Steve, your reason for not explaining your position against his sounds a little like what you call "hand waving". And I wonder if you can't explain it simply now how could you in a debate. Your logic doesn't make sense to me and I am rooting for you
Steve, your reason for not explaining your position against his sounds a little like what you call "hand waving". And I wonder if you can't explain it simply now how could you in a debate. Your logic doesn't make sense to me and I am rooting for you
I completely empathize with Steve. I am confronted by idiotic statements and comments often but rarely want to take the time out of my busy schedule to try to educate them or anyone listening to/reading them. It’s a wasted effort that takes my valuable time away from other more important things.
The reason it doesn't make sense on basic level is if you look at time of adverse events relative to injection. About 90% of adverse events occur within the first 48 hours, then 5% over the first 72 hours then another 1-2% over the next 72 hours. Basically, after a week, only 3-4% of adverse events are unaccounted for.
So far so good? Steve's detractor is saying 'HEY MANNNN, You're counting all the adverse effects in 14 days post vaccine 1 and 14 days post vaccine 2...where with the flu, you're only counting adverse reactions 14 days post flu vaccine. (Really, it's the same standard and 14 days is picked because about ~98% of all adverse reactions occur by then, typically with traditional vaccines at least. Maybe mRNA vaccines will change and there will be long-term issues like Heart attacks, stroke, AED, etc.)
What he would consider FAIR would be to take 28 days after the flu vaccine so you're comparing 28 days to 14+14 days. However, since 98% of the side effects occur within 14 days, what would increasing that limit from 14 days to 28 days effectively do?! Add 2%?
So what an intelligent, informed person hears the guy rant is "Kirsch is wrong b/c of the mismatched time frame, he's missing 2%" and then evaluates, if there is a 43.6 under reporting factor, what difference would 2% make? If the professor where to recalculate with the extra 2%, what would you get? 42.5% URF? WHAT A DIFFERENCE. The vaccine is so safe!!
What the undereducated person hears is "OMG, 14 is one half 28 days. Therefore he's wrong by a factor of 2 or off by 50% or overestimating by 100%!! WOW WHAT MORON DERP DERP DERP" and expects the new URF to be 21.8%.
However, it would be clear, what the new URF would be if the professor were to calculate it for flu-28 day period. (42.3 vs 43.6...or a negligible difference in meaning/content/significance on safety). Instead, he just....doesn't bother. Leaving it up to the reader's imagination. Hoping the reader's imagination will come to a 21.8% figure or even 5% or something massively in his favor.
And there are those who suggest long term studies are not that important because with vaccines most of the side effects occur soon after the injection.
What they rocket scientists fail to recognize is that the reason there are not a lot of long term side effects with other vaccines... is that they went through years of rigorous trials before being released onto the market....
Yes, quite amazing to me the mere act of calling these injections 'vaccines' confers on them the safety profile of all vaccines that are in use precisely because of their long track records of safety. It's, like, magic.
Also, Morris is wrong on a basic level. He didn't bother to find out the definition used in the computation. The computation was based on only the most recent vaccination, not both, so his 2:1 ratio is flat out incorrect.
Yeah apparently he is saying he shows things in tables without using them in the analysis. Would like to see his analysis in GitHub. His code should be publicly available.
Steve, your reason for not explaining your position against his sounds a little like what you call "hand waving". And I wonder if you can't explain it simply now how could you in a debate. Your logic doesn't make sense to me and I am rooting for you
I completely empathize with Steve. I am confronted by idiotic statements and comments often but rarely want to take the time out of my busy schedule to try to educate them or anyone listening to/reading them. It’s a wasted effort that takes my valuable time away from other more important things.
The reason it doesn't make sense on basic level is if you look at time of adverse events relative to injection. About 90% of adverse events occur within the first 48 hours, then 5% over the first 72 hours then another 1-2% over the next 72 hours. Basically, after a week, only 3-4% of adverse events are unaccounted for.
So far so good? Steve's detractor is saying 'HEY MANNNN, You're counting all the adverse effects in 14 days post vaccine 1 and 14 days post vaccine 2...where with the flu, you're only counting adverse reactions 14 days post flu vaccine. (Really, it's the same standard and 14 days is picked because about ~98% of all adverse reactions occur by then, typically with traditional vaccines at least. Maybe mRNA vaccines will change and there will be long-term issues like Heart attacks, stroke, AED, etc.)
What he would consider FAIR would be to take 28 days after the flu vaccine so you're comparing 28 days to 14+14 days. However, since 98% of the side effects occur within 14 days, what would increasing that limit from 14 days to 28 days effectively do?! Add 2%?
So what an intelligent, informed person hears the guy rant is "Kirsch is wrong b/c of the mismatched time frame, he's missing 2%" and then evaluates, if there is a 43.6 under reporting factor, what difference would 2% make? If the professor where to recalculate with the extra 2%, what would you get? 42.5% URF? WHAT A DIFFERENCE. The vaccine is so safe!!
What the undereducated person hears is "OMG, 14 is one half 28 days. Therefore he's wrong by a factor of 2 or off by 50% or overestimating by 100%!! WOW WHAT MORON DERP DERP DERP" and expects the new URF to be 21.8%.
However, it would be clear, what the new URF would be if the professor were to calculate it for flu-28 day period. (42.3 vs 43.6...or a negligible difference in meaning/content/significance on safety). Instead, he just....doesn't bother. Leaving it up to the reader's imagination. Hoping the reader's imagination will come to a 21.8% figure or even 5% or something massively in his favor.
And there are those who suggest long term studies are not that important because with vaccines most of the side effects occur soon after the injection.
What they rocket scientists fail to recognize is that the reason there are not a lot of long term side effects with other vaccines... is that they went through years of rigorous trials before being released onto the market....
Idiots
Yes, quite amazing to me the mere act of calling these injections 'vaccines' confers on them the safety profile of all vaccines that are in use precisely because of their long track records of safety. It's, like, magic.
Also, Morris is wrong on a basic level. He didn't bother to find out the definition used in the computation. The computation was based on only the most recent vaccination, not both, so his 2:1 ratio is flat out incorrect.
Can you prove it? Where are your analyses? Show them publicly on GitHub. What are your credentials in statistics? No, undergrad in Maths doesn’t count
so the two large deaths within 14 days tables aren't used in the summary table used to calculate the deaths per 100,000?
Yeah apparently he is saying he shows things in tables without using them in the analysis. Would like to see his analysis in GitHub. His code should be publicly available.
I deleted a response because I crossed some mental wires, lol -- need to think a bit more :-)