Image not available

1042x1757

24052813.27.png

🧵 R squared value of .9993

Anonymous No. 16198754

New data on the extraordinarily high correlation between increased mortality rates and the covid vaccine.

Its now undeniable, science has murdered million of people with the covid vaccine.

Anonymous No. 16198760

Correlation ≠ causation
Try harder next time schizo

Anonymous No. 16198762

>>16198754
>not peer-reviewed
The preprint doesn't compare mortality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated, just shows that mortality rates go up with population vaccination rates. Also, it doesn't consider if the the person was infected or not.

Only conclusion from this preprint is that vaccination rates are high when population mortality is high.

You and the authors of this preprint fail at understanding the basics of epidemiological studies.

Anonymous No. 16198764

>>16198762
You fail to understand 13 sigma events while haphazardly engaging in reckless medical experimentation.

Anonymous No. 16198765

>>16198764
There's a high correlation between population ice cream consumption and drowning deaths, therefore ice cream causes drowning

Anonymous No. 16198769

>>16198765
nice cope, vaxie

Anonymous No. 16198771

>>16198769
But that is basically your argumentation, that correlation = causation. The authors showed no causal evidence, only correlational

Anonymous No. 16198781

>>16198754
>McCullough lost his license to practice medicine
kek, malpractice doctor trying to do science

Anonymous No. 16198805

>>16198781
>attacking the source because you can't dispute the central point of the argument being made
its like admitting that you're wrong

Anonymous No. 16198808

>>16198805
wasn't the central point that you posted a shitty paper here

Anonymous No. 16198829

>>16198808
how many boosters did you get?

Image not available

740x468

Hill-criteria-of-....png

Anonymous No. 16198843

>>16198771
Correlation isn't causation, but it doesn't exclude a causal link either.
Correlations and epidemiological data was used to determine that smoking causes lung cancer, not experimental evidence or elucidation of causal mechanisms.
>The Bradford Hill criteria, first proposed in 1965 by Sir Austin Bradford Hill, provide a framework to determine if one can justifiably move from an observed association to a verdict of causation. The Bradford Hill criteria include nine viewpoints by which to evaluate human epidemiologic evidence to determine if causation can be deduced: strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy.

Anonymous No. 16198870

>>16198843
Lung cancer is a classic because they observed 1. lung cancer prevalence in non-smokers, 2. lung cancer prevalence in smokers, 3. did a contingency table that shows a proportional increase of lung cancer in smokers.

This preprint did not consider 1. whether the patient suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest was vaccinated or 2. whether the patient had any illnesses.

Guess what other things became prevalent during the pandemic? Obesity rates went up, loneliness rates went up, less people exercising, mental health problems went up. Can we say that the vax made people fat and sad and not go to the gym?

OP probably thinks that way because he is either unable or unwilling to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Anonymous No. 16198902

>>16198870
>Obesity rates went up, loneliness rates went up, less people exercising, mental health problems went up. Can we say that the vax made people fat and sad and not go to the gym?
No, that was an evil inflicted upon people by their governments.

Anonymous No. 16198906

>>16198870
>Obesity rates went up, loneliness rates went up, less people exercising, mental health problems went up. Can we say that the vax made people fat and sad and not go to the gym?
So you're saying that the harm inflicted on people by the effects of lockdown were nearly as bad or perhaps worse than the effects of the pandemic itself? Because you're not contesting that this remarkable spike in excess mortality which began in 2021 occurred, you're merely debating the cause.

Anonymous No. 16198914

>>16198906
I do not deny the excess mortality. Lockdowns were in my opinion too harsh measure and put in place simply because politicians were inefficient and unsuccessful at eradicating the disease immediately when they had the chance and controlling the airports.

Obesity and mental health problems do not go away easily, so the society will suffer from these effects for decades to come. Obese and depressed people have reduced lifespan, reduced ability to work, and develop comorbidities. It would be nice to see some cost estimates for the society.

Anonymous No. 16198916

>>16198914
And the specific subtypes of cardiopulmonary disease and death we have seen a spike in.. they are of the same sort and character that we typically associate with obesity?

Anonymous No. 16198972

>>16198906
>>16198902
the goalposts are moving

Anonymous No. 16198999

>>16198972
I'm not OP, I moved nothing.

Image not available

480x640

0ED9F253-7D86-454....jpg

Anonymous No. 16199001

>>16198760
But correlation DOES equal causation when it comes to drug trials? Lmao. Not only have big pharma coomed inside you with their clot shot, but you also have their cock deep in your mouth. Cope harder vaxxie, remember NO REFUNDS!

Anonymous No. 16199004

>>16199001
Properly done drug trials have control group (saline or vehicle), 3 drug concentration levels to see if there's a concentration dependent effect, and usually a comparison to current standard line treatment.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTROL GROUP IS AND WHAT IT DOES?

Anonymous No. 16199013

>>16199004
>3 drug concentration levels to see if there's a concentration dependent effect, and usually a comparison to current standard line treatment.
Neither of these were done in any of the covid "vaccine" clinical trials.
One dose strength, not compared to any other treatment.

Anonymous No. 16199026

>>16199013
Proofs?

Anonymous No. 16199041

>>16199004
Even so, control groups used in drug trials don’t provide nearly enough rigour to take them seriously. Not to mention the absurdly high pvalues. I could give you meth for your “depression” and you’d feel better. Does mean I “cured” your “depression”? The fact is, if you have enough money you can get a paper published that provides “statistical evidence” of anything you want.

Anonymous No. 16199640

>>16199013
they were, the vaxxxxies were the test subjects, they were all give untested experimental injections of various types indicated by the batch numbers and now the results are being recorded

Anonymous No. 16199671

>>16198754
Still not regretting getting vaccinated, sorry.

Anonymous No. 16200188

I do not regret not taking the vax, thanks

Image not available

622x504

twain sez.jpg

Anonymous No. 16201291

>>16200188
you do regret it, you would've have been triggered to make a false denial if you didn't have emotional issues with respect to your bad decision, you're just too egotistical to ever admit having made a mistake.

Anonymous No. 16201440

>>16201291
how did i make a mistake? i just didn't take it

Anonymous No. 16202098

>>16198771
how many boosters are you on?

Anonymous No. 16202269

>>16200188
I also do not regret taking the vax. You cannot regret acting without knowing unknown facts, only known unknowns.

Anonymous No. 16202933

>>16202269
>its not my fault!!!!
amazing thats all that concerns you about this issue when your life is on the line.

Anonymous No. 16202993

>>16198754
>COVID happens
>death rate increases
>Why did the COVID vaccine cause all these deaths?
Like blaming water hoses for house fires.

Anonymous No. 16202998

>Breaking: Study finds COVID vaccine causes COVID after COVID found to have killed a bunch of people after the introduction of the vaccine
Seems legit.

Anonymous No. 16203015

>>16202993
>COVID happens
no it didn't, there was no evidence of a viral epidemic except for faked pcr tests

Image not available

498x474

1703217812952806.jpg

Anonymous No. 16203177

>>16198762
Very nice excuses. How high would you expect the correlation to be between deaths and infection considering the known fact that Covid-19 had a 99.986% survival rate untreated?

Anonymous No. 16203190

>>16198760
>computer program has a function that takes in variables and outputs number of deaths
>go to every person object and change "vaccinated" to true
>check output
>deaths have gone up substantially
>"hmmmm.. I'm going to need more data on this"

It's literally this simple. No, it's not the 0.00001% fluctuation in variable A. Stop being fucking dense.

Anonymous No. 16203205

>>16202993

>The coof is giving people heart attacks!

Well, I guess it's important we give everyone a vaccine... which is now confirmed by multiple studies to increase your likelihood of getting covid.

>But it lessens the symptoms!

This was never studied by anyone, is impossible to prove on an individual level, and (if it were true) would invite study of the exact degree of increased susceptibility and decreased symptoms so that people could make a fully informed decision about whether or not to take it.

It's amazing, the pro-vax side clearly have no argument and offer but the flimsiest of deflections to the ever mounting evidence of criminal medical negligence, and yet they keep on deflecting. I think there are a lot of people who believe that playing stupid is going to stop them being held to account.

It won't.

Image not available

1024x1024

1683560625759539.jpg

Anonymous No. 16203208

>>16203205
Vaccines no longer need to have any known positive benefit, bigot!

Image not available

720x215

Screenshot_202405....jpg

Anonymous No. 16203248

>>16203208

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23786932-fda-letter-on-covid-19-vaccine-labeling

I guess it's real.

To be fair, this is like 30 pages of the FDA saying "denied", from what I can gather quickly glancing over it. A choice passage presented here.

>Yeah, we know the efficacy wanes after 2 months, that's why it says we don't know how long it lasts, same thing, right?

Image not available

500x775

1683838358645439.jpg

Anonymous No. 16203256

>>16203248

Image not available

1179x1252

IMG_3213.jpg

Anonymous No. 16203580

>>16198829

Anonymous No. 16203725

>>16203205
>which is now confirmed by multiple studies to increase your likelihood of getting covid.
Correlation is not causation. Red hatters live out in the boonies and thought Bill Gates created the vaccine to put microchips in people that sterilize them. When the people avoiding the shit have significantly less human contact due to living in rural areas and being friendless assholes that need to touch grass and the people getting it live in cities and have social lives, obviously you'll see more people get the vaccine end up getting COVID.

>This was never studied by anyone, is impossible to prove on an individual level
You think it's possible to prove the vaccine makes you more likely to get COVID and not possible to prove the vaccine makes you less likely to die from COVID? You'd think the horse dewormer would have taken care of those brain worms you've got.

Anonymous No. 16203748

>>16198754
>increased mortality starts in 2020, year of the covid, one year before the start of the vaccination compaign, even longer before mass vaccination starts
if only americans were encouraged to educate themselves

Anonymous No. 16203762

>>16198754
>If science kills, how come I'm not dead yet?
Checkmate schizo's

Anonymous No. 16205209

>>16203748
No shit the earliest people that died from Covid were the oldest, fattest, and sickest. That can be true and people were also killed by poorly conceived, inadequately tested and messily produced novel medical products rushed to market at an unprecedented pace under emergency authorisation indemnifying the producers of any responsibility.

Image not available

1122x149

lol.png

Anonymous No. 16205310

>>16205209
the study in OP doesn't even have numbers for cardiopulmonary arrest death for 2023. They extrapolated that number. The analysis is based on three numbers and one of them is extrapolated from the first two. it's hilarious

Anonymous No. 16205355

>>16205310
I'm not defending this study, just some of the thinking that motivated it.

Anonymous No. 16206087

>>16198754
>>16198870
remember that we know the mechanism behind this
>We further observed that SARS-CoV-2 spike suppresses p53 transcriptional activity in cancer cells
>We further observed that SARS-CoV-2 spike suppresses p53 transcriptional activity in cancer cells
>We further observed that SARS-CoV-2 spike suppresses p53 transcriptional activity in cancer cells
>We further observed that SARS-CoV-2 spike suppresses p53 transcriptional activity in cancer cells
>We further observed that SARS-CoV-2 spike suppresses p53 transcriptional activity in cancer cells
https://www.oncotarget.com/article/28582/text/

Anonymous No. 16206102

>>16205310
>oh no they used all available data
shills don't even understand anything these days. A better critique is why they singled out King County versus other places, or instead of studying more cities. There could be reasons for it.

Anonymous No. 16206868

>>16206102
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!
https://www.healthcentral.com/condition/schizophrenia/paranoid-schizophrenia

Anonymous No. 16207394

>>16198762
>peer-reviewed

What does a peer review even mean?
Does a peer review validate methods and materials ? NO.
Does a peer review actually reproduce the experiment to validate the outcome? NO.
Does peer review mean, people with conflicts of interest approving a paper or rejecting a paper based on their political bias or egotistical impact on their percieved intellect, if a paper aligns or contradicts their opinions? YES.

Peer review is not even tested to be an effective method, to ensure qualtiy of science.
In fact it is proven to be ineffective to detect fraud or validity of techniques applied.
It is an intransparent meme process to ensure keeping up a bubble.
> it is Gate keeping

If peer review would be so "good" then it baffles me all the time that we have a "repdoduction crisis" and a "fraud" crisis especcially in mecidine and bioinformatics.
Sadly most peers and especcially in health related fileds are paid by the Companies that produce a product.
And if a paper threatens the benefit or validity of a product, the paper will get sabotaged within the peer review process.
This is not only true for vaccines. Same shit happens for absolutely useless vitameme products and "supplements".

Anonymous No. 16208229

>>16207394
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3eMWLG7Rro

Anonymous No. 16208249

>>16198765
>high
the co relation between it being summer and people drowning is not .9993 but nice try!

Image not available

800x533

Trump lols at u.jpg

Anonymous No. 16209141

>>16198754
>science has murdered million of people with the covid vaccine.
sure, but it was all the right people

Image not available

1080x1945

cYX23.jpg

Anonymous No. 16210228

Anonymous No. 16210249

>>16210228
there are already two threads about this article

Anonymous No. 16211069

>>16210249
Thats because its important news

Image not available

738x415

lincoln was a tri....jpg

Anonymous No. 16212509

>R squared value of .9993
even with this level of certainty the vaccinated will not admit that they made a mistake and got badly tricked by the scientists and doctors

Anonymous No. 16217188

>>16207394
>it baffles me all the time that we have a "repdoduction crisis" and a "fraud" crisis especcially in mecidine and bioinformatics.
its pretty simple why, they lie because they make more money that way

Anonymous No. 16218696

>>16203015
The virus was fake, but the deaths from the "vaccine" were very real.
And its epic, all the right people are being wiped out

Image not available

220x229

typical greedy sc....jpg

Anonymous No. 16220860

>>16212509
>got badly tricked by the scientists and doctors
Its was actually the (((media))) that they were tricked by. They trusted the (((media))) as a proxy for science when in reality the actual scientists were mostly against the idea of the vax, except for the ones who had financial conflicts of interest that lead them support it.
And of course it was the financially compromised ones that the (((media))) put on TV exclusively