top 100 commentsshow all 110

[–]magnora7 17 insightful - 6 fun17 insightful - 5 fun18 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

Sounds about right given what I know.

And then consider the fact that it takes 2 weeks to be considered "vaccinated" after the vaccine. So if someone is immediately injured by the vaccine, they'll be recorded as an unvaccinated hospitalization.

Furthermore, there is a lot of pressure in the medical community to hide and downplay the negative effects these mRNA shots are having, because their medical licenses often depend on it. Which is ridiculous, because it pits their medical license against the hippocratic oath, which is a crime against humanity imo.

So once you consider these further additional points, it probably is not only doing nothing, but might very well be causing worse outcomes on average. The fact this is being covered up and overlooked is a crime against humanity, people are being killed and permanently injured over this.

[–]StillLessons 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

it pits their medical license against the hippocratic oath

Well said.

So once you consider these further additional points, it probably is not only doing nothing, but might very well be causing worse outcomes on average.

Pfizer's own data show this. While a marginal benefit appears in the data specific to covid infection (small even at that), that benefit is absolutely overwhelmed by the non-covid illness resulting from the shots. It's in their own data. The insanity of what the medical community is ignoring cannot be overstated. This is a sick, sick time for medicine.

[–]magnora7 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

And furthermore they're still pushing the mRNA shots based on the original variant, which has completely disappeared.

Furthermore, the design used to create the spike protein in the mRNA shots came from one lab in China and was used with very little verification.

There's so many fishy elements here, it's just unbelievable there's not more of an outcry. I think people have become exceptionally good at putting blinders on.

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I think people have become exceptionally good at putting blinders on.

Mass Formation.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah but even before that people are just good at being in denial about stuff. For decades now. The attitude "If I ignore this problem entirely, it might just go away" has more or less been the American mantra for about 30 years. But the mass formation of the last few years definitely took that attitude to a whole new level. People are in shock, and feelings of disassociation are more common than ever, and this is furthered by pharmaceuticals.

Mass formation is a phrase that didn't really exist as a psychology term until a year or two ago:

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

True. Mass formation is a term used by Mattias Desmet, and as such is relatively new, as his research is still being published. That said, he is simply putting a new term to a field of study that has been around decades, as people studied the insanity that developed in the totalitarian systems in the mid 20th century.

I actually prefer the term "crowd formation". It works better for me, because we all intuitively know that there is always at some level a "crowd". This is the foundation of the capital markets and trading. When that crowd gets obscenely irrational, this field of study becomes increasingly of interest. So yes, people are always in denial about some thing or other, but as in the case of all spectrums of behavior, we are now well beyond the "middle of the bell" in terms of the level of irrationality being demonstrated. Historians are going to spend a lot of time trying to unpack what we are witnessing during this moment in history.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough, that all makes sense.

I just see "mass formation" as a re-wording of the already existing concept of "problem -> reaction -> solution". The "mass formation" is just the "reaction" part, where the reaction of the public is guided by the media to be as traumatic and deep and wide as possible, so everyone's desire for the solution is easily guided and everyone behaves similarly because they had the same reaction to the problem. If I really had to detail what's going on right now more deeply, I'd call it "short-term emotional shock driven mass idea formation" but I guess that's too many words.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Mob formation.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

So once you consider these further additional points, it probably is not only doing nothing, but might very well be causing worse outcomes on average.

Pfizer's own data show this.

Can you link a source of Pfizer's own data and quote the relevant section?

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Don't move the goalposts. You said Pfizer's own data showed it. Im asking for you to show me where Pfizer's own data showed it. You reference a primary text, and I want to see the primary text.

Regardless, I took the time to go through that presentation but it isn't a primary text.

They say:

The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy

7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk

Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.

Relative Risk Reduction is the relevant statistic. For a virus with exponential growth and over long time periods, the absolute risk reduction in a two month period is meaningless. If you double the time period you more than double the absolute number of cases. Relative risk reduction tells you how much it reduces the exponential growth rate. Absolute risk reduction tells you absolutely nothing about how the virus grows. 95% relative reduction means 100 cases becomes 5 or 200 becomes 10. Absolute doesn't tell you anything as scale and time period changes.

As for the increased risk of averse effects..

Yeah one group is receiving saline and has a probability to get covid while the other group is guaranteed to get a vaccine and possibly get COVID.

The vaccine reduces your risks if you catch COVID. But no shit you're gonna have more averse effects from a vaccine than saline.

