I continually see memes quoting statistics that claim to show the ineffectiveness of vaccines.
Anybody with even middle school level math competency should be able to see through the misrepresentation of these statistics.
A recent example stated that 85.7% of deaths over a particular week in Scotland were vaccinated people. The conclusion drawn was that the vaccines don't work because the vast majority of people dying were vaccinated.
What was left out in the post was that 94% of Scotland has received at least 1 dose and 74% has received 3 doses. That leaves only less than 6% of the population unvaxxed accounting for 12% of the deaths. This data suggests (suggests, doesn't prove anything), just the opposite of the conclusion drawn.
Misuse of statistics makes people look either stupid or dishonest. If you see something posted like this, you should immediately question your source. Anybody passing off this kind of stuff isn't vetting their sources or their numbers either through actual intent to mislead or sheer stupidity. Either way, the source cannot be trusted. Trusting such a source is just allowing yourself to be duped (which makes you a dupe) or a liar yourself.
Hold yourself to higher standards of integrity, please, everybody. It doesn't help anybody to lie about facts or pass on lies about facts.
This is all utter nonsense.
I used the word "suggest" in an academic way to mean that we can make only tentative inferences from the data as it's presented. In fact, the report itself says that the data in the report does not support inferences regarding vaccine effectiveness:
And, yet, that's exactly how the report is used by anti-vaxxers who can't do math and can't read.
The report, the same report used for the 87.5% figure warns:
Which is exactly what was done in the cases I'm talking about and the specific case I referred to.
The report explicitly says, with emphasis:
And, yet, that's exactly what anti-vaxxers do with the data.
This should be an utter embarrassment to people making these arguments, but no, they just ignorantly trundle along providing live examples of Dunning-Kruger.
"this is" implies sensing something; which represents the prerequisite to judge it as "nonsense"; yet suggesting "nothing-sense" contradicts your behavior and you were domesticated to behave this way. Nonsense was suggested to you, and you are using it to deflect anything challenging your lack of comprehension. Nonsense represents a judgmental blanket to sweep anything inconvenient underneath.
One thing within everything cannot sense no thing; yet the many keep parroting "nonsense" to each other without questioning why? Can you?
The "way" for temporary life represents being moved from inception towards death; which implies ongoing motion, and it's that flow that communicates inspiration to those within for adaptation. PRESENT (presented by) -ATION (action) implies being the presented to reaction; hence form within flow; choice within balance; temporary within ongoing; resistance within velocity; potential within potentiality; magnetic within electric; perceiving within perceivable; ONE within ALL.
The deception underneath "making" represents suggested creationism (implies out of nothing); which ignores perceived transmutation (implies out of everything) aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka ingredient form out of base flow alchemy.
In short...you cannot "make" any suggestion without shaping it out of already perceivable inspiration aka the origin of data (things given). You represent the lack of comprehension within everything perceivable impressed upon you. What's missing is your frequency of choice to compress (comprehension) the impressed (perception) for expression, and all of suggested academia is utilized to suppress you from expressing yourself.
FACT, noun [Latin factum, from facio, to make or do.] - "an act". As choice you represent a reaction to being enacted upon. Perceiving implies being in response to the perceivable. The suggested "in fact" ignores the perceived "within fact". You exist within everything already predefined with the temporary choice to express it; hence growing the seed of ONE within the soil of ALL.
RE (response) PORT (from porto; to carry in form). Form carries (life) itself within flow (inception towards death) by resisting; not by following the suggested reports of others towards death.
VAC'CINE, adjective [Latin vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.] Very effective for topsoil production and of course bullshit (fertilizer); not so much by mooing after the pied piper of pharmaceutical (crude oil based barbiturates) genocide through suggestion.
It's flow that represents the cause for every formed effect within...not suggested vaccines.
Vaxxer vs anti-vaxxer represents the rebranded want vs not want conflict of reason; caused by consent to either want or not want suggested "vaxxines" It's that conflict of reason that is being utilized as a battery to fuel the vaccine agenda, and which side the cattle is consenting to moo from is irrelevant to the agenda.
Again...where do we perceive the need to count and what can ONE within the ONEness of ALL count? How about this...explain to me the perceivable 0 (zero) as communicated by nature to our senses?
What writings has nature published? What words is nature communicating to those within? Does the perceived sound exist before the suggested word? Why do you feel so comfortable to perpetuate the suggested fiction you read from others; yet seem to ignore questioning the perceived reality?
A warning represents a suggested outcome; which ignores that death represents the predefined outcome of life; hence life not being outcome oriented; but a response to origin for the sustenance of self until reaching predefined outcome.
Why suggest a FIG'URE, noun [Latin figura, from figo, to fix or set.; to feign aka fiction]; when we are being moved within the perceivable reality? Isn't 87.5% just less of ONE within ALL?
All suggested information represents misinterpretation of perceived inspiration (data)...if consented to.
Please make an argument that makes sense.
a) if you can read it...you have sensed it.
b) ARGUE (reason) MENT (mind; memory)...a reasoning (want vs not want) memory ignores perceived balance (need/want) for suggested imbalance (want vs not want).
c) is "two" perceivable or was it suggested by one who counted other ones? How could my senses perceive "two" if everything perceivable represents a difference?
Instead of regurgitating what others suggested you; why not challenging yourself with the foundation of math? A mathematical instrument implies being played within the same source of sound. Let's talk about that source aka the perceived solution; instead of the suggested problems...
I don't even read this word salad anymore. You remind me of one those homeless guys scribbling madly in a notebook and you wonder, hmmm, what are they writing? You walk by and see that its all just gibberish.