/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13731718

375KiB, 1877x1651, 1633619138142.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 08:13:06 2021 No.13731718 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13731932 >>13732209 >>13732563 >>13732565 >>13732595 >>13732858 >>13733327 >>13733419 >>13733489 >>13733856 >>13733992 >>13734134 >>13735304 >>13735421 >>13735616 >>13735757 >>13735936

Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination

>analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine, event rates for 23 serious health outcomes were not significantly higher (...) after vaccination

>This analysis found no significant associations between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and selected serious health outcomes

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO FBJHPEcUYAUknxP.jpg, 144KiB, 904x399

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 08:26:33 No.13731757 Report

Quoted By: >>13731763 >>13731771 >>13731840 >>13739240

>only medical record-confirmed cases are included

https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
https://openvaers.com/covid-data
https://www.datascienceassn.org/sites/default/files/VAERS%20Report%20on%20Covid19%20Vaccine%20mRNA%20Biologicals%20-%20May%2C%202021.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352837543_Analysis_of_COVID-19_vaccine_death_reports_from_the_Vaccine_Adverse_Events_Reporting_System_VAERS_Database_Interim_Results_and_Analysis

https://ukfreedomproject.org/wp-content/downloads/Urgent%20Preliminary%20Report%20of%20Yellow%20Card%20Data%209-6-2021.pdf
https://rumble.com/vnhjq1-winning-the-war-against-therapeutic-nihilism-dr.-peter-mccullough.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 08:29:15 No.13731763 Report

Quoted By: >>13736541

>>13731757
You trying to tell me only 1% of people go to the hospital or a doctor for a stroke?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 08:35:19 No.13731771 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731757
>wall of schizo links
Go away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 08:39:41 No.13731783 Report

Quoted By: >>13731848

> In this interim analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine, event rates for 23 serious health outcomes were not significantly higher for individuals 1 to 21 days after vaccination compared with similar individuals at 22 to 42 days after vaccination.
who cares? what about the event rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 76je5.png, 560KiB, 4644x1924

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 08:49:33 No.13731800 Report

Quoted By: >>13731849 >>13731855 >>13731904

>In interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing
do they define post vaccinated as two weeks after innoculation same as the cdc does?

absolutely malfeasant

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:12:01 No.13731840 Report

Quoted By: >>13731851

>>13731757
>le harvard study from over a decade ago
So a million people have died from flu shots?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:16:56 No.13731848 Report

Quoted By: >>13731851 >>13731929

>>13731783
That is similar. They're looking at acute effects here, and as such compare risk period to control period.
>who cares?
A lot of people do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:17:57 No.13731849 Report

Quoted By: >>13731855

>>13731800
No. Read the paper.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 798KiB, 2088x1458

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:20:24 No.13731851 Report

Quoted By: >>13731899 >>13739875

>>13731840
how would you measure adverse effects from an experimental gene therapy vaccine?

>>13731848
>that is similar
no it isn't you retard the study compares vaccinated to vaccinated not vaccinated to unvaccinated

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:23:29 No.13731855 Report

Quoted By: >>13731907 >>13731925

>>13731849
they source their surveillance from the cdc so yes they do you shill. vaccinated is actually 2 weeks after vaccinated and 80% of vaers adverse events occur within 2 weeks of innoculation >>13731800
you people are criminals

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:51:28 No.13731899 Report

Quoted By: >>13732761

>>13731851
It's neither experimental, nor is it gene therapy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:52:29 No.13731904 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731800
the paper clearly says they start from the date the dose was given

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 09:52:56 No.13731907 Report

Quoted By: >>13733967

>>13731855
>yes they do you shill.
If only you'd read the fucking abstract you'd realize you're mistaken you fucking mongoloid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 10:04:53 No.13731925 Report

Quoted By: >>13731929

>>13731855
>you shill
>you people are criminals
Calm the fuck down my dude, this isn't /pol/. We're just talking about scientific findings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 10:06:57 No.13731929 Report

Quoted By: >>13731936

>>13731925
that's why op wrote
>analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine, event rates for 23 serious health outcomes were not significantly higher (...) after vaccination
instead of
>> In this interim analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine, event rates for 23 serious health outcomes were not significantly higher for individuals 1 to 21 days after vaccination compared with similar individuals at 22 to 42 days after vaccination.
and then claimed similar meant the study compared vaccinated to unvaccinated >>13731848

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 10:07:55 No.13731932 Report

Quoted By: >>13731952 >>13731954 >>13732045

>>13731718
>selected serious health outcomes
>selected
Yeah, so they threw out any data that contradicted their narrative. Amazing what science can do now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 10:09:03 No.13731936 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731929
It is similar, because we're looking at acute effects. By definition they occur relatively soon after the event that would potentially elicit them.

I agree that chronic effects are of interest too, but that's not what this paper is about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 10:14:30 No.13731952 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731932
No, it just means they defined beforehand what potential harmful effects would be monitored.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 10:15:39 No.13731954 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731932
>We selected outcomes based on (1) inclusion in prior vaccine safety studies (acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, anaphylaxis, encephalitis/myelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, immune thrombocytopenia, Kawasaki disease, narcolepsy, seizures, and transverse myelitis); (2) imbalances in phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials (appendicitis, Bell palsy); (3) hypothetical concerns regarding an association with COVID-19 disease (acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory distress syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke [hemorrhagic and ischemic], thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and venous thromboembolism); or (4) emerging concerns that have arisen during the course of surveillance (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,14 thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome,15 and a younger subgroup of the myocarditis/pericarditis outcome16).
Did you want them to check for broken bones?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 11:34:03 No.13732045 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731932
Try reading the paper before responding you retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:05:45 No.13732209 Report

Quoted By: >>13732223 >>13732228 >>13732236 >>13732238 >>13733547

>>13731718
oh yeah i totally believe in this. i should have listened to the shills when they told me vaers etc are just nonsense. and all those thousands of women who post about fucked up periods, the data coming out of spermbanks of lower quality sperm. oh yeah. its all nonsense because the system will only include sideeffects if it has been on the onside of a very specific institution first and pushed out to the public's eye after it has been "vetted" accoridng to big pharma regulation and rule of course.

how fucking dumb are people... there's SO MUCH SHIT OUT THERE CONCERNING THE VACCINES... are you fucking blind???

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:12:06 No.13732223 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732209
Wrap your whole fucking body in tin foil while you're at it why don't you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:13:07 No.13732228 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732209
>I don't believe it
Isn't a fucking argument you dumb cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:16:38 No.13732236 Report

Quoted By: >>13737478

>>13732209
>SO MUCH SHIT OUT THERE CONCERNING THE VACCINES.
You phrased it correctly, because it's precisely that: shit. We need systematic studies like the one in the OP, that include millions of people, so that we can tell what actually happens, instead of going by shit stories floating around on the fucking internet.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1604974483884.png, 371KiB, 596x432

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:17:28 No.13732238 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732209

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:41:14 No.13732289 Report

Quoted By: >>13732332 >>13739643

It's estimated to be a .01% danger to get the vaccine short term, percentage going up as personal risk factors increase. Not terrible odds but there is a significant portion of people suffering after getting the jab, including death. This herd mentality on both sides is worrying and I can't say I'm very hopeful for humanity to move forward at any advancement worldwide anytime soon. Seems we're just a bunch of sheep shilling for people above us in material power, we listen and obey, so understandably this doesn't sit well with me and I'd rather just leave you to your fecal consumption in peace, leave me out of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 13:56:53 No.13732332 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732289
>factually wrong statement without any source
>random rant that contains the usual buzzword like shill, sheep, etc
>completely ignores the sourced info in the OP
Typical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 15:18:58 No.13732563 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731718
Front page

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 15:19:15 No.13732565 Report

Quoted By: >>13732573

>>13731718
is it a coincidence that adverse effects are higher in the first column than in the second column in every row?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 15:22:44 No.13732573 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732565
No, the reason is that there are more people in that group. The numbers between backets are the number of incidences per million people. That's what counts here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 15:33:35 No.13732595 Report

Quoted By: >>13732636

>>13731718
>comparing directly after the vaccine to a month after the vaccine
this would be more compelling evidence if they compared BEFORE the vaccine to after the vaccine

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 15:46:32 No.13732636 Report

Quoted By: >>13732837

>>13732595
That's not a very good way of doing it. For example, if someone dies, they're not going to be getting a vaccination a week later. Same with stroke, heart attack, etc. So the number of cases before receiving a vaccine would be artifactually low.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 16:26:01 No.13732761 Report

Quoted By: >>13732802

>>13731899
>not tested for long term side effects

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 16:39:22 No.13732802 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732761
Yeah, they didn't test for accute butthurt either. That's not what this study is about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 16:53:45 No.13732837 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732636
>For example, if someone dies, they're not going to be getting a vaccination a week later.
Kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 17:00:44 No.13732858 Report

Quoted By: >>13732869

>>13731718
i wonder, who could be behind this post?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/
nigga, are you even trying?

whats up sci ? why you all such weak arguments ? why you all such weak opposition ? too much onions?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 17:03:18 No.13732869 Report

Quoted By: >>13732886

>>13732858
>news paper article
>vague insinuation
>ignores the sourced scientific article in the OP
Typical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 17:07:04 No.13732886 Report

Quoted By: >>13733079 >>13733192

>>13732869
yup, i might have jumped the gun.
the op article does mention risk for young ones.
so all in all, 3 countries are not vaccinating young adults caus of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 18:06:16 No.13733079 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732886
There are more than that plus California is now selectively banning certain batches of Moderna for causing higher than usual side effects. What's interesting is that they're not banning all batches which points to some issue in the manufacturing process leading to either contaminated batches or batches that aren't the correct strength.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 18:50:13 No.13733192 Report

Quoted By: >>13733203

>>13732886
Kind of a premature decision of those countries if you ask me. The risk of myocarditis is like 8 times higher when getting covid compared to the vaccine. Given that this virus is endemic by now, you will be exposed to it sooner or later for sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 18:55:41 No.13733203 Report

Quoted By: >>13733294

>>13733192
>The risk of myocarditis is like 8 times higher when getting covid compared to the vaccine.
After the first dose or the second dose? What about the third dose? There absolutely is some risk to COVID-19, but immunity through infection seems to provide significant protection for a very long time. Meanwhile, it seems like every subsequent dose of the vaccine carries increased risk, which I still haven't figured out. If the immune system is primed against the pathogen, then there should be less of a systemic reaction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:23:51 No.13733294 Report

Quoted By: >>13733311 >>13733321 >>13733331

>>13733203
>After the first dose or the second dose? What about the third dose?
The risk is expected to decline with subsequent shots, for the same reason as why the risk for myocarditis is lower upon subsequent virus infections.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:28:08 No.13733311 Report

Quoted By: >>13733331 >>13733387

>>13733294
>The risk is expected to decline with subsequent shots
But it's not, risk is higher after the second dose, and based on current data from older individuals who have received the third booster, risk is equivalent or even slightly higher than after the second dose.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:31:08 No.13733321 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733294
Even so there's still no answer to the possible risks JW Ulm brought up. This would be bad with repeated doses and there's no way to know without years of study. Do you know of any answers to his concerns? I know he thinks 2 doses would be fine, but if you add boosters there could be issues long term.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037/rr-19

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:33:02 No.13733327 Report

Quoted By: >>13733410

>>13731718
So what they are saying is that the risks of vaccinations don't go away in longer term intervals. WHAT THE FUCK. How can the immediate risks, like myocarditis, not be reduced over longer periods of time?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:34:39 No.13733331 Report

Quoted By: >>13733404 >>13733428

>>13733294
>>13733311
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614328/
>As compared with the expected incidence based on historical data, the standardized incidence ratio was 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48 to 6.40) and was highest after the second dose in male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (13.60; 95% CI, 9.30 to 19.20). The rate ratio 30 days after the second vaccine dose in fully vaccinated recipients, as compared with unvaccinated persons, was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10 to 5.02); the rate ratio was again highest in male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (8.96; 95% CI, 4.50 to 17.83), with a ratio of 1 in 6637.

Why would risk be increasing with the second dose when that's totally bass ackwards from what would be expected from a natural infection and later exposure?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:50:11 No.13733387 Report

Quoted By: >>13733428

>>13733311
Could you please post some sources?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:56:49 No.13733404 Report

Quoted By: >>13733415

>>13733331
I don't have a definite answer to this question, except that T cell immunity may not yet be in place following the first dose. The interval between vaccine doses is a lot shorter than the interval between infection and reinvention, which might account for the disparity. Boosters are recommended after a minimum of 6 months, so adverse event risk may accordingly be reduced. But I agree this is an open question, we don't know yet either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:57:51 No.13733410 Report

Quoted By: >>13733575

>>13733327
No, that is not what they are saying at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:58:53 No.13733415 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733404
>reinvention
Reinfection*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 19:59:11 No.13733419 Report

Quoted By: >>13733432

>>13731718
Can you provide the total number of vaccinations administeres for the years in question of your infographic? Claiming more deaths occurred, if true, would only matter if the same or fewer people were vaccinated in the year with higher deaths. Moreover, the number of deaths would have to be controlled for the age/preexisting conditions of those that died.

A source would be nice. And maybe some sort of comparison between the side effects like Bell's Palsy in 2020 and 2021. I mean, I know the bell's pasly thing ended up being a nothingburger so I'm just going to assume the rest of those side effects were nothingburgers as well, until some actual information is presented.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:00:56 No.13733428 Report

Quoted By: >>13733444 >>13733467

>>13733387
I did here based on myocarditis risk for first and second doses: >>13733331

As for risk of side effects for third dose:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e4.htm?s_cid=mm7039e4_w
>During August 12–September 19, 2021, among 12,591 v-safe registrants who completed a health check-in survey after all 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 79.4% and 74.1% reported local or systemic reactions, respectively, after the third dose; 77.6% and 76.5% reported local or systemic reactions after the second dose, respectively.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:02:31 No.13733432 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733419
>A source would be nice
It's all right there in the OP my dude. A direct hyperlink to the article in question for your personal clicking convenience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:05:55 No.13733444 Report

Quoted By: >>13734400

>>13733428
>I did here
Thanks, yes I saw it after I posted.

>as for risk of side effects after the third dose
The information only pertains to the typical side effects like muscle ache, headache, and other things you'd expect from a healthy immune response. If these wouldn't be there that would be odd, and their presence doesn't really pertain to the current discussion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:07:19 No.13733450 Report

Quoted By: >>13733456

what's the reason for taking the vaccine in the first place?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:09:29 No.13733456 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733450
To give your body some base immunity to a novel virus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:11:33 No.13733467 Report

Quoted By: >>13734400

>>13733428
I know it has no precedent in clinical trials, etc. but if you wait longer between doses, is that likely to reduce side effects?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:17:06 No.13733489 Report

Quoted By: >>13733547 >>13733605 >>13733856

>>13731718
Anon, you didn't really read the study did you??
Let's do a quick test. The study says it required a 1-sided p<0.0048 for a signal. Do you even know what that means?

I'll explain that shortly and how those excerpts you posted are misleading.

I just wanna give you a bit o time to explain what I just asked, so everyone knows you have no idea of what you posted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:33:25 No.13733547 Report

Quoted By:

>>13732209
I'm this guys here >>13733489
I actually read the study. You should totally believe it.
It's just one of the many pandemic related "studies" that made up with some utterly retarded and arbitrary ground rules in order to push their misleading claims.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:41:37 No.13733575 Report

Quoted By: >>13733609

>>13733410
>risks don't change from interval 1 to interval 2
Are you retarded?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:51:20 No.13733605 Report

Quoted By: >>13733719 >>13733856

>>13733489
Fucking kek you pompous faggot, yes I read the study. And before you go off on some rant about overly conservative p thresholds, the p values are right there in the table, as are mnlukthe odds ratois.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 20:52:22 No.13733609 Report

Quoted By: >>13733890

>>13733575
No, but you clearly are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:17:57 No.13733719 Report

Quoted By: >>13733787 >>13733856

>>13733605
So you don't know what a p-value is, let alone what it means in that "study".

I didn't ask what is the p value, I asked you what it means. You didn't answer the question, I guess we can safely establish that you have no idea of what you posted in the OP. I'll give it another 5 minutes before I explain.
Now, you are gonna be inclined to reply with a lot of crap to my next post. But let's not forget that I gave you enough time to show that you know what you are talking about and you basically gave us proof that you don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:31:46 No.13733787 Report

Quoted By: >>13733793 >>13733899

>>13733719
I already know where you want to go with this, and I've already pointed out why it's fucking retarded. Even if they had just gone with 2 failed statistics and not applied any multiple comparison correction, the conclusions of the paper would have been the same. So it's idiotic to point out the p threshold required for signal, because it is post hoc irrelevant to the paper.

>hurr durr you didn't fullfil my specific demand
That's right, because I have nothing to prove to some snotnose undergrad who started stats 101 a week ago. My h index is probably higher than your age. For that same reason I don't give a particular shit what you're about to 'explain', because I already know it's going to be more retarded nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:32:48 No.13733793 Report

Quoted By: >>13733970

>>13733787
>2 failed
2 tailed*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:42:37 No.13733856 Report

Quoted By: >>13733922 >>13735333 >>13736003

>>13731718
>>13733489
>>13733605
>>13733719

Ok, that "study" in the OP basically assumes that if you developed any of those conditions from 22 to 42 after you received the vax, then it has nothing to do with the vax. Then they used a p-value < 0.0048 to determine if the null hypothesis is false, in other words, if the cause for the adverse reaction wasn't just random. Now, the way they invalidate the null hypothesis is by comparing the number of adverse reactions in the "risk period" (< 21 days), with the "unexposed" group (22 to 42 days after the vax - because according to them, this qualifies as unexposed).

Now, let's appreciate how scummy they are in coming up with this arbitrary criteria. They coul've tracked unvaccinated people as a control group, but no, they decided that the control group was gonna be made of ALSO vaxxed people. The only difference being that it took a little longer for them have that reaction. They say they kept track of some unvaccinated people, but they never showed the numbers when comparing to those.

Another thing is that aparrently there were tens of thousands of people who developed one of the 23 conditions listed in the study that out of the monitored 6 million poeple. But that's not alarming at all, according to them and their bullshit criteria.

They could've done the same comparison within other time intervals too, they have the data. They also could've showed the number when comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. They chose to do neither.

This is how deceptive academia has become.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:48:08 No.13733890 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733609
>Findings In this interim analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons who received 11.8 million doses of an mRNA vaccine, event rates for 23 serious health outcomes were not significantly higher for individuals 1 to 21 days after vaccination compared with similar individuals at 22 to 42 days after vaccination.
Read moar

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:50:02 No.13733899 Report

Quoted By: >>13733910 >>13735339 >>13736003

>>13733787
>I already know where you want to go with this, and I've already pointed out why it's fucking retarded. Even if they had just gone with 2 failed statistics and not applied any multiple comparison correction, the conclusions of the paper would have been the same. So it's idiotic to point out the p threshold required for signal, because it is post hoc irrelevant to the paper.

No, all of you claims are based on some utterly retarded and arbitrary, that makes baseless assumption.

They justify those by saying that it was used on other vaccine studies.
Well, first of all, there were never mRNA vaccines until now, so this is something completely new. Second, the number of adverse events for other vaccines, and I cannot overstate, they are nothing compared to the number of adverse recorded for this one.

In other cases they shut down entire vaccine programs because there were a handful suspected deaths associated with them. For the covid vaccine, the death toll is more than 15 thaousand on VAERS alone, and it's estimated that the actual number is at least one order of magnitude higher. Keep in mind that I'm talking deaths, not just any adverse reactions in general. If you count all adverse reactions, it's not even a discussion how gruesome it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:52:13 No.13733910 Report

Quoted By: >>13736003

>>13733899
>No, all of you claims are based on some utterly retarded and arbitrary, that makes baseless assumption.

No, all of you claims are based on some utterly retarded and baseless assumptions (that if you had any of those bizarre conditions on the very specific window ranging from 22 to 42 days, it has nothing to do with the vaccine).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 21:54:58 No.13733922 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733856
>from 22 to 42 after
22 to 42 days*

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 801210MSGtagOsaka-InokiBack.jpg, 117KiB, 810x645

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 22:06:18 No.13733967 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731907
>mongoloid.
why are you complimenting his cognitive ability?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 22:06:35 No.13733970 Report

Quoted By: >>13733979 >>13735355 >>13736003

>>13733793
>2 tailed*
No, I actually think the 1-tailed analysis is better for their purposes.
It's just that it was an absolutely retarded comparison, the one they used to maintain claim the null hypothesis the true.

By the way (and I think this is why you assumed I had a problem with the 1 tailed analysis), a 2-tailed analysis is not necessarily better than a 1-tailed analysis. They just suit different purposes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 22:07:38 No.13733979 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733970
>the one they used to maintain claim the null hypothesis the true.
**the one they used to claim that the null hypothesis the true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 22:11:00 No.13733992 Report

Quoted By: >>13734004

>>13731718
kek, this result actually means the vaccines are just as dangerous after 44 days as they are right away

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 22:12:44 No.13734004 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733992
Yeah, OP can't interpret the data, he can only read their dumb down "conclusions"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Oct 2021 22:51:23 No.13734134 Report

Quoted By: >>13735983

>>13731718
tl;dr:

The study looks for excess adverse eventes between a group of people that got vaccinated within 21 days of having the reaction and another one that got vaccinated between 22 and 44 days before having one of the conditions.

Their conclusion:
>A fuckton of people developed those conditions on both groups of vaccinated people, so we conclude that it has nothing to do with the vaccine.

This is unironically what they call science in clown world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 00:09:01 No.13734400 Report

Quoted By: >>13734504 >>13735356

>>13733444
>The information only pertains to the typical side effects like muscle ache, headache, and other things you'd expect from a healthy immune response. If these wouldn't be there that would be odd, and their presence doesn't really pertain to the current discussion.
Huh? Why do you believe that's a sign of a healthy immune response? If you're exposed to the virus after you've already been infected and have immunity, you would expect to have fewer symptoms because your immune system is already primed and doesn't need to activate the innate immune system. The argument that it's a good sign to have more side effects after the second injection has never made sense to me. I would take it as a concerning sign of immune disorganization or over activation.

