Largest Vax Study Ever Confirms “Conspiracy Theorists” Were Right All Along!

It's not from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

 

is that supposed to reference something?

 

I'm sure I explained it!

 

Try reading it this time.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/largest-vax-study-ever-confirms-“conspiracy-theorists”-were-right-all-along.617001/page-4#post-1074688322

 

Is this too hard to understand? The report fully explains everything. You can't complain to others if you aren't educated enough to understand it. You can't expect people to educate you when you are posting horseshit all over the forum.

 

Well you and the other one seem to have the idea that I'm too ignorant to understand what's being said but it seems that's not the case since neither one of you have been able to explain and articulate it I will happily accept both of your concessions!

 

A report explaining in easy to understand language details things this person doesn't understand. And because he doesn't understand them, he claims a deceptive "concession" because nobody wants to take the time to explain it, in even more simpler terms (if that is even possible)!

The moral of this story is people who don't understand simple medical reports, have no damn business spewing them out on multiple threads!

 

The moral of the story is people who claim other people are ignorant and don't understand and those same people that claim I am too ignorant to understand can't explain it, proves beyond a shadow of doubt they don't know what it means, therefore I accept and continue to accept your concession.

Posting rebuttals that can't be explained when challenged proves you cannot articulate and argue what it means, so it's best not to call other people ignorant unless you're prepared to be challenged to explain, articulate and argue the matter. Failing that, is a concession.

 

What a totally absurd argument. YOU post a study that YOU suggest supports your foolish claim. Notwithstanding that it completely fails to do so, you complain that nobody has explained simple text to you, that you damn well should have read in the first place.

I accept your admission that you don't understand the things you presented as evidence,

Hilarious.

The moral of this story is people who don't understand simple medical reports, have no damn business spewing them out on multiple threads!

 

That's why you were challenged when you posted your rebuttal, and you failed that challenge you failed to explain and articulate the meaning of your rebuttal, this is known in any court of law as tacid admission/concession in this case tacit concession.

Therefore you tacitly conceded.

If you refer to someone's tacit agreement or approval, you mean they are agreeing to something or approving it without actually saying so, often because they are unwilling to admit to doing so.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/tacit

 

What a crock. A simple piece of text TAKEN FROM THE DAMN REPORT, that YOU cited was highlighted to show your complete failure.

Astonishingly you can't even understand it and ask people to explain the damn thing to you?

The moral of this story is people who don't understand simple medical reports, have no damn business spewing them out on multiple threads

 

Here we go folks you will see the above post spammed 10,000 times throughout the thread going forward despite the fact he already conceded the matter see details in post 111.

 

A blatant lie. Nowhere have I conceded ANYTHING to you in any of these threads. You complained about THE salient part of the report showing your whole claim to be a crock of crap. You complained that you didn't understand it!

On top of that he completely ignores, from his own damn report!

The researchers added a major caveat to this finding: ‘Chances of having a neurological event following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were up to 617-fold higher than following COVID vaccination, suggesting that the benefits of vaccination substantially outweigh the risks.’

Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England - Office for National Statistics
"Comparing mortality across coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination status is challenging because the size and age structure of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations changes over time, because of vaccinations being offered according to priority groups set out by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). To account for these differences, we calculated age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs). However, the vaccination roll-out was also prioritised by health status of individuals, with the extremely clinically vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions being vaccinated earlier than other people in their age group. In addition, frontline health and social care workers, who could have a higher occupational risk, were also prioritised for vaccination. These factors influence the ASMRs and are particularly apparent for the non-COVID-19 mortality rates. The ASMRs are also affected by changes over time such as in infection levels, different dominant variants, differing level of immunity from prior infection and seasonal mortality.

ASMRs are therefore not equivalent to measures of vaccine effectiveness, which are reported on the COVID-19 insights tool. The ASMRs give the age-adjusted risk of death for the people in the different vaccination status groups. Estimating vaccine effectiveness is challenging when vaccination status is not allocated at random, as factors that vary between the vaccination status groups and over time need to be accounted for to determine the causal impact of vaccines on mortality. "

"The analysis of the non-COVID-19 ASMRs show that the changing composition of the groups of people in the different vaccination statuses can have a large effect on mortality, thereby limiting the insights that can be gained from these comparisons. However, the monthly ASMRs for deaths involving COVID-19 are consistently lower for those who had the second dose at least 21 days ago compared to those who are unvaccinated, demonstrating the effect that the vaccine is having on reducing COVID-19 mortality. We will continue to publish updates and analysis on deaths by vaccination status."

_________________________________________________________________________________

NOW, that paragraph in red is the one confusing him. You'd think he'd have bothered reading and understanding what he was going to post, before dumping it on yet another spam thread! The preceding paragraph fully explains it and the one following it (with some emphasis for anyone not understanding this!") summarizes it.

 

He taunts people who present evidence that effectively refutes the nonsense he posts.

Dealing with some anti-vaxxers...

 

To be fair, it isn't my ideological needle being used. It's lefty rhetoric that generally always suggests that one death is too many. And now that we've seen just how many thousands died from just the jab, it sure seems like that your ideology is very consistent....

 

You're not a "we" and that is a ludicrous number.

 

IIRC the WHO put it into the millions as a direct result of the vax.

 

Far, far more died from covid.

If the U.S. had Canada's covid death rate, 600k Americans would be alive today.

 

I've seen you and had the displeasure of interacting with you personally and found that every single time that I do you always resort to personal attacks.

It kind of indicates that you don't really have a good point.

 

Why?

 

They really hate the idea of others being able to tell them I told you so.

They would rather commit to a falsehood than eat a little crow.

 

And your response is a personal attack.

It kind of doesn't when there is a point that you just ignored.

The OP has made a claim that is debunked by his own report. It states it quite clearly with an extensive description and summary. He has replied that he doesn't understand the text and wants someone to explain it to him.

Ergo, don't post outlandish claims if you don't understand the source for the claim!

 

the only thing slightly personal I said that wasn't an attack was it's a displeasure.

I strictly attacked what you have said. If you take that personally that's your problem.

I didn't read.

You do this because you cannot make a point.

 

As you didn't read, your awareness of the point CLEARLY MADE is missed!

The OP has made a claim that is debunked by his own report. It states it quite clearly with an extensive description and summary. He has replied that he doesn't understand the text and wants someone to explain it to him. Ergo, don't post outlandish claims if you don't understand the source for the claim!

This was a follow on from this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/largest-vax-study-ever-confirms-“conspiracy-theorists”-were-right-all-along.617001/page-5#post-1074689878

Which is one of numerous follow-ons (all ignored because the OP didn't understand it! See one post top of the page confirming this) from here, page 1:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/largest-vax-study-ever-confirms-“conspiracy-theorists”-were-right-all-along.617001/#post-1074682433

 

Ignoring the off topic noise.

/thread