The data was fairly representative of the population when the vaccines rolled out, but then as more and more people dropped out of the cohort of the "perpetually vaccinated", either from death or from natural immunity, or just from common sense, this left only people in the 4x and 10x vaccinated who are basically demented with lots of co…
The data was fairly representative of the population when the vaccines rolled out, but then as more and more people dropped out of the cohort of the "perpetually vaccinated", either from death or from natural immunity, or just from common sense, this left only people in the 4x and 10x vaccinated who are basically demented with lots of comorbidities and in retirement homes or death victims of covid. Since the 3rd vaccination the data has been so confounded, that you basically cannot use it anymore, no matter how much you try to unconfound it. This is why it only goes in one direction, and there is low interest in that data. Like the VAERS data, although obviously striking, in the end you have nothing to compare it to, so there is little you can do with it.
Due to the "cheap trick" and such (a scheme to miscategorize vaccinated as unvaccinated for 14 days), vaccine data actually showed in the beginning that the vaccines protected by some 65% against ANY cause of mortality, such as traffic accidents or stabbing. So your perception that there are not success stories in the other direction is false. Flawed data had produced whatever success stories from the very beginning, and most scientists still remain oblivious of the fact.
The overall situation is and always has been, that the data hasn't been usable to begin with due to skews in one direction, and then as it aged it got skewed in the other direction. And no one really can tell fact from fiction. Nearly all the data is flawed like this.
This is why there are hardly any scientific papers that could produce some "ultimate verdict" on the vaccine harms. Basically all that has been done is based on oddball data or ultra-wide-angle or micro-angle approaches where you can't get some definitive number on harm X.
I mean thanks for trying, but this situation generally speaking is so complicated statistically that thousands of scientists worldwide all made the same retarded errors for years, you could argue decades even, and still no one understands it right. With all the mishaps in the data reporting and such at this point, it is hardly believable that someone from the outside can just come in, punch some numbers, and get a right figure.
The data was fairly representative of the population when the vaccines rolled out, but then as more and more people dropped out of the cohort of the "perpetually vaccinated", either from death or from natural immunity, or just from common sense, this left only people in the 4x and 10x vaccinated who are basically demented with lots of comorbidities and in retirement homes or death victims of covid. Since the 3rd vaccination the data has been so confounded, that you basically cannot use it anymore, no matter how much you try to unconfound it. This is why it only goes in one direction, and there is low interest in that data. Like the VAERS data, although obviously striking, in the end you have nothing to compare it to, so there is little you can do with it.
Due to the "cheap trick" and such (a scheme to miscategorize vaccinated as unvaccinated for 14 days), vaccine data actually showed in the beginning that the vaccines protected by some 65% against ANY cause of mortality, such as traffic accidents or stabbing. So your perception that there are not success stories in the other direction is false. Flawed data had produced whatever success stories from the very beginning, and most scientists still remain oblivious of the fact.
The overall situation is and always has been, that the data hasn't been usable to begin with due to skews in one direction, and then as it aged it got skewed in the other direction. And no one really can tell fact from fiction. Nearly all the data is flawed like this.
This is why there are hardly any scientific papers that could produce some "ultimate verdict" on the vaccine harms. Basically all that has been done is based on oddball data or ultra-wide-angle or micro-angle approaches where you can't get some definitive number on harm X.
I mean thanks for trying, but this situation generally speaking is so complicated statistically that thousands of scientists worldwide all made the same retarded errors for years, you could argue decades even, and still no one understands it right. With all the mishaps in the data reporting and such at this point, it is hardly believable that someone from the outside can just come in, punch some numbers, and get a right figure.