LDS Freedom Forum

This author surveyed 3,000 people. Survey says only 48% of adults received the shots and the shots killed around 300,000 people.

https://mark-skidmore.com/wp-content/up ... D88e9TRlD0

Well, that's one way to kill them. If they put signs out that says "Stupid people get in this line" the stupid people would escape injury because stupid people do not realize that they are stupid. But offer a shot with no known benefit and they flock to it like maggots.

More like 400,000
93% of corpses that an embalmer prepared had blood clots like she has never seen before.

2minute video
https://rumble.com/vytm7m-pennsylvania- ... eaths.html

Christianlee wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 6:57 pm This author surveyed 3,000 people. Survey says only 48% of adults received the shots and the shots killed around 300,000 people.

https://mark-skidmore.com/wp-content/up ... D88e9TRlD0

This study was very comprehensive. I would like to see how Artaxerxes tries to refute it.

The only limitation we have is that we are only examining three vaccines here (those that the US approves for use within its borders). Which have precisely been the three most problematic vaccines worldwide with maybe the lone exception of AZ.

Subcomandante wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 12:16 pm

Christianlee wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 6:57 pm This author surveyed 3,000 people. Survey says only 48% of adults received the shots and the shots killed around 300,000 people.

https://mark-skidmore.com/wp-content/up ... D88e9TRlD0

This study was very comprehensive. I would like to see how Artaxerxes tries to refute it.

The only limitation we have is that we are only examining three vaccines here (those that the US approves for use within its borders). Which have precisely been the three most problematic vaccines worldwide with maybe the lone exception of AZ.

It's not a study. It's attempting to combine two unreliable sources and calling it data. First, the article just asks people in an online survey (which are known to be the least reliable types of surveys), "Hey, do you know anyone who's died from the vax?" That's not we establish death numbers or anything scientific. Just asking random people "Why do you think Steve died?" is not a basis for a study, particularly not online.

Second, he uses vaers data to establish causation after even acknowledging that's not what it's used for. He says "Yes, I know the CDC says not to use vaers data doesn't show causation ... But I'm going to pretend that it does anyway."

It's absolute garbage, and the author has to know it. These methods are totally invalid. He's just publishing something that people want to hear.

Artaxerxes wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 12:28 pm

Subcomandante wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 12:16 pm

Christianlee wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 6:57 pm This author surveyed 3,000 people. Survey says only 48% of adults received the shots and the shots killed around 300,000 people.

https://mark-skidmore.com/wp-content/up ... D88e9TRlD0

This study was very comprehensive. I would like to see how Artaxerxes tries to refute it.

The only limitation we have is that we are only examining three vaccines here (those that the US approves for use within its borders). Which have precisely been the three most problematic vaccines worldwide with maybe the lone exception of AZ.

It's not a study. It's attempting to combine two unreliable sources and calling it data. First, the article just asks people in an online survey (which are known to be the least reliable types of surveys), "Hey, do you know anyone who's died from the vax?" That's not we establish death numbers or anything scientific. Just asking random people "Why do you think Steve died?" is not a basis for a study, particularly not online.

Second, he uses vaers data to establish causation after even acknowledging that's not what it's used for. He says "Yes, I know the CDC says not to use vaers data doesn't show causation ... But I'm going to pretend that it does anyway."

It's absolute garbage, and the author has to know it. These methods are totally invalid. He's just publishing something that people want to hear.

The sample size that was shown was roughly 3000 people, from diverse backgrounds and ages, and even with comparable political party affiliation to the nation as a whole.

The study does show that the vaccines are more effective but it comes at a very high cost as far as livelihoods and sicknesses are concerned. Certainly not safe. Otherwise the pharmaceuticals would come to Congress to say, "you know what? Those liability protections that you gave us? Eff them. We won't be needing them anymore."

Subcomandante wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 1:27 pm

Artaxerxes wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 12:28 pm

Subcomandante wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 12:16 pm

Christianlee wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 6:57 pm This author surveyed 3,000 people. Survey says only 48% of adults received the shots and the shots killed around 300,000 people.

https://mark-skidmore.com/wp-content/up ... D88e9TRlD0

This study was very comprehensive. I would like to see how Artaxerxes tries to refute it.

The only limitation we have is that we are only examining three vaccines here (those that the US approves for use within its borders). Which have precisely been the three most problematic vaccines worldwide with maybe the lone exception of AZ.

It's not a study. It's attempting to combine two unreliable sources and calling it data. First, the article just asks people in an online survey (which are known to be the least reliable types of surveys), "Hey, do you know anyone who's died from the vax?" That's not we establish death numbers or anything scientific. Just asking random people "Why do you think Steve died?" is not a basis for a study, particularly not online.

Second, he uses vaers data to establish causation after even acknowledging that's not what it's used for. He says "Yes, I know the CDC says not to use vaers data doesn't show causation ... But I'm going to pretend that it does anyway."

It's absolute garbage, and the author has to know it. These methods are totally invalid. He's just publishing something that people want to hear.

The sample size that was shown was roughly 3000 people, from diverse backgrounds and ages, and even with comparable political party affiliation to the nation as a whole.

The study does show that the vaccines are more effective but it comes at a very high cost as far as livelihoods and sicknesses are concerned. Certainly not safe. Otherwise the pharmaceuticals would come to Congress to say, "you know what? Those liability protections that you gave us? Eff them. We won't be needing them anymore."

It's not the size of the survey, but the fact that it's an online survey at all, asking people about a scientific question. I can't think of any question asked in this way that would produce accurate data. Would asking people "Do you know anyone with a red car," or "Do you know anyone who watches HBO" give you good data? Then add on top of that the scientific element and it's like asking "Do you know anyone who got cancer from eating too much red meat?" There's just no value to any response you get.

The correct way to collect data on vaccine safety is through trials, especially double blind studies. These studies have shown that the vax is safe.

"A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... tured_home

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73 ... 49/5962856

(For the uninitiated, BNT162b2 refers to the Comirnaty vaccine as packaged by Pfizer - Bio N Tech).

For the second link, which vaccines were used? I imagine it would have been SinoVac by the description in the study.

Subcomandante wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 1:53 pm (For the uninitiated, BNT162b2 refers to the Comirnaty vaccine as packaged by Pfizer - Bio N Tech).

For the second link, which vaccines were used? I imagine it would have been SinoVac by the description in the study.

I think that's correct