Thread: Stupid shit in Medellin
+
Add Report
Results 4,276 to 4,290 of 7094
-
01-05-22 07:59 #2819
Posts: 5471Originally Posted by Jake2738 [View Original Post]
It was a good hypothetical question, a thought experiment. Forget about the logistical impossibility for a moment. Consider the what if aspect. Or, if it makes it easier, consider a reasonably small island nation. If enough resources were diverted to that island to vaccinate everyone within 1 month and all travel to the island was very tightly controlled, would that island now be free of Covid?
I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thing to consider. Would Covid, on that island become no worse than the common cold?
Life is full of authoritarianisms. Right now I'm stuck in western Missouri, probably for 12-14 hours or more because of a rule which I wasn't aware I was violating. However, it was my fault.
Vaccine mandates, I'm not absolutely for or against. I'm vaccinated and boosted as well. I've also recovered from a reasonably serious about with Covid. However, the pandemic isn't over for me. Even though I try to keep myself protected and I've taken all the precautions, I can't forget how bad I felt and how long it took to recover from Covid. While I expect any subsequent infection to have milder symptoms, there's no guarantee.
-
01-05-22 07:09 #2818
Posts: 5471Originally Posted by FunLuvr [View Original Post]
It was refreshing to look at some of the ridiculous failures by O'Keefe and Project Veritas. There's a great article in T New Yorker about one of his most spectacular blunders.
-
01-05-22 06:57 #2817
Posts: 2942Originally Posted by Jake2738 [View Original Post]
-
01-05-22 06:50 #2816
Posts: 5471Originally Posted by Dcrist0527 [View Original Post]
First, you start just as predicted: smear the source. 'They don't name a single expert'. Yet, had they, their credentials would be in dispute. Instead, they use Pfizer's data.
Next up, providing names and credentials. No respectable publication will publish any scientific study without the names and credentials of the principal investigators. No hospital will allow a doctor to work there without checking the doctor's credentials. Even your local car dealership requires the certifications of their mechanics. Schools require teaching credentials. It's a simple matter of credibility. Does this person have the necessary and relevant education to work in this area?
This might seem like a minor point to you, but it isn't. It's a core issue. For another dose of perspective, let's use ISG and Medellin as an example. If someone posts on the Medellin thread, it's their very first post, and they claim to have been a regular visitor, 5 months per year, for 15 years and they make a claim which goes against everything posted by known Medellin vets, do you accept their claim? Again, just for fun, let's say they claim that the best time and place to find the hottest women is just west of the Prado Metro station after midnight. Are you rushing off to find a girl there at midnight?
Probably not. At least I hope not.
The point is, any anonymous source can claim to be an expert, but only a fool would accept their expertise without question.
What your response does prove is your mind is made up. That's not a criticism, per se. But don't act as though you looked at this objectively. Comments like: "Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media!" So, if that isn't concerning, then don't talk about Grandma sitting at home with COPD. Both groups are just collateral damage in your line of thought.
Do you understand what "click bait" is? It's everywhere. The heading of the blurb which leads to the CCCA website and "proof" is click bait. It makes a claim which the CCCA never proves. In fact, they prove exactly the opposite.
Just for fun (I'm having lots of fun with this), the annual estimated death rate is about 8 per 1,000. For every 1,000 people, 8 are expected to die every year. The Pfizer study used over 40,000 people for 2 months. Out of that 40 k, over 1 year, 320 would normally be expected to die. Over a 2 month period that means about 53 people from the test group would normally be expected to die. Out of the group, there were 29 deaths over 2 months and 34 over 6 months. Which means the overall number of deaths isn't the earth shattering data you think it is.
You misrepresent the safey phase. The standard is 3 years (not 5-10 as you say). But we had 2 months of safety. Say what you will about circumstances and the urgent need to get to market. But don't tell me that the concern is invalid or that the point is BS.
