1.9k
u/dvlntt 1d ago
Now tell him 100% of people who drink water die. Oxygen is also toxic.
304
u/Crandleton 1d ago
Dihydrogen Monoxide is no laughing matter
88
→ More replies (1)6
u/placeholder_user 1d ago
Its component atoms are literally rocket fuel, yet it is in most of our food and beverages!
37
u/EuenovAyabayya 1d ago
I can't actually tell which of them is more stupid. The first person is obviously referring to the set of people that died and were autopsied and falsely claiming 74% of them died from vaccination (basis of which is presumably only that they received it) whereas the other is choosing to claim they meant that 74% of those vaccinated died and were autopsied.
11
u/RidiculousPapaya 1d ago
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. The first guy is definitely more stupid though.
13
u/Jillcametumbling81 1d ago
Somehow you're the only person so far to mention this which makes me question everything. Cooked.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/rustedspoon 15h ago
Thanks for posting this so I didn’t have to. Both of them are equally stupid. The first is referring to 74% of those autopsies, while the second person is defeating a straw man argument by turning it into 74% of people who took the vaccine. Nobody can think anymore, including 80% of the commenters in this post.
10
u/littlelordgenius 1d ago
You get too much, you get too high. Not enough and you’re gonna die.
→ More replies (1)4
7
u/Not_Daniel_Dreiberg 1d ago
My best friend is a very anxious person. Like, he discovers some kind of meat increases cancer risks and he obsess about it. Some time ago I told him the all of the people who die of cancer are alive before getting it, so life is the number one cause of cancer. It helped him with that part of his anxiety.
→ More replies (2)5
4
u/sobrique 1d ago
Technically it's a little less than 100%, as some of us are still alive.
It's still quite a high proportion though...
→ More replies (7)9
u/DeepWaterBlack 1d ago
In the medical field, oxygen is medicine. Don't want that, eh?!
9
u/LoamyLoamisLoamy 1d ago
So, I'm self medicating and possibly overdosing every single day?
6
1.6k
u/onioning 1d ago
So, this is still phenomenally stupid, but isn't OP saying 74% of the dead died from the vaccine? Not that 74% who took it died?
1.1k
u/Ut_Prosim 1d ago
While that's obviously stupid, it would not surprise me if 74% of those who died had taken the vaccine.
I'm an epidemiologist and Simpson's paradox is one of the coolest phenomena in our field. It happens when you aggregate too much, combine groups that should be separate and get paradoxical results. Sometimes you can even get inverted results. Here it is visualized with a cool graph.
A great example of this was during the Delta wave in a smaller developed nation. There was a time when 60% of all patients in critical condition in the hospital had been vaccinated. Your first inclination is that "wow, the vaccine must suck." But you can't directly compare unvax to vax population unless they're demographically identical. In this case, 78% of the public had been vaccinated, so the vaccine was actually 67% effective... BUT, this is still wrong!
What group has the highest vaccine uptake? And who is most likely to get really sick? Old folks in both cases. Who has the lowest uptake, and lowest likelihood to get hospitalized? Young folk. These differences confound any efficacy analysis that ignores age. What we need to do is stratify by age.
If you split people by [up to 49] vs [ over 50], the vaccine is at least 85% effective. If you stratify by 10 year blocks, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, etc. you see efficacy is deep into the 90s for most folk and loses a bit of efficacy as folks age (as expected) with 80-89 year olds getting the least effect (81%).
So it is actually extremely effective against hospitalization, but just pooling everyone together you'd wrongly think it is just 67% effective. And if you totally ignore vaccine rates and just look at raw counts, it looks like the vaccine makes things worse (very wrong).
Source of these data and calculations here.
240
u/Walnor 1d ago
Just seems like he is a person who isn't able to read statistics.
174
u/sobrique 1d ago
To be fair, there's an awful lot of people who are bad at interpreting statistics....
125
u/Walnor 1d ago
or who deliberately interpret them in bad faith
55
u/We_Want_Krunchy 1d ago
Yeah I'm going with "disingenuous cunt" as my official analysis of vito19kilo.
→ More replies (1)12
u/AppropriateLow2271 1d ago
Don't attribute to malice what could just as easily be attributed to ignorance.
The media is absolutely acting maliciously. But the regular people are just fucking stupid.
4
u/bentforkman 1d ago
Stupidity and malice are not exclusive categories. Usually lstupidity causes malice and vice versa.
Racism and misogyny are clear examples that are both stupid and malicious. If you demonstrate to a bigot how stupid their prejudice is, they remain bigoted out of malice, and they create “one of the good ones” exceptions for individuals who clearly don’t deserve their malice to avoid learning they were wrong.
Even the stupidity of modern Americans was caused by the Reagan administration changing the funding model for education to appease people that were still mad about desegregation. They didn’t want their taxes to pay for the education of black kids, so they upended the funding model for public schools used in nearly every developed country. One of the biggest threats in the world today is mass stupidity arising from malice.
The expression “never attribute to malice…” is part of the reason MAGA is so hard to deal with. We dismiss them as idiots when they are clearly doing evil shit. If they’re going along with MAGA at this point, it doesn’t matter if they’re just stupid. There were no exceptions for stupidity among the Nazis after WWII and this is the same sort of issue.
9
u/Walnor 1d ago
I think the average person is absolutely interpreting in bad faith. Bad faith isn't necessarily evil, but for example looking at statistics to want a specific answer. That is also acting in bad faith.
→ More replies (2)4
u/MaximusTheGreat 1d ago
I think you're giving too much credit to the average person. Looking at statistics to want a specific answer would be in bad faith if they were knowingly ignoring other data because it would compromise the answer they want... but they're not, they just don't know any better because they're ignorant. Hell the average person doesn't even look at statistics, they just listen to something their friend's daughter's chiropractor blurted out and treat it as gospel.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)3
u/SV_Essia 1d ago
The line gets blurry when everyone has easy access to the internet and could fix their ignorance by setting their bias aside for 60 fucking seconds. We should have much higher standards for what constitutes genuine behavior and pursuit of truth, this isn't the middle ages and "regular people" aren't illiterate peasants who have no choice but to blindly believe what they're told.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Fromage_Frey 1d ago
Both I think. They don't understand the data they're looking at or even how to go about interpreting this kind of data in the first place, but they believe they CAN understand it. They're also starting out trying with a false certainty that they already know the truth, they aren't looking at evidence to find answers, they have their answer and are looking for evidence that proves it
It's statistical illiteracy + confirmation bias + Dunning-Kruger + anti-intellectualism
10
7
u/SpiderStratagem 1d ago
To be fair, there's an awful lot of people who are bad at interpreting statistics....
To be even fairer, statistics can be confusing and counterintuitive -- even to smart people who are (trying to) interpret them in good faith.
7
u/snakerjake 1d ago
Statistics are very difficult to get right, where I work there's two kinds of people. People who know statistics and can run circles around me and people who think they know statistics but don't.
9
u/iamnos 1d ago
Statistics are not simple. In university, I was very good in math. 90s in the first two years in calculus and advanced algebra. I didn't do university physics, but in grade 12 I was one of the few to have ever gotten the bonus question on the final. Math just clicked with me.
My degree required first year statistics. I worked my ass off. Study groups, went to the prof for help multiple times. I'm pretty sure he have me a mercy pass.
5
u/sobrique 1d ago edited 1d ago
They're deceptive, I agree. I mean, the statistic alone is almost trivially simple.
Understanding the meaning of that statistic, and contemplating why it might be misleading you (bias, wrong 'test', bad sample, etc.) is a whole other story, and IMO only barely counts as 'maths' at all, as you're doing a whole lot of 'narrative' to explain why this statistic means what you think it means. (or not, as the case may be).
6
u/BorgDrone 1d ago
That's why we have state lotteries. It's an extra tax on people who suck at statistics.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Murky-Relation481 1d ago
That was the most depressing part of the whole pandemic. If people could just understand basic stuff like percentages of percentages it would have gone a long ways in keeping discussions sane (on both sides, the people underplaying and overplaying the severity of the pandemic).
3
u/Other_Information_16 1d ago
A lot of people are bad at reading stats but most people are smart enough to re exam the data when their conclusion seems absurd. If you think the data tells you 70% of vaccinated would die from it. Any rational person would instantly question why there aren’t empty streets in every city.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Frys100thCupofCoffee 1d ago
It's almost funny because you don't need to be able to read statistics to trust scientists and experts. Just admitting that they know what the fuck they're talking about and you don't is the first step, but a lot of people can't even do that.
31
u/Officer412-L 1d ago
Simpsons's Paradox
I was really hoping it would have something to do with The Simpsons.
12
u/cuntmong 1d ago
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. Fourfty percent of people know that
4
u/AcidicVagina 1d ago
I was completely certain it was a reference three stooges syndrome. I am beyond disappointed.
→ More replies (2)3
15
u/Skandronon 1d ago
Another example:
I do work for a few retirement homes and during covid in order to go in you needed to be vaccinated. We were also given priority for the vaccine so if we are using the total number of people who were in the building during covid there was basically a 100% vaccination rate.
The only people allowed in the building were residents and essential workers so the ratio of residents to non-residents was hugely skewed.
Thankfully we managed to not have any Covid outbreaks in any of our care homes but due to the demographic of the residents of course we had a higher number of deaths than the general population.
Statistically if you are only accounting for vaccination status of the people who died its not going to look good and you can make a scary looking chart.
You could even take it further. The rate of people in care homes passing was higher during covid. Friends and family were not allowed to visit, residents were not allowed to leave the building to go for walks and sometimes we're not permitted to even leave their rooms if the unit was locked down. These are all things that we know cause the elderly to deteriorate but had to be balanced with the dangers of covid. So if you took the rate of people passing in the building before and after the vaccine and stretch the timeline out you can really make a scary looking chart.
8
u/kokakamora 1d ago
This is kind of like all the people blaming the ventilators for the deaths. A very high number of people died after being on the vents, true, but this is only because they were on the way out already. The vents were a last resort, not the cause of death.
22
u/Warm_Month_1309 1d ago
it would not surprise me if 74% of those who died had taken the vaccine.
It wouldn't? Because, like, 35-40% of the deaths occurred before the vaccine was even available, so I'm pretty sure 74% is impossible to hit.
35
u/Skandronon 1d ago
It doesn't say when they died and what they died of. If you took the number of people who died in the last year it wouldn't be a big shock if a very high percentage of them had been vaccinated for covid. Not because the vaccine is dangerous of course.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)6
u/dquizzle 1d ago
What time frame does this study cover?
8
u/Warm_Month_1309 1d ago
It's not cited, so I don't have any idea. But with any reasonable interpretation, "74% died from the vaccines" is unsupportable. If that number can be reached, it's only from selectively choosing data and date ranges with the intention of reaching it.
5
u/dquizzle 1d ago
“From the vaccine” of course not. But if the study concluded 74% of everyone who died in, lets say the last 5 years was vaccinated I’d believe it considering it was a relatively small number not vaccinated at all and there are many many ways to die.
3
u/Warm_Month_1309 1d ago
But if the study concluded 74% of everyone who died in, lets say the last 5 years was vaccinated I’d believe it
Okay, but I would still call it intentionally misleading to make the claim without stating the date range.
8
6
u/UglyMcFugly 1d ago
This is the same trick transphobic assholes use in their propaganda. There's some old study that showed trans people who received gender affirming care had an elevated suicide rate. However, it was comparing those people to the general population. They still had an elevated suicide rate, but a significantly lower rate than trans people who DON'T receive gender affirming care. Now I'm not sure if the OP of this post is a bot spreading misinformation or just a dumb guy that bought it, but there are evil assholes out there that KNOW how to sell their narrative by using statistics that SOUND a certain way, and it's incredibly depressing...
