why is research so difficult?

@wajoma said
From NZ Health shatmixer. I baited the line up good, and shag doody gobbled the bait just as I expected. Link on other thread. I was going to dare you to ask for a source but that might have been too obvious and you would have swum away, had to play it just right.

Take it up with the health authorities spanky.

Same message to you as to metalbrain.

@wajoma said
Yep there's plenty to dispute, even your own numbers, a spread of '20-50 fold' shows how uncertain you are.

But what cannot be disputed is this:

"It did not stop you catching wuflu, it did not stop you becoming extremely ill from wuflu, it did not prevent death from wuflu, it did not prevent you from passing wuflu to others."

kudos to you for having a go, it's obvious shag, donkey dick dildo user, doody for brains is waiting to be rescued.

Listen up 💩 for brains. The poster was talking about hospitalisation and death rates not spread you disingenuous turd
I have type two and COPD and was shoe in for worst scenario with covid but took jags and wore my masks in crowds to reduce viral load. Had Covid t least once, felt really crap for seven days back to work on the 11th day. Go MRA 🥳
We’ve got kids and old people dying of measles in the UK now because of NHS cuts and scumbag anti Vaxxers like yourself

@kevcvs57 said
Listen up 💩 for brains. The poster was talking about hospitalisation and death rates not spread you disingenuous turd
I have type two and COPD and was shoe in for worst scenario with covid but took jags and wore my masks in crowds to reduce viral load. Had Covid t least once, felt really crap for seven days back to work on the 11th day. Go MRA 🥳
We’ve got kids and old people dying of measles in the UK now because of NHS cuts and scumbag anti Vaxxers like yourself

s t a t i s t i c a l___s p r e a d you utter imbecile

"20-50 fold"

@wajoma said
s t a t i s t i c a l___s p r e a d you utter imbecile

"20-50 fold"

Blah blah Blah lie lie lie BS BS BS
Corporate suck up
“ Listen up 💩 for brains. The poster was talking about hospitalisation and death rates not spread you disingenuous turd”

@kevcvs57 said
Blah blah Blah lie lie lie BS BS BS
Corporate suck up

That's been my point kev bamboozle, the juice lovers are licking mega billion dollar drug Corp. anus.
You lick mega billion dollar drug Corp. anus.

That's you bamboozle.

@kevcvs57 said
“ Listen up 💩 for brains. The poster was talking about hospitalisation and death rates not spread you disingenuous turd”

Now to deal with the late edit.
Here's wildgrass' quote:

"I'm sure it's been addressed in prior debate topics. Randomized controlled trials in the US showed '20-50 fold' lower risk of hospitalizations and death in vaxxed vs controls."

She was talking about clotshot efficacy and came up with the number '20-50 fold' (which is still unclear what that is actually measuring)

Then wildgrass went on to say

"You can't really dispute those numbers."

I then went on to make the valid point that "20-50" fold is a large statistical spread. Which would mean there is room for dispute within her own indisputable numbers.

...and you thought it was something about spread of wuflu, haha, it's worse than having to explain percentages to kewpie.

As it happens '20-50 fold' isn't even in the ballpark.

@wajoma said
Yep there's plenty to dispute, even your own numbers, a spread of '20-50 fold' shows how uncertain you are.

But what cannot be disputed is this:

"It did not stop you catching wuflu, it did not stop you becoming extremely ill from wuflu, it did not prevent death from wuflu, it did not prevent you from passing wuflu to others."

kudos to you for having a go, it's obvious shag, donkey dick dildo user, doody for brains is waiting to be rescued.

The fold change depended on the type of vaccine, the demographic group, and the strain. Nothing to dispute.

You can look up the studies.

@wildgrass said
The fold change depended on the type of vaccine, the demographic group, and the strain. Nothing to dispute.

You can look up the studies.

And you can look up the actual NZ stats that show 76% of 0-59 year olds that died of wuflu were juiced up.

