Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

907

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

The US based has better data and presentation. Their and are a smoking gun showing clear evidence of harm.

[–] • 1 pt

Do they only list cumulative numbers? That is not a useful metric at all. There are far fewer kids with no vaccines than with, so, of course listing totals will show a lower number.

Plus only using hospital visits as a metric will skew numbers, because many people who choose not to vaccinate avoid the doctor for other reasons as well.

I want this info in per capita numbers so I can form an informed opinion.

I am not saying that this link is right or wrong, just that the metrics provided don't give enough info for a fair assessment of the claim.

There are metrics that track, increase in autism vs size of vaccine schedule, for example. I would love to see a fair assessment of these rates in vaccinated vs non vaccinated per thousand

[–] • 0 pt

That's legitimate criticism.

The doctor who did this was working solely with what he had to hand. You're absolutely right that there's per capita problems and other things, I think what this throws into much more glaring relief is that no one is studying this.

Hang everything else. No one is studying it because they already know the answers.

[–] • 0 pt

There are far fewer kids with no vaccines than with, so, of course listing totals will show a lower number.

But that's not how the information is presented. They break down the rates of occurrence between the two.

Hep B vaccine was tested on 147 people before fda approved. If that's sufficient size to inject a newborn with a vaccine. Why is thousands not enough size for you? Millions enough?

[–] • 0 pt

It's not about being enough, it's about making a fair assessment.

If 1 million people do a thing and 1000 of them have an adverse result, but 100 don't and only 50 have an adverse result then you list the numbers this way it implies "50 is smaller than 1000 so it's safer" but it is not the case.

You have to compare averages of both groups. That is how you do a fair assessment.

As for the hep b vaccine, I have no idea how you related this to my post specifically about numbers and averages, nor how you presumed my support for the process of it's approval. But no, 147 people is not enough information to make an informed decision, but also has nothing to do with my issue of average numbers.

[–] • 0 pt

If 1 million people do a thing and 1000 of them have an adverse result, but 100 don't and only 50 have an adverse result then you list the numbers this way it implies "50 is smaller than 1000 so it's safer" but it is not the case.

Do you know what "rate" means?

[–] • 0 pt

If 147 was enough to get the vaccine approved then thousands should be enough to get it unapproved, no?

[–] • 0 pt

There is a reason the medical community refuses to do these studies.

[–] • 3 pts

That makes perfect sense.

I never feared traditional vaccines, however, the behavior of the pharma companies and government regarding the covid vaccine has caused me to question all of it.

Seeing their reaction, and how the most important thing was pharma income and compliance has led me to wonder how many other mandatory vaccines have dangers that are downplayed for cash.

[–] • 1 pt

"Traditional" polio vaccine gave millions cancer causing virus sv-40. Transmitted sexually so still in circulation.