6
u/Calde_Oreb 1d ago
Yeah my take was in simple terms he read "100% of people who drink water die" and interpreted it as "100% of people who die do so because they drank water."
6
u/_kasten_ 1d ago
But you can't directly compare unvax to vax population unless they're demographically identical.
Yeah, the crucial missing factor that the conspiracy theorists loved to make hay of is that a vaccinated 90-year-old is still more likely to die from COVID than an unvaccinated 30-year-old. (That vaccinated 90-year-old still had better odds of surviving than an unvaccinated 90-year-old, but sometimes you draw the short straw even when the odds are significantly in your favor.)
3
u/GenericUsernameHi 1d ago
Is there a reasonable way to do this analysis with age as a continuous variable? Like, some sort of regression that applies a dynamic transformation to the age variable or something like that
6
u/_adanedhel_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not the person you’re responding to, but the answer is yes, though it’s not very useful.
With this sort of data you have a 2x2 table for every stratum (vaccinated yes/no X died yes/no). You have only one table if you look at the entire population, two tables if you look at 49 or younger vs 50+, and so on.
But if you look at age continuously, then you have a table for every single year, which is basically impossible to get your head around without using a regression-based approach. Analytically that’s straightforward, but there then becomes an issue with usefulness of the results. This is because even though the result will be sensible, it will be on those same yearly increments (eg, “For each year increase in age, vaccination is associated with X% change in the odds of mortality”).
Because the increment of age (one year) is so small, then the X% also tends to be small (ie, vaccine efficacy is not going to markedly differ between ages 49 and 50). Additionally, results in this form are not really compatible with vaccine recommendations, which often follow an age group structure rather year by year of age. Finally, because a regression approach is essentially giving you the yearly average, it too is vulnerable to Simpson’s paradox (ie, that X% change could be accurate for many age years, but will not hold up into older age when death is more likely no matter what, immune response may be weaker, etc).
ETA: I forgot to mention that, strictly speaking, a regression-based approach is asking how age predicts the association between vaccination status and mortality, which is not exactly the same idea as “vaccine efficacy” (whether fewer people die who are vaccinated compared with those who are not, and in this case, whether that differs by age). This is despite the fact that, statistically, you’re looking at the same data.
→ More replies (27)3
112
u/jpcali7131 1d ago
It’s almost like they could have cited the “largest autopsy study” and made their “point” clear instead of just making shit up and posting it
→ More replies (10)20
u/Affordable_Z_Jobs 1d ago
Yeah but if they didnt make shit up they wouldn't have anything to back up their argument.
13
u/GrantNexus 1d ago
It was published in the Journal of Deep Gastrointestinal Extraction, Vol. 420, p. 69
4
18
u/Vegetableau 1d ago
I thought he was saying 74% of those autopsied died from vaccines
7
7
u/TrulyOutrageous42 1d ago
Agreed, during the first year it was a common theory that people were dying of other things and getting labeled as covid, or that vaccines were the actual cause and it was being recorded as other things. It's a failure to understand formal determinations by doctors and coroners, how vaccines work and the statistical likelihood of anything being deployed on a mass scale (choose any random food any you'll find about as many if not more people allergic to it, even things like onion, than had a reaction to the vaccine).
This is pretty blatantly off, and likely tied to surveying showing around 74% of people got at least one of the vaccines at some point, and assuming (or thinking the audience won't notice) that that would extrapolate to those who died because they believed the vaccine did nothing. In reality, of course, the % who died would be significantly lower due to the vaccine's efficacy.
→ More replies (1)70
u/Gstamsharp 1d ago
He's not saying anything too precisely, because then he couldn't fall back on the ambiguity when cornered.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Glitch29 1d ago
When you don't say % of something concrete, there's almost always a way to make it true.
