It's not nonsense. Hacker News is hardly a platform for science, facts or personal experience that might tarnish the image of the C19 vaccines in any way, so this will certainly not be platformed. I will be lucky if it is not flagged and censored. Why did I post this? So that those that have discernment and critical thinking skills might get something out of it.
Lives saved? The evidence I've given you tells another story, but I see that you are not ready or willing to have that discussion, or review the material.
There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?
There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant.
In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed.
The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.
And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?
> And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population.
Yes. It's sound science. What problem do you have?
> It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?
It wasn't discussed because 17 vs 21 in a sample size of 40K is not a statistically significant difference. I don't know how to make that more clear without going into a lesson in high school-level statistics.
So, really, it was discussed, as indicated since you and they heard of the discussion. It is indeed quite simple to discuss even, since the conversation should end with learning that this is covered in high-school stats class.
What is more ironic to me is that this is the total deaths number, without any regards to cause. And in a large population of 40k healthy individuals, is is expected for a few to unexpectedly die over 6 months. This is ironic, since skeptics also often seem to claim that 10-50% excess all-causes death in the population was just random noise.
Lack of statistical significance does not mean you get to assume the outcome you want, it means you can't say for sure if the effect exists or not. Therefore if you see more people who take the vaccine die than those who didn't, you need more data. End of story.
This should be obvious, indeed, obvious from high school statistics classes. If the effect does in fact exist and you roll out the vaccine on a global scale, you will end up creating a truly enormous number of deaths that should have never happened. Therefore you must be sure that the number of deaths will reduce. Their data couldn't prove this so it should never have been approved. But of course the whole thing was on rails from the start. The idea that governments would have rejected the vaccine trials when they were telling people vaccines were the only way out of lockdowns and buying up millions of doses before the trials even completed, is naive in the extreme.
The core problem for COVID vaccines is of course that COVID just isn't very deadly and many of the so-called COVID deaths were in people dying anyway of other reasons where the cause of death was spuriously mis-assigned, i.e. not people who will join trials. That's why they struggled to show any impact on death.
Can any Hacker News health experts refute any of the points documented and referenced in the above link made by Steve Kirsch? Any health experts willing to debate him for $1,000,000? Why is there such dead silence on these topics? Is it unimportant? Has society been turned away from real science and rational thought?
If you are wondering if it worked in the c19 vaccine trials, read the science. In one case, there was a p value of greater than .2. Any statistics students want to translate that for the public? Why is it that my post here stating this fact is destined to be attacked, rather than inspiring an intelligent and respectful conversation about the science / or lack of science used to promote vaccines on this forum? Are you guys that brain washed?
Buy some ETH and learn about the blockchain and defi. Some smart people expect ETH to go to 10k or more this year, based on this the code change in July, along with an inflationary collapse of fiat. You could do some videos, or websites based on 11ty and jamstack. It sounds like you are capable. There are some very promising alt-coins that run on ETH that could see 20,000 percent gains this year after the July code change in ETH. A first project - generate your own seed phrase with dice or atmospheric TRNG streams and validate it offline on a secure OS (openBSD?). You could write a python program to do this. You could also help us all get away from centralized banking and services. Good luck.
This is a terrible waste of money. Hydroxychloroquine is less expensive, seems to be more effective according to the research, and backed by more science. You just have to look beyond your mainstream media to find the truth.
HN, The Highwire, Children’s Health Defense, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, YouTube, d.tube for content that would otherwise be censored on YouTube, Stansbury Research. I have been considering The Epoch Times and either WSJ or Bloomberg. I also have a research service that I pay 1250 for, which has resulted in trades with nice gains when markets are volatile. I also advocate for decentralized social networks to avoid severe censorship on various current topics.
Lives saved? The evidence I've given you tells another story, but I see that you are not ready or willing to have that discussion, or review the material.