This happened more than two weeks ago. Next day Bundesgesundheitsministerium admitted that the tweet was potentially misleading/had wrong wording and corrected it.
Not surprising sites with specific agendas picked it up and ignored the correction.
Can you fill in the 99% of posters who donât read German as to what this says?
In what sense does any of this âcorrectâ the meaning of the original report, except to play down the implications without any apparent justification?
Did they or did they not receive 0.2 serious adverse event reports per thousand?
Perhaps someone needs to do a âbase rate adjustmentâ to compare these reports with the usual frequency of the reported syndromes occurring in the absence of vaccination?
@Mithrandir: Google Translate does a good job with German. It looks like a massive PR campaign to do damage limitation on some official who failed to adhere strictly to the narrative.
1 Like
here
Tweets:
The reporting rate refers to all suspected cases, i.e. a causal relationship with the vaccination is not yet confirmed with the suspected case, a temporal relationship is first established.Important remains: The risk of a serious adverse reaction following COVID-19 vaccination is very low. More information on vaccine safety [URL].
In a tweet from July 20, there was an incorrect wording regarding the reporting of suspected cases to the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
News:
This statement confirmed vaccination opponentsâ concerns about side effects - but the post was problematic from several perspectives:
- The statement that one in 5,000 people is affected by severe side effects after a Covid vaccination was false.
- It lacked any classification.
- The Ministry of Health did not do justice to the charged topic of vaccination side effects with this truncated tweet.
Trying to put it in a tweet without proper explanations opened room for wild speculations.
1 Like
From the link:
- In the same period, the Paul Ehrlich Institute received 296,233 reports of suspected side effects.
- The reporting rate was 1.7 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses for all vaccines combined, and 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses for serious reactions.
So the original tweet was correct.
I note that they have made no attempt to analyze these data so that âwild speculationsâ can be put to rest.
1 Like
Iâm confusedâŠwas this false or not? Would it be true if it said âsuspectedâ or something else?
No, it was not.
The original tweet implied all reported side effects were confirmed.
1 Like
So itâs false in the same way that virtually all covid death numbers are false?
1 Like
In what sense was it incorrect?
So you have evidence that a large proportion of them were coincidental and unconnected to the vaccine? Letâs see it, then.
For someone obsessed with âbase rateâ, you seem remarkably uninterested in the fact that the reported side effects (eg., acute idiopathic cardiovascular issues in young people) are uncommon, and the temporal association is therefore evidence enough of probable cause.
Looks like you are the one obsessed with it. lol
No, Iâm challenging you to stump up the facts to back up your assertions. I do it. You never do.
1 Like
âNo one could have foreseen itâ!!! BS.
Sure many long threads and facts with sources I posted do not exist.
Me providing scientific sources (papers/studies) to back up facts, was called as just Googling something.
You are not interested in facts when it does not suit you.
End result is same every single time. A waste of time.
1 Like
Iâm asking you a very specific question: where is your evidence that 0.2 per thousand serious adverse events is somehow âmisleadingâ? If youâve already posted the answer to this question, then link to it.
Youâve been called out multiple times for posting incorrect information - not just by me but by others. If youâre going to claim that these adverse events are somehow coincidental, thatâs a pretty big claim. The authorities arenât claiming it. So why are you doing it?
1 Like
Just read the article I linked again if you fail to understand why the tweet was wrong and why they deleted it.
And stop suggesting I claimed something when I made a translation of an article when a poster requested it.
1 Like
IMO it could go either way. At the moment it looks like a lot of people are walking away smelling of roses. Bojo, Matt Hancock, and Sajid Javid will no doubt all walk into cushy consultancy jobs and then an obscure retirement. Fauci will retire with a massive income stream from his NIH royalties. Chen is going to walk into a prime political position. But at some point the truth will out, and the tide will turn. Will these people be forgiven? Will the plebs be too busy trying to survive the New World Order? Or will civilisation somehow right itself before it sinks, and theyâll all be hauled up before a tribunal and prosecuted for crimes against humanity? Theyâre not going to rest easy just yet, I think.
1 Like
I read it. Nowhere in there have they explained why it was âwrongâ. The Paul Ehrlich institute gives the same figure. And you canât explain why it was wrong. So Iâm calling BS. They deleted it because of political pressure, not because thereâs anything âwrongâ.
2 Likes
no?
Rechnet man 0,2 Meldungen pro 1.000 Impfdosen mal fĂŒnf, kommt man auf eine Meldung schwerwiegender Nebenwirkungen pro 5.000 Corona-Impfdosen und nicht - wie das Ministerium ursprĂŒnglich schrieb - pro 5.000 Personen. Bei diesen Meldungen handelt es sich zunĂ€chst um VerdachtsfĂ€lle. Und dass die Meldezahlen Ungenauigkeiten unterliegen, ist der Behörde bewusst
âŠ
Wie hoch die Zahl derjenigen ist, die tatsĂ€chlich schwere Nebenwirkungen durch eine Corona-Impfung, ist daher schwer zu sagen. Klar ist aber: Schwerwiegende Nebenwirkungen sind Ă€uĂerst selten
If one calculates 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses times five, one comes to one report of serious side effects per 5,000 Corona vaccine doses and not - as the ministry originally wrote - per 5,000 persons. These reports are initially suspected cases. And the fact that the reporting figures are subject to inaccuracies is something the authority is aware of
âŠ
It is therefore difficult to say how high the number is of those who actually suffer severe side effects from a Corona vaccination. What is clear, however, is that serious side effects are extremely rare
There are many threads with discussion on VAERS. Another covid ground hog day.
LOL. Indeed. But that makes the observation even worse, doesnât it?
In other words, as I said, theyâve failed to do even a basic level of diligence and look into whatâs going on. In the absence of further analysis, one has little choice but to take the measurements at face value - and there is no obvious reason why one should not do that. Adverse-event reporting systems do inevitably have a few spurious reports, but the general phenomenon of under-reporting means that the results still contain valid safety signals.
Bollocks. Theyâre making that statement with precisely zero evidence. On what basis is it âclearâ? Since almost everyone is being pressured to get vaxed, 1 in 5000 doses is not âextremely rareâ - it suggests that somewhere in the ballpark of 40,000 Germans are going to be seriously injured if they take the recommended series of shots. Thatâs about the same as the number of Germans seriously injured in road accidents.
3 Likes
Reposting this from the âFrom Coronavirusâ thread
Data from Paul Ehrlich Institute, the official authority in Germany for monitoring vaccines
Reporting covers 170 million vaccinations.
Serious adverse events rate of 1 per 5,000 injections. On that basis, I struggle to see why governments are encouraging mass vaccinations of entire populations. Shocking.
2 Likes