Well obviously there isn't one, conveniently, since the medical community as a whole isnt' looking at them. Instead they're dismissing individual cases as "probably not vaccine caused" which makes it hard to look for any similarities. Right now our best diagnostic tool is probably the law of large numbers, because when death rates dramatically increase in a population right after a widely applied intervention, that's usually a pretty big red flag. But confirming individual cases would require a decent amount of case studies, including autopsies to look for tell-tale indicators (like the creepy inches-long spagettii-like blood clots some doctors are pulling out of corpses of suspected vaccine inury victims, which they say they've never seen before). But when you see the numbers of heart attacks, blood clots, and strokes among previously healthy people going up by several hundred percent after the vaccine rollout, then one could say that such an event in a previously healthy person who got the vaccine "resembles a vaccine injury".
"...you can only see a vaccine side effect at the population level." That is a ridiculous declaration to make, considering that even before the Covid vaccine there have been people who were clearly injured by vaccines, as determined by the obvious temporal association when a previously healthy person goes into anaphylactic shock or develops severe symtpoms within minutes or hours of receiving a vaccine, and symtpoms then progress into debilitating neurological illnesses or death. The vast majority of these, if not all of them, are obvious vaccine injuries, and anyone trying to make the case that any one of these are coincidental or "anecdotal" is just lying to themselves. When a healthy child walks into a doctors office and receives a vaccine, and that evening they're in the emergency room with severe illness or injury, especially when that illness is a known (if rare) side effect of the vaccine written right on the vaccine insert, you can pretty much assume it's a vaccine injury, and you'll be right at least 99% of the time. And at this point, even the manufacturers are admitting that increased risk for myocarditis is a known side effect of the covid vaccines, so go have fun telling the parent of a kid in the hospital with myocarditis and tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills that they're responsible for, that it's not a vaccine injury. They will do a better job setting you straight than I can.
"Seeing an increase in deaths after an intervention only indicates the intervention when there is no other strong cause of mortality.". This is also incorrect, although I would also point out that Covid is hardly a strong cause of mortality since 2021. We can compare death rates across countries or provinces with vastly different vaccination rates but comparable exposure to Covid (for example, in Israel vs Gaza). Or we can graph all-cause mortailty, vaccination rates, and Covid deaths over time, both before and after vaccines were rolled out, and see the clear signals. Or we can look at the data that life insurance companies are looking at, which is showing a 5- or 6- sigma increase in deaths since 2021, an unheard of, record-setting increase in deaths that blows the blip they saw at the peak of Covid out of the water. Or we could listen to the morticians and funeral service directors saying basically the same thing though with less precise metrics. Or we could listen to the doctors doing autopsies of people who died unexpectedly who are finding strange blood clots that don't resemble anything they've seen before in the bodies of people who were vaccinated. I don't know what country you're in but I would suggest that instead of looking for data that confirms what you already believe, you take a look at the arguments that might contradict it and see if you can make a case against all of it. I mean at a certain point things become obvious, and the only way for them to not seem obvious to you is if you're just covering your ears and yelling "SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!" over and over again to drown it out.
But I've already had this conversation with many, many people like you who have made up their minds first based on emotional needs rather than through inductive reasoning, and refuse to see any data that might contradict what they already believe. If you are capable of critical thinking then you will figure it out for yourself, and there's really nothing I can do to convince you. I'm really tired of banging my head against the wall trying to wake people up who are happy in their fantasy world where the government and big pharma and fauci have all got their back and they don't have to ever take responsibility for making decisions about their own lives. So go ahead and enjoy the ride you've signed up for, but trolling people who disagree with you to make yourself feel better about your own cognitive dissonance is really kind of obnoxious.
As I said, I am officially retired from trying to convince people, at least outside of people I actually know in person and care enough about to devote the time. It's just too time consuming. You may be speaking from some actual rational arguments but maybe due to the way you're explaining them, I'm failing to see any convincing or logical contra-argument other than just asserting that my data and my suggested methods of analysis don't work and yours do.
At this point I've seen so much data saying the same thing, that I think the only thing that would convince me to change my mind is seeing a truckload of data - like, actual numbers, collated in a table or graph (or several dozen), from reliable sources, via people who aren't dependent on pharma or NIH for their funding (that is to say, without conflicts of interest), contradicting all of the data I've seen saying otherwise, and perhaps in a context that might give us an idea as to why all the previous data said the exact opposite if none of it is true. Not saying it's not possible, but I've not seen anyone even attempt it and I can't think why they wouldn't if we are so wrong as they claim.
I mean, people try to contradict Einstein's theory of relativity all the time, by pointing out that it doesn't explain this or it might not account for that. But nobody really listens to them because they never present a better theory that correctly predicts all the things Relativity predicts. They're just pointing out minor flaws in the best theory that currently exists to explain the phenomenon we see, without offering any alternative.
When you have a mountain of data all suggesting the same thing, the threshold for knocking down that mountain is not poking at loose rocks and then crying fraud when they fall down the side. You need a bigger mountain or you need an earthquake to make the first mountain crumble. Ideally, for a home run scientific epiphany, you need both. I've seen neither.
