- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/2/22 at 7:28 am to AMS
Except you can’t consider proportions without knowing the number of doses administered. That was my whole point.
You need to calculate X# of study events relative to Y# of doses administered, and compare that to A# of population events relative to B# of people in the full population. Without having that Y#, you can’t compare the proportions of the two.
You need to calculate X# of study events relative to Y# of doses administered, and compare that to A# of population events relative to B# of people in the full population. Without having that Y#, you can’t compare the proportions of the two.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 7:31 am to loogaroo
Just imagine what the stats would look like if the VAERS was being utilized as it is "supposed to" be used. Rotten frick pukes.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 7:35 am to loogaroo
1,223 deaths in 3 months would never receive FDA approval under normal circumstances.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 7:44 am to MC123
And to think we had posters on here, some medical personal, telling us non jabbed how terrible we were for not getting this shot. We were killing grandmas and we were trumpkins that are idiots
Posted on 3/2/22 at 7:46 am to MC123
Not if it was being administered to 100,000 people, no. But it may get approval if it was administered to 100,000,000 people.
That’s the whole point of the frustration here… redacting the base number makes this data absolutely useless.
But I will add, since there is seemingly no strategic business advantage by hiding/downplaying the number of sales your company has made, one has to speculate that the number of doses administered is redacted because the base number is likely to be small. Meaning the case frequency may be higher than they want us to know.
So this makes me both furious at the company and nervous about the outcomes at the same time.
That’s the whole point of the frustration here… redacting the base number makes this data absolutely useless.
But I will add, since there is seemingly no strategic business advantage by hiding/downplaying the number of sales your company has made, one has to speculate that the number of doses administered is redacted because the base number is likely to be small. Meaning the case frequency may be higher than they want us to know.
So this makes me both furious at the company and nervous about the outcomes at the same time.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 8:07 am to funnystuff
quote:
one has to speculate that the number of doses administered is redacted because the base number is likely to be small. Meaning the case frequency may be higher than they want us to know.
Yes, that is quite the point that you make. Especially when coupled with the fired whistleblower from the vaccine trials.This shite is fricked up.
Excerpts and link below:
quote:
In the aforementioned recording, an executive can also be heard explaining that, when examining paperwork for trial quality control, the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors that were being identified. “In my mind, it’s something new every day,” the senior staffer says. “We know that it’s significant.”
quote:
Jackson reported her concerns to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but was fired later the same day on the basis that she was “not a good fit.”
Whistleblower Exposes Multiple Issues With Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccine Trial
Additionally, the BMJ (The British version of the American Journal of Medicine) had their stuff pulled by a “fact checker” (some liberal art’s douche bag) on social media platforms (Facebook?).
When linking the censorship of information, the EXTREME sloppiness of the vaccine trial, and this data release, there seems to be a lot to be concerned with.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 8:35 am to loogaroo
12.5k out of 42k people not recovered/dead from AE.
NO THANK YOU.
NO THANK YOU.
This post was edited on 3/2/22 at 8:36 am
Posted on 3/2/22 at 8:45 am to Jobu93
But Fauci said it was safe and effective 
Posted on 3/2/22 at 8:59 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
You realize that 20% of pregnancies ending in miscarriage are average, right?
Isn’t that stat relative to how far along the pregnancy is?
Correct. The vast majority of miscarriages occur in the first two weeks of pregnancy, skewing the stats. After the first trimester, the risk of miscarriage is less than 1%.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:12 am to loogaroo
Number looks high until one realizes over 100,000 die yearly in US hospitals from adverse drug reactions...
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:25 am to loogaroo
Why are 3/4 women? Just curious
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:37 am to Dragula
quote:
Number looks high until one realizes over 100,000 die yearly in US hospitals from adverse drug reactions...
Until you realize that those deaths were caused by drugs that were researched, tested, and retested for, what, 15 years prior to being approved for clinical use?
Then you remember that this vaccine was created and tested for SIX MONTHS prior to use.
A tad disconcerting, no?
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:38 am to funnystuff
quote:
Except you can’t consider proportions without knowing the number of doses administered. That was my whole point.
You need to calculate X# of study events relative to Y# of doses administered, and compare that to A# of population events relative to B# of people in the full population. Without having that Y#, you can’t compare the proportions of the two.
except you can which is why your whole point is incorrect. Again, it easily is done with the miscarriage stats. Miscarriages of participants in the study occurred within the normal expected rate of miscarriages in the population. I dont need your Y# of doses to see that a normal and expected amount of miscarriages occurred during the trial. if the vaccines caused any statistically meaningful amount of miscarriages it would be represented in the data, although there is no such finding.
you do need the power of the study to be sufficient for this to work, but I highly doubt such a massive study would have insufficient power.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:42 am to Norbert
quote:
Even with a big denominator, I’m guessing they aren’t thrilled with the prospect of the population getting to look into their morbidity/mortality calculations.
“We figured x number of people would die and x number would suffer a serious reaction.”
I’m not defending them. Just speculating.
Yea, but the problem here is that when it comes to vaccines, regardless of what their calculations are, these numbers should have caused a full stop on pushing the vaccine forward until more testing was done. This isn't like a car defect and them weighing the lawsuits to the cost of recall.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:50 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Yea, but the problem here is that when it comes to vaccines, regardless of what their calculations are, these numbers should have caused a full stop on pushing the vaccine forward until more testing was done. This isn't like a car defect and them weighing the lawsuits to the cost of recall.
In the case of some, these were...
MANDATED vaccines.
Imho, it is concerning that aspect where this becomes grossly irresponsible for all of those involved in the production side.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 9:58 am to jimmy the leg
Exactly. This would have stopped any vaccine in its tracks to get more testing done, let alone one that got mandated.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 10:04 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
Until you realize that those deaths were caused by drugs that were researched, tested, and retested for, what, 15 years prior to being approved for clinical use?
Then you remember that this vaccine was created and tested for SIX MONTHS prior to use.
A tad disconcerting, no?
Not really when more have died from reactions from drugs that has been used for 50years.
This post was edited on 3/2/22 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 3/2/22 at 11:39 am to mikelbr
quote:
No. They redacted that information from the report.
Full stop. I'm vaxxed and shite but this is frickED. Why?
You know why.
Posted on 3/2/22 at 11:42 am to USMCguy121
quote:
3% mortality
quote:
Insane that people are ok with this. But i guess the ones whod be the least OK with it are already dead.
And that would…drum roll please…
BE THEIR OWN CHOICE.
Stop with the Nazi-esque mandates. This is America, not Nazi Germany.
This post was edited on 3/2/22 at 11:45 am
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News