[stack]

Exclaiming that none of the articles have vax status might be hyperbole.

I didn't claim none. Just the ones I checked where there was no mention of vax status. Pretty simple really.

Claiming that you checked the ten articles before and the ten articles after is not. That is a blatant lie of claiming to do something you did not do to try to win your argument.

And how exactly did you determine this?

And I have a really simple question for you. The author claims that the 1600+ listed were killed or harmed by the "COVID Injection". Do you believe that claim to be:

TRUE
or
FALSE

I bet dollars to donuts that you won't answer the question.

[Tom Bishop]

Exclaiming that none of the articles have vax status might be hyperbole.

I didn't claim none. Just the ones I checked where there was no mention of vax status. Pretty simple really.

You specifically claimed that you checked the ten articles before and ten articles after. You lied.

Claiming that you checked the ten articles before and the ten articles after is not. That is a blatant lie of claiming to do something you did not do to try to win your argument.

And how exactly did you determine this?

You claimed it publicly on the forum here:

It's pretty clear you're the one doing the lying. You found one. Good for you. I checked the news stories for the 10 before yours and the 10 after. No mention of vaccine status. Zero.

And I have a really simple question for you. The author claims that the 1600+ listed were killed or harmed by the "COVID Injection". Do you believe that claim to be:

TRUE
or
FALSE

I bet dollars to donuts that you won't answer the question.

The author does not specifically claim that all people died because of the vaccine. This is another lie from you. The author gives the deaths as a reason to be suspicious of the vaccination program.

The author concedes in the first paragraph on the page that it is possible that not all of the people listed were vaccinated: "While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause."

Please refrain from making blatant lies if you wish to engage in any meaningful discussion.

[Tom Bishop]

This is the fallacy of "Trust the Science" and appeals to authority:

https://twitter.com/hugh_mankind/status/1617186187524833281

[stack]

And I have a really simple question for you. The author claims that the 1600+ listed were killed or harmed by the "COVID Injection". Do you believe that claim to be:

TRUE
or
FALSE

I bet dollars to donuts that you won't answer the question.

The author does not specifically claim that all people died because of the vaccine. This is another lie from you. The author gives the deaths as a reason to be suspicious of the vaccination program.

The author concedes in the first paragraph on the page that it is possible that not all of the people listed were vaccinated: "While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause."

Please refrain from making blatant lies if you wish to engage in any meaningful discussion.

"While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause."

"In response to their pronouncement, here is a non-exhaustive and continuously growing list of mainly young athletes who had major medical issues in 2021/2022 after receiving one or more COVID vaccines."

Seems pretty clear they are saying what the “only obvious cause” is and that their list is of people who were harmed "after receiving one or more COVID vaccines.”

And yet we find many, many entries in the list where vax status is completely absent/unknown. How is it a list of people who received "one or more COVID vaccines" when we don't have any evidence that they did receive "one or more COVID vaccines"? How does that work?

Still won't answer the True/False question? Didn't think so.

[Rama Set]

This is the fallacy of "Trust the Science" and appeals to authority:

They aren't looking because there is no public health basis to do so and because doing so would only serve to feed the idiot trolls, like yourself.  No fallacy there, just troll idiots, like yourself.

[Tom Bishop]

The seemingly endless material on this is definitely interesting. It's possible that some of the alt news on this is true. I doubt it will stop. Imagine having to spend the rest of your life worried about the science experiments you willingly had injected into your body.

https://twitter.com/_Janey_J/status/1619180928353591296

[Lord Dave]

The seemingly endless material on this is definitely interesting. It's possible that some of the alt news on this is true. I doubt it will stop. Imagine having to spend the rest of your life worried about the science experiments you willingly had injected into your body.

https://twitter.com/_Janey_J/status/1619180928353591296

This is clearly false.
The vaccine (because only one exists) gives blood clots, 5G, and ASDS.  Not AIDS.

Geeze, learn the proper narrative.