I showed my numbers, gave a break down and a link to the NZ Health goobermint site.

@wajoma said
And you can look up the actual NZ stats that show 76% of 0-59 year olds that died of wuflu were juiced up.

I showed my numbers, gave a break down and a link to the NZ Health goobermint site.

Not enough info to form a conclusion on preventable deaths. What's the control group? Are the same risk group? Those are retrospective numbers, subject to bias and open to interpretation.

@wildgrass said
Not enough info to form a conclusion on preventable deaths. What's the control group? Are the same risk group? Those are retrospective numbers, subject to bias and open to interpretation.

Don't make me larf, after shag-pseudy-doody, kev-statistical spread my butt cheeks- bamboozle and kew-what are percentages-pie I can't take much more.

Of the 460 people in the 0-59 year old group that died from wuflu, 76% of them were juiced up. There's no control group. those are the hard numbers. Retrospective numbers are the best numbers because they're black and white, that's what happened, there can be no 'interpretation'.

@wajoma said
Don't make me larf, after shag-pseudy-doody, kev-statistical spread my butt cheeks- bamboozle and kew-what are percentages-pie I can't take much more.

Of the 460 people in the 0-59 year old group that died from wuflu, 76% of them were juiced up. There's no control group. those are the hard numbers. Retrospective numbers are the best numbers because they're black and white, that's what happened, there can be no 'interpretation'.

You post on this subject constantly, yet you seem to have no interest in it.

Your "hard numbers" are flawed statistics, a soft horse turd..without a control it says nothing about vaccine efficacy.

@wildgrass said
You post on this subject constantly, yet you seem to have no interest in it.

Your "hard numbers" are flawed statistics, a soft horse turd..without a control it says nothing about vaccine efficacy.

When we see the basis for your "20-50 fold" numbers they will be retrospective too.

With anticipation, looking forward to it.

@wajoma said
When we see the basis for your "20-50 fold" numbers they will be retrospective too.

With anticipation, looking forward to it.

I didn't comment on retrospective. I commented on your conclusion based on flawed statistics.

Double blind Randomized controlled trials. 40,000 vaccinated and 40,000 placebo. The range 20-50 fold decrease in hospitalizations and deaths accounts for a range of demographics and type of vaccine.

@wildgrass said
I didn't comment on retrospective. I commented on your conclusion based on flawed statistics.

Double blind Randomized controlled trials. 40,000 vaccinated and 40,000 placebo. The range 20-50 fold decrease in hospitalizations and deaths accounts for a range of demographics and type of vaccine.

wildgrass said:

"...Those are retrospective numbers, subject to bias and open to interpretation..."

As will be the basis for your '20-50 fold' numbers when we get to see them. Because the retrospective numbers are the results, they measure what happened they're not projections, or estimates, or modelling, they are 'we did 'X' and 'Y' happened.

This new 40000 number you're positing is very interesting though, are you suggesting that 80000 people wanted the juice but the authorities randomly denied 40000 people the juice and gave them a shot of saline instead. There have been some crazy conspiracy theories around but that's the wildest I've heard. Or they found 80000 people to volunteer for the double blind randomized experiment?

You do see that now we're out the other side of this thing it's not 'trials', we're looking at outcomes.

Let's stop too'ing and fro'ing (stalling) give us the numbers and a source, TIA

@wajoma said
wildgrass said:

"...Those are retrospective numbers, subject to bias and open to interpretation..."

As will be the basis for your '20-50 fold' numbers when we get to see them. Because the retrospective numbers are the results, they measure what happened they're not projections, or estimates, or modelling, they are 'we did 'X' and 'Y' happened.

This new 40000 n ...[text shortened]... king at outcomes.

Let's stop too'ing and fro'ing (stalling) give us the numbers and a source, TIA

Yeah mate. That's what clinical trials are.

Here's one of them. Honestly it has been awhile since I read it... Again I'm surprised that someone like yourself who has spent hours posting on the subject has not looked it up on your own. Why not?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577