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. =)
One point to consider is that 1,469 child deaths were reported from 1997 to 2013, which is to be contrasted to the total number of vaccinations performed (didn't see an exact #, but 100s of millions to be sure) renders the total a non-factor/<~1%.
HOWEVER, don't take this as a dismissal of your assertion. Any underlying causes would still be valuable to isolate/understand, especially as any unknowns can have further unknown effects, meaning the exact death toll isn't the end of the story. I'd also add that this death toll dwarfs many other sources of mortality that are screeched from the political rooftops such as 'gun violence' statistics (that are implied to be affect-able by legislation).
I'll happily file away this resource for later study. Thanks for sharing!
Yes that's an overall small percentage (edit: still ~2600 deaths per year) but death within 24 hours is a pretty severe side effect. To my mind, this statistic shows that the CDC lies about cause of death, routinely. Also, the statistics of vaccine injury, other than SIDS, will at least to some extent be skewed in favor of the pharmaceutical because it's very hard to prove vaccine injury, VAERS is considered an under reported system
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
One point to consider is that 1,469 child deaths were reported from 1997 to 2013, which is to be contrasted to the total number of vaccinations performed (didn't see an exact #, but 100s of millions to be sure) renders the total a non-factor/<~1%.
HOWEVER, don't take this as a dismissal of your assertion. Any underlying causes would still be valuable to isolate/understand, especially as any unknowns can have further unknown effects, meaning the exact death toll isn't the end of the story. I'd also add that this death toll dwarfs many other sources of mortality that are screeched from the political rooftops such as 'gun violence' statistics (that are implied to be affect-able by legislation).
I'll happily file away this resource for later study. Thanks for sharing!
Yes that's an overall small percentage (edit: still ~2600 deaths per year) but death within 24 hours is a pretty severe side effect. To my mind, this statistic shows that the CDC lies about cause of death, routinely. Also, the statistics of vaccine injury, other than SIDS, will at least to some extent be skewed in favor of the pharmaceutical because it's very hard to prove vaccine injury, VAERS is considered an under reported system