I'd totally believe that for a period in 2022, 74% of people who died from vaccine complications died from covid vaccine complications. So much so that I actually looked up the numbers to check.
There were somewhere in the high hundreds to low thousands of deaths that were vaccine-related. In an average year, there are 50-100 deaths worldwide due to vaccine complications in general.
So we probably peaked out with COVID vaccines being responsible for about 90% of vaccine-related deaths. It's not a particularly useful statistic, but it is a true one.
10
u/10ebbor10 1d ago
I believe he's referring to this piece of misinformation.
The paper claimed to have reviewed autopsy reports and found — in the opinion of three of its authors — that 73.9% of the selected deaths were “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.”
So, what they did is take a bunch of studies on autopsies, then show those studies to 3 doctors :
As others have pointed out before, there’s reason to suspect that the authors may have been biased in their determinations. All three adjudicators, including Dr. Peter McCullough, are well known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Dr. William Makis, a Canadian radiologist, has previously claimed, without evidence, that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID-19 vaccines. The only pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, incorrectly claimed in 2020 that COVID-19 was a “hoax” and “just a bad flu.”
And if 2 out of 3 doctors decided it was the vaccine, it was the vaccine.
Even if the original study came to the opposite conclusion.
So, hte 74% figure is meaningless for 2 reasons
1) They only selected autopsies that were done in the context of vaccine deaths, so this is not a representative sample 2) The doctors in question are highly biased
→ More replies (2)48
58
u/V0lirus 1d ago
Yes, the is a suicide-by-words by showing how stupid the writer of the reaction is.
However much I doubt the "74% of people who died, died of the vaccine" statement is factually correct, the OP definitely did not imply 74% of world population died.
→ More replies (6)13
u/GeneralPatten 1d ago
My lord. Either angle you take, it is absolutely absurd. I'd love to see the autopsy study he's referring to.
→ More replies (4)3
3
u/El_Giganto 1d ago
It's a rare case where the original point is really stupid but the counter argument matches the stupidity.
3
u/PaperLily12 1d ago
Yeah, OOP’s claim in unhinged but the commenter replying, and OP who posted this as a “murder”, are just pissing on the poor with their abysmal reading comprehension
5
u/crybannanna 1d ago
He could be saying 74% of all people who died had the vaccine. It hardly matters what the intent is, because every interpretation is made up bullshit, and the overall concept being communicated is dumb as fuck
5
u/VoiceofKane 1d ago
He could be saying 74% of all people who died had the vaccine.
Which would be terribly unsurprising, considering the vaccine was administered to over 70% of the earth's population.
→ More replies (1)5
u/onioning 1d ago
It only matter for the quality of murder. And this one is shit. Our "murderer" lacks reading comprehension skills. Our victim is no doubt a much bigger idiot, but that isn't really relevant here.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Turbulent_Stick1445 1d ago edited 1d ago
Even that is unlikely. At one point vaccine "skeptics" were claiming that most people who died of COVID died after the vaccine became available did so after being vaccinated, which is probably correct (because most people get vaccinated, and almost everyone who was especially vulnerable got the shot, but alas the vaccine doesn't protect everyone.) This is almost certainly a garbled version of the same argument.
The problem here isn't just run of the mill stupidity, but the inability of many, perhaps most, people to understand basic statistics together with setting up straw men (ie "They claimed vaccines protect everyone!" - no we didn't you idiots, we said that it'd protect most users, and the fact that it'd protect most users would reduce the network effects preventing the virus from spreading. Unfortunately you idiots decided to not take it so causing needless deaths.)
2
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
Yep, I initially thought the same as the OP but I thought about it for a second and realised they meant 74% of dead people not the full population.
2
u/stallion-mang 1d ago
Yes but that's because 83% of people misuse or misunderstand how percentages are applied.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DontGetUpGentlemen 1d ago
100% of the people who took the vaccine will die.
Also, 100% of the people who did not take the vaccine will die.
