re: UK All Cause Mortality Data by Vax Status

quote:

---

What's there to prove?

He cherry-picked data and incorrectly analyzed it, claiming it says something it doesn't say. He didn't even do a good job of that, but of course this board is so gullible you'll fall for it.

---

Figure 6. Only at the start of the data collection period did the numbers look favorable for the vaccine. They all turn negative over time for Doses 1 and 2 over time meaning the vaccines are nonsensical. No cherry picking required. You can see it visually. Source: All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status

quote:

---

That's not what this was, and if you believe that his results are valid you're more than welcome to believe in that along with the Easter Bunny.

---

It’s a known fact at younger ages you are more at risk to the negative effects of the vaccine than covid. Both are rare, just more rare with covid.

It’s why they finally are saying yeah JJ not so good. Other countries are saying yeah if you are under 30 don’t take any vaccine.

So have you gotten your second booster or not?

quote:

---

That figure doesn't tell us what you claim it does. The two groups are not equal.

---

Well go on…tell us what it shows..

quote:

---

Trade the shovel in for some rope.

---

Your death threats against me don't suddenly make you right.

I'm sorry that you either don't understand how you've been fooled, or don't want to, but that doesn't change the fact that you were fooled.

quote:

---

I'm sorry that you either don't understand how you've been fooled

---

I don't know who you are so don't take my question as anything but a question that is asked based on how you've posted in this thread.

Do you believe the data that has been reported out of government health (CDC/NIH) related to Covid is reasonably accurate - specifically, Covid deaths and Covid hospitalizations?

quote:

---

Yes and no. Some states (e.g. Florida) went to great lengths to conceal their hospitalizations and deaths.

---

So when it's reported in the media by liberal outlets like the Atlantic, and acknowledged by the CDC - that over 50% of "Covid hospitalizations" involved admittees that were either asymptomatic for Covid, or were experiencing mild Covid symptoms, you feel it's accurate to refer to those hospitalizations as "Covid hospitalizations"?

quote:

---

Yes and no. Some states (e.g. Florida) went to great lengths to conceal their hospitalizations and deaths.

---

Wrong. Florida was releasing the most accurate information.

quote:

---

What those data do show match up with the RCTs done on the vaccines - they're safe and effective at preventing severe outcomes (including death) from covid-19.

---

The data in the OP does not dispute this.

quote:

---

Florida was releasing the most accurate information.

---

Not in this world they weren't.

quote:

---

The data in the OP does not dispute this.

---

So you agree that the covid-19 vaccine is safe? Why does this thread even exist, then?

quote:

---

You're objecting to analysis done by others, but your objection is simply "it's wrong"

---

That's not simply my objection, that's just all that's been necessary.

It's wrong for a number of reasons, but these are the big 3:

1) The category chosen to represent 'vaccinated' have consistently the smallest n across age categories. What this means in instances of rare events (like mortality) is that a small swing will massively increase your % of the population, making something look distinct when it's really a function of numerator/denominator. That's why we use things like p-values and confidence intervals to represent ranges and whether any observed difference is a true difference, or more likely due to noise. If this were a real analysis, you'd have dichotomized the variable to vaccinated/non, and produced viable statistics to compare these groups.

2) This type of analysis assumes that the 2 groups are comparable. Specifically you wouldn't want there to be any differences among the groups that could impact the outcome (mortality). Given that we know for a fact that health conditions had an inverse relationship to likelihood to get the vaccine, we know for a fact that these two groups are distinct. Not only that, they're distinct in such a way that of course you'd see a higher proportion of all-cause mortality in the vaccinated group vs the unvaccinated - they were more likely to die before the vaccine, and the vaccine doesn't make any claims to cure mortality causes like cancer or car accidents. If this were a real analysis, you would have seen some form of risk-adjustment ro underlying health conditions unrelated to the vaccine.

3) All-cause mortality is just that - ALL causes. Given the relatively rare occurrences in the vaccinated group (given outside proportion by the maliciously chosen low-n group, as mentioned earlier), something like 1 car accident could make the numbers higher where previously they weren't. And as I said above, no covid-19 vaccine makes claims to prevent death related to any cause that isn't covid-19. If this were a real analysis, you'd focus on covid-19 related mortality or things that could plausibly be claimed (by data not ramblings) to be caused by a vaccine.

Given that we have actual RCTs that contradict the 'analysis' that is the basis of this thread, and that prove the vaccines present no additional risk, it's absurd to use this flawed misappropriation and misunderstanding of data as anything other than a way to fool the gullible.