>>13733467
Based on the bit of data we do have, acute symptoms are similar between the second and third injections despite one being at 3-4 weeks and the other at 6+ months. I know the UK actually had some people waiting 2-3 months during their early roll out so more people could get the initial injection, but I don't know if that resulted in a difference in side effects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 00:46:57 No.13734504 Report

Quoted By:

>>13734400
>acute symptoms are similar between the second and third injections despite one being at 3-4 weeks and the other at 6+ months
Shit. That's true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 02:16:48 No.13734758 Report

Quoted By:

perhaps the control group should be the unvaccinated, not those vaccinated 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1612301064563.jpg, 23KiB, 334x506

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 06:41:07 No.13735304 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731718
>Study compares vaxxed to other vaxxed
>This will rile up the autists
Well done, you're earned this (you)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 06:56:24 No.13735333 Report

Quoted By:

>>13733856
Jesus fucking christ you people are stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:00:10 No.13735339 Report

Quoted By: >>13735428

>>13733899
>there were never mRNA vaccines until now
Wrong. There have been plenty of clinical trials with mRNA vaccines, even before covid

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:07:45 No.13735355 Report

Quoted By: >>13735794

>>13733970
>I actually think the 1-tailed analysis is better for their purposes.
Yeah no shit. The stats are appropriate, that's not the point.

>It's just that it was an absolutely retarded comparison
The comparison is literally fine you autist. They're looking at accute effects.

> a 2-tailed analysis is not necessarily better than a 1-tailed analysis. They just suit different purposes.
The absolute fucking cringe. Again, no fucking shit, you've missed the point. Why did you go off on a weird tangent demanding that OP tell you what a p value is when it's clear that you take your stats lessons from wikipedia?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:10:07 No.13735356 Report

Quoted By:

>>13734400
>Why do you believe that's a sign of a healthy immune response?
Because they typically occur after vaccination like they should. If I inject saline in your arm, there's a good chance you'll have a muscle ache. that counts as a side effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:48:19 No.13735421 Report

Quoted By: >>13735427

>>13731718
> 1 to 21 days

A leukemia takes time, my friend.
Serious adverse effects won't be able to be fully estimated before 2 years has passed. You know that. Stop making fool of your fellows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:53:29 No.13735425 Report

Quoted By: >>13735771 >>13735800 >>13735819 >>13736003 >>13736045 >>13737604

To any of you people who claim that the interval comparison is inappropriate: you're wrong for several reasons.

First, if adverse events are equally likely in the period immediately following vaccination relative to the weeks afterwards, then the study would not be able to uncover any age-group specific adverse events. They do, which you'd have seen had you read the study, so your argument is flawed.

Second, why do we see typical side effects that are present in the period designated as risk in the study, but not the control period? Because mRNA isn't some magical substance that reappears once it's been broken down.

Third, matching of calendar day as done in the study in the OP allows for stricter control of confounding factors that would otherwise undermine the analysis, such as underlying population differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated. For example, vaccination is more common among people with high socioeconomic status compared to low socioeconomic status. We already know there are differences between these groups in baseline health. This would thus actually lower the probability of finding adverse events associated with vaccination.

Fourth, we already have controlled comparisons of vaccine versus placebo, in other studies. These provide a similar picture of extremely low adverse event risk.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:55:30 No.13735427 Report

Quoted By: >>13735492

>>13735421
kek, you can look at the carcinogenic properties of the compunds in the vaccine numbnuts. That's part of the standard package of preclinical work, before clinical trials are even allowed to start.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:56:14 No.13735428 Report

Quoted By: >>13735432 >>13735443 >>13735462

>>13735339
Yeah and all the animals died, asshole

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 07:57:54 No.13735432 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735428
Fucking idiot. If you're going to just pull shit out of your ass at least put some effort into it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:03:53 No.13735443 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735428
The claim that there have never been clinical trials with mRNA vaccines is simply wrong. Here are a few examples. These studies include monitoring participants for adverse events for extended periods of time, and they predate covid.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28457665/

Those are just some examples, there are many more. See the articles below for a good overview of safety assessments of vaccination using mRNA platforms as well as the complete research history dating back to the 60s. All of this work is from before covid.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:11:46 No.13735462 Report

Quoted By: >>13735472

>>13735428
kek based retard dabbing on obnoxious sperging /sci/ autists

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:16:40 No.13735472 Report

Quoted By: >>13735475

>>13735462
>dabbing on
What are you, 12 years old?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 0f1.jpg, 91KiB, 812x883

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:18:27 No.13735475 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735472
LOL I HAVE BIG BENIN

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:26:49 No.13735492 Report

Quoted By: >>13735502 >>13735749 >>13739743

>>13735427
Nobody knows what's had been injected with the spike protein codons.

The manufacturer don't even know the amount of partially formed spike protein codons inside the vaccine aka *vaccine purity*.

Secondly a reverse transcriptase had been proven possible. That means *unknown fragments* of the spike codons inside the vaccine may integrate your DNA.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1

If you have luck they won't integrate, be treated like damaged DNA by your body and that will be nice.
However if you don't, fragments will integrate your DNA in fragile locations (dormant oncogenic genes), your innate DNA copy control mechanism will eventually fail, and an unknown illness might happen.

You just can't rule this out, kek.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:33:01 No.13735502 Report

Quoted By: >>13735519 >>13735556 >>13737109

>>13735492
>Nobody knows what's had been injected with the spike protein codons.
Blatantly wrong.

As for the rest of your post, the viral genome is orders of magnitude larger than the vaccine, and the latter contains a psy substitute that prevents transcriptase from binding. Do your homework before posting nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:43:20 No.13735519 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735502
Bragging about homework without doing it much.

"Psy substitute" the fuck how it's not even vaguely related to the point of reverse transcriptase risk and vaccine purity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 08:58:03 No.13735556 Report

Quoted By: >>13735570 >>13735581

>>13735502
> blatantly wrong

> homework

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627
>EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality—the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA—worried about “truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.”

Kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:01:20 No.13735570 Report

Quoted By: >>13735606 >>13735618

>>13735556
Now answer, big educated boy:

What proteins will be coded by truncated spike RNA fragments? Will it be spike protein or who the fuck knows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:06:32 No.13735581 Report

Quoted By: >>13735730

>>13735556
>The BMJasked Pfizer, Moderna, and CureVac, as well as several regulators, what percentage mRNA integrity they consider acceptable for vaccines against covid-19. None offered any specifics.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK’s medicines regulator, acknowledged the lack of a specified percentage RNA integrity, but declined to provide further detail. “The specification limit acceptance criteria are commercially confidential,” the agency said in an email.

> homework

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cv.png, 53KiB, 1194x748

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:14:09 No.13735599 Report

Quoted By: >>13735610 >>13736550 >>13737118 >>13739013 >>13739114

>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf
Anyone know why the vaccinated are getting infected more than the unvaccinated?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:17:51 No.13735606 Report

Quoted By: >>13735638

>>13735570
>What proteins will be coded by truncated spike RNA fragments?
nothing gets translated without the poly A chain and 5' cap, that's how RNA works you shit heel. It's basic physiology

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:18:52 No.13735610 Report

Quoted By: >>13735628

>>13735599
They aren't?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:21:58 No.13735616 Report

Quoted By: >>13735627

>>13731718
>persons
is it even linguistically correct?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:22:15 No.13735618 Report

Quoted By: >>13735624 >>13735630

>>13735570
Now you answer big retarded boy, how do you get leukemia from a non-cancinogenic compound?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:23:18 No.13735624 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735618
It's somewhat archaic but technically correct

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:24:39 No.13735627 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735616
It's somewhat archaic but technically correct

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:24:44 No.13735628 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735610
Are they?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:25:27 No.13735630 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735618
Have already answered but this proves you can't read.
> reverse transcriptase inside dormant oncogenic genes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:29:31 No.13735638 Report

Quoted By: >>13735654 >>13735664 >>13735704

>>13735606
Keep pretending you can't read.

Basic physiology contradicts this:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1

>muh RNA can't integrate into DNA without reverse transcriptase enzyme.

Weel seems that cytokin storm violates this dogma.
What happens when your eventually react to the vaccine and have " normal fever up to 2 days "

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:45:25 No.13735654 Report

Quoted By: >>13735691 >>13735896

>>13735638
>Keep pretending you can't read.
Fucking kek, the irony. You are using the finding that the viral genome gets reverse transcribed as an argument that a snippet of messanger RNA will be able to do so as well. This argument is nonsense, because the process of transcription is absent in the latter, yet it would be key for reverse transcription. Moreover, any truncated strands of RNA, if they are in fact present, simply get broken down because they miss the primer cap or poly A chain at the end. This should be stating the obvious, but apparently for a retard like you, it isn't.

Now again, if truncated mRNA simply gets broken down, and it cannot be reverse transcribed (in contrast to the viral genome), how the fuck can it magically become carcinogenic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 09:49:50 No.13735664 Report

Quoted By: >>13735905

>>13735638
>cytokin storm
Applies to viral infection, not vaccination. Show me a single case of cytokin stom follow a vaccination.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:07:28 No.13735685 Report

Quoted By: >>13735694

Fucking hell there are some retards in this thread. Why is reverse transcription not a concern in regular vaccines?? Why now all of the sudden are you tards worried over this? What makes RNA somehow special? A normal vaccine results in viral RNA as well. Just in a roundabout way. It's like you tards are looking for any and all excuse to behave irresponsibly, no matter how far fetched the possibility.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:12:16 No.13735691 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735654
>the process of transcription is absent
the process of translation* is absent

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:14:14 No.13735694 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735685
>to behave irresponsibly
by not taking the stupid vaccine? LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:18:46 No.13735704 Report

Quoted By: >>13735714

>>13735638
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.17.431704v1
Recent studies have reported the presence of host-virus chimeric (HVC) RNA in RNA-seq data from SARS-CoV2 infected cells and interpreted these findings as evidence of viral integration in the human genome as a potential pathogenic mechanism. Since SARS-CoV2 is a positive sense RNA virus that replicates in the cytoplasm it does not have a nuclear phase in its life cycle, it is biologically unlikely to be in a location where splicing events could result in genome integration. Here, we investigated the biological authenticity of HVC events. In contrast to true biological events such as mRNA splicing and genome rearrangement events, which generate reproducible chimeric sequencing fragments across different biological isolates, we found that HVC events across >100 RNA-seq libraries from patients with COVID-19 and infected cell lines, were highly irreproducible.