Point is the vaccine is like getting poked in the arm and it kinda hurts, but it helps if in the future you get slapped in the face. The slap in the face is getting COVID and it isn't guaranteed. If you want to do a fair comparison, you should look at the difference between "COVID and Vaccine" and "COVID and no vaccine" group.

I'm not saying the vaccine carries no risk of adverse effects. Im saying I'm not surprised it was more risky than the saline but that isn't how you're interpreting it. Point is, if everyone were vaccinated, the elderly would die less and the exponential growth rate of spread of the virus would be lower which would save even more lives.

Pretty much the only reason not to get vaccinated is if you genuinely believe you will never catch COVID. If you believe you will catch COVID your risks are lower at all age groups if you are vaccinated.

[–]AlanSmith33 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

All I can say is that everybody that I know that for the last year have either been severely sick from COVID or gotten cancer have been vaccinated.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Ah yes anecdotal evidence, the gold standard! I totally believe you now!

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I trust anecdotal evidence over authoritarian corporate lies any day.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)


[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I do the same

[–]AlanSmith33 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Enough observations become statistics.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Keep telling yourself that

[–]AlanSmith33 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

...No, I already know this, it's people like you I have to tell. You give the worst advice.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not a response.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Lmao no, it is simpson's paradox. Here is a 3 minute video for you if you have the attention span for it:

The younger people are less vaccinated but also at a lower risk than the elderly who are more vaccinated. Therefore you get a positive correlation between "vaccine" and "hospitalization" even though controlling for age, it is obvious that vaccines reduce hospitalization risk for every age group. In short, you and every commenter who agrees with you is confusing correlation with causation, which is a like a grade 5 mistake.

[–]zyxzevn 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

It is probably worse.

1) The test-requirements for unjabbed are different. They use higher PCR recycle counts. Like 28 versus 40 in the US. In certain Pfizer trials they assumed that you can't get covid when you are jabbed (giving the 95% efficacy), and this belief is also still going on.

2) People that just got the jab, are often still counted as "unvexed". So this will add to the count. In the UK this difference was contributing to most of the cases. If you added a week or two in the data, there were almost no "unvaxed" in the hospital.

3) In certain states or countries unvaxed have strict testing requirement. While the jabbed can often skip testing. Some countries allowed travel for unvaxed, after a positive test and waiting a few weeks. So people started infecting each other to get a positive test.

4) In some cases we do not even know if Covid exists, because the flu or other diseases can give positive PCR tests or other positive results.

This all differs in time, as the governments change everything to push a high or low number of cases, depending on what policies they want to install.

[–]StillLessons 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

This all differs in time, as the governments change everything to push a high or low number of cases, depending on what policies they want to install.

Great point. The actual case numbers are beyond suspicious because of all of the elements you're talking about here. I work with the numbers as given, because they're the only numbers we have, but the effects you are talking about here are profound, meaning that all these datasets are essentially garbage before they are ever published. The effects of the lies about covid absolutely swamp the actual signal of the disease itself. Because of this, in the end, none of us actually knows what we're looking at. This is as true within the medical community as it is outside it.

[–]zyxzevn 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

More info:

The jabs are even showing negative effectiveness, up to -100%.

That is also logical, because it attacks your immune system in an effort to trigger antibodies. Antibodies that are only specialized against the spike proteins of a variant that does no longer exists. And these antibodies do not work against airway diseases (you need a different kind).

These spike proteins also attack your immune system cells, and the mRNA uses artificial codes to disable the immune system. The DNA and mRNA in the cells also trigger auto-immune reactions and stay more than 60 days. In autopsies we see that the immune system cells can often not find the these cells, and cause an inflammation.


This negative efficacy was also clear in the trials. They just tested the groups differently, because they were not blinded for the researchers.
The British medical journal was the first to officially write about the problems with the trials in 2020. Now we know it is all based on fraud.

Autopsies with Arne Burkardt

Pathology Conference - Pathology of v deaths and v injuries Video - translated to english

About the wrong antibodies
IgM, IgG, IgA

Data about the negative -106% was found in the UK data.

Note: the agencies are very unhappy with the results. So they fraud the data. Here is proof of some of that fraud:
Proof of statistical sieves in v data
According to the jab makes you up 60% less likely to get a car accident.

Overview with many other links:
How the experiments cause damage by design

(I posted this on reddit and this fits here too)

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oof someone doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation. Vaccinated people dying less from car accidents could have totally reasonable explanations. For example, maybe people who get vaccines are smarter than people who don't. Therefore they would be more likely to drive smarter too. Therefore they would be less likely to die.