If you feel like collating the data that contradicts all the evidence of the vaccine being dangerous, be my guest. I'd be happy to look at your final product. But simply telling people who have studied science and statistics (not sure what exactly Steve's degree is in but any program at MIT is likely to be at least as robust in statistics and general science as mine was) that you, some anonymous person on the internet whose credentials are unknown to me, know how to do statistical analysis, and we don't, is just not going to convince me of anything.
And now you've sucked me in and I have actual things I have to do so I'm signing off.
Why are you arguing with me? I don't have a substack, I haven't written any books on the subject. All these issues are addressed in more formal sources than my comments on substack. Why don't you go read RFK's book or watch one of Chris Martenson's compelling videos (pick one - he's done hundreds) and explain to them why their data analysis is wrong. I haven't dedicated my life to analyzing the data. I'm only consuming information and I have no audience. So I don't see why you're spending so much time trying to refute me. I have better things to do than explain why your logic sounds flawed, especially when there are many educated people who have devoted their lives to collecting the data and analyzing it piece by piece with people like me who want to engage with it and understand the details but don't have time to deovte to doing all the primary research.
If you really want to invalidate the mountains of data that I'm referring to, I suggest you talk to someone who has more of an audience and I will happily read your debate with them. RFK has a website where he welcomes corrections and criticisms of his research. Steve Kirsch's substack is literally right here. I'm not a spokesperson and I don't know why you feel I'm a worthy target for your attempts to fact check. You can keep arguing if you want but I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore - I have a life.
TLDR. As I've said repeatedly, I have a life. I don't have time to get into a long debate with you. I have justified my convictions - not beliefs, as those are based in faith and I don't do faith - to people I know in real life whose minds I care to inform or change. You are not among that group and I don't have time for your long-winded arguments.
The only thing I will say, in response to your previous comment, was that the "mountains of data" refer to population statistics, the large data sets that I've seen analyzed by the people I mentioned. The "obvious" vaccine injuries were specifically references to individual episodes, which I did clearly state if you'd bothered to read it.
But I have nothing else to say as I don't have time to read your rebuttals and respond to them. I'm offended that you're making gross assumptions about my "beliefs" based on exactly zero knowledge of me, simply because I disagreed with you online. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you talk to someone with an audience so you can actually have an impact on the world. If you're just a voyeur looking to psycho-analyze someone, you're barking up the wrong tree. Good bye.
Well obviously there isn't one, conveniently, since the medical community as a whole isnt' looking at them. Instead they're dismissing individual cases as "probably not vaccine caused" which makes it hard to look for any similarities. Right now our best diagnostic tool is probably the law of large numbers, because when death rates dramatically increase in a population right after a widely applied intervention, that's usually a pretty big red flag. But confirming individual cases would require a decent amount of case studies, including autopsies to look for tell-tale indicators (like the creepy inches-long spagettii-like blood clots some doctors are pulling out of corpses of suspected vaccine inury victims, which they say they've never seen before). But when you see the numbers of heart attacks, blood clots, and strokes among previously healthy people going up by several hundred percent after the vaccine rollout, then one could say that such an event in a previously healthy person who got the vaccine "resembles a vaccine injury".
"...you can only see a vaccine side effect at the population level." That is a ridiculous declaration to make, considering that even before the Covid vaccine there have been people who were clearly injured by vaccines, as determined by the obvious temporal association when a previously healthy person goes into anaphylactic shock or develops severe symtpoms within minutes or hours of receiving a vaccine, and symtpoms then progress into debilitating neurological illnesses or death. The vast majority of these, if not all of them, are obvious vaccine injuries, and anyone trying to make the case that any one of these are coincidental or "anecdotal" is just lying to themselves. When a healthy child walks into a doctors office and receives a vaccine, and that evening they're in the emergency room with severe illness or injury, especially when that illness is a known (if rare) side effect of the vaccine written right on the vaccine insert, you can pretty much assume it's a vaccine injury, and you'll be right at least 99% of the time. And at this point, even the manufacturers are admitting that increased risk for myocarditis is a known side effect of the covid vaccines, so go have fun telling the parent of a kid in the hospital with myocarditis and tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills that they're responsible for, that it's not a vaccine injury. They will do a better job setting you straight than I can.
"Seeing an increase in deaths after an intervention only indicates the intervention when there is no other strong cause of mortality.". This is also incorrect, although I would also point out that Covid is hardly a strong cause of mortality since 2021. We can compare death rates across countries or provinces with vastly different vaccination rates but comparable exposure to Covid (for example, in Israel vs Gaza). Or we can graph all-cause mortailty, vaccination rates, and Covid deaths over time, both before and after vaccines were rolled out, and see the clear signals. Or we can look at the data that life insurance companies are looking at, which is showing a 5- or 6- sigma increase in deaths since 2021, an unheard of, record-setting increase in deaths that blows the blip they saw at the peak of Covid out of the water. Or we could listen to the morticians and funeral service directors saying basically the same thing though with less precise metrics. Or we could listen to the doctors doing autopsies of people who died unexpectedly who are finding strange blood clots that don't resemble anything they've seen before in the bodies of people who were vaccinated. I don't know what country you're in but I would suggest that instead of looking for data that confirms what you already believe, you take a look at the arguments that might contradict it and see if you can make a case against all of it. I mean at a certain point things become obvious, and the only way for them to not seem obvious to you is if you're just covering your ears and yelling "SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!" over and over again to drown it out.