In other words, a nothingburger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:22:52 No.13735714 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735704
This brings up another good point by the way, mRNA doesn't even enter the fucking cell nucleus where reverse transcription would hypothetically occur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:29:18 No.13735730 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735581
>commercially confidential,
>no one knows
>these are the same thing
Retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:39:10 No.13735749 Report

Quoted By: >>13735761

>>13735492
>chimeric SARS-CoV-2-specific DNA has been reported = vaccine will give you leukemia
I thought it was physically impossible to be this retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:44:24 No.13735757 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731718
>jamalnetwork

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:46:28 No.13735761 Report

Quoted By: >>13735774

>>13735749
vaccine will give you cancer fukken deal with it anti-vaxx chud

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:50:50 No.13735771 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735425
This. It seems like a fine study. It can't tell you everything, but you can infer a lot about short-term effects by testing at different times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:51:39 No.13735774 Report

Quoted By: >>13735776

>>13735761
Your even to retarded tto insult properly

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:52:27 No.13735776 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735774
>to retarded
>tto insult properly
lol

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 983.png, 103KiB, 340x444

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:52:53 No.13735777 Report

Quoted By: >>13735782

>>>/pol/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 10:54:43 No.13735782 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735777
You're conflating a proper thread that contains shitposts with a /pol/ thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:04:18 No.13735794 Report

Quoted By: >>13735799 >>13735800 >>13735803 >>13735820 >>13737499

>>13735355
No you idiot.
OP had no idea of how they "determined" the null hypothesis, and neither do you apparently.

OP just posted that they had an entire column with the word no under the p-value, and had no idea of what that entails. This is a common thing omg retards like you who claim to be empiricists but have no idea of what's actually going on in the studies which headlines you read.

The point was that they never found a p-value that would disprove the null hypothesis because the vaccinated between 3 and 6 weeks before, were getting developing the sode effects just as much as those who had been vaccinated within 3 weeks of having the reaction.

Here is a comparison that will make it simpler for you to understand.
Their assumption is like saying that if you suffer a car crash as die within the first 3 weeks, then the cause of death was the accident, bit if you die between weeks 3 and 6, then then the cause of death was just random or undetermined.

Yes, is literally that absurd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:07:05 No.13735799 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735794
>I have no idea
>therfore no one else does
The whole point you're making is literally in the title of the table you fucking mong. It's fucking obvious you're trying to come across as smarter than anyone else, but you don't realize you're making an absolute ass out of yourself by pointing out things that were clear to everyone from the get go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:08:06 No.13735800 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735794
See: >>13735425

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:09:06 No.13735801 Report

Quoted By:

wake me up when all-cause mortality in portugal jumps by at least 100%

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:09:34 No.13735803 Report

Quoted By: >>13735834

>>13735794
You are saying
>I have a car accident
>I die from a heart attack a month later
>therefore, the car accident is the cause of death
fucking moron

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:21:08 No.13735819 Report

Quoted By: >>13735827

>>13735425
Anon, comparing vaccinated people with more vaccinated people (that got vaccinated a couple of weeks earlier) and and finding that they all develop serious health conditions, tells you exactly that. It tells you that one group was just as likely as the other to have the reaction, but the onset might take a couple of weeks longer for some people.

If you wanna discard the possibility of that reaction being a vaccine reaction, you'd compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated and present the results, which they never did.

They just pushed, without any basis or any evidence, the assumption that if you had been vaccinated more than 3 weeks ago, you are no longer at risk for vaccine adverse reactions.

So, all we know from that study is that you are just as likely to have an adverse reaction between weeks 0 and 3, as you are of having it from week 3 to week 6.

Can anyone not follow this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:21:19 No.13735820 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735794
>The point was that they never found a p-value that would disprove the null hypothesis
Wanna know how I know that you didn't bother to look at study?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:25:19 No.13735827 Report

Quoted By: >>13735858 >>13735866 >>13735878 >>13735974

>>13735819
>It tells you that one group was just as likely as the other to have the reaction
Wrong, and I've already told you why.

>you'd compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated
Again, I've already told you why this comparison is problematic. If anything, you'd compare to placebo.

>without any basis
Read the study. I won't reply to you until you do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:29:25 No.13735834 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735803
No you idiot.
I'm the study, they compared people who had the exact same condition just in different time intervals.

In the car accident analogy, if you had brain damage and died of brain damage in week 4 instead of week 3, guess what, the brain damage was still causes by the accident. Saying you don't know what caused or that the cause for the brain damage was undetermined is absolutely asinine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:39:59 No.13735858 Report

Quoted By: >>13735869

>>13735827
>Wrong, and I've already told you why.
No you didn't, you went on a tangent to justify that misleading choice of comparison, that it was in order o determine the age group. In order to determine the age group.
The fact that a person good vaccinated 3 weeks ago, instead of 6 weeks ago, doesn't tell you their age. You get the age from the fucking record in your dataset.
But even if you did get the age from that, it still doesn't explain away that everyone is getting sick shortly after being vaccinated.
In order to o do that, you need a control group. The control group needs to be comprised of unvaccinated people. But they simply haven't done this. They probably thought only morons like OP would bother with it and read the couple of lines in the conclusion that tells them what they wanna hear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:42:24 No.13735866 Report

Quoted By: >>13735871

>>13735827
>Read the study. I won't reply to you until you do.
I wouldn't have replied to OP if I haven't done it already

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:42:46 No.13735869 Report

Quoted By: >>13735908

>>13735858
>The fact that a person good vaccinated 3 weeks ago, instead of 6 weeks ago, doesn't tell you their age.
It's confirmed, we're dealing with a brain damaged person. Buddy, you completely and utterly misunderstood the points that were made. Fuck off already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:44:15 No.13735871 Report

Quoted By: >>13735890

>>13735866
Then why did you miss the instances where the null hypothesis was rejected, contradicting your claims directly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:46:44 No.13735878 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735827
>Again, I've already told you why this comparison is problematic. If anything, you'd compare to placebo.
It really isn't. What's problematic is comparing vaccinated people with more vaccinated people and making an arbitrary 3 weeks distinction between them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:52:36 No.13735890 Report

Quoted By: >>13735918 >>13736164

>>13735871
>Then why did you miss the instances where the null hypothesis was rejected, contradicting your claims directly

For the 1sided analysis?
They went with the null hypothesis I'm every instance of that one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 11:55:34 No.13735896 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735654
The paper states that generally viral RNA can't integrate inside the genome, however they found it happened because of LINE-1 restrotranscriptoson. That happened in the context of the inflammatory response of immunity.
This setup is common with natural covid19 virus but also when you use the cellular machinery to produce spike proteins.

Keep pretending you don't understand. Oh wait maybe you aren't and I'm loosing my time replying to a shill or dumb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:02:12 No.13735905 Report

Quoted By: >>13735927

>>13735664
A single word:

# MYOCARDITIS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:03:10 No.13735908 Report

Quoted By: >>13735914

>>13735869
Is there a name for this?
Like when you have idea of what you are saying but you wanna make it look like you do, for others who are following the exchange?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:05:05 No.13735914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735908
No* idea

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:07:34 No.13735918 Report

Quoted By: >>13735932 >>13735978

>>13735890
They did not. You didn't read the paper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:13:41 No.13735927 Report

Quoted By: >>13735948

>>13735905
A single irrelevant word?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:15:28 No.13735932 Report

Quoted By: >>13735956

>>13735918
Right there in the OP's table

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:17:19 No.13735936 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731718
>analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million persons
why persons instead of people?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:22:40 No.13735948 Report

Quoted By: >>13735963

>>13735927
Haha level 0 arguer

Can't even use google.

https://jmsgr.tamhsc.edu/covid-19-cytokine-storm-causes-myocarditis-characterized-by-reduced-cardiac-function-fibrosis-and-increased-mortality/

MYOCARDITIS ARE THE SINGLE MOST FREQUENT SERIOUS SECONDARY EFFECT AFTER VACCINATION.

So vaccination sometime triggers cytokine storms.
What's more concerning is those are predominantly young male (16-24)

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:25:15 No.13735956 Report

Quoted By: >>13735980

>>13735932
Yeah no shit you tard. That's not all there is to the paper. Thanks for proving my point that you didn't bother to look at it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:26:30 No.13735963 Report

Quoted By: >>13735976

>>13735948
Myocarditis won't give you a cytokin stom you dumb shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:32:26 No.13735974 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735827
By saying unvaccinated is insinuating there is a placebo group. That's a basic comparison in studies-- stats 101, how else do you compare the influence of the vaccine in one population.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:32:45 No.13735976 Report

Quoted By: >>13736149

>>13735963

Wow I didn't even knew you were that stupid.

try to group your remaining neurons, follow the sequence.

- Myocarditis are the symptom.

- Cytokin storm is the main cause.

- Myocarditis happen upon vaccination.

> cite one example of cytokin storm in vaccination

- MYOCARDITIS

now GTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:33:58 No.13735978 Report

Quoted By: >>13735980 >>13735984 >>13736057 >>13736060 >>13736092 >>13736164 >>13736860 >>13738714

We need to come up with a name for this kind of character >>13735918 here on /sci/

This is off topic now, but it needs to be discussed.
There is that guy who can't really explain anything about anything but goes to pretend like you are missing something very obvious. He will never tell you what it is, since there is nothing to tell. He will be vague and allude to random things and give you snarky replies, but he will never make his point, because his objective is not to disprove what you are saying, but instead, it's to make it seem as if his position is so obvious that if you don't follow, then you are the problem.

How do we call people like this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:35:37 No.13735980 Report

Quoted By: >>13735990

>>13735956
Thank you. Another case study for this >>13735978

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:36:12 No.13735983 Report

Quoted By:

>>13734134
I'm convinced that they're not even trying to persuade people "in the know". Rather they're just trying to throw out headlines to convince people who have no clue to dismiss evidence from anyone providing 'alternate' sources (hence, all the "don't listen to fackbook friends" stuff), while leaving everyone who can seek scientific evidence themselves to be fucked over by the government.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:36:38 No.13735984 Report

Quoted By: >>13736003

>>13735978
How about instead of mob mentality you actually address the concerns? I see lots of name calling and childish behaviour, but no discussion? What the hell is /sci/ a by bunch of undergrads now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:38:43 No.13735990 Report

Quoted By: >>13736044

>>13735980
Kek. You dumb shit. It's the age-specific post hoc analysis of myocarditis. They reject the null. It's right there in the paper, which you'd have seen had you even opened the PDF. Stop pretending.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 12:45:30 No.13736003 Report

Quoted By: >>13736036 >>13736086

>>13735984
I meaan, I could reiterate the discussion I already had, or you could just addresss them right here

>>13733856
>>13733899
>>13733910
>>13733970

I assume this post >>13735425 is yours
You haven't really addressed anything that I said.
You are just making claims that the asinine idea of comparing vaccinated people with more vaccinated people and creating an arbitrary 3 weeks distinction between them is actually good because this, that and the other that has nothing to do with the problems that were pointed out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:01:36 No.13736036 Report

Quoted By: >>13736057

>>13736003
>You haven't really addressed anything that I said.
In fact I have, and this is obviously to anyone reading along. Your inability to follow basic arguments doesn't change that fact. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you simply do not understand the points I've made, and I'm not in the habit of dumbing things down just so that an idiot can comprehend them too. I'm going to leave it at this, because the points I've made still stand, and anything else isn't my problem, it's your problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:05:57 No.13736044 Report

Quoted By: >>13736051 >>13736144

>>13735990

You moron, I specifically said that they did not invalidate the null hypothesis for any instance in the 1sided analysis.
The info you are mentioning is presented in table 4 where there is no 1sided analysis, and there is a supplemental analysis on eTable6 which does not have a 1sided analysis either.

