Some of the responses were obvious troll responses, such as #958 with "342,604 unvaxxed dead" and "0 vaxxed dead" and #959, the "yacht accident" response, which were probably from the same troll. There were also some obviously incorrect entries, such as the #857, which had 12 jabbed deaths among 1 total jabbed, probably having entered t…
Some of the responses were obvious troll responses, such as #958 with "342,604 unvaxxed dead" and "0 vaxxed dead" and #959, the "yacht accident" response, which were probably from the same troll. There were also some obviously incorrect entries, such as the #857, which had 12 jabbed deaths among 1 total jabbed, probably having entered the figures in the wrong places.
It was hard to tell if some other responses that had very high percentages of the and dead were legit. But then, a person with an elderly social circle could have a high percentage of the deaths among them. So, I did 2 sorts: one to filter out the obvious troll responses, and another more conservative sort to get a sense of the more typical responses with the outliers removed.
The most inclusive filtering of the results, tossing out just the zero figures, obviously incorrect entries, and those reporting 90% or nearly so among 10 or more of the jabbed or unjabbed, found about 20X the death rate and 30X the injury rate among the jabbed as of yesterday (August 15, 2022).
The more conservative filtering of the results, tossing out those with greater than 10% of total deaths or fishy looking extreme numbers of the jabbed or unjabbed deaths, came up with a factor of about 20X for the jabbed to unjabbed deaths and 25X for injuries.
So, the figures came out pretty consistent, however inclusive or conservative the filtering to cull troll and questionable entries.
Of course, given the forum this is on, the matter of selective attention is a valid consideration.
What I'd really like to see is analysis of medical records of people of similar ages and baseline health conditions, especially those with no significant comorbidities. That would be most telling.
Conservatively, the entire thing should be trashed for having obvious selection bias. It's like going to a UFO conference and polling attendees on whether they believe in little green men.
That's a valid point if the survey was not also linked on different platforms. But it also would be false to assume people's responses weren't by and large honest. I'm unjabbed and not a believer in the jabs having an overall net benefit; but my reply was actually more biased in favor of the jabs, in that I didn't count a very elderly jabbed relative who subsequently died, because I didn't notice a significant, rapid change in their condition, so I did not consider there to be sufficient evidence of any significant impact of the jabs one way or the other.
On the other hand, among those I know, the unjabbed are generally a bit younger. So there is a considerable inherent bias against the jabs, simply by age.
But the only valid comparisons are between people of about the same ages and baseline health conditions.
Some of the responses were obvious troll responses, such as #958 with "342,604 unvaxxed dead" and "0 vaxxed dead" and #959, the "yacht accident" response, which were probably from the same troll. There were also some obviously incorrect entries, such as the #857, which had 12 jabbed deaths among 1 total jabbed, probably having entered the figures in the wrong places.
It was hard to tell if some other responses that had very high percentages of the and dead were legit. But then, a person with an elderly social circle could have a high percentage of the deaths among them. So, I did 2 sorts: one to filter out the obvious troll responses, and another more conservative sort to get a sense of the more typical responses with the outliers removed.
The most inclusive filtering of the results, tossing out just the zero figures, obviously incorrect entries, and those reporting 90% or nearly so among 10 or more of the jabbed or unjabbed, found about 20X the death rate and 30X the injury rate among the jabbed as of yesterday (August 15, 2022).
The more conservative filtering of the results, tossing out those with greater than 10% of total deaths or fishy looking extreme numbers of the jabbed or unjabbed deaths, came up with a factor of about 20X for the jabbed to unjabbed deaths and 25X for injuries.
So, the figures came out pretty consistent, however inclusive or conservative the filtering to cull troll and questionable entries.
Of course, given the forum this is on, the matter of selective attention is a valid consideration.
What I'd really like to see is analysis of medical records of people of similar ages and baseline health conditions, especially those with no significant comorbidities. That would be most telling.
Conservatively, the entire thing should be trashed for having obvious selection bias. It's like going to a UFO conference and polling attendees on whether they believe in little green men.
That's a valid point if the survey was not also linked on different platforms. But it also would be false to assume people's responses weren't by and large honest. I'm unjabbed and not a believer in the jabs having an overall net benefit; but my reply was actually more biased in favor of the jabs, in that I didn't count a very elderly jabbed relative who subsequently died, because I didn't notice a significant, rapid change in their condition, so I did not consider there to be sufficient evidence of any significant impact of the jabs one way or the other.
On the other hand, among those I know, the unjabbed are generally a bit younger. So there is a considerable inherent bias against the jabs, simply by age.
But the only valid comparisons are between people of about the same ages and baseline health conditions.