Conspiracy theories

[WA Toffee]

Are yous so blinded by your ideology that you don't see what is being reported here?

Is there a possibility that you could be guilty of what you are accusing others of?

It does appear that you are presenting articles in support of your position, which, when read fully actually suggest something quite different to what you claim they do, or they are riddled with so many caveats as to make them no more reliable a source than the Beano or Dandy.

Just asking questions mate, but it does make you think

 

[dholliday]

I’m pointing out that a) you’ve misrepresented that tweet claiming it says something it doesn’t

No, i claimed the government are effectively admitting the existence of relatively-common heavy side-effects by virtue of them publishing PEI-data which supports this, which itself very likely only represents a fraction of actual cases (see my other links). Previously, the official channels were always claiming 'free of side-effects' (or 'extremely rare').

Ergo...a significant Domino of the pro-vax narrative has fallen.

My reporting of this BMG tweet mirrors the reporting elsewhere. I'm doing nothing unusual in my interpretation of this tweet.


Further, there is no indication PEI-reports are faked, as PEI reports no unusual pattern-activity amongst them. The process is for the patient to first report their side-effect to their Doctor, who then suggests them to enter it to the PEI. This is official guidance for all Doctors Surgeries.


As a rule: in data sets where victims are counted: the reported number almost always is far lower than the total real-world number, as most victims won't be aware how to report or won't feel it's worth their time.

This is accepted wisdom among statisticians. It's not measureable. See also victims of petty crimes, food poisoning etc.

, b) data from self reporting systems are a poor metric to draw conclusions from.

They are absolutely not! Especially not when they are the sole system available.

Would you say that those reporting crimes of assault or theft are a poor metric to gage total numbers as their reported crimes haven't been proven (often due to unknown assailant)?

They should be used to form hypothesis, to do further work.

Then form a hypothesis. What is yours?

Anyone who points to those systems as proof of side effects is either being deliberately misleading, or doesn't understand them.

You sound so sure...so certain are you that anyone with a different view must be either trolling or simply stupid.


There's a third option you haven't considered: they are making logical conclusions - in combination with other evidences (see my previous comments).


The tunnel-vision on display here is really quite something. All to defend a mass-produced Big Pharma vaccine. We'll be dissecting this phenomenon for years to come.

 

[dholliday]

It does appear that you are presenting articles in support of your position, which, when read fully actually suggest something quite different to what you claim they do

What do you think they are suggesting?

 

[Jebus_lives]

ImpfSurv-Studie: Charité distanziert sich von Matthes Aussagen

Die Charité in Berlin hat sich von Aussagen eines ihrer Stiftungsprofessoren zu Nebenwirkungen nach einer Corona-Impfung distanziert. Es seit festgestellt worden, dass die Arbeit des Forschers methodische Schwächen aufweist.

www.kma-online.de

"Due to the methodological limitations of the study, however, the statements he has made publicly so far are not comprehensible, the board of the Charité recommends Professor Matthes not to continue the study."

 

[dholliday]

"Due to the methodological limitations of the study, however, the statements he has made publicly so far are not comprehensible, the board of the Charité recommends Professor Matthes not to continue the study."

This in the conspiracy thread lol

The reason for the methodological limitations is that it's not logistically feasible, or even technically, to test & prove the vaccine caused a specific side-effect.

Ergo, we should dismiss any reports of side-effects altogether?

No.


The Doctors at the surgeries have the option to report what they judge to be vaccine side-effects, but are hampered by overly-complex bureaucracy, having to fill out several forms taking at least 30 minutes per-patient without recompense...in an age when the surgeries are always over-flowing and understaffed.

Hence, the call for patients to self-report to the PEI...which 'coincidentally' makes them an easy target for those dismissing their vax-concerns as unproven self-reporting.


Hmmm....



In the real-world, things look quite different to the Establishment-disclaimers yous are fond of quoting.

 

[WA Toffee]

What do you think they are suggesting?

That has been pointed out to you several times, in several threads, on several topics. And each time you appear to try and argue black is white in order to justify your position, rather than taking a step back and thinking "hmm, maybe I have read this without a critical eye on what I think it is telling me"

Science articles aren't always easy to understand. I'm a scientist and I often struggle with that. Trying to find and understand accurate balanced reviews of those articles which explain them in basic English can be even harder.
There is no shame in not being able to understand what an article is trying to say, or not reading it in full to find the caveats. But when people repeatedly point them out to you, but you refuse to even contemplate that you may have misinterpreted something, well, it weakens your stance quite a bit.

 

[WA Toffee]

This in the conspiracy thread lol

The reason for the methodological limitations is that it's not logistically feasible, or even technically, to test & prove the vaccine caused a specific side-effect.

Ergo, we should dismiss any reports of side-effects altogether?