I'll say it. The point is BS. In fact, the point is complete and utter, absolute, certified 100% organic bullshit. Why? Because Pfizer clearly identified the time frame when the study was conducted. They used something you have failed to use to determine whether or not the vaccine was safe, relative to not using the vaccine. They used knowledge. They didn't claim the vaccine was perfect. They didn't claim it would last forever. They didn't even claim that in 3 years they data collected would still be relevant.
That's a big word, "knowledge. " There is a lot of it, readily available, but very few people use it. In this case the knowledge used is that historically vaccine side effects show up very quickly, or not at all. Do you understand why that's the case? It's really quite simple. Vaccines are supposed to trigger an immune system response. They might not trigger the response, or the response may not last as long as expected, or the recipient might have an allergic reaction, or the vaccine might trigger some other type of response. However, the vaccine is only in your system for a very short time. Within a few days, a few weeks at most, there is no longer any trace of the vaccine in your body. At that point, your immune system either recognizes and reacts to the virus the vaccine was for, or it doesn't. The vaccine isn't some security guard that constantly looks for bad guys. It just sticks a wanted poster up on the wall of your immune system and then goes away.
It's like getting seasick. While you're out on a boat, at some point while on the boat, you might get seasick. It might be minor nausea, it might be uncontrolled vomiting, or dizziness, whatever. However, 2 years after you get off the boat, you're not going to get seasick.
You conpletely ignore the relative vs absolute argument. You accept the relative risk reduction as fact, despite it being the lower standard. And I won't even mention how Pfizer bastardizes their "efficacy" numbers to the public. In Pfizer's own study, the absolute reduction is 1%, and that's rounding up! They are taking their relative number and selling it as absolute. And the public is too lazy to know the difference.
If you run a business, which is the higher standard, gross profit or net profit? That's absolute versus relative. If gross profits are $5 million annually, but net profits are $10,000 how well is your business doing?
Absolute risk reduction isn't the higher standard. In fact, in most cases it's more bullshit. It kinda boggles my mind that you don't realize how ridiculous that statement is. Time to put it in perspective again.
I have an incredible device. If you install it in your home it protects your home against earthquakes. In fact, the absolute risk reduction for earthquakes is 98%. Are you ready to buy it? I guess I should mention that relative risk reduction is less than 1%. You see, very few homes in my data are in zones where earthquakes are likely to occur. Still prefer absolute over relative?
Here is another example of your closed mind: "Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. " I would not argue with your statement. But, um, how else would you measure impact? LOL instead, you excuse this as expected, necessary problem. That illustrates your willingness to excuse or accept more collateral damage.
The question is, what collateral damage are you talking about? Are you talking about the vaccine causing more deaths than it prevents? It doesn't. Data from everywhere around the world confirms that. It's not even close. Are you talking about adverse reactions to the vaccine? I'm going to assume that is what you're talking about.
I'll go over it again. I used pretty simple explanations the first time, but apparently they weren't simple enough.
The Pfizer study classifies 4 types of responses to the vaccine. The first is efficacy. From the placebo group 850 people contracted Covid during the study. From the vaccine group 77 people contracted Covid during the study. Please show me the math you used to determine efficacy is under 1%.
Next up injection related adverse effects. This classification includes any complaint which a researcher determined was connected to the actual injection of either the vaccine or saline solution. If a person later says their arm hurts it gets added to this group. If they say they feel dizzy, nauseous or anything else it gets added here. If they faint or piss their pants when getting injected, it gets added here. These are the absolute numbers. In a moment I'll show why they aren't important. Almost every vaccinated person I know has complained it made their arm hurt. Most people also have mentioned feeling nauseous. A couple of people have said that they were feeling really poorly for about a day. It's not surprising that 1 in 4 of the vaccine group had a related adverse effect. The question is, how many of those adverse effects were anything worse than a brief, minor amount of discomfort? Which brings us to the next 2 classifications.
