No, no, no...you've had a little too much to think. Vaccine related deaths are just deaths from other causes. It's the Coof deaths that are Coof deaths.
Given the timetable and lack of control group(s) (at least that I'm aware of), it would be hard to make that an actionable statistic (e.g. 100% of people who drink water die).
I'm oddly impartial on the topic of pro/anti-vax since I only see it as a practical tool - if used correctly its clearly preferable, but only if 'used correctly' is clearly defined and, well, clear.
Do you have a source on the 79.4% #? I'm interested in having a reference for deep-diving the topic.
Edit: I don't oppose doubts levied against vaccines, but those doubts don't have much connection/impact unless there's a clear connection to an actionable problem. The more general or disconnected the doubt, the less impact a doubt has in my mind (not nay-saying - just as an honest feedback).
To achieve impact, I'd reach past the actual vaccines themselves. I'd transparently highlight any investigative triggers (interest-arousing problem areas: X% of group, X% of vaccine, X% mortality = informal indicator). Second, I'd begin a formal analysis of actual [cause] -> [effect], such as >X% of [substance] = commonality across groups. This is just the bare-tip of formal because that is still correlation. It morphs into actionable once either 1) tests can reliably isolate its effects and/or 2) the cause-effect chain can be proven to not result from any other complex interaction(s) with other drug components, other drugs, patient physiology/biological makeup, other patient attributes, disease/syndrome effects, etc. This information is NOT intended to discourage your/our pursuit of the truth. It also isn't intended to alieviate the responsibility of drug manufacturers, etc. from adequate testing & legal culpability for unreasable conduct, but if we're going to make substantial assertions, it serves the seriousness with which we originally took up the topic to have real reasons/ownership for what we believe. That is all. =)
No, no, no...you've had a little too much to think. Vaccine related deaths are just deaths from other causes. It's the Coof deaths that are Coof deaths.
79.4% of babies who die of sids had a vaccine within 24 hours as per the CDC but don't worry "it's a coincidence"
Given the timetable and lack of control group(s) (at least that I'm aware of), it would be hard to make that an actionable statistic (e.g. 100% of people who drink water die).
I'm oddly impartial on the topic of pro/anti-vax since I only see it as a practical tool - if used correctly its clearly preferable, but only if 'used correctly' is clearly defined and, well, clear.
Do you have a source on the 79.4% #? I'm interested in having a reference for deep-diving the topic.
Edit: I don't oppose doubts levied against vaccines, but those doubts don't have much connection/impact unless there's a clear connection to an actionable problem. The more general or disconnected the doubt, the less impact a doubt has in my mind (not nay-saying - just as an honest feedback).
To achieve impact, I'd reach past the actual vaccines themselves. I'd transparently highlight any investigative triggers (interest-arousing problem areas: X% of group, X% of vaccine, X% mortality = informal indicator). Second, I'd begin a formal analysis of actual [cause] -> [effect], such as >X% of [substance] = commonality across groups. This is just the bare-tip of formal because that is still correlation. It morphs into actionable once either 1) tests can reliably isolate its effects and/or 2) the cause-effect chain can be proven to not result from any other complex interaction(s) with other drug components, other drugs, patient physiology/biological makeup, other patient attributes, disease/syndrome effects, etc. This information is NOT intended to discourage your/our pursuit of the truth. It also isn't intended to alieviate the responsibility of drug manufacturers, etc. from adequate testing & legal culpability for unreasable conduct, but if we're going to make substantial assertions, it serves the seriousness with which we originally took up the topic to have real reasons/ownership for what we believe. That is all. =)
Under results https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/61/6/980/451431?fbclid=IwAR3QAQD8ea_i7V0OApbjrhIscRsipcnpXCubs1EGTbdWcCWtx3yZjzWDNk4