re: Pfizer data release. 1223 reported fatalities during 3-month period, out of 42K reports

quote:

---

This is not a mortality rate.

42k isn't the number of people who were vaccinated.

---

I didn't say it was. You asked and I provided the answer.

quote:

---

An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.

---

It would be cool if they put the same disclaimer on cases involving the virus itself.

quote:

---

worthless prescription for Ivermection

---

How people died from a prescription of ivermectin? How many had adverse side effects?

Because I know people who died after the vax

I also know people who had blood clotting issues after the vax.

I also know people who got a script for IVM even though vaxxed

And I know people who were sick with Covid and took feed store Ivermectin because the hospital refused treatment and healed.

quote:

---

I didn't say it was. You asked and I provided the answer.

---

Gotcha


Well at any rate, prayers sent to that poster and those who agreed and will not actually run and tell everyone the vaccine had a 3% mortality rate. Then those same dudes will cry misinformation about basically anything they don't agree with.

And I’ve already explained that the simple fraction you just described isn’t a miscarriage rate. At all. So if you are sticking with that argument, then you’re just flat out wrong.

I’m not asking you to describe your work because I need baby birding; I’m asking for your process so I can clarify where our disconnect is. But since you still think that simple division is sufficient to calculate the miscarriage rate, then our disconnect is simply that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yes, miscarriages per pregnancy is a miscarriage rate. No, what you have described in this thread is not dividing miscarriages by pregnancies. Because what you are calling pregnancies is not a pure pregnancy variable. Based on what you described, you are dividing miscarriages by number of pregnant women who had an adverse event after receiving the vaccine. You are not dividing number of miscarriages by number of pregnant women. Those are fundamentally different ratios, and the former does not provide a miscarriage rate. What you are describing is the ratio of miscarriages relative to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Not the ratio of miscarriages relative to pregnancies.


To emphasize why the distinction is important, if, hypothetically, the vaccine were to be broadly dangerous to pregnant women, the ratio of reported miscarriages to adverse pregnancy events would likely remain steady since all negative pregnancy outcomes could increase at the same rate (miscarriages and less severe negative events alike). But that observation would not reveal that the rate of miscarriages, or of adverse pregnancy events, was higher for the vaccine receiving group than for the full population.


I am not disagreeing with you that a miscarriage rate can be calculated as the percentage of pregnant women who end up having a miscarriage. I’m trying to make you see that this paper fundamentally does not provide the information needed to the calculate that ratio.

That’s just flat out wrong.


Let’s say, hypothetically, the vaccine had no impact at all on pregnancy outcomes

Let’s also say that in the general population, 20000 out of every 100000 pregnant women have an adverse event and an additional 4000 out of every 100000 pregnant women have a miscarriage.

Let’s also assume that 50% of this population gets the vaccine and 50% do not.

Of the 50000 who do not get the vaccine, we would expect 10000 of them to have some type of adverse event and an additional 2000 of them have a miscarriage. This gives us a ratio of miscarriages to negative events in the unvaccinated control group of 20%, and a miscarriage rate of 4%.

Of the 50000 who do get the vaccine, we would also expect 10000 of them to have some type of adverse event and 2000 of them to have a miscarriage. This again gives us a ratio of miscarriages to negative events in the vaccinated population of 20%, and a miscarriage rate of 4%.

If this were the data we had, we would be able to conclude that the vaccine did not impact the rate of miscarriage at all. But this isn’t the data we have.

All we have here is the equivalent outcome of 10000 negative events and 2000 miscarriages. That is the equivalent of what is reported in the study. So if we took this ratio and treated it as a miscarriage rate (as you are advocating), it would indicate a miscarriage rate of 20%. This would represent a 400% increase in the true rate of miscarriage, when in fact, it should have no impact at all.

So according to your methodology, if the process were sound and the vaccine had no impact on pregnancy outcomes out all, what this paper should show is a significantly higher rate of miscarriage in the vaccine group relative to the population.

Instead, you’re saying those two numbers are nearly identical (that the ratio of miscarriages to negative pregnancy events in the trial group is identical to the rate of miscarriages to all pregnant women in the full population). But we just showed this should not be the outcome.