But I've already had this conversation with many, many people like you who have made up their minds first based on emotional needs rather than through inductive reasoning, and refuse to see any data that might contradict what they already believe. If you are capable of critical thinking then you will figure it out for yourself, and there's really nothing I can do to convince you. I'm really tired of banging my head against the wall trying to wake people up who are happy in their fantasy world where the government and big pharma and fauci have all got their back and they don't have to ever take responsibility for making decisions about their own lives. So go ahead and enjoy the ride you've signed up for, but trolling people who disagree with you to make yourself feel better about your own cognitive dissonance is really kind of obnoxious.
As I said, I am officially retired from trying to convince people, at least outside of people I actually know in person and care enough about to devote the time. It's just too time consuming. You may be speaking from some actual rational arguments but maybe due to the way you're explaining them, I'm failing to see any convincing or logical contra-argument other than just asserting that my data and my suggested methods of analysis don't work and yours do.
At this point I've seen so much data saying the same thing, that I think the only thing that would convince me to change my mind is seeing a truckload of data - like, actual numbers, collated in a table or graph (or several dozen), from reliable sources, via people who aren't dependent on pharma or NIH for their funding (that is to say, without conflicts of interest), contradicting all of the data I've seen saying otherwise, and perhaps in a context that might give us an idea as to why all the previous data said the exact opposite if none of it is true. Not saying it's not possible, but I've not seen anyone even attempt it and I can't think why they wouldn't if we are so wrong as they claim.
I mean, people try to contradict Einstein's theory of relativity all the time, by pointing out that it doesn't explain this or it might not account for that. But nobody really listens to them because they never present a better theory that correctly predicts all the things Relativity predicts. They're just pointing out minor flaws in the best theory that currently exists to explain the phenomenon we see, without offering any alternative.
When you have a mountain of data all suggesting the same thing, the threshold for knocking down that mountain is not poking at loose rocks and then crying fraud when they fall down the side. You need a bigger mountain or you need an earthquake to make the first mountain crumble. Ideally, for a home run scientific epiphany, you need both. I've seen neither.
If you feel like collating the data that contradicts all the evidence of the vaccine being dangerous, be my guest. I'd be happy to look at your final product. But simply telling people who have studied science and statistics (not sure what exactly Steve's degree is in but any program at MIT is likely to be at least as robust in statistics and general science as mine was) that you, some anonymous person on the internet whose credentials are unknown to me, know how to do statistical analysis, and we don't, is just not going to convince me of anything.
And now you've sucked me in and I have actual things I have to do so I'm signing off.
Why are you arguing with me? I don't have a substack, I haven't written any books on the subject. All these issues are addressed in more formal sources than my comments on substack. Why don't you go read RFK's book or watch one of Chris Martenson's compelling videos (pick one - he's done hundreds) and explain to them why their data analysis is wrong. I haven't dedicated my life to analyzing the data. I'm only consuming information and I have no audience. So I don't see why you're spending so much time trying to refute me. I have better things to do than explain why your logic sounds flawed, especially when there are many educated people who have devoted their lives to collecting the data and analyzing it piece by piece with people like me who want to engage with it and understand the details but don't have time to deovte to doing all the primary research.
If you really want to invalidate the mountains of data that I'm referring to, I suggest you talk to someone who has more of an audience and I will happily read your debate with them. RFK has a website where he welcomes corrections and criticisms of his research. Steve Kirsch's substack is literally right here. I'm not a spokesperson and I don't know why you feel I'm a worthy target for your attempts to fact check. You can keep arguing if you want but I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore - I have a life.
TLDR. As I've said repeatedly, I have a life. I don't have time to get into a long debate with you. I have justified my convictions - not beliefs, as those are based in faith and I don't do faith - to people I know in real life whose minds I care to inform or change. You are not among that group and I don't have time for your long-winded arguments.
The only thing I will say, in response to your previous comment, was that the "mountains of data" refer to population statistics, the large data sets that I've seen analyzed by the people I mentioned. The "obvious" vaccine injuries were specifically references to individual episodes, which I did clearly state if you'd bothered to read it.
But I have nothing else to say as I don't have time to read your rebuttals and respond to them. I'm offended that you're making gross assumptions about my "beliefs" based on exactly zero knowledge of me, simply because I disagreed with you online. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you talk to someone with an audience so you can actually have an impact on the world. If you're just a voyeur looking to psycho-analyze someone, you're barking up the wrong tree. Good bye.