But in any case, not only you couldn't follow what I was saying, but the info you've been pestering us about actually shows how their baseline analysis is flawed, since they needed futher analysis to uncover a very obvious side-effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:06:05 No.13736045 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735425
>if adverse events are equally likely in the period immediately following vaccination relative to the weeks afterwards, then the study would not be able to uncover any age-group specific adverse events
whay does age have to do with time period moron?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:06:59 No.13736051 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736044
>The info you are mentioning is presented in table 4 where there is no 1sided analysis, and there is a supplemental analysis on eTable6 which does not have a 1sided analysis either.

**There is only a 2sided

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:08:55 No.13736057 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736036

That character i mentioned, again >>13735978

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:09:41 No.13736060 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735978
>How do we call people like this?
shills, aka glowies

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:18:36 No.13736086 Report

Quoted By: >>13736092

>>13736003
Not the same anon, just creeping and hoping for a discussion that actually critically evaluates a study. You haven't refuted much or even elaborated in the other anons points.
I fear we people are now too emotionally invested in their sides and fear of bein gb wrong that they reject anything that might challenge their internal narrative.

Sad time for science. It's become more of a sporting event than actually challenger and evaluating data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:21:13 No.13736092 Report

Quoted By: >>13736133

>>13736086
Anon, the we need to include you in this >>13735978 category as well?

If you have something to say, just say it. Don't be vague or allude to random things hoping other people will fill in the gaps.

Your "earnest" criticism becomes very disingenuous if you can't do that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:38:21 No.13736133 Report

Quoted By: >>13736145

>>13736092
I don't give two shits where you include me. I don't have the same ego complex that you are illustrating by the need to group every anon you encounter into groups. I'm already double vaxxed, but what I am seeing in my practice is alarming. I am trying to remain unbiased throughout the interpretation, but the aggressiveness and name calling just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for those who say they stand for "science".

I don't want to claim to have a grandiose understanding of stats, but i have enough to have gotten me through med school. I only have anecdotal evidence and we all know that's l or tier, but there are a lot of anons not asking the right questions or analyzing not in my a novel virus but a novel treatment to actually understand if we are doing the right thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:42:34 No.13736144 Report

Quoted By: >>13736164

>>13736044
Kek, no matter how much you move the goalposts here, the fact remains that you started this argument by making the claim that the study is flawed because they compare 3 weeks post vax with 6 weeks post vax. The 1 or 2 sided tests have nothing to do with this. My argument was that if your argument is true, then they wouldn't be able to detect any effects. However, contrary to this prediction, they do find an effect. You then brought in the tail of the statistical test, which is irrelevant to the larger point.

That effect is shown using 2-tailed statistics, and so by default this would hold up using 1 tailed statistics as well, given the direction of the effect goes in the same direction as you'd test if you had had an a-priori hypothesis.

So you were shown wrong on two accounts:
1) The study is in fact positioned to detect adverse events if they should occur
2) The adverse events that you denied being in the paper are in fact in the paper

>you couldn't follow what I was saying
Stop pretending you retard. Half of what you are saying is comically simplistic, the other half is just plain retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:42:34 No.13736145 Report

Quoted By: >>13736167

>>13736133
Alright "earnest" anon, I understand. Not having a good understanding of stats might actually be a good thing, in order for you to keep your job. I'm not gonna pester you about that.

But since we are taking anecdotal evidence into account now, I'm wondering what do you think of the more than 15 thousand deaths listed on VAERS alone, that are associated with this vaccine, or the other hundreds of thousands adverse events listed there as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:44:31 No.13736149 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735976
Fucking kek. You don't even know what a cytokin storm is, do you?

PROTIP: not every cytokin response is a cytokin storm, and not every case of myocarditis is the result of a cytokin storm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:51:50 No.13736164 Report

Quoted By: >>13736176 >>13736193 >>13736230

>>13736144
>That effect is shown using 2-tailed statistics, and so by default this would hold up using 1 tailed statistics as well, given the direction of the effect goes in the same direction as you'd test if you had had an a-priori hypothesis.
This is simply wrong anon. Like, you can see right there in the op that all of the 2sided analysis break the p-value treshold while none of the 1sided do.
Like, at this point, it's abundantly clear you have no idea what you are looking at. I mean, I don't even wanna call you a moron anymore because it'd be unnecessarily mean, at this point.
But it's worth mentioning that you are coming up with a totally moronic assumption that the 1sided and the 2sided analysis would give you the sme information. Please stop, man. Wtf?

>The study is in fact positioned to detect adverse events if they should occur
No, it's designed to use a bullshit comparison between two groups of vaccinated people, distinguished by an arbitrary 3 weeks gap, and claim that this will reveal information about whether or not the observed

>The adverse events that you denied being in the paper are in fact in the paper
I never said it wasn't there. What I said is right fucking here >>13735890 for anyone to see. Lying is not gonna get you anywhere anon.

>Stop pretending you retard. Half of what you are saying is comically simplistic, the other half is just plain retarded.
t. >>13735978

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:52:43 No.13736167 Report

Quoted By: >>13736187

>>13736145
I am VERY concerned about it. The amount of young males have
big cardiac issues and the amount of doubled vaxxed im seeing with servers complications is frightening. I also have no choice but to be disingenuous to my patients because our true opinions are "unscientific" and "propaganda".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:54:54 No.13736176 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736164
>and claim that this will reveal information about whether or not the observed

*and claim that this will reveal information about whether or not the observed side-effects are related to the vaccine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:57:55 No.13736187 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736167
Well, that honesty I can appreciate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 13:59:41 No.13736193 Report

Quoted By: >>13736258

>>13736164
>Like, you can see right there in the op that all of the 2sided analysis break the p-value treshold while none of the 1sided do.
That's because in the table they go in the opposite direction, i.e. adverse event incidence is more prevalent in the control period... The one-tailed stats compute the p for heightened incidence in the risk period. By contrast, the age-specific analysis does actually show such an effect. Therefore, 1 and 2 tailed stats converge on the same tail end, and p-values accordingly reject the null. This is stats 101. Fuck.

>t's abundantly clear you have no idea what you are looking at
the goddamn irony, shut the fuck up already

>But it's worth mentioning that you are coming up with a totally moronic assumption that the 1sided and the 2sided analysis would give you the sme information. Please stop, man. Wtf?
It has nothing to do with assumptions, see above.

>No, it's designed to use a bullshit comparison between two groups of vaccinated people, distinguished by an arbitrary 3 weeks gap, and claim that this will reveal information about whether or not the observed
Hurr fucking durr, simply repeating your point doesn't suddenly make it valid once it's been refuted.

I'll try this again, maybe you'll follow this time. If your claim that they are unable to detect adverse events because they're using temporal intervals, how the fuck come they do find an effect?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:12:55 No.13736230 Report

Quoted By: >>13736252

>>13736164
Lemme correct myself here. That anon's comment threw me off. The 2sided values didn't break the threshold. The p-value is the prabability that the null hypothesis is true. Neither the 2sided nor the 1sided broke the treshold.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:21:54 No.13736252 Report

Quoted By: >>13736304

>>13736230
>The p-value is the prabability that the null hypothesis is true.
Kek, outing yourself as a retard again. The p value is the probability of observing the data under the null hypothesis, which is not the same thing. By your definition you can prove that a hypothesis is true, which goes directly counter to the principle of falsification.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:24:41 No.13736258 Report

Quoted By: >>13736280 >>13736291

>>13736193
>That's because in the table they go in the opposite direction, i.e. adverse event incidence is more prevalent in the control period... The one-tailed stats compute the p for heightened incidence in the risk period. By contrast, the age-specific analysis does actually show such an effect. Therefore, 1 and 2 tailed stats converge on the same tail end, and p-values accordingly reject the null. This is stats 101. Fuck.
Anon, I looked more carefully now, and it's like I said initially. They never disproved the null hypothesis based on their p-value. Their criteria for a signal was a 1sided p<0.0048
That threshold was never broken. Not even the 2sided analysis had a p-value that low. In other words, their criteria for a signal was never broken and this is why they said:
>None of the dose 1, dose 2, and vaccine product analyses met the signaling criteria of a 1-sided P<.0048 (eTable 3 in the Supplement).

They also say right here that their analysis found no significant association between the vaccine and myocarditis as they state in the following excerpt:
>Analyses of all ages combined did not detect a significant association between myocarditis/pericarditis and mRNA vaccines. However, consistent with case reports,16,24 supplemental analyses of confirmed cases among individuals aged 12 to 39 years yielded an elevated RR estimate.

However, due to emerging concerns about myocarditis (in other words, it's a hop topic rn), they decided to conduct supplemental analysis and only in this instance they compared the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, and this is how they figured out that myocarditis is actually a risk for those who took the vaccine, in other words, because they had significantly higher rates of that compared to unvaccinated people.

In summary, the one condition in which they deviated from their method of analysis and used the unvaccinated as a control, they discovered that those vaccinated are at a higher risk of developing the condition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:31:03 No.13736280 Report

Quoted By: >>13736297

>>13736258
>In summary, the one condition in which they deviated from their method of analysis and used the unvaccinated as a control, they discovered that those vaccinated are at a higher risk of developing the condition.

This providing evidence that their methodology was flawed in the first place as we have been saying throughout the thread.
They also provided evidence that the methodology we suggested here (using unvaccinated people as a control) will reveal that those who took the vaccine have a higher risk of developing those adverse conditions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:33:51 No.13736291 Report

Quoted By: >>13736297

>>13736258
>That threshold was never broken. Not even the 2sided analysis had a p-value that low.
Wrong. See table 4. Several instances of p < 0.001, two tailed. A one tailed p value in this case is even smaller (exactly half). These comparisons pertain to the same interval comparison, so not the analyses that contrast unvaccinated people. The latter are reported elsewhere.

>In summary
Your summary is wrong. They find effects with their predefined and appropriate p threshold.

I'll try this again, maybe you'll follow this time. If your claim that they are unable to detect adverse events because they're using temporal intervals, how the fuck come they do find an effect?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:34:52 No.13736297 Report

Quoted By: >>13736340

>>13736280
Incorrect. See >>13736291

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:37:32 No.13736304 Report

Quoted By: >>13736317

>>13736252
>The p value is the probability of observing the data under the null hypothesis
Sure, the p-value being above their defined threshold of p<0.0048, means they consider the onset of the condition as not related to the vaccine. That never happened with their bullshit criteria and this is why they claimed they found no association between the vaccine and the onset of the condition, when observed.

But in a supplemental analysis done specifically on the cases of myocarditis (ignoring the fact that their null hypotheses was never invalidated), they found that there is indeed a higher risk of vaccinated people developing that condition. They only figured this out when they compared those to unvaccinated people. This procedure was not done for the remaining conditions during the surveilance, just for myocarditis, since there is emerging concerns about that specifically going on right now.

>By your definition you can prove that a hypothesis is true, which goes directly counter to the principle of falsification.
Idk what you are talking about

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:42:03 No.13736317 Report

Quoted By: >>13736347 >>13736352

>>13736304
>That never happened
Stop repeating this nonsense, I've already shown you this is not correct. Table 4. This compares vaccinated to other vaccinated using temporal intervals, and finds effects.

