were given ib the last few months, orders of magnitude more than usual. And while most are usually given to toddlers, now the 60 to 95 year-olds got most of the vaccinations. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after they are vaccinated? They die. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after eating ice cream? They die. Also, as has been reported plenty of times, read by you (in, for example, the article above), and ignored because it doesn't fit your worldview, is that VAERS is, as the URL says, "open". It's a relic from a time where people tended to be sane, and wouldn't just submit all sorts of imaginary things to a medical database. The article cited above summarises what the people collecting that data have concluded from it. How can you make an argument about the data they collect and publish, implying that you trust them, and then, in the very next breath ignore them and, I assume, next accuse them of being either too stupid or corrupt to say anything about that data?
- native_samples 5y ago
  So are these reports all imaginary, or are they all the very old, or is it OK to ignore huge numbers of deaths because everyone is being pressured to take the vaccine, or what? You seem to be arguing all of these things simultaneously. Are you aware of the under-reporting rates on VAERS? Do you recall that this thread started with me talking about vaccines being not worth the risk for people who are not old? I don't care what the CDC or other government agencies think, because I don't trust them, obviously. That's why I'm citing actual data instead of some argument by authority. Edit: this paper goes into some detail looking at each of your objections and concludes the signal is real: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9PdYAVpr/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd... In particular it separates increase in reporting from increased awareness (concluded to be ~20%) from the rest of the signal, and also does age stratification.

IAmEveryone 5y ago

Wow, this whole issue so low... In the years before, how often were you vaccinated? Exactly: you probably weren't. Millions of vaccinations were given ib the last few months, orders of magnitude more than usual. And while most are usually given to toddlers, now the 60 to 95 year-olds got most of the vaccinations. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after they are vaccinated? They die. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after eating ice cream? They die. Also, as has been reported plenty of times, read by you (in, for example, the article above), and ignored because it doesn't fit your worldview, is that VAERS is, as the URL says, "open". It's a relic from a time where people tended to be sane, and wouldn't just submit all sorts of imaginary things to a medical database. The article cited above summarises what the people collecting that data have concluded from it. How can you make an argument about the data they collect and publish, implying that you trust them, and then, in the very next breath ignore them and, I assume, next accuse them of being either too stupid or corrupt to say anything about that data?

native_samples 5y ago
So are these reports all imaginary, or are they all the very old, or is it OK to ignore huge numbers of deaths because everyone is being pressured to take the vaccine, or what? You seem to be arguing all of these things simultaneously. Are you aware of the under-reporting rates on VAERS? Do you recall that this thread started with me talking about vaccines being not worth the risk for people who are not old? I don't care what the CDC or other government agencies think, because I don't trust them, obviously. That's why I'm citing actual data instead of some argument by authority. Edit: this paper goes into some detail looking at each of your objections and concludes the signal is real: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9PdYAVpr/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd... In particular it separates increase in reporting from increased awareness (concluded to be ~20%) from the rest of the signal, and also does age stratification.