No.


The Doctors at the surgeries have the option to report what they judge to be vaccine side-effects, but are hampered by overly-complex bureaucracy, having to fill out several forms taking at least 30 minutes per-patient without recompense...in an age when the surgeries are always over-flowing and understaffed.

Hence, the call for patients to self-report to the PEI...which 'coincidentally' makes them an easy target for those dismissing their vax-concerns as unproven self-reporting.


Hmmm....



In the real-world, things look quite different to the Establishment-disclaimers yous are fond of quoting.

It is an interesting point, if reporting of potential side effects is so difficult, it can be practically impossible to get an accurate figure.

I know in Australia that anyone can report potential side effects to the health dept and they are investigated by a dedicated team, so taking away the burden from GPs to report. I haven't looked for a while, but the rates of serious side effects were very low at the time - something like 1 in 200,000

I don't know what systems other countries have, or whether there is a significant difference in rates of reported side effects, or even whether rates have increased over time. Definitely worth keeping an eye on any data coming through

 

[Amw79]

No, i claimed the government are effectively admitting the existence of relatively-common heavy side-effects by virtue of them publishing PEI-data which supports this, which itself very likely only represents a fraction of actual cases (see my other links). Previously, the official channels were always claiming 'free of side-effects' (or 'extremely rare').

Ergo...a significant Domino of the pro-vax narrative has fallen.

My reporting of this BMG tweet mirrors the reporting elsewhere. I'm doing nothing unusual in my interpretation of this tweet.


Further, there is no indication PEI-reports are faked, as PEI reports no unusual pattern-activity amongst them. The process is for the patient to first report their side-effect to their Doctor, who then suggests them to enter it to the PEI. This is official guidance for all Doctors Surgeries.


As a rule: in data sets where victims are counted: the reported number almost always is far lower than the total real-world number, as most victims won't be aware how to report or won't feel it's worth their time.

This is accepted wisdom among statisticians. It's not measureable. See also victims of petty crimes, food poisoning etc.



They are absolutely not! Especially not when they are the sole system available.

Would you say that those reporting crimes of assault or theft are a poor metric to gage total numbers as their reported crimes haven't been proven (often due to unknown assailant)?



Then form a hypothesis. What is yours?



You sound so sure...so certain are you that anyone with a different view must be either trolling or simply stupid.


There's a third option you haven't considered: they are making logical conclusions - in combination with other evidences (see my previous comments).


The tunnel-vision on display here is really quite something. All to defend a mass-produced Big Pharma vaccine. We'll be dissecting this phenomenon for years to come.

In respect of a) you’ve now tweaked your strong claim into “effectively admitted”, which confirms your initial misrepresentation.

In respect of b) You’ve confirmed you don’t understand the data, and how it should be used.

 

[dholliday]

That has been pointed out to you several times, in several threads, on several topics. And each time you appear to try and argue black is white in order to justify your position, rather than taking a step back and thinking "hmm, maybe I have read this without a critical eye on what I think it is telling me"

Science articles aren't always easy to understand. I'm a scientist and I often struggle with that. Trying to find and understand accurate balanced reviews of those articles which explain them in basic English can be even harder.
There is no shame in not being able to understand what an article is trying to say, or not reading it in full to find the caveats. But when people repeatedly point them out to you, but you refuse to even contemplate that you may have misinterpreted something, well, it weakens your stance quite a bit.

Full marks for condescension. Yet you're the 'scientist' who repeatedly failed to understand that a 2% rise over a set benchmark is less than a 14% rise.

the rates of serious side effects were very low at the time - something like 1 in 200,000

Officially reported are 2.2-in-1000. Rounded up that makes 440-in-200,000. That's a whopping 440-fold increase to your estimate. And that's only those officially reported.

Myocarditis accounts for up to 40-in-200,000 for males under 30. That's a 40-fold increase from your estimate, and that's only one specific symptom.

In total over 130,000 "adverse events" have been reported in Australia after vaccination. How serious each of these are is not detailed, but presumably serious enough to warrant filing a report.

How many 12-50 year olds have had serious Covid-disease complications since the vaccines have been available? A few hundred? How many with co-morbidities?

How many healthy 12-50 year olds have had mild Covid? 99% How many were unvaccinated and still had mild Covid? How many vaccinated have had moderate-to-heavy Covid?

Such essential data is missing, but is required if one wishes to make an informed decision on vaccination.

Then there's the tens-of-thousands of Australians actively seeking compensation for vaccine-injuries. Unfortunately, the process has been made so difficult, complex & tiring (i.e..how to prove the vaccine was at fault?), that less than a tenth of those have managed to complete it, and even then the wheels of bureaucracy churn so slow that most of them are still waiting for updates.

