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

You seem to believe that rebuts my claims, and have been asked several times to tell us what it is in your quote that makes you think it rebuts my claim. You refused or cannot explain your position, you simply keep spamming the thread with the same **** and no explnation how it refutes my claim, therefore we have no choice but to conclude you concede and retract your claim.

 

Ibid
"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."
_________________________________

1. That IS English.
2. It DOES state quite clearly that ASMRs are not equivalent to measure vaccine effectiveness!
3. It DOES state quite clearly that the group changes have a LARGE EFFECT on mortality and LIMIT any gained insights!
4. It DOES state quite clearly that second dose figures are consistently LOWER than UNVACCINATED!

 

so then if 1 is true 3 and 4 cannot be true.

Additionally changing the grouping does not change the mortality, the same number of people died, only shifts it.

 

Gibberish. That is just evasion.

Your total inability to understand the nature of how the groups are described as evolving, your total failure to acknowledge that the report acknowledges the success of the vaccine and your evasion on the way this whole thing debunks your own flawed claim, is really not impressive.
ibid.
"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."

 

Nope its called exposing ****ed up logic which I take notice you evaded addressing.

 

It appears viewers and posters are being given the run-around! Quite obviously to anybody who understands English, the vaccine is significantly more effective than the unvaccinated. The higher points on the graph have been explained numerous times and STILL ignored or not understood!

As noted, you don't appear to be able to read simple charts. It quite specifically shows 1st/2nd/3rd dose lines.

Your inability to understand what the phrase means is the problem.
Fully Vaccinated vs. Partially Vaccinated | Everything You Need To Know | Medicspot

The red line is consistently up there and this doesn't account for the group composition changes with the big arrow for first dose (ie. PARTIALLY VACCINATED!) showing what you clearly missed.

Had you read the report properly it details quite specifically why these readings are not as accurate as they could be.



Even by age group it's clear that the RED LINE is significant:



The declining slope of the red line indicates the effectiveness in the vaccine in cutting down transmission to the people who didn't get vaccinated.

 

It worked especially well for the single jab increasing green line!

 

An endless conveyor belt of meaningless responses. Always with the stupid emoji.

Why can you not understand English?

It quite specifically shows 1st/2nd/3rd dose lines.

Your inability to understand what the phrase means is the problem.
Fully Vaccinated vs. Partially Vaccinated | Everything You Need To Know | Medicspot

The red line is consistently up there and this doesn't account for the group composition changes with the big arrow for first dose(ie. PARTIALLY VACCINATED!) showing what you clearly missed.

Had you read the report properly it details quite specifically why these readings are not as accurate as they could be.



Can you see the big red arrow? Changing composition creates a false reading!

 

The only thing I can see thats false is the nonsense conclusions in your post that you have been spamming across several threads.

 

Meaningless gibberish statement. You are playing the chain-yanking game by ignoring every single piece of evidence that contradicts your poor understanding of medical reports. You go to anti-vax sites, lift their whole junk article and dump it here without knowing what you are posting or ever, in a million years, attempting to verify any of it!

 

false reading of what?

 

Sigh! It's like I am writing in English about a report in English, that details in English why the first dose line has a false reading.

Should I make the letters even bigger? Do I need to get some dictionary definitions here?

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.

 

So what? How accurate is it, seems its completely useless based on your posts and you have not explained WTH its good for and doubtful you ever will.

 

Nah bigger letters wont help you just need to stop posting contradictions.

 

What a pathetic response. Not only is there admitted failure to understand a simple, SIMPLE report, apparently the report is completely useless now because of that fact!

Let's remind everyone here that the whole premise of this useless junk thread WAS that report.

You cannot make this up, there's absurd and then there's dismissing a report relied on by the person dismissing it. Hilarious.

 

never the truth!

Bravo!

Worlds record!

 

This is getting really tedious. Every post now, is getting a comment in response, that is bloviating horseshit.

 

Yes your claims have been BUSTED, only way you get a response now is if you retract those bogus claims in every thread you spammed it in!

He uses the same source for the same reasons that I used it, claims its invalid for me and ok for him then spams his claims as valid in every one of my threads.

Did it slow the bunk claims down? NOPE still at it even when its all on the table exposed as bunk. See the deceitful contradiction below

 

No, really they haven't. YOU are using a paper to make a case, when that very paper proves the opposite.

Your inability to understand the language used in the paper should be noted by you as a reason for you NOT to post foot-shooting horseshit.

You seem to be getting confused here. None of the things I have posted are bogus, none of them have been cross-thread spammed. And most of all I really couldn't give a flying one whether you reply or not!

False. I used the same source and instead of what you did, cherry picked a small part of it to make a deceptive claim!, I looked at the full article and found that it refutes you completely!

A lie. I have made no such claim - I haven't even used that word at all.

Another lie. I have spammed nothing. I actually went looking for the source of your complaint and found that YOU had cross-quoted ME into other threads!

They aren't bunk. Every time you attempt to cover up your mistake, I will highlight it. You don't get to dump horseshit on the forum and expect people not to expose it!

For some ludicrous reason, you have taken a post from another thread, the top part of the image (NOT posted by me in this thread), pasted it into stuff I HAVE posted in this thread and written a big red word over it.

1. The top part of the "busted" image is from THIS thread.
2. You have failed at every request to answer it and have now taken to spamming your ridiculous "busted" images on that thread as well.
3. The lower part of that idiotic "busted" image is relevant to this thread and details where you have admitted you don't understand the content of the paper you used!

The salient part of that image is still not acknowledged, despite efforts to explain it in ever more simpler terms!

Whilst the graphs may be distorting the first dose group involved, in terms of how their vaccination status evolves (AS EXPLAINED!), the numbers of deaths are not affected. This statement therefore carries no "contradiction" (meh!):
ibid.
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.

 

Everybody saw your logic blunder too late.

 

You aren't "everybody" and there WAS no logic blunder. You have had your useless argument taken apart and are using whatever means you can to cover it up. I won't let you do that.

Post #144

 

Just man up and admit that you ****ed up, and that you still can't explain what the hell it means! If you could you wouldn't have used the graph that you used!


Too late the dance is over!

 

Noise. Bafflingly so. Somewhere along the line this person has got his wires crossed. Either that or it's a deliberate attempt, trying to cover up yet another screw up.