That is total nonsense. Displays a very basic misunderstanding of the reporting systems, data collection, etc
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @GainOfDystopia
Of course, no causality is clearly established there and the confidence interval is very wide. But given the magnitude of the signal, good luck finding an alternative explanation.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @GainOfDystopia
Oh, there are numerous alternative explanations. The first, and most obvious, has to do with how voluntary reporting systems work. It's why anyone who has even the most basic understanding of VAERS would never write such absolute nonsense
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @GainOfDystopia
Give me some estimates on by how much that data is going to be wrong. Hand waving with "this is nonsense" won't take us very far.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @GainOfDystopia
The magnitude is hard to estimate, but given that there is no demonstrable causal relationship between most reports and the vaccine it is entirely possible that it is a 100% overestimate
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @GainOfDystopia
You can still calculate the probability that an adverse event happening in 40% of the cases in the first 3 days after the shot is pure chance when comparing to some kind of baseline for that age range. My hunch is that it would be very low.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @GainOfDystopia
See, this is what I mean by very basic misunderstanding - these are not adverse events HAPPENING, but REPORTS of events which are influenced by media reports and the like. For example, many incidents reported more than once
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @GainOfDystopia
That's why I am saying "you can calculate the probability the adverse event is happening by chance", i.e, not caused by the vaccine but merely a coincidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GabinJean3 @GainOfDystopia
You cannot, because these are not adverse events but reports which may or may not indicate an adverse event. I'd suggest doing some basic reading because right now you're simply boringly wrong https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @GainOfDystopia
"Adverse event" is just a generic term meaning "something bad happening". Not implying causation in 100% of the cases. But again why is no one looking at that? The advantage of VAERS as a legacy system is it allows us to compare all other things seemingly equal and detect signals
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
This is just a loop. It's a bit like arguing language with someone who refuses to read a dictionary. If you want to know what you're talking about, do some reading, if not I'll bit you farewell to your intentional ignorance 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.