> p<0.0048, means they consider the onset of the condition as not related to the vaccine.
Also laughably wrong. P above threshold doesn't mean that at all. It only means that the group means don't differ.

>Idk what you are talking about
Yeah that figures, you seem to be clueless in general.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:48:29 No.13736340 Report

Quoted By: >>13736344 >>13736352 >>13736396 >>13736398

>>13736297
How many times anon? How many times do I have to correct you?
First of all, the signal criteria was considered for 1sided analysis.
Second, and I'm even posting the table so everyone can see, the instance where the p-value on a 2sided (not 1sided) analysis was lower than 0.0048, was when the onset of the condition occurred specifically on the 1st week of the 3 weeks "risk-interval". In other words, even if you were to take the p-value on the 2-sided as a potential signal, it would need to be observe when calculating it for the whole 3 weeks "risk-interval", not just one handpicked week.

Please anon, you just can't seem to follow any of this.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO table.jpg, 126KiB, 920x621

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:49:31 No.13736344 Report

Quoted By: >>13736424 >>13736906

>>13736340
Forgot to post the table.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:50:39 No.13736347 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736317
>Also laughably wrong. P above threshold doesn't mean that at all. It only means that the group means don't differ.
The difference in groups is precisely their criteria to invalidate the null hypotheses, hence why this is an asinine criteria.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 14:51:41 No.13736352 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736317
>Stop repeating this nonsense, I've already shown you this is not correct. Table 4. This compares vaccinated to other vaccinated using temporal intervals, and finds effects.
Already pointed your mistake right here >>13736340

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:04:33 No.13736396 Report

Quoted By: >>13736488 >>13736533

>>13736340
>How many times anon? How many times do I have to correct you?
You've yet to correct me once. And I might ask you the same thing, shitheel.

>First of all, the signal criteria was considered for 1sided analysis.
First of all, as I have already pointed out, this is irrelevant because in this case the effect goes in the hypothesized direction. In such a case, if you find an effect using 2 tailed stats, you'll find one with 1 tailed stats by definition. The p value for 1 tailed would be twice as small as 2 tailed. Again, we're wasting time covering stats 101. I'm going to ignore any further comments on tails, because they are not relevant, and you seem to be misunderstanding what they imply.

>instance where the p-value (...) was lower than 0.0048, was when the onset of the condition occurred specifically on the 1st week of the 3 weeks "risk-interval"
Very good, now we're getting somewhere. This is further argument against your point, because from this we can conclude that the onset of adverse events is accute. That is, they occur relatively soon following vaccination, thus substantiating the interval approach. If three weeks post vax you already don't find incidence of a known adverse event, then 4 to 7 weeks is a perfectly fine comparison interval.

So I'll try this again, maybe you'll follow this time. If your claim that they are unable to detect adverse events because they're using temporal intervals, how the fuck come they do find an effect?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:04:39 No.13736398 Report

Quoted By: >>13736407 >>13736488 >>13736493

>>13736340
In other words, they came up with a utterly moronic criteria that will basically "invalidade" all scenarios that point to the vaccine being harmful.

In the only instance where they threw their criteria out of the window and used a legitime one (comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated), they found that the vaccine actually puts the person at risk of developing the adverse condition (in that case, myocarditis).

If only they had followed the same procedure for the other 22 conditions...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:07:30 No.13736407 Report

Quoted By: >>13736488

>>13736398
>In the only instance where
Wrong. Table 4. The comparison is between intervals, and finds an effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:12:45 No.13736424 Report

Quoted By: >>13736480 >>13736488 >>13736496

>>13736344
The 1 tailed p value for the full interval is 0.007 / 2 = 0.0035, which also happens to be smaller than the 0.0048 threshold you seem to have a hard on for.

I'm getting the 0.007 from the top row in the table.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:26:07 No.13736480 Report

Quoted By: >>13736488 >>13736495 >>13736508

>>13736424
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Anon, that's not how it works. Like, I get that you don't really know probability theory but why would you assume that a 1-tailed p-value is calculated by diving the result from a 2-tailed by half?

Wtf is wrong with you? Are you a MORON?????

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:27:41 No.13736488 Report

Quoted By: >>13736493 >>13736496

>>13736396
>>13736398
>>13736407
>>13736424
We are done anon, I'm not gonna waste my time with a moron. And we already established that you a one (see >>13736480)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:29:00 No.13736493 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736488
Oop, the second link is mine >>13736398
Discard that one

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:29:18 No.13736495 Report

Quoted By: >>13736507 >>13736528

>>13736480
>Anon, that's not how it works.
Laugh all you want but that is literally how it works in tests that assume normality like in the article. Try fucking reading a book for once.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:30:50 No.13736496 Report

Quoted By: >>13736528

>>13736488
Kek, get shown wrong and then bug out. Makes sense. Also, >>13736424 is not me.

See you later faggot, you've failed on every count.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:34:05 No.13736507 Report

Quoted By: >>13736519

>>13736495\>
>Laugh all you want but that is literally how it works in tests that assume normality like in the article. Try fucking reading a book for once.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

I'll never read the books you are reading, that's for sure

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:34:17 No.13736508 Report

Quoted By: >>13736615

>>13736480
https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/other/mult-pkg/faq/pvalue-htm/
>The easiest way to convert a two-tailed test into a one-tailed test is to divide in half the p-value
Wanna try that again?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:37:37 No.13736519 Report

Quoted By: >>13736532

>>13736507
>I'll never read books
Makes sense this would be your closing argument when leaving with your tail between your legs, you illiterate faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:40:18 No.13736528 Report

Quoted By: >>13736533

>>13736496
>get shown wrong
Where did that happend? Please post copy and paste it

Do you agree with this? >>13736495

Like, I am in pure disbelief. This is what first grade moron looks like. Like, they will tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 and they will die on that hill.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:41:35 No.13736532 Report

Quoted By: >>13736546

>>13736519
HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
Anon, how sad.... just how fucking sad.... This is what you have to resort to. It must be really hard being a moron in this day and age.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:41:44 No.13736533 Report

Quoted By: >>13736632

>>13736528
I've already said I'd ignore further comments on tails.

As for where you were shown wrong, it was here: >>13736396

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:44:10 No.13736541 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731763
No only 1% of docs aren't derelict in their basic duties.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20211010-174451_Firefox.jpg, 999KiB, 1600x1883

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:45:36 No.13736546 Report

Quoted By: >>13736615

>>13736532
You absolute retard, you are wrong and don't even realize it. Cope harder faggot.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1627589479710.gif, 3MiB, 343x498

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 15:47:25 No.13736550 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735599
>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf
>Vaxxed cases increasing
>Population seroprevalence of N-protein specific antibodies remaining constant
Holy fuck, it's actually happening

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO table.jpg, 74KiB, 1760x274

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:06:31 No.13736615 Report

Quoted By: >>13736642 >>13736675

>>13736508
>>13736546
Anon, do you understand what's going on there???

By dividing the two tailed test in half you get the minimum value for the one tailed, but that's assuming what you are measuring goes both ways. One you do a 1-tailed analysis, by default, your results need to go in one direction.

In other words, on a 2-tailed you are measuring whether the number of cases increases or decreases in the risk interval, compared to the control interval. When they do a 1-tailed, it's measuring the probability of it being higher. The opposite is not measured. The implication of this is that the distribution is not gonna be even.

Now, they already assumed that the people in the control interval are "unexposed" people, so a result that says the event is more likely in the control interval is statisticaly insignificant, since, according to them, it's not related to the vaccine.

This crop from OP's table will show you exactly that. Do you see that the p-value for the 1sided is NOT half of the p-value for the 2sided? That's because the 1-tailed test and the 2-tailed test had different distributions.

They used a threshold of p<0.0048 on the 1-sided test, not on the 2-sided test. And we know that they used different distributions, so you can't just devide the result on the 2-tailed to get the result for the 1-tailed in this case.

Learning probability on the fly right now, is not gonna help you, sorry...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:15:13 No.13736632 Report

Quoted By: >>13736656

>>13736533
You think you did, but you really didn't. I already replied to that.
We already established that you are trying to learn statistics on the fly to argue with me. That's like me practicing a few punches on a punching bag to fight Connor Mcgregor 10 mintues later.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:19:33 No.13736642 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736615
>Now, they already assumed that the people in the control interval are "unexposed" people
And by the way, this is was their study is retarded in the first place. They automatically assume that whatever happens after 3 weeks post vaccine, has nothing to do with the vaccine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:25:08 No.13736656 Report

Quoted By: >>13736675 >>13736725

>>13736632
Christ almighty you fucking idiot, haven't I told you like 5 times by now that I'm going to ignore your retarded comments on tails? I'm not the person you're replying to in those posts, I've already told you that. This thread is turning into retards wrongly explaining other retards stats 101, and I'm not interested in that. The point that I did make, you've ignored. namely:

>This is further argument against your point, because from this we can conclude that the onset of adverse events is accute. That is, they occur relatively soon following vaccination, thus substantiating the interval approach. If three weeks post vax you already don't find incidence of a known adverse event, then 4 to 7 weeks is a perfectly fine comparison interval.

So I'll try this again, maybe you'll follow this time. If your claim that they are unable to detect adverse events because they're using temporal intervals, how the fuck come they do find an effect?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:30:27 No.13736675 Report

Quoted By: >>13736725 >>13736736

>>13736656
Anon, everything you thought you had to back your point was just disproven right here >>13736615

You are just googling statistics right now to ague with me. That's kinda moronic, dont you think?

>So I'll try this again, maybe you'll follow this time. If your claim that they are unable to detect adverse events because they're using temporal intervals, how the fuck come they do find an effect?
That's not what i claimed at all. But we already know you are stupid, I'm not even gonna ask.
What I claimed is that they are comparing two groups of VACCINATED people, and making a 3 weeks arbitrary distinction between.

What I claimed is that they are comparing two groups of VACCINATED people
comparing two groups of VACCINATED people
two groups of VACCINATED people
of VACCINATED people
VACCINATED people

and making a 3 weeks arbitrary distinction between.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO c.jpg, 43KiB, 921x175

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:48:15 No.13736725 Report

Quoted By: >>13736728 >>13736872 >>13736950

>>13736656

Cont (>>13736675)
And since their criteria is that they should see more adverse events in the first group compared to the second, to assertain that there vaccine is the cause, that's why they said they couldn't find an association for 21 out of 23 conditions in one excerpt of the study
>This analysis found no significant associations between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and selected serious health outcomes 1 to 21 days after vaccination, although CIs were wide for some rate ratio estimates and additional follow-up is ongoing.

>how the fuck come they do find an effect?
Not based on the same analysis that they conducted for the other conditions.
On myocarditis they explicitly say that they didn't obtain a signal for that one but they conducted a sumplementary analysis, this time using unvaccinated people as a control. And this is how they were able to detect that the vaccine creates a risk for that condition. But they only did this sumplemental analysis for that particular condition due to "emerging concerns" around those, as they mention.