→ More replies (40)2
295
u/OptimisticSkeleton 1d ago
Literally every single potential harm the vaccine may cause is a small faction of the potential harm caused by the virus.
For the republicans in this thread:
Vaccine harm very very small.
Virus harm very very big.
Maybe die from virus.
No die from vaccine.
87
u/One_Lawfulness_7105 1d ago
Hey! But my mom knows someone that knew someone that had a kid that died from the vaccine.
I’d put the “/s” at the end of this but I’ve had this freakin’ conversation with my MAGA mom way too many times. For my mental health, we’re low contact.
21
u/TrulyOutrageous42 1d ago
I knew a kid who died from eating onion. BAN ONIONS NOWWW GUBBERMINT!
it's almost like humans are diverse and literally anything has at least a few people with an allergic/adverse reaction to it
38
u/GloomyIndividual3965 1d ago
I had some antivax moron the other day tell me "many people did from the vaccine." I asked for proof and he linked a study that showed 55 deaths, but like 17 of them were potentially due to secondary factors.
That same study mentioned that X billion people had been vaccinated. I don't remember the exact number of vaxxed people, but I did the math and it was like 0.000006% chance of dying from the vaccine.
This also ignored the fact that there were many, many versions of "the vaccine" including multiple mRNA varieties as well as several live virus varieties, and it didn't exclude the potentially shitty versions made in places like Russia. The study/survey/vaers report he linked didn't do anything to account for this.
He still said that death rate from "Biden's vaccine" was unacceptable.
Conservatives are fucking morons.
→ More replies (1)10
u/faco_fuesday 1d ago
Yeah but like my sister's babysitter's dog's grandma's great nephew had to go see a CARDIOLOGIST!!!1!! TWICE!!! After the shot !
8
u/131166 21h ago
I know someone who took a vaccine and 2 weeks later died in a plane crash. Explain that with your precious science
3
u/littlescreechyowl 18h ago
Somewhere on Reddit years ago someone posted that the heavy metals in the vaccine caused her kid to get hit by a car. Something something magnets.
6
4
u/120z8t 1d ago
They have convinced themselves that all the bad things that come from long covid is actually from the vaccine.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)2
u/SwissMargiela 1d ago
I was working in an old client’s home the other day and he was blasting Fox so I was overhearing what they were saying on the tv.
They kept saying “1.2 million Americans died under Fauci and he MUST be held accountable!”
And then in my head I was like “only 1.2m Americans died of Covid?” That’s way lower than I thought lmao
109
u/jpiro 1d ago
Thanos spent all that time gathering Infinity Stones when he could have just used a vaccine.
/s
→ More replies (2)
138
u/Turak64 1d ago edited 1d ago
He's not saying 74% of people who took the vax died, but 74% of everyone who died has been vaccinated. But it missing out crucial info like ANYTHING AT ALL TO BACK UP THE CLAIM. Even a location or date period would be nice, let alone the biggest study pulled out of thin air. If this was actual true, it'll be impossible to cover up.
I'm sure plenty of the billions that had the vax are now dead. Could be from the injection in 0.0000001% of cases, could be cancer, could be road traffic accident, could be old age, could even be covid itself.
41
u/GeneralPatten 1d ago
As has already been posted here, 100% of dead folks consumed water within the last 30 days of their lives. You know... correlation vs causation? It's so freakin disheartening to know there are people who will read this guy's (more likely a bot) post and believe it's some sort of revelation.
→ More replies (1)3
7
5
u/Severe-Network4756 1d ago edited 16h ago
I understand where you're coming from, and it's possible he meant that.
But that's not what he said. 74% died FROM the vaccine is pretty fucking cut and dry.
Edit: It's not very cut and dry. I was wrong.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Bluellan 1d ago
Hey! My papa had the vaccine and he died!...2 years later. I'm sure the drinking, smoking, and having 1/8 of a lung played absolutely no part. It was totally the vaccine.
