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

©2024 Poal.co

966

Key factor - only 1 study was done on how accurately vaccine side effects were reported in America (uwotm8?). You have to get creative with your Google keywords to avoid their fact-check hell results. One result is this, which says the study found less than 1% of severe reactions are reported to VAERS (also only 40% of doctors seem to know you can even report vaccine reactions) https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/

CDC on their website today says 2,400 people have died CDC also says 20% of America has gotten the injection

So 240,000 reactions divided by 60 million injections = 1 in 250 people dead

Key factor - only 1 study was done on how accurately vaccine side effects were reported in America (uwotm8?). You have to get creative with your Google keywords to avoid their fact-check hell results. One result is this, which says the study found less than 1% of severe reactions are reported to VAERS (also only 40% of doctors seem to know you can even report vaccine reactions) https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/ CDC on their website today says 2,400 people have died CDC also says 20% of America has gotten the injection So 240,000 reactions divided by 60 million injections = 1 in 250 people dead

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (28).
[–] • 0 pt

Harvard got a $1 million grant to do this study, and when the group finished the results and contacted the CDC they were ghosted and didn't get anymore replies. On page 6 in Results it says

"Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. "

vaccine adverse events is part of the VAERS acronym, which includes death...

https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

[–] • 2 pts

I think you'd need more information to draw that inference. 1% of adverse reactions may be recorded, but that doesn't break it down by severity. There are different levels of adverse reaction ranging from cold/flu like symptoms to temporary debilitating injury, permanent debilitating injury or death. The likelihood that all categories of adverse reaction are under reported at the same rate is very low. It's really a flaw of the study and should have been included. So, the actual rate of under reporting of vaccine deaths is likely not as bad as the less severe reactions. It's still almost certainly under 100%, but very likely to be much closer to 100% than to 1%.

Having said that, COVID is a fraud of monumental proportions and I will die before my child or I take the COVID death shot.

[–] • 0 pt

Problem is this is the only study that was done and the CDC ghosted the group when they tried to finish it

So it's "why do we have to guess" in the first place and why is the only study on earth looking into improving the surveillance of good/bad vaccines

[–] • 0 pt

There's definitely a lack of quality research in this area, along with many other areas of what passes for science these days. That the CDC ghosted the study could be taken as an adverse inference on the likely findings that they didn't want pursued. But in any case, the under reporting rate for deaths wouldn't be as bad as that for milder reactions. It's likely that the under reporting for severe reactions was low enough to scare them into pulling the research though.

It seems now days, science is primarily driven by the expected outcomes and how they can be used to further political aims, rather than a pursuit for truth. Vaccines have been one of the shadiest areas of scientific research for decades.

[–] • 0 pt

Project Officer: Steve Bernstein

It’s all so tiresome.

I’ll have to come back when I’m not on mobile. But if I’m understanding correctly. Only 1% of adverse effects are reported so you are extrapolating the other 99% proportionately?

[–] • 0 pt

Yep

[–] • 3 pts

Seems like there would be error in the method of doing it that way. I think I agree with @Gumbatron on his reasoning, however, with your single study not providing more data, I wouldn’t say you’re technically wrong, but I’m sure the margin of error is huge. I’d just be careful going around saying stuff like this because if there is more data that comes out in the future and it shows that it isn’t 1 in 250 dying but 1 in 25,000 people are gonna reject your other shit instead of saying “oh, that’s a huge mortality rate from this drug. I shouldn’t take it.” Anyway, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. Gas the kikes on your way out.