Mass Psychosis

[mikewhitney]

None of that shows that "only 130 persons is helped" - you have provided no stats for that at all. 95% is not a "risk reduction" it is the efficacy of the vaccine.

---

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X.pdf

What does 95% COVID-19 vaccine efficacy really mean?

© Copyright Original Source

Looks again like the only one not understanding science is you.

I can count on you to skip the details. Just because I did not wish to provide the calculation for the absolute reduction (where I provided the inverse of the value), you go all in a tizzy. You are however still using the number the NIH does not recommend.

The bigger problem, even with this lancet quote, is that the covid shots are not tested so much to reduce hospitalizations but only to reduce severity of COVID-19 symptoms. It may be that this article is better than the one it tries to correct. However, it appears that this correction is not very good -- or, at least, is not accurate in how it states things. Kudos to you for at least trying to get something somewhat scientific into the discussion. You should depend on the NIH more than Lancet, shouldn't you?

[mikewhitney]

You trying to out-stupid mikewhitney?

You would rather mock me than address the issue at hand. Too bad that you do not like to keep with the science. Can you even address the concept of Absolute Risk Reduction?

[Sparko]

I can count on you to skip the details. Just because I did not wish to provide the calculation for the absolute reduction (where I provided the inverse of the value), you go all in a tizzy. You are however still using the number the NIH does not recommend.

The bigger problem, even with this lancet quote, is that the covid shots are not tested so much to reduce hospitalizations but only to reduce severity of COVID-19 symptoms. It may be that this article is better than the one it tries to correct. However, it appears that this correction is not very good -- or, at least, is not accurate in how it states things. Kudos to you for at least trying to get something somewhat scientific into the discussion. You should depend on the NIH more than Lancet, shouldn't you?

I can count on you to refuse to admit when you are wrong and continue to dig the hole you are in deeper. Please, continue to show everyone how little you actually understand about any of this.

[mikewhitney]

I can count on you to refuse to admit when you are wrong and continue to dig the hole you are in deeper. Please, continue to show everyone how little you actually understand about any of this.

i wish you could calm down a little bit so that you can follow the discussion instead of mocking me in your ignorance. This is a sign of the Mass Psychosis. You have not even responded to the primary relevance of the absolute effectiveness value, as emphasized by the NIH. I'm afraid now that any more scientific evidence will just push your further into denial of science. It is too bad since the goal of this discussion is to free people from Mass Psychosis which makes people fear the virus instead of following logic and science.

I suppose the thing that you may be able to do, at least, is be praying for the end of the covid fiasco. I have found my church group lacking in this too.

[Mountain Man]

Medical certification and licensing boards are threatening doctors with expulsion if they publicly contradict the government approved China flu narrative.

Think about it from a common sense perspective. If the claims behind COVID-19, and the variants as an example, were honest and genuine; and if the benefits of the vaccine were true as claimed; the medical establishment would not need to threaten doctors, and they would not view sunlight as a risk to their objective.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ded-and-cited/

[Stoic]

Medical certification and licensing boards are threatening doctors with expulsion if they publicly contradict the government approved China flu narrative.

Think about it from a common sense perspective. If the claims behind COVID-19, and the variants as an example, were honest and genuine; and if the benefits of the vaccine were true as claimed; the medical establishment would not need to threaten doctors, and they would not view sunlight as a risk to their objective.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ded-and-cited/

It's not that hard for a doctor to avoid spreading misinformation about vaccines.

[Mountain Man]

It's not that hard for a doctor to avoid spreading misinformation about vaccines.

Except in this case, informed disagreement is being falsely labeled "misinformation" and suppressed under coercion. Come on, I thought you liberals were defenders of free speech. What happened?

[Stoic]

Except in this case, informed disagreement is being falsely labeled "misinformation" and suppressed under coercion. Come on, I thought you liberals were defenders of free speech. What happened?

What "informed disagreement" do you think is being falsely labeled misinformation and suppressed under coercion?

And I don't see any first amendment issues here.

[Mountain Man]

What "informed disagreement" do you think is being falsely labeled misinformation and suppressed under coercion?

If you really want to know then I suggest you go to page one of this thread and start reading with an open mind (assuming you still have one).

[Stoic]

If you really want to know then I suggest you go to page one of this thread and start reading with an open mind (assuming you still have one).

So you've got nothing.

[Starlight]

So you've got nothing.

MM never has anything. You can thoroughly dismantle every point he makes and he'll just respond with a shrug. He doesn't care about truth, so doesn't care if he's wrong or misleading others.

[mikewhitney]

It's not that hard for a doctor to avoid spreading misinformation about vaccines.

The medical boards are not supposed to micromanage what scientific studies a doctor relies on and shares with his patients. This covid fiasco is about the first time we have seen this control of information on such a large scale. Right now if a doctor says to a client that a shot is not needed now, that doctor often will be accused of misinformation. The same happens if the doctor explains that a person has a greater chance of harm from the covid shots than from possible covid-19 illness.

It is easy to spread this so-called misinformation when this misinformation is based on a whole slew of scientific studies that the medical licensing boards disregard. We see this quite popularly when doctors follow the science of Ivermectin and thus use it to treat their patients. Often doctors would prefer to help patients rather than promote a political position held by the licensing boards. So, the very act of helping patients then becomes classified by these boards as misinformation.

[Mountain Man]

So you've got nothing.

No, I've got something, and you will find it if you go back to page one of this thread and read with an open mind. I'm not sure why you're asking me to reiterate things that have already been discussed at length, and I don't feel any compulsion to summarize this thread for you.

[NorrinRadd]

What "informed disagreement" do you think is being falsely labeled misinformation and suppressed under coercion?

And I don't see any first amendment issues here.

Who said anything about the First Amendment? Where did you get the idea that the ideal of free expression begins and ends at the FA?

[Stoic]

The medical boards are not supposed to micromanage what scientific studies a doctor relies on and shares with his patients.

The medical boards are threatening doctors who spread misinformation to the public, not to their patients.

This covid fiasco is about the first time we have seen this control of information on such a large scale. Right now if a doctor says to a client that a shot is not needed now, that doctor often will be accused of misinformation.

Give an example.

The same happens if the doctor explains that a person has a greater chance of harm from the covid shots than from possible covid-19 illness.

I doubt that there will be a problem is a doctor tells one of his patients not to bother getting vaccinated. If he says that to the public in general, he really needs to be disciplined.

It is easy to spread this so-called misinformation when this misinformation is based on a whole slew of scientific studies that the medical licensing boards disregard. We see this quite popularly when doctors follow the science of Ivermectin and thus use it to treat their patients. Often doctors would prefer to help patients rather than promote a political position held by the licensing boards. So, the very act of helping patients then becomes classified by these boards as misinformation.

The evidence given is that the medical boards are concerned about doctors providing misinformation about vaccination. If you have evidence that they are threatening doctors for recommending or prescribing ivermectin, please provide it.