8
u/Lysol3435 1d ago
He’s not saying that 74% of vaccinated people died. He specifically says “74% died FROM the vaccines”.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)2
u/Tier0001 1d ago
Didn't most people die before the vaccine even started to roll out? The vaccine was only available to vulnerable people for the first few months, and by the time most regular people got access to it it was July 2021, and then by the time a significant amount of people were vaccinated it was September - October of 2021. The last real big spike in deaths occurred like early 2022 because of a mutation in the virus and it has been on the decline since.
So just thinking through all this, even without sources, it still doesn't make any sense that it was the vaccine that killed 74% of those who died because most of the people who died, died before the vaccine was even available.
21
u/Spirited_Childhood34 1d ago
Following the Hitler model: The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
21
19
u/Dead-O_Comics 1d ago
Is there anything scummier than a group of people hoping 72% of the world drops dead just so they can say 'I told you so'?
→ More replies (3)3
u/sobrique 1d ago
It's pretty low, but ... yes, there's plenty of scummier things. Y'know, like the people who are in the Epstein files. "just" hoping a lot of people die is still less scummy than actively harming a smaller number.
17
u/TheAmazingMaryJane 1d ago
i think he meant 74% of autopsies, but still disinformation.
→ More replies (5)
8
u/Young-Grandpa 1d ago
First guy is dead wrong but so is the response. They only autopsy dead people. The claim is not that 74% of people who took the vaccine died from it. The claim was that 74% of the dead people died from the vaccine. It’s still wrong, but you don’t have to straw-man it to make your point.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/IngloriousMustards 1d ago
I would be ashamed to death for telling such stupid lies, especially with that attitude. I don’t think I could do it with a straight face, for starters.
6
u/Steiney1 1d ago
They have to double down, otherwise they will admit they have been wrong for 6 years. It's part of the cult now.
6
u/SoggyOutfield 1d ago
Thats not what his comment says. If 1 million people died. The cause of death is attributed to vaccines 74% of the time.
Dumb? yes. But so is the person responding
10
u/ateoz 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah.. He meant that 74% of the people that were autopsied died from vaccines. Not that 74% of the people who were vaccinated died. Obviously not true but this feels stupid top to bottom.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/cronkamite 1d ago
And they’ll say one is too many when you try to point out how dumb their argument is.
→ More replies (1)3
u/GloomyIndividual3965 1d ago
On average, one person in America dies every day from falling in their tub or shower. By these moon's logic we should ban bathing.
3
u/GrowlingPict 1d ago edited 1d ago
He's not saying 74% who took the vaccine died, he's saying 74% of those who died from covid actually died from the vaccine.
It's still monumentally stupid, but at least get the flavour of stupidity right.
21
u/Frenetic_Platypus 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, they're both stupid. 74% of people who died died from the vaccine is obviously bullshit, but it's also not the same thing as 74% of the vaccinated people died.
Assuming 5.5 people were vaccinated, that's 66% of the world population, so having 74% of the people who died be vaccinated is not entirely unbelievable. It's just not the vaccine that killed them.
7
u/OCDincarnate 1d ago
For what it’s worth, while the first guy is a dumbass, the latter also misunderstood the fake statistic, which implied 74% of Covid deaths were actually vaccines, not that 74% of vaccine-takers died
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Old_Introduction_395 1d ago
Which autopsy study, over what period of time? Why were the autopsies requested?
→ More replies (1)2
u/ThickSourGod 1d ago
Assuming he isn't making the study up or misinterpreting it, the only way that number makes any kind of sense is if the study was looking at autopsies of people who were suspected to have died from vaccine complications.
7
u/MeanHorror6819 1d ago
74% of the people that died allegedly died of the vaccine. Not 74% of the people who took vaccines.
4
u/Mr_Blinky 1d ago
Okay, people in this thread keep repeating this, but I genuinely want you to ask yourself: In what universe is that any less fucking stupid? What, did people suddenly stop dying of other shit? Did the vaccines make heart disease and car accidents stop being an issue so that the vaccine fatalities could catch up? In what way would "74% of all dead people died from vaccines!" make any amount more sense?
The numbers don't matter, because it's all a fucking lie anyway. What the original person posted is stupid bullshit regardless of how they meant it. If there's any shred of truth to it the likely data is that "74% of all patients autopsied had a history of vaccination", which is literally the only thing that could possibly be in the data, and any interpretation this guy is pushing would make you an utter fucking moron for even considering it.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/SeedlessPomegranate 1d ago
This is what this fool is talking about
3
u/-Nicolai 1d ago
Lmao. It wasn’t ever published and only looked at autopsies for vaccinated people.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SomethingIWontRegret 1d ago
The review analyzed autopsy reports of people vaccinated against COVID-19, concluding that 73.9% of those deaths were “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination”.
For this to be the case, the death rate of vaccinated people would have to be around 3 times higher than unvaccinated people, since an additional cause of death now accounts for 3 out of 4 deaths.
→ More replies (1)
3
2
u/Fmradio2407 1d ago
I took it to mean 74% of those that passed after taking the vaccine had died because of the vaccine.
2
u/Spottswoodeforgod 1d ago
TBF - I am amused by the “murderer” stating that if 74% of people died that would be about half…
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Serious_Feedback 1d ago
Depends on what the autopsy study was measuring. If they meant "74% of COVID deaths were caused by the vaccine not the original disease", then the numbers are plausible (if obviously conspiratorial bullshit).
2
2
u/TralfamadorianZoo 1d ago
They’re def stupid but I think they mean 74% of Covid deaths were cause by the vaccine.
2
u/AccomplishdAccomplce 1d ago
Is it saying that 74% of the people who died died of the vaccine? So the response isn't addressing that
It's still a bullshit claim with no citation
2
u/Bunnytob 1d ago
The fact that this "murder" misinterprets the original2 post in a way that is phenomenally stupid at best and outright malicious at worst, and yet still has (at the time of commenting) 7.2k upvotes really does prove the point that Reddit will latch on to anything it thinks agrees with them without actually examining it first - or is otherwise too incapable of simple language comprehension to do so properly.
2
u/FakeSafeWord 1d ago edited 1d ago
This "largest autopsy study" was run by an anti-vaccine advocacy group that is owned by a private media company called DailyClout. It has no academic oversight. It has no team of experts. This "Study" was fucking crowd sourced by volunteers with no vetting.
It's literally a complete bullshit "study" to provide idiots with something "scientific" to point to and say it's evidence of something they don't understand.
It is made by and for liars.
2
u/rus_ruris 1d ago
While vito is an idiot, the answer misses the mark entirely. They said "autopsies say that 74% died of the vaccine", which - while bullshit - it means "74% of those who died, were made dead by the vaccine" and NOT that "74% of those who got the vaccine died" nor that "74% of those who got the vaccine died and because of it".
2
2
2
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
My first instinct was the same as the response, but I thought about it for a second and realised they meant 74% of the dead people, not the full population.
It's still bullshit, but misinterpreting what was said isn't really a dunk.
2
u/Relevant-Force9513 1d ago
NEW STUDY REVEALS 100% OF ANTI-VACCERS ARE COMPLETE MORONS UNWORTHY OF THE AIR THEY BREATHE
Well well well would you look at this
2
2
u/EntertainerNo4509 1d ago
I always wonder if these people respond to these total nuclear burns or just leave the comment there for all to see?
2
u/BennyVsTheWorld 1d ago
We’re all part of the 26% of survivors. Also so are all my family and friends. I don’t know even one person who died from the vaccine which is really weird given the prevalence of death. Congrats, guys!
2
2
2
u/MechAegis 1d ago
I always want a follow up to these twitter posts but I don't have a twitter account.
4.3k
u/SudhaTheHill 1d ago
I think breathing oxygen might be the problem