First up, adverse effects which interfered with a person's normal function. If the person fainted, or left work early, or missed a day of work, or couldn't sleep, or didn't feel like eating, it shows up here. It's important to understand that none of these instances caused hospitalization, permanent effects, serious illness or death. They were all just cases where people didn't feel well enough to complete their normal routine. From the placebo group, about 0. 7% of the subjects had an event in this category. The rate for the vaccine group was 1. 2%.
Already the numbers are coming together. Using rough numbers starting with minor, effectively insignificant adverse effects to the vaccine it was 25% versus 5%. Now it's 1. 2% versus 0. 7% and none of these events required immediate medical attention, or resulted in permanent injury.
The last classification are adverse effects which required immediate medical assistance, or required hospitalization. This class includes permanent health issues. For this one it's dropped to 0. 6% versus 0. 59%. In simpler terms, within the statistical margin of error, the vaccine caused no more significant health issues than the placebo.
Now do you understand why absolute numbers are less useful than relative numbers? I'm betting the answer is no. I can't really help you any more on that one. You either understand that 2 numbers which are almost exactly the same, are almost exactly the same, or you believe that 2 numbers which are almost exactly the same are completely different.
I could go on, but why. Arguing this is boring. Sadly, most of us have retreated into our camps and prefer name calling, accusations and warfare instead of thinking for and educating ourselves. Full disclosure: I'm not anti-vax. I've been vaxxed and boosted. I am anti-mandate. And I am heavily in favor of holding our "experts" responsible for their actions, decisions, and conflicts of interest.
For your final statement, I'm calling bullshit. You're jumping on a bandwagon for an anti-vax group. You are defending bogus claims by an unknown group, which they are unable to prove. You defended "experts" who remain anonymous and provide no credentials or anything to validate their claims. Explain to me how an anonymous "expert" can be held responsible for their actions, decisions and conflicts of interest?
Here's a bit of wisdom for you:
If you don't want to argue a subject, don't argue that subject.
See how simple that is? What the fuck, let me shovel out some more perspective.
If you don't want to have a tranny fuck you in the ass, don't go out, find a tranny, let them fuck you in the ass and then say "I didn't want to do that. ".
-
01-05-22 06:06 #2815
Posts: 13Originally Posted by Nounce [View Original Post]
-
01-05-22 03:59 #2814
Posts: 2942Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
-
01-05-22 03:49 #2813
Posts: 6524Nounce.
Those bods look good.
Wonder how he got all those hot girls together in one spot.
-
01-05-22 03:31 #2812
Posts: 1042Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
-
01-05-22 02:25 #2811
Posts: 2942Originally Posted by CaptainSolo [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by SlapShot10 [View Original Post]
-
01-05-22 02:22 #2810
Posts: 2942Originally Posted by Dcrist0527 [View Original Post]
-
01-05-22 01:56 #2809
Posts: 658Solo
Originally Posted by CaptainSolo [View Original Post]
-
01-04-22 18:32 #2808
Posts: 5471Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
The purpose of a Covid vaccine is to reduce death and serious illness from Covid. It is not supposed to prevent death from all causes. This is the same purpose as the "herd immunity" that anti-vax groups are touting. The only major difference is that vaccines try to get to an immune population while minimizing the serious negative outcomes. Just letting the disease run its course, considers the lives lost as acceptable.
When I look at claims that the vaccines are causing more deaths and illnesses than the disease, I have to only look at the facts. The best part, I don't have to depend on some pharmaceutical company (or some conspiracy theorist nut job) to give me the facts. I can just open my eyes and take a look around.
Unvaccinated, I knew, 1st person 2 people who died from Covid. I knew 2nd person (I knew someone who directly knew them) at least 30 people who died from Covid. 1st person I know at least 20 people who were hospitalized for Covid.
Vaccinated, I know 2 people who were hospitalized for Covid (1st person), no deaths 1st, 2nd or 3rd person.
Serious side effects from the vaccine, at a guess, I know 400 people who are vaccinated. One person reported feeling sick for 2 days. None required medical treatment. A few reported feeling sick for 1 day. Most mentioned pain at the injection site.
In addition, my first 2 doses of the vaccine I received at a clinic setup by a major hospital. They had 7 stations setup to check people in and at least 12 vaccination stations. Each station was vaccinating about 1 person every 2 minutes. After vaccination they requested everyone stay for 15 minutes. Roughly, each shot, I observed 150-200 people who had just been vaccinated. If the vaccine is causing serious side effects and death, I should have seen some indication. However, there was nothing whatsoever to indicate serious adverse reactions were occurring, or were expected. Add in the experience of all the vaccinated people I know and the group has easily, directly observed over 50,000 vaccinations without seeing any medical emergency caused by the vaccine. At least 1 of the vaccinated people I know is 95 years old and in poor health.
It's easy to make a video and claim it shows something. If you recall, several years ago a group made a video supposedly showing Planned Parenthood selling aborted fetuses. The people who made the video ended up in prison. If you want, I know a guy, for a price he can put together a video which shows anything you want. Anything.
Sadly, there are a lot of people who won't question something they see in a video, or hear on a podcast. They will completely ignore the reality right in front of their face, in favor of a fantasy presented by an anonymous stranger.
-
01-04-22 16:03 #2807
Posts: 1288Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
First, you start just as predicted: smear the source. 'They don't name a single expert'. Yet, had they, their credentials would be in dispute. Instead, they use Pfizer's data.
What your response does prove is your mind is made up. That's not a criticism, per se. But don't act as though you looked at this objectively. Comments like: "Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media!" So, if that isn't concerning, then don't talk about Grandma sitting at home with COPD. Both groups are just collateral damage in your line of thought.
You misrepresent the safey phase. The standard is 3 years (not 5-10 as you say). But we had 2 months of safety. Say what you will about circumstances and the urgent need to get to market. But don't tell me that the concern is invalid or that the point is BS.
You conpletely ignore the relative vs absolute argument. You accept the relative risk reduction as fact, despite it being the lower standard. And I won't even mention how Pfizer bastardizes their "efficacy" numbers to the public. In Pfizer's own study, the absolute reduction is 1%, and that's rounding up! They are taking their relative number and selling it as absolute. And the public is too lazy to know the difference.
Here is another example of your closed mind: "Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. " I would not argue with your statement. But, um, how else would you measure impact? LOL instead, you excuse this as expected, necessary problem. That illustrates your willingness to excuse or accept more collateral damage.
I could go on, but why. Arguing this is boring. Sadly, most of us have retreated into our camps and prefer name calling, accusations and warfare instead of thinking for and educating ourselves. Full disclosure: I'm not anti-vax. I've been vaxxed and boosted. I am anti-mandate. And I am heavily in favor of holding our "experts" responsible for their actions, decisions, and conflicts of interest.
-
01-04-22 16:03 #2806
Posts: 35Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
-
01-04-22 15:37 #2805
Posts: 1288Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
The incidence and rate of respiratory issues are alarming.
The forever shutdown crowd cannot dispute this because this only uses Pfizer's own data.
As for Malone, he is not anti-vax by definition. He made some great points, as have others, about our approach to vaccines. As Americans, and other highly developed countries, we're now on our 3rd and 4th doses. We're now at the point of hurting our immune system, as many experts now say. And given omicron's mild symptoms, we're also suppressing the benefit of natural immunity.
But for those lining up for your 10th jab and hug your face diapers, tell me how that's working for New York. Then think big picture. Omicron came from South Africa. There's another new variant now from Cameroon. This obsession with vaccination, or the concept of a pandemic of the unvaxxed, is actually prolonging the problem.
I've said it from day 1. You know, when Fauci told us to wear masks for 2 weeks to slow the spread. We're now more than 660 days into those 2 weeks! But why do we cling to it? We have an inherent need to feel in control. News flash: you aren't. Nature will do what nature does. Our vax approach is now going to cause unintended consequences.