In summary, they conducted an absolutely stupid analysis for 23 conditions and in only one of them, they conducted a suplemental analysis using a proper methodology (comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated), and to no one's surprive, they found that the vaccine is in fact harmful. The problem is that they neglected the remaining adverse conditions and stated the the vaccine has no association with them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:49:28 No.13736728 Report

Quoted By: >>13736732

>>13736725
>21 out of 23
*22 out of 23

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:51:00 No.13736732 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736728
Actually, In that except they don't even mention myocarditis, they only mention it later when they are presenting the results of the supplemental analysis

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 16:52:29 No.13736736 Report

Quoted By: >>13736797

>>13736675
>What I claimed is that they are comparing two groups of VACCINATED people
I dunno how often I have to spell this out. This is exactly what they do in those analyses too. Apply yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:10:37 No.13736797 Report

Quoted By: >>13736844

>>13736736

Anon, this is you. Never forget.

No matter where you go in life. You said something this fucking retarded. Whenver you let anything give yourself a sense of accomplishmente, remember that you actually said this:

>The 1 tailed p value for the full interval is 0.007 / 2 = 0.0035, which also happens to be smaller than the 0.0048 threshold you seem to have a hard on for.
>I'm getting the 0.007 from the top row in the table.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:23:24 No.13736844 Report

Quoted By: >>13736860

>>13736797
...

It isn't me you fucking tard. I've already told you several times. Stop evading.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:28:55 No.13736860 Report

Quoted By: >>13736871

>>13736844
So we have another one to place in our list (>>13735978)
Thank you for letting us know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:32:44 No.13736871 Report

Quoted By: >>13736880

>>13736860
>hurr durr any argument I can't refute goes on my list
I accept your surrender

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:35:14 No.13736872 Report

Quoted By: >>13736896

>>13736725
>this time using unvaccinated people as a control
They run the same analysis on vaccinated individuals and find signal when splitting by age group, you're being disingenuous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:37:59 No.13736880 Report

Quoted By: >>13736890

>>13736871
I can only repeat what I've already said so many times.
Are you the guy who said they found a signal for myocarditis? That's false, which shows how flawed their method is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:42:12 No.13736890 Report

Quoted By: >>13736906

>>13736880
It's the second sentence in the picture you last posted you retard. It's an explicit comparison of vaxxed to other vaxxed people, and results in signal. See reference to table 4 in the article also.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cap.jpg, 42KiB, 919x175

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:43:54 No.13736896 Report

Quoted By: >>13736913 >>13736960

>>13736872
>They run the same analysis on vaccinated individuals and find signal when splitting by age group, you're being disingenuous.

No they don't, they found elevated RR and said that this is additional evidence of an association, right after they said they found no significant association between myocardidits and the vax. I'm not sure you are the anon claming they found a signal, but not even the link between myocardidits and the vax, they were willing to concede.
They just took a rubber bones saying there is additional evidence of an association, right after saying there is no significant association.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:46:57 No.13736906 Report

Quoted By: >>13736950

>>13736890
this one? >>13736344
No, that's no a signal. The signal comes from a a distribution of the RR along the entire risk interval, not jus a particular week of said interval.

I already explained that, but you are too busy learning probability theory on the fly, in order to keep up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 17:48:17 No.13736913 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736896
>They just took a rubber bones
stance*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:04:54 No.13736950 Report

Quoted By: >>13738860

>>13736906
Ahh do you mean this? >>13736725
That's not a signal either, it's just them saying that they verified myocarditis cases. They verified cases for every other condition as well, otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to carry out the study.

What are you even doing here? wtf...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:08:40 No.13736960 Report

Quoted By: >>13736972 >>13736985

>>13736896
Read the title and caption of table 4. Then get back to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:15:05 No.13736972 Report

Quoted By: >>13737083

>>13736960
No signal there either...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:20:28 No.13736985 Report

Quoted By: >>13736989 >>13736991

>>13736960
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015
When they say confirmed cases after the mRNA vax they are not saying there was a signal. That is the criateria for the case to be included in the RR distribution and then, by their moronic criteria, they could have a signal.

The fact that you can't follow things like this is really frustrating... wtf

Seriously what are you even doing here? This is not the place for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:21:29 No.13736989 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736985
>by their moronic criteria
by their moronic analysis*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:22:44 No.13736991 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736985
Pasted the url by accident

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 18:55:31 No.13737083 Report

Quoted By: >>13737136

>>13736972
I referred you to table 4 because I pointed out that they ran an analysis comparing vaccinated to other vaccinated, split by age group. You replied
>No they don't
They do. See the caption of table 4. Are you unable to read?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 19:01:49 No.13737109 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735502
>As for the rest of your post, the viral genome is orders of magnitude larger than the vaccine
I'm skeptical of this. Detectable spike proteins in the blood of the vaccinated are as high as in patients who are infected, and not all infected patients even have detectable spike proteins in their bloodstream.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 19:05:13 No.13737118 Report

Quoted By: >>13738853

>>13735599
Not quite. This is cases per 1k. Let's look at the 80+ age group. If 90% are vaccinated, and if the vaccinated and unvaccinated are getting infected at the same rate, then the vaccinated cases per 1k should be 9x higher than the unvaccinated case rate. The only group that doesn't have the majority vaccinated is Under 18, and not surprisingly, they have a much higher rate of unvaccinated infections. All that said, the vaccinated are far less likely to get tested due to differences in mandates, so there's likely many undiagnosed cases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 19:11:17 No.13737136 Report

Quoted By: >>13737593

>>13737083
I said they didn't get a signal. because what they got there does not meet the only criteria they mention for a signal, in the paper.

Even in the table that you are mentioning, they don't have a column for a signal like they have in the one on OP. In other words, even something so blatant such as the link between the vaccine and myocarditis, they chose to skirt around the issue instead of admitting that there is a association.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1632595417255.jpg, 61KiB, 1024x570

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 20:28:55 No.13737447 Report

Quoted By:

Can I get a summary on the consensus on the article in OP?

I am too dumb to understand the discussion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 20:37:28 No.13737478 Report

Quoted By: >>13737490 >>13737532 >>13737604 >>13739103

>>13732236
>We need systematic studies like the one in the OP

The OP only proved that adverse reactions don't happen more often in days 1-21 than days 22-42 after vaccination (and the closer I look, the less I believe that).... They did not use a control group that was not vaccinated.

Also, many of the risks are actually double in the first group, they all lean heavily favored to that side. I'm not sure how they are getting no signal. P-hacking is my guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 20:40:57 No.13737490 Report

Quoted By: >>13737532

>>13737478
>They did not use a control group that was not vaccinated.
Because that would be unethical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 20:42:49 No.13737499 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735794
>The point was that they never found a p-value that would disprove the null hypothesis because the vaccinated between 3 and 6 weeks before, were getting developing the sode effects just as much as those who had been vaccinated within 3 weeks of having the reaction.

If you look at the data, that's not even true. Events/million person-years is roughly double in the first two weeks for the majority of categories...All in the same direction, with the sole exception of kawasaki disease. How they p-hack that away I don't know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 20:51:37 No.13737532 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737490
kek
>>13737478
Of course it is absurd, risks like myocarditis are directly related to the injection itself. Such a thing must taper off over time. And this is how it is with the whole process, as spike proteins will be expressed in a time frame, and the body responds to that in another time frame. I am not a retard juicer, but I don't trust this study and it only supports that every mechanism of the injections is completely not as described. To imagine the risk is the same on those two intervals is horrifying, in that, the entire mechanism is completely unknown.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:09:02 No.13737593 Report

Quoted By: >>13737609 >>13737633

>>13737136
They don't skirt the issue at all retard, the explicitly address it, which is why it entered the discussion in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:11:16 No.13737604 Report

Quoted By: >>13737613

>>13737478
See: >>13735425

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO capture.jpg, 68KiB, 907x352

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:14:24 No.13737609 Report

Quoted By: >>13737631

>>13737593

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:15:25 No.13737613 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737604
>Source: anon's opinions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:23:28 No.13737631 Report

Quoted By: >>13737644

>>13737609
Completely orthogonal to the point you retard. Your screenshot doesn't negate the fact that these analyses and results are explicit in the paper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:23:54 No.13737633 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737593
So the vaccines are actually harming people, then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:26:32 No.13737644 Report

Quoted By: >>13737651 >>13738702 >>13738717 >>13738767

>>13737631
Those willing to read through the whole thing will see that the study is utterly pointless and misleading and will at the very best drastically undermine the severity of what's going on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:27:51 No.13737651 Report

Quoted By: >>13737657 >>13737685 >>13738702

>>13737644
You mean it will let me prove vaccines, as already known, can't cause any side effects?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:29:31 No.13737657 Report

Quoted By: >>13739981

>>13737651
>You mean it will let me prove vaccines, as already known, can't cause any side effects?
I thought you mentioned the study had assertained that they are causing myocarditis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:36:51 No.13737685 Report

Quoted By: >>13737739

>>13737651
All vaccines, covid related or not, cause side effects. You might as well start babbling on about the Moon landing being a hoax because the Earth is flat. Why make such a stupid outlandish claim?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO vaccine_deaths.jpg, 83KiB, 1370x774

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 21:55:12 No.13737739 Report

Quoted By: >>13737757

>>13737685
LOL, I knew you were a shill. I knew the moment I asked you to admit that the vaccines are harmful to people, you'd backpaddle.

No vaccines were even close to this rate of adverse reactions, ever.

Pay attention everyone, this is what a shill looks like. They will just ramble nonsense in an effort to derail any attempt of a serious discussion until you make them show their true colors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 22:00:43 No.13737757 Report

Quoted By: >>13737773 >>13738708

>>13737739
That was my first post in the thread. This might come as a surprise to you, but it's not you versus /sci/. There are billions of people in the world but you seem to think it's just you and the stimuli you react to.
Also you didn't refute my point, you moved the goal posts. Try to sharpen your debate skills, they're subpar and we deal in facts here, not warm fuzzies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 22:06:33 No.13737773 Report

Quoted By: >>13737800 >>13738714

>>13737757
Sure buddy

And then point you "just" brought up has already been discussed. Turns out it's a fallacy. You need to catch up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 22:18:26 No.13737800 Report

Quoted By: >>13737868

>>13737773
its hilarious who they send here
but then, nobody with an IQ over even 120 would need to be a shill online so these people are trivial to just blow the fuck apart in discussion

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Oct 2021 22:46:48 No.13737868 Report

Quoted By: >>13739308

>>13737800
Yeah, but the problem is that they are like pests. I found that, in some cases, it's just easier to give some condescending replies . Also, they often seem to get really worked up if they don't have the last word, so you can have fun with that too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 05:41:27 No.13738702 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737644
>>13737651
Fuck you people are retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 05:44:12 No.13738708 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737757
>This might come as a surprise to you, but it's not you versus /sci/.
Kek, this. That other idiot can't keep track of who's who

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 05:47:42 No.13738714 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737773
Another case of >>13735978

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 05:48:43 No.13738717 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737644
Again orthogonal to the point. You can't follow a logical argument, can you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 06:17:44 No.13738767 Report

Quoted By: >>13738882

>>13737644
I read through the whole thing. It's a methodologically sold and statistically high powered study. You've been unable to show it isn't, and most of your asinine replies don't require dignifying with a response.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 06:53:08 No.13738853 Report

Quoted By: >>13738914

>>13737118
>If 90% are vaccinated, and if the vaccinated and unvaccinated are getting infected at the same rate, then the vaccinated cases per 1k should be 9x higher than the unvaccinated case rate.
Why would that be? If they are getting infected at the same rate then the rate will be the same, but there would be 9x total vaccinated cases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 06:57:40 No.13738860 Report

Quoted By:

>>13736950
>it's just them saying that they verified myocarditis cases.
Registered reports are the verification. Elevated RR means higher incidence relative to control. That's the crux of it: they identify higher incidence using an interval comparison of vaccinated relative to other vaccinated.