A correlation between between COVID vaccines and car deaths is not evidence of data manipulation. It also isn't evidence that the vaccine causes anything related to driving. It's just a correlation. There are many other possible causal explanations.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

You did not check the links again.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Oof someone doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation.

It's okay, you can still learn.

[–]Entropick 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (36 children)

No formal statement from u / SUCKS, interesting.

[–]JasonCarswell 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (35 children)

/u/HenryGeorgeOfficial sounds a lot like /u/socks.
They both suck.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

no one gives a fuck, Nazi

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (26 children)

no one gives a fuck, Nazi

Stay classy, corporate authoritarian shill.

I'm sure you can't even realize how hypocritically ironic it is that you are calling me the Nazi...

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini

I bet HenryGeorge is your alt.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

you're trying too hard

[–]JasonCarswell 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (22 children)

You're thinking too little.
You also support the Ukranian Nazis, shill.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

1) You can say I support whatever you want. It doesn't make your lies true.

2) BBC is corporate news. Corporate news is the enemy. You are shilling for the enemy.

socks is the ENEMY WITHIN.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

you obviously support war criminals

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

Explain like I'm 5 how it's obvious.

[–]turtlew0rk 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

If you support either side you support war criminals.

[–]Heter0ph0be4Life 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Flagged for harassment and bullying.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Coming back on saidit, and finding the holocaust denier accusing someone else of being a nazi supporter for being against the invasion of a country where 2% of the population votes for far-right parties is just too good.

[–]Heter0ph0be4Life 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Anything above 0% is grounds for an invasion.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then we need to have a discussion about Russia, because if you don't believe that at least 2% of the country holds far right views I have a bridge to sell you.

[–]Heter0ph0be4Life 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Flagged for harassment and bullying.

[–]Heter0ph0be4Life 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Flagged for harassment and bullying.

[–]Optimus85 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

And no one on this site gives two shits about you but you're still here...

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

At least we have brains and can understand statistics.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Are you sure about that? How would you know?

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You could start with displaying an understanding of the Simpson's paradox and how it applies to this thread.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Either you're referring to Homer Simpson and pork chops or correlating stats. Knowing about them doesn't mean you understand them, nor that you're correct.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except I do understand them. Here is a video from a career statistician explaining exactly how Simpson's paradox applies to this exact problem:

[–]Optimus85 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And I've blocked them both. I don't want to create an echo chamber but their gaslighting is blinding my eyes. Bye bye manure!

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

The two numbers listed there are independent of one another. One is relative percentage of cases, and the other relative percentage of hospitalizations. Two additional numbers would be necessary to really understand the meaning and effect of the vaccines: the percentage of the total population that is vaccinated (regardless of whether they got sick or not) - broken down the same way it is broken down in these numbers; and the percentage of "cases" which are represented by hospitalizations. I'm assuming in that second number that every "hospitalization" falls into a subset of the "cases" number, being a more specifically broken down subcategory of "cases".

Without those additional data, it's hard to draw firm conclusions about the relative percentages you found.

That said, these data (and similar numbers from Scotland before they started screwing around with them) make it crystal clear that these vaccines do not prevent people from getting covid. They seem to marginally lower the probability of illness, hospitalization and death for a limited time (seemingly ~3 months), but that is not remotely the same thing as prevention. A true vaccine stops spread of a disease within the vaccinated population. A vaccinated person will not interact with the pathogen for which they are vaccinated. It is now beyond clear that "vaccinated" are acquiring, becoming sick with, and passing along covid to others. In other words, the vaccine is a failure in those individuals. Given numbers like the ones you show here (and again, Scotland had similar numbers for months), calling these vaccine failures "breakthrough" (which implies a rare event, less than 5% of your total vaccinated population, preferably less than 1%) is a joke. Covid among the vaccinated is clearly now the norm. I know three cases within my family alone, and several more outside of family. Based on my personal statistics, I'd estimate ~40-50% of the vaccinated are getting covid. That's insane.

So the specifics of the meaning of the numbers you present are not easily determined just from the data you show. But the fact that the "vaccines" don't do what a true vaccine would do is beyond argument. These "vaccines" aren't that; they are a complete failure. Their failure combined with the outrageous cover-up regarding the serious harm associated with them in non-covid side effects makes this entire campaign one of the worst campaigns to create human suffering ever in history.

And it's not even in the history books yet. It's ongoing. Every day, more people will get sick and die because of these vaccines. This is not theory; it's demonstrated observation.