[Rama Set]

“Further analysis showed that the average fully vaccinated German would reach minus-100% immune system degradation by the end of January 2022.“

This means that literally every fully vaccinated German would already be dead, so obviously this isn’t true.

[Tom Bishop]

Considering that it is talking about vaccinated people getting Covid more often than non-vaccinated, it is possible for it to be a 100%, or even 200% or 500% difference.

[Action80]

A fine, upstanding example of a pharmaceutical executive in action.

[Lord Dave]

“Further analysis showed that the average fully vaccinated German would reach minus-100% immune system degradation by the end of January 2022.“

This means that literally every fully vaccinated German would already be dead, so obviously this isn’t true.

No it does not.

'-100% degredation' is a double negative.  So it means that fully vaccinated people will have 100% strong immune system.

[Rama Set]

 :'(

“Further analysis showed that the average fully vaccinated German would reach minus-100% immune system degradation by the end of January 2022.“

This means that literally every fully vaccinated German would already be dead, so obviously this isn’t true.

No it does not.

'-100% degredation' is a double negative.  So it means that fully vaccinated people will have 100% strong immune system.

True. Anyway, between Tom and Action69 this thread is giving me a headache. I’m out for now.

[stack]

Germany has a 76.23% full vax rate. Kinda seems obvious that more vaxed people would get covid than unvaxed peoples.

[Tom Bishop]

Germany has a 76.23% full vax rate. Kinda seems obvious that more vaxed people would get covid than unvaxed peoples.

The article says it accounts for that -

https://newspunch.com/german-govt-bombshell-alarming-number-of-vaccinated-are-developing-aids/

In Germany at the time, 70.53% were fully vacinated, 2.97% were partially vaccinated and 26.5% were unvaccinated, according to reports.

So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population.

So the vaccinated Omicron case incidence was 57 per 1 per cent of the population (830,000 is 1% of the 83 million German population). While the unvaccinated Omicron case incidence was just 7.02 per 1 per cent of the population.

So the vaccinated were (57.0/7.02 =) 8.12x more likely to be infected with Omicron than the unvaccinated in Germany .

[stack]

What's really interesting is that the article says:

"So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population."

Unvaxed = 186 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

(Pay attention to the 186 number)

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

The article uses that data to then go about their extrapolations.

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

So now that 186 number in the article is actually 1097.

Doing the calculations again with the corrected number:

Unvaxed = 186 1097 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = .0008% 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.006%

Now, it's 0.005% versus 0.006% which renders the entire article incorrect and moot.

[Action80]

What's really interesting is that the article says:

"So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population."

Unvaxed = 186 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

(Pay attention to the 186 number)

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

The article uses that data to then go about their extrapolations.

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

So now that 186 number in the article is actually 1097.

Doing the calculations again with the corrected number:

Unvaxed = 186 1097 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = .0008% 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.006%

Now, it's 0.005% versus 0.006% which renders the entire article incorrect and moot.

Wrong.

It is .005% vs .007%

1097/22000000 * 100 = .00498 or .005

4020/61000000 * 100 = .00659 or .007

[stack]

What's really interesting is that the article says:

"So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population."

Unvaxed = 186 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

(Pay attention to the 186 number)

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

The article uses that data to then go about their extrapolations.

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

So now that 186 number in the article is actually 1097.

Doing the calculations again with the corrected number:

Unvaxed = 186 1097 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = .0008% 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.006%

Now, it's 0.005% versus 0.006% which renders the entire article incorrect and moot.

Wrong.

It is .005% vs .007%

1097/22000000 * 100 = .00498 or .005

4020/61000000 * 100 = .00659 or .007

Looks like I was off by 0.00041. My bad.

Still renders the article incorrect and moot so I'm not sure what the necessity was for the heavy lifting on the math, but I appreciate the input and correction nonetheless.

Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.

[Action80]

Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.

Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

[stack]

Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.

Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.

[Action80]

Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.

Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.

Now, why do you think a provided correction somehow renders the article incorrect?