As I reported previously, the FDA and CDC are recommending the Pfizer and Modern vaxxxines for children as young as 6 months old. It beggars belief that they are even discussing vaxxxing kids, who are at near zero risk of getting anything more than a mild case and acquiring lifelong immunity from it.
But the White House and the CDC have both nodded sagely as they recommended the shots and assured us all that severe reactions to the vaxxx are exceedingly rare. So yeah, let’s all jab our babies. Or not.
On Sunday, the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VCRF) published a new poll about adverse reactions that, sadly, I found less than sterling. The first problem is the small sample size of only 501 respondents. The gold standard for polls is 1,000 individuals. It’s obvious that Pollfish’s methods are pretty much garbage, since they don’t even report the Margin of Error; good pollsters always include the MOE in their reports. I’m guessing Pollfish hasn’t got a clue what their MOE is.
Problem two is that reliable pollsters randomly select, as much as is practical, from among the population to which they wish to extrapolate. E.g., if they’re interested in voting projections, they will randomly select from among registered voters. Most often, this means they call phone numbers that were randomly selected by a computer program, then talk to the subset of telephone users who also answer their phones and who take the time to answer the survey questions. So, the poll results cannot really be extrapolated to the entire targeted population, but it’s as close as pollsters get most of the time.
By contrast, the VCRF poll wasn’t even close to being a random selection of American adults, because they just troll electronic devices with invitations to participate in their polls. I’d guess VCRF hired Pollfish, because it’s all they could afford.
Problem three is that the poll never asked, “Were you vaccinated?” Yet VCRF went ahead and had the 501 respondents answers adjusted upward, based on the fact that 23% of Americans refused the jab. But I see no reason at all to assume that people who refused the jab would even bother to respond to a poll whose first question is, “Were you injured by the COVID-19 vaccine?” In fact, I have a suspicion that people who were injured, or know and love someone who was injured were more likely to respond than those who have never seen any problems.
Because of problem three, I am reporting the raw results (rounded up or down just for simplicity). VCRF is reporting the higher, stratified results, which you can see at the pdf below. And given problems one and two, you probably need to take even the raw numbers with a grain of salt, albeit a fairly small one.
THE POLL
Q1: Have you or anyone in their household or your extended family been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine? YES 52% vs. NO 48%.
Questions 2 and 3 were answered by the approximately 260 people who answered YES to Question 1.
Q2: Did the injury require a doctor visit, a hospital stay, or both? YES: 89% vs. NO 11%.
Q3: Is the injured person still suffering today? YES 60% vs. NO 40%.
Question 4 was answered by the approximately 156 people who answered YES to Question 3.
Q4: If you answered YES to question 3, how seriously are you still being affected today? Only 17% said the injury was just a “minor annoyance.” The remaining 83% said the injury impacted their personal lives, made it impossible for them to work a full day or at all, and/or probably would shorten their lives. (The poll allowed “check all that apply” and the total number of answers is higher than the number of respondents who said they had been injured.)
Given that politicians and agencies that we know (a) have taken big bucks from Big Pharma and (b) lied to us repeatedly about anything and everything to do with the ‘rona, I’m inclined to believe that these numbers are significant, if only because they exist. Kinda like the VAERS numbers exist.
I mean, they’re telling us that serious adverse reactions are exceedingly rare. But if the percentages are at all valid for the American vaxxxed population, something like 44 million Americans had a reaction bad enough to go see a doctor and/or need hospitalization and 30 million who consider their injury to be somewhat-to-very problematic today.
It would be really easy to dismiss such big numbers, given that the government is saying they don’t exist and the media is refusing to report on them. But if vaxxx injuries really are a big nothingburger, then why do the social media platforms actively censor any discussion of them?
CLICK https://rumble.com/v193o8o-seven-nurses-speak-out-about-the-rate-of-vaccine-injury-among-their-peers.html [1:34:47] to hear seven nurses report on vaxxx injuries among their peers, which they say occurs in about 1 out of 5 cases.
CLICK https://rumble.com/vrulf3-dr.-robert-malone-why-nurses-are-speaking-out-while-doctors-remain-silent.html [6:44] to hear Dr. Robert Malone talk about why it’s only nurses, not doctors, who are speaking out. He suggests that the injuries and deaths may be due to both the ‘rona itself and the jab.
- https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/cdc-insists-severe-reactions-covid-vaccines-rare-new-survey-proves-absolute-lie/
- https://www.skirsch.com/covid/PollfishSummary.pdf
- https://www.pollfish.com/methodology/
- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state
- https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/01/14/covid-vaccine-distribution-by-state-how-many-covid-vaccines-have-been-given-in-us-how-many-people/6599531002/
- https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/who-are-the-adults-not-vaccinated-against-covid.html