[–]HiddenFox[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Thank you. I see where you are going with this. For the record PEI is 94.4% fully vaxed.

Is it not safe to say that once you have COVID, the Vax makes little difference if you end up in hospital?

[–]StillLessons 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Recovering from covid is the best vaccine that currently exists. It is the only thing that acts remotely like an actual vaccine. Omicron clearly blew through the immunity people developed from cases of Alpha, Beta, and Delta, however, so even recovery-induced immunity depends on the evolution of the virus. That said, the covid recovered (particularly omicron-recovered) are the people who can be most closely considered "vaccinated" at this point. This is true with zero relation to jab-status. Those un-jabbed who have recovered from omicron are every bit as safe as those jabbed who have recovered from omicron.

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

For the record PEI is 94.4% fully vaxed.

This is where the pro-vaccine crowd make their case. Ignoring the "partially vaxed" category for the moment, for the sake of simplicity, we have an unvaccinated population of ~5% who represent a caseload of 18.4%. Meanwhile, the vaccinated population of ~95% has a case load of ~76% (combining the boosted and non-boosted vaccinated into one group). In other words, the relative risk of being classified as a covid case is significantly reduced in the vaccinated population relative to their representation in the population, while the relative risk of becoming a covid case is significantly elevated for the unvaxed relative to their proportion within the general population.

All of which is to repeat what I said above: the vaccines lower the risk of disease in a vaccinated person for a few months. But people are not being told "you will have a 40% chance of getting the disease rather than a 50% chance of getting the disease" (I made up those numbers from thin air, just for rhetorical purposes); they are being told the vaccine prevents the illness. That is absolutely not true. The difference between these two stories is where disinformation spreaders have been having a field day.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

That said, these data (and similar numbers from Scotland before they started screwing around with them) make it crystal clear that these vaccines do not prevent people from getting covid. They seem to marginally lower the probability of illness, hospitalization and death for a limited time (seemingly ~3 months), but that is not remotely the same thing as prevention. A true vaccine stops spread of a disease within the vaccinated population.

Experimental data shows a reduction in COVID spread. Observational data does not. Which one should you trust? Experimental data. Observational data simply shows correlations. If vaccinated people start to be more social due to the lower risk of hospitalization and death at every age group, then that can increase spread, but it still wouldn't be right to say "vaccines don't reduce spread". It would be right to say "people become more social after they take a vaccine and being more social causes an increase in COVID spread and this leads to a positive correlation between vaccines and spread but not causation".

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

Which one should you trust? Experimental data

That would be true 100% of the time, if experimental data was always unbiased. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. There are massive financial incentives for most studies conducted these days. Too much business depends on certain scientific findings going certain ways. So if we want to honestly interpret what is happening in the real world we have to take in account that bias as well. This is why sometimes observational data can actually be more reliable than experimental data.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Ah yes. That's why I listen to Alex Jones and buy his supplements to be manly and everything! /s

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

What does that have to do with observational data? Second hand data from a media company is not observational. A narrative told to you is different from things you observe.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm just saying that all data is biased, and I'm much happier looking at interpretable controlled experiments even if they are possibly biased than unbiased but uninterpretable observational studies. Observational studies do not attempt to prove causation. Any causative interpretation of observational data is worth absolutely nothing.

Famous example is diet studies, where a more convincing explanation when they look at poor vegan countries for why they get less heart disease is they are less diagnosed and die earlier before they die from heart attacks.

If you want anything like causation you need a treatment and a control. Not even treatment is enough. Give a bunch of depressed kids apples and in a year they'll on average have improvements. Why? Because of regression to the mean. The average child isn't depressed. Take a bunch of non-average children and over time they regress back to the average. So if you want to see if apples do anything, you take apple pills and sugar pills don't tell them who got what, and then try to put equally depressed people into the treatment and control and a year later hope that the apple pills did better than the sugar pill. You'll probably still find the sugar pill did something, but you don't care because that's just regression to the mean.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Yes all data is biased, but that's why it's important to look at all sources of data that exist and find their average, weighted by their reliability.

Placebo and nocebo effect is definitely a thing, no doubt about it. But not everything regresses to the mean. Assuming a regression to the mean can be a logical fallacy, so we have to be careful about that too.

It's all very tricky, but I think it's important to listen to all 'sides' of an issue and not shut out "non-experimental" data in a time where scientific data is so known to be corrupted or full of problems. Have you seen the reproducability crisis, where it has come to light that about 60% of psychology studies cannot be reproduced? And that's just psychology.

The scientific method is one of the best things ever created. However we have to realize when the scientific institutions in academia and industry have strayed from the scientific method in pursuit of profit. Because the corruption of science must be spotted and routed around, if we wish to have 'mainstream science' reflect actual reality in the universe.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And that's just psychology.

Psychology is the field I'd most expect that.

Anyway, sure regression to the mean doesn't always occur, but I was just pointing out the importance of treatment and control.

My point is just that correlation means absolutely nothing. You can have positive correlations where there is negative causation, for example vaccination and hospitalization positively correlate although the correlation is reversed when you control for age and the vaccines do work. You can have no correlation where there is causation, for example the correlation between temperature in a home and air conditioning/heating energy consumption is zero because the thermostat keeps the house temperature constant.* And you can have positive correlation where there is correlation, but again it means nothing to me. Sure, there's a positive correlation between temperature and sunscreen sales, but you still can't use that correlation to argue for causation.

*This is a famous example known as Milton Friedman's Thermostat.,the%20inside%20temperature%20(P).

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps. It all comes down to how trustworthy the studies are. And after how pfizer ended their own 10-year trials after just 6 months, we truly have no long-term data. Basically the entire population was treated as a guinea pig, which is a breach of medical ethics in my opinion.

We truly have no idea how reliable those studies are. Especially when there's literally $10 billion to be made in justifying that they work.

Scientists thought cigarettes were good for you for decades, because there was a lot of money to be made, and no money to be made in the contrary opinion. It took decades to realize this reality. And that situation involved a lot fewer motivations than the current one with the mRNA shots.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And after how pfizer ended their own 10-year trials after just 6 months, we truly have no long-term data.

Plus, Pfizer is notoriously and provably the most corrupt big pharma corporation in existence.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I would trust observational data, human behaviour is an important factor in transmission and also scientists can leverage their biases more in the lab.

It's not just because vaccinated people started mixing because as you say in a previous post, most vaccinated people are older. And of course many of those avoiding vaccination have also avoided social distancing, masks and the other rules.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Observational data can not be interpreted as causative.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Mass hysteria can not be interpreted as rational.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

A virus which kills more people than the flu despite significant efforts at curtailing spread, like masking and lockdowns is cause for mass hysteria. If you're capable of counterfactual thinking, then imagine how much worse it would have been without those efforts.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

then imagine how much worse it would have been without those efforts.

Or, imagine how much better it would have been without those efforts.

Isn't it convenient that those who said, "Trust the $cience," didn't bother to do proper scientific research by isolating various factors within populations, have open uncensored dialogue, questions, and skepticism to find out the actual truth about this "pandemic"?

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How would it be better without these efforts? Please explain. What countries have less covid restrictions and fewer COVID deaths? From what I can see, countries with more restrictions, like strict regional lockdowns with strict local travel restrictions like New Zealand have a considerably lower death rate than the USA.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Changing the topic to avoid the corrupt and bad $cience facts.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Changing the topic"

[–]HiddenFox[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm asking for real. This data comes from the province of PEI, Canada on April 4th, 2022.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Missing: Vaccine injuries.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You have to control vaccination rates and hospitalization rates by age. Younger people are less vaccinated and at lower risk of vaccines which gives a positive correlation between vaccination and hospitalization, even though for every age, the risk of COVID hospitalization is lower if you are vaccinated.

We get this (sorry for the bad formatting):

Hospital count  Hospital %  Vaccine Rate %  # cases unvaxed if unvaxed did nothing  

< 12 9 10.20% 35% 5.85
12 to 19 0 0% 88% 0
20 to 39 1 1.10% 90% 0.1
40 to 59 7 8.00% 95% 0.35
60 to 79 41 46.60% 100% 0
80 and over 30 34.10% 100% 0

So if the vaccine did nothing we'd expect 6.3 unvaccinated cases in total. Instead there is 17. So there are more unvaccinated people hospitalized than we would statistically expect. The fact that there would be any elderly unvaccinated in the hospital shows how much it matters. <1% of the elderly are unvaccinated there and yet I wouldn't be surprised if they made up some of the elderly hospitalized people.

Data sources: (PEI data)

Age prop_atleast1dose

0–4 0
05–11 70.07
12–17 88.87
18–29 82.31
30–39 98
40–49 94.51
50–59 96.46
60–69 >=99
70–79 >=99
80+ >=99

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Excellent points.

Welcome to Saidit.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)


[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry about skank/Ed. I hope you remain at Saidit. Here is one of my many responses to the anti-vax propaganda, which is substantial at Saidit:

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nice to know I'm not alone!

[–]Jatz_Crackers 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Bro fist to anyone who made it this far unvaccinated. Champions.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The vaccination rate for elderly is closer to 90% and the elderly are those hospitalized. So it is more like, 10% of elderly are unvaxed. 20% of people hospitalized are unvaxed elderly. Therefore the vaccine cuts hospitalization for elderly in half.


Age distribution of hospitalized cases1 (years)

60 to 79 46.6%
80 and over 34.1%

or around 80% elderly.

Vaccination rates (1,2,3,4 doses)

60 to 69 95.03% (4,600,009) 1.50% (72,748) 93.53% (4,527,261) 74.94% (3,627,473)
70 to 79 97.51% (3,056,385) 1.24% (38,810) 96.27% (3,017,575) 83.34% (2,612,158)
80 and older 98.67% (1,691,174) 1.62% (27,798) 97.05% (1,663,376) 84.84% (1,454,077)

So actually, it is closer to a 75% reduction in hospitalization of elderly. Since <5% of elderly are unvaxed and 20% of hospitalizations are elderly unvaxed.

Anyway, this phenomenon is known as Simpson's Paradox, and here's a video on it (specifically using vaccine stats as an example):

[–]Tiwaking 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In New Zealand over the past 2 years 386 people have died of the holocough
0 people have died of the Flu
Flu a major killer

Research by the University of Otago, Wellington, has found that influenza kills about 500 New Zealanders each year, making it probably New Zealand’s biggest single infectious disease killer.

[–]turtlew0rk 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

We are doing Ukraine now.

[–]BravoVictor 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No, not necessarily. That data represents just hospitalizations, not the entire population.

Given just the data you present, we don't have enough information to conclude on whether or not the vaccine was effective. It could be that it had little to no effect, or it could be that only the very sick had to go to the hospital, and, even with the vaccine, they still got sick through some other means, but the vaccine could be effective overall. Or that naturally healthy people generally didn't feel the need to get the vaccine and statistically were less likely to be hospitalized in general. We can't tell.

[–]VaginaDischarge 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The Vaccine is mostly saline solution with a little bit of LSD.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I wish!

[–]iDontShift 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

rate of illness = (rate of belief in this bullshit) * personal emotional state

[–]yabbit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Enough with the vaccine shit jesus it's all you niggas ever talk about

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Dataset of less than 100 hospitalized people

"Is this proof that the vaccines don't work?"

Highly upvoted and 70+ comments. Never change, Saidit.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Good to see you! How was your prolonged treatment at the psych ward? I want you to know that I'm proud of you for pursuing medical options for your mental condition(s). Hopefully with enough of the right therapy, we can get you back on track to being a productive member of society.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Doge, the last time I was active on here I tried to make peace, because even though you came across as a right-wing boomer, that vid you posted of a crackhead making out with that boot made me bust a gut. Lets not ruin it by making dumb assertions like that the reason I haven't been actively posting on this shithole is that I've been in a mental hospital, as opposed to any of the half-dozen other more likely reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a triple-digit IQ.

[–]Velocity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, I'm sorry. I should of been friendlier to an old foe. We had some "good times". I even think about you every time I stub my big toe, because I'm sure it's your fault somehow. I still think you're a bootlicker but still my apology to you is sincere.

[–]HiddenFox[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If anything this post is a great example of how data can be manipulated or interpreted to fit ones own perspective. If you had bothered to read even some of the 70+ comments you would see that there were several replies stating why the assumption is incorrect. (Most notable was StillLessons's reply.) There was the usual selection of opinion base answers and my personal favorite yabbit's "...shit jesus it's all you niggas ever talk about" type responses. (For real, that one brought a smile to my face!)

Yours however takes a special place. You managed to post one line out of context and then write an obnoxious comment about it in a pathetic attempt to seem cultured or even educated all while trying to belittle everyone on this site. Ironically, it is you that represent everything wrong with not only this site but social media in general.

Perhaps you would find more liked minded people on where a conversation like this would simply be disallowed or at best shadow banned. I for one learned something from StillLessons's reply and wont be running around telling people "Look....See.... Proof!!! It's all a scam!" Knowledge is the last and only true power that the average person has anymore. It's wrong to mock people for trying to share their knowledge and have a conversation about the most relevant and dominating topic of the last two years in an attempt to appear sassy.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)