So, with this data-set we can indeed have two interpretations:

1) over 130,000 reported side-effects (or 1-in-500) plus several thousands of compensation claims appear to show that vaccine side-effects are a serious and common issue in Australia.

or

2) the fact that there have only been a handful of actual payouts means proven vaccine issues are rare. And that the most serious side-effects like heart-issues/thrombosis appear to have acceptably-rare rates (when including entire demographics rather than just young males).


Data is in the eye of the beholder.


But there's a lot of pissed-off folk out there who are beginning to feel misled by the big push for the jab. Everywhere. I recently was in Croatia, and put the feelers out to check the general mood...they've become very sceptical.

Online, you see almost everywhere you look a significant swing towards vaccine-scepticism. Most people have had Omicron and wondered what the fuss is about, many have had jab side-effects and wondered if it was worth it and quite a few have had the chance to compare their Covid (infectiousness + symptoms) with the unvaccinated and are unable to see any difference.

The people are beginning to notice something isn't quite right with the big vax push.


GOT is a bit of an outlier in that it appears the majority-opinion is one of broad pro-vax support, or at least one of scepticism towards the vax-critics. This mood feels outdated...like it belongs in 2021.

I don't know what systems other countries have, or whether there is a significant difference in rates of reported side effects, or even whether rates have increased over time. Definitely worth keeping an eye on any data coming through

Yes, it is.

 

[dholliday]

You’ve confirmed you don’t understand the data, and how it should be used.

You're saying i 'don't understand'...yet you offer no demonstration of understanding it yourself.

You stated earlier the data can be used for hypothesis.

So...what is your hypothesis?

 

[Amw79]

You're saying i 'don't understand'...yet you offer no demonstration of understanding it yourself.

You stated earlier the data can be used for hypothesis.

So...what is your hypothesis?

My hypothesis is you don’t understand the data you’re making strong claims about. Your last couple of posts support that hypothesis. I’m done here.

 

[Ozwell]

There's nothing to say as your argument makes no sense.

Of course when an official body releases info like:

hey that vaccine we told you to take? might have more side-effects than we anticipated.

they'll follow up with damage-limitation like:

but these reports aren't confirmed! and likely will never be confirmed as we don't have the logistical resources to follow-up haha!


Most folk didn't even know about the PEI-Reporting tool. I linked different reports which convincingly argues the actual number of victims will be far higher than the 1-in-5000, especially if limiting to the 12-40 age group.

Anecdotally, i've met people who've had deaths and serious-injuries in their circles after Covid-vaccines. In my own circle a colleague was off-sick for a week after his second jab, then same again after his booster. He got Covid at some point and was again ill for a week, again unable to work. This compares interestingly with the mild cases of Covid many unvaccinated are reporting.

This personal experience is a microcosm of the wider experience out there. The people are becoming less shy to talk about it, certainly less-demonised. And even the official bodies are now releasing related info (a significant Domino-fall).

For some fascinating reason, ideologically-tied leftist/liberal/progressive folk aren't onboard with this trend.


At best, we can say the vaccines are relatively safe & effective for old folk and the at-risk groups. We can fairly argue for Delta-phase they did more good than bad for those risk groups. But the evidence is mounting that for the healthy under-50's the benefits of getting the vaccine don't appear to outweigh the relative risk of side-effects, especially in the dominant Omicron-phase (which has lasted almost a year now).


That is the conspiracy theory...by the end of the year it may well be accepted wisdom. The disclaimers @Wizard and @Amw79 are defending here will seem pretty useless...even dangerous.

I have colleagues who were fit and healthy, who haven’t returned to work because of covid. Also a pet dog, that has never been the same. Anecdotal evidence can be made up.

What is missing from your analysis is the idea of risk. Just like when you bird takes the pill, she has a chance of a blood clot. Remember the blood clot hysteria.

I would imagine a lot of your information is given to you 3rd hand, through forums etc. I also have no doubt, they pedalled the 5G claims, it makes you magnetic and many more. You should really look for the whole body of evidence and not just an outlier, where some else has cherry picked the narrative.

As for you mass formation psychosis, how anti vax folk don’t see the irony, when they surround themselves by like style social media and forums. That, even though it was a term made up on anti vax Rogan, is mind boggling.

Also on Rogan, Mr it’s not that bad, it’s just a cold. Why did run out and get loads of different treatments? I don’t when I have a cold, maybe a few paracetamol at best but monoclonal antibodies….for a cold.

For you own sake, stop being conned by these people!!!

 

[WA Toffee]

Full marks for condescension. Yet you're the 'scientist' who repeatedly failed to understand that a 2% rise over a set benchmark is less than a 14% rise.




Officially reported are 2.2-in-1000. Rounded up that makes 440-in-200,000. That's a whopping 440-fold increase to your estimate. And that's only those officially reported.

