This one is for the real stats folks.

Let's deal with some objections to the deaths after flu vax/deaths after Covid vax comparison.

1) I agree Covid vaccine deaths are probably more likely to be reported than flu vaccine deaths. Are they 900 times more likely? Very doubtful...

2) Here's one good reason to think the gap may be small. The ratio of non-serious to serious Vaers reports is far HIGHER for the flu vax than for Covid. In other words, people have basically STOPPED filing non-serious event reports after Covid shots, because they are so common...
3) If people were clogging VAERS with Covid vaccine side effects reports because they are so sensitized to them, we'd see the opposite - tons of reports in every category. We aren't, though.
4) Children aside (and children do receive a lot of flu shots), the idea that the Covid vaccine is going to a meaningfully different population than the flu vaccine is nonsense. Flu campaigns are targeted at the elderly and healthcare workers, just like the Covid vaccine...
5) The correct area under the curve at risk post-Covid vaccinations is not 41 million doses x 8 weeks of followup. It's more like 41 million doses x 3 days. READ THE VAERS REPORTS YOURSELF. I have. The "he was hit by a bus a week after being vaccinated" isn't what's in there...
6) Nearly all of the deaths are under a week out from the vaccine (occasionally sequalae more than a week out to illness that began sooner). This is meaningful because the vaxxers keep saying, 50,000 people out of 41 million would have died anyway in 8 weeks, nothing to see here.
7) In reality, in the US, in a population of 41 million, about 1,000 die every day (this is VERY age-stratified, but it is also, HEALTH stratified, and making a real comparison to the vaccinated population is tricky). The point is that 1,170 deaths is NOT a trivial number...
8) Once you use the correct denominator. Especially since I don't think anyone believes VAERS is capturing all post-vaccination severe adverse events, including deaths. Is it capturing 10%? 20%? Can anyone guess?
9) Ultimately, we have many, many unknowns in the statistics. That's why examining THE REPORTS THEMSELVES is so important. Read a sample for yourself before you tell me, nothing to see here.

More from Health

Let's talk honestly about "informed consent."
Someone with decades of training gives someone with none advice usually packed into 1-3 mins. Huge amount is based on trust. Huge potential for bias built in. But also there is no obligation to provide real alternative options.


I am classified as 'gifted' (obnoxious and ableist term). I mention because of what I am about to say. You all know that I was an ambulatory wheelchair user previously - could stand - but contractures have ended that. When I pleaded for physio, turned down. But did you know...

I recently was chatting with a doctor I know and explaining what happened and the day the physiatrist told me it was too late and nothing could be done. The doctor asked if I'd like one of her friends/colleagues to give second opinion. I said yes please! So...

She said can you send me MRI and other imaging they did to determine it wasn't possible to address your contractures.

Me: What?
Dr.: They did a MRI first before deciding right?
Me: No
Dr: What did they do??!
Me: Examined me for 2 minutes.
Dr: I am very angry rn. Can't talk.

My point is you don't even know if you are making "informed" decisions because the only source of information you have is the person who has already decided what they think you should do. And may I remind you of a word called 'compliance.'

You May Also Like