But you need to have someone look at some of these analyses to see if they are bulletproof before putting them out. Don't give the enemy anything to hold on to.
Your underreporting factor of 41 is most likely accurate overall, but that cannot be assumed for individual events. Child deaths are probably not going to …
But you need to have someone look at some of these analyses to see if they are bulletproof before putting them out. Don't give the enemy anything to hold on to.
Your underreporting factor of 41 is most likely accurate overall, but that cannot be assumed for individual events. Child deaths are probably not going to be underreported as much as onset of asthma or appendicitis, or death in an older person.
We would expect 50 background deaths in 3 million kids age 5-11 over 46 days, true. Almost all of those deaths will be in kids who were either deathly ill for at least two months before hand, killed in an accident, or murdered. That actually works in "our" favor. If a kid is fairly healthy when he or she gets a shot and dies within a a few months of "natural" causes, I'd say that's an extremely strong sign it was the "vaccine".
You can't assume there would be 50 background deaths in these kids. Many kids in a cohort of 3 million who are likely to die in a 46 day window will be dying of cancer or some other very serious disease. If they have competent doctors, they won't be getting a shot.
I get what you are saying about the background deaths. If there are 50 background deaths within 30 days of a kid's 1st or 2nd shot, there SHOULD be 50 VAERS reports, even if 45 of them say the cause of death was (preexisting) cancer or a car accident. Of course THAT letter of the law is followed about as often as people carefully read end user license agreements for software installs.
Lets assume for the sake of argument the underreporting factor is 41. If there are 2 reports, we can't just assume there are 2 reports times 41 URF = 82 deaths. There's a LARGE element of randomness when the number of reports is low. There's a decent chance that the actual number of deaths was 40 or less in this hypothetical case - I'm guessing about a 30% chance, but my probability and stats classes were a long time ago.
And of course the CDC holds the cards. They decide when to let a case go through to the public database. They occasionally remove duplicate reports, they refuse to update details of cases to reflect people dying after an initial report has been filed, and so on.
I'm behind you 500%.
But you need to have someone look at some of these analyses to see if they are bulletproof before putting them out. Don't give the enemy anything to hold on to.
Your underreporting factor of 41 is most likely accurate overall, but that cannot be assumed for individual events. Child deaths are probably not going to be underreported as much as onset of asthma or appendicitis, or death in an older person.
We would expect 50 background deaths in 3 million kids age 5-11 over 46 days, true. Almost all of those deaths will be in kids who were either deathly ill for at least two months before hand, killed in an accident, or murdered. That actually works in "our" favor. If a kid is fairly healthy when he or she gets a shot and dies within a a few months of "natural" causes, I'd say that's an extremely strong sign it was the "vaccine".
You can't assume there would be 50 background deaths in these kids. Many kids in a cohort of 3 million who are likely to die in a 46 day window will be dying of cancer or some other very serious disease. If they have competent doctors, they won't be getting a shot.
I get what you are saying about the background deaths. If there are 50 background deaths within 30 days of a kid's 1st or 2nd shot, there SHOULD be 50 VAERS reports, even if 45 of them say the cause of death was (preexisting) cancer or a car accident. Of course THAT letter of the law is followed about as often as people carefully read end user license agreements for software installs.
Lets assume for the sake of argument the underreporting factor is 41. If there are 2 reports, we can't just assume there are 2 reports times 41 URF = 82 deaths. There's a LARGE element of randomness when the number of reports is low. There's a decent chance that the actual number of deaths was 40 or less in this hypothetical case - I'm guessing about a 30% chance, but my probability and stats classes were a long time ago.
And of course the CDC holds the cards. They decide when to let a case go through to the public database. They occasionally remove duplicate reports, they refuse to update details of cases to reflect people dying after an initial report has been filed, and so on.
Keep up the good fight.
the 41*2 is the best estimate. nothing is for sure. these are all estimates.