4 ms·

Even if I was to accept that 150k deaths was plausible (which I don’t, since that would show up in excess deaths and other gross statistical measures), that’s s

Even if I was to accept that 150k deaths was plausible (which I don’t, since that would show up in excess deaths and other gross statistical measures), that’s still more 10x safer than being unvaccinated (we’ve vaccinated far more people than have gotten COVID, and at a much lower death rate). If the high estimates by someone openly against this vaccine still tell you it is far safer to be vaccinated, what does tell you about what I think of Steve Kirsch?

walterbell 5y ago
Kirsch is advocating for the identification of high-risk groups and screening of recipients, not a blanket criticism of vaccines for all people. We are living in the era of sophisticated micro-targeting of groups via advertising profiles and machine learning. Why are our online narratives degenerating into dualistic debates, as if we can only count to two? We have the technology to perform granular, data-driven risk assessment across a wide range of variables. At a minimum, we can fund forensic investigations of the reports in VAERS, collecting whatever data is needed to trace the root cause of each injury, removing every report that is not credible. Where necessary, we can identify the need for additional data collection, e.g. baseline testing of high-risk individuals before vaccination, for comparison to post-vaccination tests. Standard scientific analysis. There are also non-public reporting systems (e.g. HMOs) for vaccine adverse events. That additional data is available to CDC.
- manwe150 5y ago
  They aren’t permitted to delete reports, even non-credible ones. It would also likely cost far in excess of $1M to investigate these. It is a clever trick though, because it sounds like a big bounty, while being actually a joke amount (he’s proposing spending far less $10 per person to investigate their medical records or autopsy). And seems possibly in bad-faith too, as he seems to be rejecting the population statistical data that already seem to refute his claims. Advocating for identification of high-risk groups is another good smoke-screen since he’s saying nothing new, but making it sound like he’s smart and aware. Yes, there are people who need to talk to their doctor about risks, but the overwhelming majority of people aren’t in that group, but are made needlessly worried by such rhetorical tricks.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    I can't be certain what he meant, but it seemed that the bounty was for an analysis that was comparable to those in his paper, not a full forensic review of each entry in VAERS. An actual investigation could only be done by CDC, who have access to non-VAERS reports and other health surveillance infrastructure. A handful of independent autopsies have been done, they are expensive.

walterbell 5y ago

Kirsch is advocating for the identification of high-risk groups and screening of recipients, not a blanket criticism of vaccines for all people. We are living in the era of sophisticated micro-targeting of groups via advertising profiles and machine learning. Why are our online narratives degenerating into dualistic debates, as if we can only count to two? We have the technology to perform granular, data-driven risk assessment across a wide range of variables. At a minimum, we can fund forensic investigations of the reports in VAERS, collecting whatever data is needed to trace the root cause of each injury, removing every report that is not credible. Where necessary, we can identify the need for additional data collection, e.g. baseline testing of high-risk individuals before vaccination, for comparison to post-vaccination tests. Standard scientific analysis. There are also non-public reporting systems (e.g. HMOs) for vaccine adverse events. That additional data is available to CDC.

manwe150 5y ago
They aren’t permitted to delete reports, even non-credible ones. It would also likely cost far in excess of $1M to investigate these. It is a clever trick though, because it sounds like a big bounty, while being actually a joke amount (he’s proposing spending far less $10 per person to investigate their medical records or autopsy). And seems possibly in bad-faith too, as he seems to be rejecting the population statistical data that already seem to refute his claims. Advocating for identification of high-risk groups is another good smoke-screen since he’s saying nothing new, but making it sound like he’s smart and aware. Yes, there are people who need to talk to their doctor about risks, but the overwhelming majority of people aren’t in that group, but are made needlessly worried by such rhetorical tricks.
- walterbell 5y ago
  I can't be certain what he meant, but it seemed that the bounty was for an analysis that was comparable to those in his paper, not a full forensic review of each entry in VAERS. An actual investigation could only be done by CDC, who have access to non-VAERS reports and other health surveillance infrastructure. A handful of independent autopsies have been done, they are expensive.