In order for those ratios to be equal, our example would have required the number of people who had a miscarriage in the vaccine group to fall to 400 (without impacting the other 10000 negative events at all). That’s the only way for us to get the rate down to the 4% reflected in the general population.

So if this number in the actual study is equivalent to the true miscarriage rate in the full population, it can only mean one of two things: either the methodology is massively flawed, or the vaccine is actually making the population SIGNIFICANTLY safer from miscarriages without having any other impact on all other negative pregnancy outcomes.

Given that it’s extremely difficult to even create a story for why the latter would be true, the logical conclusion has to be that your methodology is seriously flawed. There’s simply no viable story for why the vaccine would cause the miscarriage rate to fall that massively without having any impact on the rate of all other negative pregnancy outcomes.

Point being, you simply cannot compare the estimated incidence of miscarriages relative to adverse pregnancy outcomes against the true ratio of miscarriages to all pregnancies and conclude that the vaccine has no impact on miscarriage outcomes based on those two numbers being approximately equal. If that estimated number and that true number are calculated to be equal to one another, it can only mean that the vaccine is more effective at preventing miscarriages than any other medical advancement of the last 50 years (without influencing any other negative pregnancy outcomes), or that the methodology is flawed. Which seems more likely to you?

While pushing for company mandated jabs, the CFO of my company said it was the safest vaccine in history. I trust no one in executive management now.

quote:

---

The real sin and crime was the suppression of ivermectin.I am convinced that thousands of people have died because they weren’t able to get it.I know quite a few people,nurses ,pharmacists,and a few Drs. that took it or gave it to their family and friends and had very good results. I myself took the Tractor Supply ivermectin Feb 3’rd when I got Covid and I was over all my symptoms in 16 hours.I did feel fatigued for 3-4 days afterwards but I felt much worse before-headache,sore throat,cough ,aching.

---

I did not hear about IVM as a therapeutic for the CCP/dnc flu other than this site(TD) & a couple of other conservative message boards.
Granted, I don't have social media accounts(fakebook, twanker...)

When all this Wuhan flu started out, we were fed a constant barrage of fear porn, we are gonna die, Spanish Flu of 1919, millions upon millions are gonna die...

Oh yeah, we only needed two weeks to 'flatten the curb'. Two weeks, turned into two months...now here we are almost two years later...but I digress.

If the ccp/dnc flu was gonna be this huge apocalypse, doesn't it stand to reason to throw any and all treatments against this?

Just because Trump mentioned HCQ as a therapeutic, the left and the RINOs went ballistic.
No where was IVM mentioned as a possible treatment but still the left, the talking snake propaganda arm of the swamp ie the 'media' and the RINOs went berserk about IVM, calling it 'horse paste.'

Never mind that IVM has been around for DECADES and has saved untold millions of human life's.

Last I read, there have been over 4 billion doses of IVM administered to humans. That's a 'B' as in bee, bravo, Brazil, baker...

4,000,000,000 doses of that thar 'horse paste' has been administered to humans thus far.

Yes, IVM is used for horses and other livestock. But if a person has taken, say antibiotics, one has taken 'horse' medicine.

In fact, many medicines that are administered to humans are the same EXACT treatments that are given to many different species of animals.

Yes, we have lost hundreds of thousands of our own fellow American's because of the refusal by those in power to allow other treatments for the ccp/dnc flu such as HCQ and IVM.

But the elites, big pharm, and the rotten-to-the-core politicians can't make their billions off of inexpensive therapeutics like HCQ and IVM.

quote:

---

Another issue is that Vit D3,C and zinc weren’t pushed by medical profession.Hospital I retired from had a shitload of employees get Covid,never a word was said to them about Vit D,etc.Only ones that knew about it learned it through their own research.
Contrast that with our local sheriff,when Covid started he gave every employee 90 day supply with recommendation to continue it and had very few cases in his department.

---

Again, you hit the nail on the head. This should have been one the core messages pushed instead of taking the clot-shot.

Also, healthy life styles should have/be pushed by our goobermint.

Stuff like: lose weight, eat good healthy foods, get into good physical shape with exercise...