>>13695188Firstly, thanks for posting actual sources.
Secondly, I'm not gonna be talking about the loannid paper cause I don't see much wrong with it, it's kind of just another estimate to add to the pile. It's probably fine. Also I'm not gonna be focusing on the Kirsch paper specifically because I don't want to. instead, I'm gonna be talking about two of the articles talked about in his "Confirmation by Others" section, specifically 1. and 4. I'm not gonna do 2. and 3. because I can't actually read 2. because apparently it got rejected by peer review twice (lol) and 3. just seems like a worse analysis of the same data that's been looked at by 4.
My problems with number 1. (Why are we vaccinating our children) mostly has to do with a lot of the estimates they're willing to make, removing 94% of all covid deaths out of the equation due to the fact that they have any comorbidities at all, disregarding the idea that even with comorbidities covid may have played a pretty signifigant role in the paitient's death. additionally, they kind of just say that "VAERS historically has under-reported adverse events by about two orders-of-magnitude" without actually demonstrating or citing anything to back up that claim in order to further push their figures up. They also say that supposedly the big adverse events would come with a lag time of about 6 months, but once again apparently don't have anything to back that claim. Admittedly I'm speedreading here, and it's midnight, I might've missed something.
In 4) "A comparison of age adjusted all-cause mortality rates in England between vaccinated and unvaccinated" I admit that I might be doing something wrong since I feel like I don't have a great understanding of their methodology, but one thing that goes unaddressed is the fact that the data he cites shows that while there is some noticeable spikes in the first dose population, second dose populations are consistently below both unvaccinated and single dose populations.
Im tired