Myocarditis accounts for up to 40-in-200,000 for males under 30. That's a 40-fold increase from your estimate, and that's only one specific symptom.

In total over 130,000 "adverse events" have been reported in Australia after vaccination. How serious each of these are is not detailed, but presumably serious enough to warrant filing a report.

How many 12-50 year olds have had serious Covid-disease complications since the vaccines have been available? A few hundred? How many with co-morbidities?

How many healthy 12-50 year olds have had mild Covid? 99% How many were unvaccinated and still had mild Covid? How many vaccinated have had moderate-to-heavy Covid?

Such essential data is missing, but is required if one wishes to make an informed decision on vaccination.

Then there's the tens-of-thousands of Australians actively seeking compensation for vaccine-injuries. Unfortunately, the process has been made so difficult, complex & tiring (i.e..how to prove the vaccine was at fault?), that less than a tenth of those have managed to complete it, and even then the wheels of bureaucracy churn so slow that most of them are still waiting for updates.

So, with this data-set we can indeed have two interpretations:

1) over 130,000 reported side-effects (or 1-in-500) plus several thousands of compensation claims appear to show that vaccine side-effects are a serious and common issue in Australia.

or

2) the fact that there have only been a handful of actual payouts means proven vaccine issues are rare. And that the most serious side-effects like heart-issues/thrombosis appear to have acceptably-rare rates (when including entire demographics rather than just young males).


Data is in the eye of the beholder.


But there's a lot of pissed-off folk out there who are beginning to feel misled by the big push for the jab. Everywhere. I recently was in Croatia, and put the feelers out to check the general mood...they've become very sceptical.

Online, you see almost everywhere you look a significant swing towards vaccine-scepticism. Most people have had Omicron and wondered what the fuss is about, many have had jab side-effects and wondered if it was worth it and quite a few have had the chance to compare their Covid (infectiousness + symptoms) with the unvaccinated and are unable to see any difference.

The people are beginning to notice something isn't quite right with the big vax push.


GOT is a bit of an outlier in that it appears the majority-opinion is one of broad pro-vax support, or at least one of scepticism towards the vax-critics. This mood feels outdated...like it belongs in 2021.



Yes, it is.

No, I'm the scientist that fully understood a 2% rise is not a reduction, which is the point I repeatedly made. You appeared to be so determined to prove yourself right, that you failed to actually read what I was saying (which is sort of my point in my last post).

Anyway, that discussion has been had. Onto this one, I think you are right that my 1 in 200,000 was too low. I think that may have been confirmed deaths, not reported side effects.

I have absolutely no idea whether your numbers above are accurate or not, all I ask is that you have critically reviewed them before posting and not just find a report that supports your theories (or at least acknowledge it when you have made a mistake)

As for data interpretation, well there is actually a 3rd perspective. Anyone in Australia can file a report - just go online a fill in a short form. I wonder how many of the vaccine wary did that just to skew official numbers? For that reason, the third perspective is that the number of reported side effects could be considered a totally irrelevant data point not worthy of even being discussed.

Your last point certainly demonstrates something - you are seeing an increase online of people becoming sceptical of vaccines - I'm actually seeing the opposite. I wonder if that reflects the kind of websites we both go to?

 

[Jebus_lives]

This in the conspiracy thread lol

The reason for the methodological limitations is that it's not logistically feasible, or even technically, to test & prove the vaccine caused a specific side-effect.

Ergo, we should dismiss any reports of side-effects altogether?

No.


The Doctors at the surgeries have the option to report what they judge to be vaccine side-effects, but are hampered by overly-complex bureaucracy, having to fill out several forms taking at least 30 minutes per-patient without recompense...in an age when the surgeries are always over-flowing and understaffed.

Hence, the call for patients to self-report to the PEI...which 'coincidentally' makes them an easy target for those dismissing their vax-concerns as unproven self-reporting.


Hmmm....



In the real-world, things look quite different to the Establishment-disclaimers yous are fond of quoting.

I think it was more the entirely open source nature of the study, the definition of 'serious side effects' being wildly different to standard definitions and the lack of control comparison.

The fact that the reported 'conclusion' to the ongoing survey (it's not a scientific study by any measure) is alarmist in it's nature (I know you're massively against hype and alarmist messaging so I'm not sure why you afford this credibility).

Why hasn't he, for example, stated "my poorly conducted study, with no control measure, using the broadest possible definition of serious side effects, has produced expected anomalous results against the rest of the worlds research into the side effects of Covid-19 vaccination"

It's this boy who cried wolf stiff that stops genuine issues with vaccination to be dismissed.

 

[joe1878]

Can’t you just have a fight and the winner is correct?

I want to hear more about the earth being flat & aliens. Going to a party on Friday and I need some content for the 5am kitchen talk.