No more babies being delivered at NY hospital

[Alienistic]

You have been making claims about the vaccines and conspiracies. You need to do more than just mutter the magic words "Big pharma".

Come on, give. Where is the actual evidence?

I’ll take it easy on you. You claimed the number of deaths from vaccine can be counted on one hand.

I stated 12,300 deaths were reported through CDC and VAERS, and reduced to 6,080. “Assuming” there were 0 deaths anywhere else in the world and 0 deaths after the middle of July when those numbers were reported, and you having 5 fingers: please provide evidence that 6,075 people and doctors are lying about their reports of deaths to VAERS.

If you can’t, don’t even bother to reply. Eat your disinformation and hypocrisy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I’ll take it easy on you. You claimed the number of deaths from vaccine can be counted on one hand.

I stated 12,300 deaths were reported through CDC and VAERS, and reduced to 6,080. “Assuming” there were 0 deaths anywhere else in the world and 0 deaths after the middle of July when those numbers were reported, and you having 5 fingers: please provide evidence that 6,075 people and doctors are lying about their reports of deaths to VAERS.

If you can’t, don’t even bother to reply. Eat your disinformation and hypocrisy.

You really need to read the CDC's disclaimer about VAERS. Plus the other one another poster shared (below).
VAERS is clearly not what you think it is. You are the one sharing "disinformation."

"VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event. ...

VAERS accepts reports from anyone, including patients, family members, healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers. ...

VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event."


The dumpster diving VAERS preprint debacle: How did we get here?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Science Based Medicine has done a pretty thorough going over of the pre-print paper that inflated the vaccine adverse reaction stats. Here's one of their articles:

@SkepticThinker

I was referring to this. Why would it be a problem if there were a high number of adverse reactions? Why would it need to be inflated?

If there are a high number of adverse reactions, this information should not be suppressed any more than the effectiveness of the vaccine shouldn't profoundly highlighted to discredit any stats and facts to the contrary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker

I was referring to this. Why would it be a problem if there were a high number of adverse reactions? Why would it need to be inflated?

If there are a high number of adverse reactions, this information should not be suppressed any more than the effectiveness of the vaccine shouldn't profoundly highlighted to discredit any stats and facts to the contrary.

But there are a lower number of adverse reactions than were cited in the paper. Hence the sentenced you quoted:
Science Based Medicine has done a pretty thorough going over of the pre-print paper that inflated the vaccine adverse reaction stats.

So nothing is being suppressed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But there are a lower number of adverse reactions than were cited in the paper. Hence the sentenced you quoted:

The comment before hand was that there were a good amount of adverse side effects and the comment you didn't need to bold-I'm not 'that' blind-was a counter response to that.

It was a response to @Alienistic statement in 538 and I asked why does there need to be a counter that the numbers Alienistic quoted were wrong?

There are a lot of information that has been suppressed/censored because they were quoted as misinformation and/or it doesn't highlight the vaccine effectiveness. It's done without apology and for a reason. I see no reason why this would be refuted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The comment before hand was that there were a good amount of adverse side effects and the comment you didn't need to bold-I'm not 'that' blind-was a counter response to that.

It was a response to @Alienistic statement in 538 and I asked why does there need to be a counter that the numbers Alienistic quoted were wrong?

There are a lot of information that has been suppressed/censored because they were quoted as misinformation and/or it doesn't highlight the vaccine effectiveness. It's done without apology and for a reason. I see no reason why this would be refuted.

Like what?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But there are a lower number of adverse reactions than were cited in the paper. Hence the sentenced you quoted:
Science Based Medicine has done a pretty thorough going over of the pre-print paper that inflated the vaccine adverse reaction stats.

So nothing is being suppressed.

That and why would you address me in this tone right off the bat?

I didn't ask you anything and I didn't refute claim. There was no intended argument in my question.

What gives?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That and why would you address me in this tone right off the bat?

I didn't ask you anything and I didn't refute claim. There was no intended argument in my question.

What gives?

What tone?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What tone?

Bold in a refute makes the tone hostile a lot of times mixed with some form of emotion.

I was asking @9-10ths_Penguin why would he/she say the numbers are inflated as a rebuttal. If the numbers were correct what's the problem. It was specific to the comments. They do suppress information for a reason. Asking which information is pretty much moot since they, well censored it. Social media does this a lot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bold in a refute makes the tone hostile a lot of times mixed with some form of emotion.

I was asking @9-10ths_Penguin why would he/she say the numbers are inflated as a rebuttal. If the numbers were correct what's the problem. It was specific to the comments. They do suppress information for a reason. Asking which information is pretty much moot since they, well censored it. Social media does this a lot.

The bold was to draw your attention to that section. I do that quite often when I want to draw someone's attention to a particular section.

That poster did not say that the numbers are inflated and/or being suppressed. What that poster said was the numbers in the pre-print study being referred to were erroneously overinflated.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That poster did not say that the numbers are inflated and/or being suppressed. What that poster said was the numbers in the pre-print study being referred to were erroneously overinflated.

Okay, over inflated. My point is the same. Why would there need to be an overinflation as a rebuttal to the other person's stats? Why discredit the numbers saying they are more than what they should be? To me that sounds like suppressing the facts by discrediting them to highlight the vaccine as opposed to accepting the facts (if cited) as one would the facts of vaccine efficiency.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, over inflated. My point is the same. Why would there need to be an overinflation as a rebuttal to the other person's stats? Why discredit the numbers saying they are more than what they should be? To me that sounds like suppressing the facts by discrediting them to highlight the vaccine as opposed to accepting the facts (if cited) as one would the facts of vaccine efficiency.

The adverse effects were overinflated because the authors got their numbers from VAERS data which the CDC themselves tell us:

"VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event."

So when the authors used VAERS to determine that a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse effect, they were doing so in error, which caused the number of adverse effects to be overinflated.




Was my post about VAERS where I included all of this invisible or something?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bold in a refute makes the tone hostile a lot of times mixed with some form of emotion.

I was asking @9-10ths_Penguin why would he/she say the numbers are inflated as a rebuttal. If the numbers were correct what's the problem. It was specific to the comments. They do suppress information for a reason. Asking which information is pretty much moot since they, well censored it. Social media does this a lot.

If you doubt my summary of the article, you're free to read the article for yourself to find out why it came to the conclusions it did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll take it easy on you. You claimed the number of deaths from vaccine can be counted on one hand.

I stated 12,300 deaths were reported through CDC and VAERS, and reduced to 6,080. “Assuming” there were 0 deaths anywhere else in the world and 0 deaths after the middle of July when those numbers were reported, and you having 5 fingers: please provide evidence that 6,075 people and doctors are lying about their reports of deaths to VAERS.

If you can’t, don’t even bother to reply. Eat your disinformation and hypocrisy.

No, I said the number shown to have come from the vaccine could be counted on the fingers of one hand. You need to show at least some reasonable evidence that those deaths were from the vaccine. You still don't know how VAERS works. Almost anything can and is reported. That does not mean that they were caused by the vaccine.

You might want to start with an expected baseline. Make sure that it is a proper one.

 

[Alienistic]

VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event."

It is not their duty to determine, accept or deny. There are litigations for that. I’ve yet to see any evidence that all reports to VAERS are some giant conspiracy hoax orchestrated by many thousands of people and doctors. I’m sure there are an occasional gold digger or someones uncle Bugs Bunny growing a third ear report.

If someone genuinely does die or develop any effects, they are all encouraged to be reported to VAERS. If you or anyone else here wish to dismiss them all, so be it. There are many people who have lost loved ones, friends such as myself, or have developed chronic conditions after vaccination- feel free to mock them or all of the reports. I’m sure 200 healthy people can drop dead one hour after taking a covid vaccine and most would label them as coincidence and with no evidence that a vaccine caused such. Unless maybe it actually happened to someone you love, know, or a friend only would it “maybe” be considered. But judging by the psychological training, someone’s own child can die immediately after taking a covid vaccine and they’d still defend them at all costs.

 

[Alienistic]

I said the number shown to have come from the vaccine could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Still waiting on evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The adverse effects were overinflated because the authors got their numbers from VAERS data which the CDC themselves tell us:

"VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event."

So when the authors used VAERS to determine that a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse effect, they were doing so in error, which caused the number of adverse effects to be overinflated.




Was my post about VAERS where I included all of this invisible or something?

I respond to tone before words. It throws me off. My overall point was discrediting points counter to vaccine effectiveness mostly due to whoever said it rather than the data itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you doubt my summary of the article, you're free to read the article for yourself to find out why it came to the conclusions it did.

I don't know if either of you and Alienstic's stats are true. I was responding to the inflection and rebuttal not the credibility of facts. That's why I said "if."

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not their duty to determine, accept or deny. There are litigations for that. I’ve yet to see any evidence that all reports to VAERS are some giant conspiracy hoax orchestrated by many thousands of people and doctors. I’m sure there are an occasional gold digger or someones uncle Bugs Bunny growing a third ear report.

If someone genuinely does die or develop any effects, they are all encouraged to be reported to VAERS. If you or anyone else here wish to dismiss them all, so be it. There are many people who have lost loved ones, friends such as myself, or have developed chronic conditions after vaccination- feel free to mock them or all of the reports. I’m sure 200 healthy people can drop dead one hour after taking a covid vaccine and most would label them as coincidence and with no evidence that a vaccine caused such. Unless maybe it actually happened to someone you love, know, or a friend only would it “maybe” be considered. But judging by the psychological training, someone’s own child can die immediately after taking a covid vaccine and they’d still defend them at all costs.

Who said any of that? Who's mocking anyone? Sheesh, calm down and try to be rational.


Did you even read the provided article(s)? How about the CDC's own disclaimer?
Sounds like you didn't, or you wouldn't be going on about this in this way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting on evidence.

Me too. You made the claim. Your misuse of a resource was explained to you. Where is your evidence?