>What are you even doing here?
Take a fucking minute to read the posts you're replying to you goddamn retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:05:32 No.13738882 Report

Quoted By: >>13738901

>>13738767
I *also* read through the whole thing. It is methodologically floundering and too big for its britches. You cannot convince anyone otherwise and your meager attempts are laughable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:21:38 No.13738901 Report

Quoted By: >>13738906

>>13738882
>You cannot convince anyone otherwise
As opposed to you, I don't need to.

>methodologically floundering
Incorrect. No matter how hard you try, you haven't brought up a singe valid point to bolster your case. That's not to say there aren't valid points that could be brought up, it's just that you haven't. Counter points to yours, you've simply ignored.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO isreal booster genocide.jpg, 248KiB, 1080x847

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:24:06 No.13738906 Report

Quoted By: >>13738910 >>13739028 >>13739887

>>13738901

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Piratesw500.jpg, 16KiB, 500x414

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:26:03 No.13738910 Report

Quoted By:

>>13738906

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:29:50 No.13738914 Report

Quoted By: >>13738922

>>13738853
Think of it this way:

I think we can agree that seat belts prevent deaths in car crashes. Yet, if you make a graph of the number of people who died in car crashes wearing seat belts, and those who died not wearing seat belts, the bar with people wearing seat belts is a lot higher. That's simply because the large majority of people wear a seat belt while driving.

The same applies here: most people are vaccinated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:35:21 No.13738922 Report

Quoted By: >>13738928

>>13738914
But it is per 100,000, and not total?
It would be as if 5 of 100,000 seat belt wearers died, and say 3 of 100,000 non seat belt wearers died.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:37:37 No.13738928 Report

Quoted By: >>13738944

>>13738922
No, the comparison is 5 seatbelt wearers and 3 non-seat belt wearers, of a total group of 100000 people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:45:50 No.13738944 Report

Quoted By: >>13738952 >>13738956

>>13738928
>In individuals aged greater than 40, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:50:30 No.13738952 Report

Quoted By: >>13738961

>>13738944
Yeah. Depends on how you calculate rate. They normalize by total population, not sub-group....

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 07:53:46 No.13738956 Report

Quoted By: >>13738966 >>13738972

>>13738944
kek, they're talking about test positivity rate, not the rate of infection of the population. So the proportion of tests conducted that end up being positive. Probably due to the fact that people who aren't vaccinated have to get tested to be allowed to do stuff, while the vaccinated only get tested if they have symptoms.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1623865642583.png, 6KiB, 290x150

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:00:46 No.13738961 Report

Quoted By: >>13738966

>>13738952
>They normalize by total population, not sub-group....
Where does it say? Can't find it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:02:29 No.13738966 Report

Quoted By: >>13738972

>>13738961
My mistake, this is the right answer >>13738956

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:05:44 No.13738972 Report

Quoted By: >>13738987

>>13738956
>>13738966
Wouldn't that be worse?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:15:54 No.13738987 Report

Quoted By: >>13738994

>>13738972
No, it wouldn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:22:36 No.13738994 Report

Quoted By: >>13739002

>>13738987
Unvaccinated getting tested more would mean more positive cases get recorded. Whereas the vaccinated only get tested if they show symptoms so they would be under reported as many would not show symptoms. Also, how many vaccinated would get tested if they show mild flu like symptoms?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:26:40 No.13739002 Report

Quoted By: >>13739013

>>13738994
I have the feeling that you're arguing in bad faith, because you're randomly jumping from one thing to another. So would you like to acknowledge first that the vaccinated aren't getting infected more? I'm happy to move on with the discussion once you do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:29:01 No.13739008 Report

Quoted By: >>13739016 >>13739040

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAfter_the_program_began%2C_the%2Chad_been_administered_the_vaccine.?wprov=sfla1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:32:54 No.13739013 Report

Quoted By: >>13739036

>>13739002
>So would you like to acknowledge first that the vaccinated aren't getting infected more?
Isn't that what we are talking about? I literally don't get what you mean. The graph here: >>13735599 shows they are. They even state they are.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 378KiB, 1877x1651

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:34:06 No.13739016 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739008

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO FBB1H01VcAU55eq.jpg, 168KiB, 1263x1600

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:38:19 No.13739028 Report

Quoted By:

>>13738906

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:42:01 No.13739036 Report

Quoted By: >>13739046

>>13739013
>They even state they are.
Where? We've already covered that the statement you quoted refers to the test positivity rate, not the rate of infection.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:45:48 No.13739040 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739008
> There is not even complete agreement about the causal relationship between the swine flu vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:51:15 No.13739046 Report

Quoted By: >>13739057 >>13739066

>>13739036
Results
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 39. In individuals aged greater than 40, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns. The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals.

That it what it says. I don't know about the terminology you are using or how they are different or if that even makes a difference.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 08:59:14 No.13739057 Report

Quoted By: >>13739060

>>13739046
>We've already covered that the statement you quoted refers to the test positivity rate, not the rate of infection.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:00:52 No.13739060 Report

Quoted By: >>13739064

>>13739057
I accept your concession.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:02:51 No.13739064 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739060
???

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:05:07 No.13739066 Report

Quoted By: >>13739074

>>13739046
Are you retarded? We've already covered this:

>In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:09:00 No.13739074 Report

Quoted By: >>13739078

>>13739066
I was talking about the rate, not proportion. Proportion is expected.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:11:07 No.13739078 Report

Quoted By: >>13739087

>>13739074
The section quoted by me follows directly the section quoted by you numbnuts. They literally tell you how to interpret the data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:14:38 No.13739087 Report

Quoted By: >>13739092

>>13739078
I know it does. It isn't talking about the rate. It could be true if the rate was higher or lower for vaccinated. It isn't relevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:19:03 No.13739092 Report

Quoted By: >>13739114

>>13739087
>rate
do you understand the difference between the rate of infection, and the test positivity rate? If not, We can go over it. The section you quoted refers to the test positivity rate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:25:16 No.13739103 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737478
>many of the risks are actually double in the first group
Are you retarded? It's simply because the first group is bigger. The numbers bbetween brackets are what's relevant for computing the p values.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 09:31:44 No.13739114 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739092
I was just wondering about this graph desu: >>13735599
It shows more Covid cases per 100,000 among the vaccinated in many age groups.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 10:09:59 No.13739166 Report

Quoted By: >>13739167 >>13739914

I can get Pfizer. I have exams in two weeks do I get the the vax?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 10:12:54 No.13739167 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739166
Go for it. If you're worried, ask your doctor, not 4chan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 11:09:47 No.13739240 Report

Quoted By:

>>13731757
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
>Disclaimer
>VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 12:08:47 No.13739308 Report

Quoted By:

>>13737868
>they often seem to get really worked up if they don't have the last word
Pretty sure you're the guy who declared he was done like 2 hours into the thread, yet here you are, still shitposting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 15:08:37 No.13739643 Report

Quoted By: >>13739821

>>13732289
>0.1% danger
Danger of what sort? Danger of local pain? Danger of death? Danger of serious medical complication?
Come on now, you have the answers, why obfuscate them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 15:49:26 No.13739743 Report

Quoted By:

>>13735492
>hurr durr muh reverse transcriptase
Does not apply, mRNA in vaccines doesn't even reach your DNA

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:10:39 No.13739821 Report

Quoted By: >>13739928

>>13739643
>1% of danger
It's nothing, why would we care?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:25:42 No.13739875 Report

Quoted By: >>13739905 >>13740003

>>13731851
Injecting someone with messenger RNA is not gene therapy. mRNA is like a computer instruction usually sent out by your cell nucleus, once the ribosome completes the instructions on the mRNA it has depleted the mRNA and cannot act until it gets more mRNA. mRNA does not alter the genome or even enter the cell nucleus. In layman's terms the mRNA is like the seasoning packet in an instant ramen. Once you have used it you can't make another ramen even if you wanted to, because you cannot comprehend what is actually in the seasoning packet that comes from some factory (cellular nucleus or vaccine factory)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:27:39 No.13739887 Report

Quoted By:

>>13738906
What is the scale on the second line?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:32:40 No.13739905 Report

Quoted By: >>13739911

>>13739875
>mRNA is like the seasoning packet in an instant ramen. Once you have used it you can't make another ramen even if you wanted to
I'll make however many instant ramens I want thank you very much

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:35:02 No.13739911 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739905
Ok science denier ;)
It's your funeral

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:37:03 No.13739914 Report

Quoted By: >>13739962

>>13739166
First shot is usually just localized pain for 2-3 days
I got sick after the second dose though. For 3 days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:40:49 No.13739928 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739821
>0.1% danger
>1% of danger
Why not make it 10% while you're at it. Or even 100%? We can pick and choose what numbers apply, apparently.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:49:33 No.13739962 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739914
I was sick a little after the first shot, but felt literally nothing after the second

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 16:55:09 No.13739981 Report

Quoted By: >>13740016

>>13737657
it also shows that myocarditis 4 weeks after is just as common as right away

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 17:02:42 No.13740003 Report

Quoted By: >>13740321

>>13739875
This. A sequence of nucleotides is only called a gene when it is in a DNA molecule. When it's in an RNA molecule, it's called a "gune", so the Pfizer/Moderna vax is technically "gune therapy"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 17:07:21 No.13740016 Report

Quoted By:

>>13739981
It doesn't quite, see table 4

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:04:42 No.13740321 Report

Quoted By: >>13740346

>>13740003
Gene therapy is something that changes your genome. Otherwise a regular vaccine, containing DNA, would be gene therapy. But it also isn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:15:09 No.13740346 Report

Quoted By: >>13740441 >>13740446

>>13740321
Where are you getting that definition of gene therapy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:47:53 No.13740441 Report

Quoted By:

>>13740346
Google.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:49:26 No.13740446 Report

Quoted By: >>13740869

>>13740346
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 22:41:26 No.13740869 Report

Quoted By:

>>13740446
nothing on that page says "changes your genome", but it does say
>Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease
>There are a variety of types of gene therapy products, including:
>Plasmid DNA: Circular DNA molecules can be genetically engineered to carry therapeutic genes into human cells.
>Viral vectors: Viruses have a natural ability to deliver genetic material into cells, and therefore some gene therapy products are derived from viruses. Once viruses have been modified to remove their ability to cause infectious disease, these modified viruses can be used as vectors (vehicles) to carry therapeutic genes into human cells.
of course, as mentioned previously, a sequence of nucleotides is only called a "gene" when it's in a DNA molecule, which is why this is technically gune therapy

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches