/news/ - News

News & Current Events + Happenings + Fuck off jews

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom


Welcome to hate jews /news/
Declaring agendas are not news. Do not post trolling bait threads.
Post quality threads only (more than two sentences), and it's voluntary to crosspost them to /pol/
Never mandatory.

Expand All Images


Review of ISSN 2125-8589 used as Wikipedia Citation and update on work presented se7en##PdYcl+ 01/28/2022 (Fri) 09:25:57 Id: 0f5b10 [Preview] No. 18056
https://se7en-site.neocities.org/articles/review-2022.html

Published: Wed 26 Jan 2022 07:47:13 AM UTC

Updated: Wed 26 Jan 2022 08:49:29 AM UTC

This paper is a review of the following cited work

Csefalvay, Chris von (June 13, 2021). "Early evidence for the safety of certain COVID-19 vaccines using empirical Bayesian modeling from VAERS". medRxiv: 2021.06.10.21258589. doi:10.1101/2021.06.10.21258589. ISSN 2125-8589. S2CID 235413778.

It is, as of time of publishing, being used as a citation on the [1]Vacine Adverse Event Reporting System article on Wikipedia which has the following text (highlight is where citation is found):

During the COVID-19 pandemic, raw VAERS data has often been disseminated by anti-vaccine groups in order to justify misinformation and safety claims related to COVID-19 vaccines, including adverse reactions and alleged fatalities claimed to have been caused by vaccines.Websites such as Medalerts (published by the
anti-vaccine group National Vaccine Information Center) and OpenVAERS (which published a tally of vaccine adverse events and fatalities allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccines based on VAERS data), have been linked to this misinformation. Comparative studies of VAERS, which look at relative reporting rates, have found that the data does not support these claims.
______________

The paper uses an algorithm to get a value (data-set from beginning of data to 28 May 2021, beginning of data I assume to be December 20, 2020) to produce a metric called EBGM.

"Of the 12,477 [VAERS reports for the time period], only 24 had an EBGM mean value exceeding 2.0, commonly regarded as the lower bound for identifying a safety signal."

"Of the 24, 7 (29.17%) are entries for tests conducted and/or normal results and 3 (12.5%) are product- or administration-inherent reports (e.g. temperature excursion during product storage)."

"Of 1,242,557 distinct reports of symptoms from COVID-19 vaccines during the examined period, only 3,768 involved death. It is important to note at this juncture that these reports are not verified, nor is casual attribution performed. The number of deaths (regardless of reporting confidence and lack of attribution) must be seen in the context of the fact that these reports arose from over 300 million doses of vaccination, putting the reporting likelihood at approx. one report of a death for every 79,500 doses administered."

The CDC reports that in May 22, 2021 only 255,200,373 persons received their injection by May 22, 2021.[2]1 That is 54 million persons short, a significant amount to round.

The current checker page by the New York Times[3]2 (updated daily) states the following:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Monday about 251 million people have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, including about 210.5 million people who have been fully vaccinated by Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine or the two-dose series made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna."

So currently, the numbers for single-injection have stagnated, with the reported current approximation actually less than the previous report's claim.

Something thing one has to assume that this Wikipedia citation is incredibly out of date with an incredibly small window of time for analysis as it is comparing a roughly similar amount of injected persons with an amount of reports from May 2021. The previous analysis of 3,769 reports of death from 1,242,557 reports is incredibly obsolete.


se7en##PdYcl+ 01/28/2022 (Fri) 09:26:33 Id: 0f5b10 [Preview] No.18057 del
>>18056
According to VaersAnalysis.info, from December 2020 to January 14, 2022, 1,053,830 total reports exist. (NOTE: it has been reported on in the censored press that they are being deleted [4]3. Out of the remaining 1,053,830 reports, 2,193 reports were death. That means approx 1 in 47 reports are fatal. Compared to the previous Pfizer trial FOIA'd last year [5]4 this is actually an improvement of 1.2%.

Using basic computation with the previous number provided in the report (as it is larger than the current, which is known to have a number of removals) 1 in 202 injections lead to a VAERS entry.

Computing 22,193 death reports to total population (again 251 million) produces 1 in ~11,309 injections leading to REPORTED death. This does not account for potential under-reporting to the system.

I do not have the program openEBGM to run the algorithm. I may download it and provide the results from it in later report.

Considering the fact that these statistics are overall, and do not correspond to Lot Number of vax, we can not truly know if the vax received was saline[6]5 [7]6 [8]7, tainted[9]8 [10]9 [11]10, Expired[12]11 [13]12 [14]13 [15]14, or otherwise affected[16]15 Efforts are being made to find correspondences to this information.

I believe that not only due to the staggering differences in reporting of official numbers, censorship of VAERS information (which may or may not be due to legitimate removal), and concerns of radical above-normal [17]16 [18]17 death-rates comparatively, investigation is immediately necessary.
______________

KoppiMi

©2022 [19]Se7en
CC-BY-SA 4.0 Int or later

By the extent allowed by law, Se7en releases this page under the
[20]Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlilke 4.0 International License
(or later)

References

1. https://wikiless.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System&oldid=1065635741&lang=en
2. https://se7en-site.neocities.org/articles/review-2022.html#1
3. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html
4. https://vaccinedeaths.com/2021-06-01-cdc-removing-covid-vaccine-injury-reports-vaers.html
5. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
6. https://www.ohsu.edu/sites/default/files/2020-12/Vaccine Prep and Reconstitution (Pfizer).pdf
7. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-01/melbourne-deepdene-saline-pfizer-covid-vaccine-injection-mistake/100506516
8. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58186032
9. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58405210
10. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14427323
11. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/us/politics/johnson-covid-vaccine-emergent.html
12. https://howbadismybatch.com/expiry.html
13. https://www.voanews.com/a/nigeria-destroys-1-million-nearly-expired-covid-vaccine-doses/6365879.html
14. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/covid-vaccine-shelf-life-coronavirus-cases-teenagers-vaccination-7704762/
15. https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/vial-lookup
16. https://howbadismybatch.com/states.html
17. https://se7en-site.neocities.org/articles/review-2022.html#16
18. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-how-many-americans-have-died-after-taking-the-covid-vaccine
19. https://se7en-site.neocities.org/
20. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


Reader 01/28/2022 (Fri) 22:34:04 Id: fde1ac [Preview] No.18058 del
So heavy censorship is going on at Wikipedia. Always has been though. There's a reason for that.


Reader 01/30/2022 (Sun) 14:53:03 Id: 827e3b [Preview] No.18061 del
>>18058
Pretty much. Wiki isn't really reliable. >>18056

In universities, professors actually penalize students if the use wikipedia as a source.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply