It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BigData Analysis of 145 Countries Shows C-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Using No Vaccines

page: 2
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: MDDoxs
independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. NO primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On that alone, I am comfortable to discount this entire “study”.

If you had actually taken 2 seconds to look at the link, you'd see that the authors got their information from THIS, which is a widely trusted source of data relating to Covid-19.
Come on, at least try.


Not primary source, ie not original, AND questionable credibility as we are in 2022 now, not 2020. Thanks for playing

edit on 7-1-2022 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

What they actually did was to take the percentile change that mask wearing introduced in infection rates and then extrapolate it to a broader scale. Which is a rough was of doing it but which is perfectly adequate for a forum discussion.

And anybody can google some fancy words and pretend that they knew it all along so it doesn't really prove anything either way.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Not buying this for a New York minute. I'm neither pro, or against, it's about choice, but I heartily laugh at disinfo from both sides



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

What they actually did was to take the percentile change that mask wearing introduced in infection rates and then extrapolate it to a broader scale. Which is a rough was of doing it but which is perfectly adequate for a forum discussion.

And anybody can google some fancy words and pretend that they knew it all along so it doesn't really prove anything either way.


That poster isn't going to date you, give it up.

Let the troll defend itself.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. None primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On the alone, I am comfortable discounting this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***



The problem here is that you have to argue with the math. I'll be waiting on your detailed analysis. Otherwise you can STFU.


Communication begin:

Bahahaha. I am most definitely NOT an expert. I would prefer that real experts actually review and confirm this “study” is credible. Please let me know when that happens and I can read in Science or Nautre.

Emote: Mic drop

***End Communication***


So you need 'Anthony Fauci ' Signature on it or you don't take it serious.

If we ever do an ATS meeting I hope you and all the others like you are there , I'd love to debate you in person.


Speaking of signatures, the "paper" has the names of several academics cited as if they are party to it, but they're actually just being used to cite some of the formula and methodology. This is like sampling Michael Jackson in your dubstep track and making out that you were on stage with him.

If you'd submitted this to me I'd have reported you straight to the ethics committee, if not the Dean for a standards violation.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. None primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On the alone, I am comfortable discounting this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***



The problem here is that you have to argue with the math. I'll be waiting on your detailed analysis. Otherwise you can STFU.


The problem is not with their math; the problem is with their logic. They conduct an elaborate statistical analysis showing that introduction of vaccines in certain countries is correlated with an increase in both the case rate and the death rate of covid in those countries. When they think no one is looking, they then move from making a claim about correlation to a claim about causality without considering any other possibilities.

This violates one of the oldest dictums of statistical analysis: correlation does not imply causality.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MDDoxs




I prefer to rely on quality, reviewed studies. I might as well have written this and posted it on GitHub…would y’all believe me as well?

Except there is no such thing anymore. Was there not a thread about how the PEER REVIEWED STUDIES CANNOT BE REPLICATED??? By fellow scientist in the same fields of study! SO actually this study has the same amount of credence as anything published is any science journal.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The fact the disinfo crew is jumping all over this thread should tell you that they're afraid of it. If it was just BS, they would ignore it and laugh.

And yes, id love to meet every single one of them in person...



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Funny it’s always the same 3 or 4 members that carry water for these sketchy “vaccines”
Why is that?
One member posts a slamming reply 5 minutes after the OP posted the thread and they couldn’t possibly have read through the source link that fast.
Agenda much?



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
Funny it’s always the same 3 or 4 members that carry water for these sketchy “vaccines”
Why is that?
One member posts a slamming reply 5 minutes after the OP posted the thread and they couldn’t possibly have read through the source link that fast.
Agenda much?



Yup and you can tell that they didn't even read it, they probably have a prefab text ready to go.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Just reading the abstract i'm noticing a lot of flaws in this study. First off, the pandemic took 3 or 4 months to really get kicked into gear in 2020. So you can't really compare 2020 to 2021 on a 1:1 level.

There's also the fact that some of the worst months of 2021 were before the vaccine had been widely disseminated.

Then they also say they're comparing countries that vaccinate to countries that don't vaccinate. However, the countries that aren't vaccinating are primarily 3rd world African countries. These are countries that don't have much healthcare infrastructure in place and as a result many cases are going to be missed. Not to mention the corrupt governments that will seek to underreport the number of cases. So if course they're going to have fewer cases. Once again you can't make a 1:1 comparison.

There's a reason this paper is sitting on a blog and not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Their methodology is extremely flawed and there's no way they can make the conclusions they are based on the data they have.

I'm guessing they just hoped all the big words in the title would trick the rubes and they didn't actually perform any kind of competent analysis.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
Funny it’s always the same 3 or 4 members that carry water for these sketchy “vaccines”
Why is that?
One member posts a slamming reply 5 minutes after the OP posted the thread and they couldn’t possibly have read through the source link that fast.
Agenda much?


The source has been thoroughly debunked so now you move on to having a go at others?

Agenda??! Like the OP hasn't got one?

LOL!



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. None primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On the alone, I am comfortable discounting this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***



The problem here is that you have to argue with the math. I'll be waiting on your detailed analysis. Otherwise you can STFU.


Communication begin:

Bahahaha. I am most definitely NOT an expert. I would prefer that real experts actually review and confirm this “study” is credible. Please let me know when that happens and I can read in Science or Nautre.

Emote: Mic drop

***End Communication***


So you need 'Anthony Fauci ' Signature on it or you don't take it serious.

If we ever do an ATS meeting I hope you and all the others like you are there , I'd love to debate you in person.


If you'd submitted this to me I'd have reported you straight to the ethics committee, if not the Dean for a standards violation.


The implication here seems to be that you're accepting graduate level papers at a college or university. ​I certainly hope nobody is submitting papers to you for review, not anything to do with science.

Please point out where they improperly claimed authors or signatories. I'm not familiar with all these people so I need it to be pointed out. I've written a lot of fully cited works and, I have to tell you, it's fairly common for methodology and other data used to be cited from other authors rather than spelled out verbatim. Can you explain why this would merit being forwarded to the ethics review board or dean if it were a student's paper.

It really sounds like you're just discrediting this because you disagree with it. I haven't read it, but I don't really need this study to tell me that the vaccine is more harm than good to those under 30. Already did the numbers. Old news.

So, please let me know the ethics violation. I'm quite curious.
edit on 1/7/22 by Ksihkehe because: Apostrophe



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Just reading the abstract i'm noticing a lot of flaws in this study. First off, the pandemic took 3 or 4 months to really get kicked into gear in 2020. So you can't really compare 2020 to 2021 on a 1:1 level.


The pandemic was already happening in January of 2020, just because it wasn't known by Fauci and Trump doesn't mean it wasn't already happening and being falsely diagnosed as influenza and pneumonia. This thread is going to be a gold mine moving forward. If we can't compare 1:1 it invalidates studies, but only the studies that disagree with us. LOL.

If any of you spent 1/10th the time looking at the data that supports your opinion as you did this one post we'd be in a whole different world.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The American healthcare website says a lot of people have died because of the vaccines in this country.

You can extrapolate that to the entire world and understand that more healthy people have been killed by the vaccine than by covid-19.



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
The American healthcare website says a lot of people have died because of the vaccines in this country.

You can extrapolate that to the entire world and understand that more healthy people have been killed by the vaccine than by covid-19.


Extrapolate? Or just make it up?



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐


I didn't offer an opinion on it, haven't read it all the way through.

I'm asking where the ethics violations are so I can look at them. Why bother reading the whole thing if it's unethical bunk, I'm sure somebody can just point it out for me. Right?



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐


I didn't offer an opinion on it, haven't read it all the way through.

I'm asking where the ethics violations are so I can look at them. Why bother reading the whole thing if it's unethical bunk, I'm sure somebody can just point it out for me. Right?


They already have. Did you not read this thread either?



posted on Jan, 7 2022 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: RazorV66
Funny it’s always the same 3 or 4 members that carry water for these sketchy “vaccines”
Why is that?
One member posts a slamming reply 5 minutes after the OP posted the thread and they couldn’t possibly have read through the source link that fast.
Agenda much?


The source has been thoroughly debunked so now you move on to having a go at others?

Agenda??! Like the OP hasn't got one?

LOL!


Debunked by who? You and the other “vaccine” shareholders?
I am not saying it’s true or false, but I am saying that you guys will defend the “vaccine” at all costs…and that is a freaking agenda.
Especially when the “vaccine” doesn’t do a damn thing to help anyone.




top topics



 
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join