Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mass Psychosis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

    whoa. you really have been out of the loop for 16 months.

    I think I have mentioned it here recently, even in this thread. We have to see the results 5 or 10 years down the line. What are the effects on cancer, neurological issues, heart issues, fertility?

    I'm not sure what you mean by its supporters. The benefit found in the trials was reduced symptoms of covid-19. However these trials are done worse than a second year undergraduate lab report.

    Your last question is weird. What have we gained from mask wearing and lockdowns in 16 months. Nothing. You should already be aware that the PCR test result in 97% false positives (based on the analysis at cormandrostenreview.com). Any of the studies based on the PCR test are pretty useless (including trials for the covid shot, like Pfizer's).

    We can go with this study. I don't have a well-0rganized collection of studies on masks though:
    Source: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR23xWX8BVe9SV4lsGHHgKwBnHJ0StLF0Cz5QgolMlE2c89C1FQ3CY4sLhQ



    Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Lockdowns add nothing either. This is an example showing the futility of lockdowns. (I only quote part of the content.)
    Source: https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/three?e=5dd4534edc

    So let's check in:
    Let's talk about what we're seeing in this graph, which extends back to mid-March and continues through the present.

    First, note that cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are given per million, so population is already taken into account.

    What we note is this: California and New York have higher case, hospitalization, and death rates right now than Florida had even at its peak. For all three of those metrics, Florida at its worst never reached where the other two states are today. Whatever will the excuse factory do now?

    Florida's theme parks are open. Schools have remained open. Tourists continue to come in and out. No state-imposed occupancy restrictions exist anywhere. I just saw a comedy show at the King Center in Melbourne. I'll be seeing Beethoven's Emperor Concerto performed by the Orlando Philharmonic on March 1.

    And yet Florida right now is doing better than California and New York, where these pleasures of life have been canceled for ten months. Again, Florida's rates have never been worse than California and New York's are right now.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Is waiting 5-10 years for a new vaccine warranted in all circumstances? How deadly does a virus have to be before taking a new vaccine is the better alternative to risking severe infection symptoms?

    You said the covid vaccine is ineffective resulting in the need for mask use. If you understand that the covid vaccine increases the chances of a reduction in symptom severity, then you should understand that it doesn't prevent someone from becoming infected and spreading it to others, which, in the case that masks reduce infection, would be plainly warranted in the case of a new surge. So I'm having trouble understanding why you would connect the idea of the vaccine being ineffective and the need for mask use.

    Why don't masks reduce the spread of infected respiratory droplets? Why wouldn't people staying at home stop the virus from spreading to new hosts?

    I'm not interested in a comparison between infection rate/deaths in NY and FL as covid spreads most in densely-populated areas and NYC's population is magnitudes larger than Jacksonville or Miami.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

      Is waiting 5-10 years for a new vaccine warranted in all circumstances? How deadly does a virus have to be before taking a new vaccine is the better alternative to risking severe infection symptoms?

      You said the covid vaccine is ineffective resulting in the need for mask use. If you understand that the covid vaccine increases the chances of a reduction in symptom severity, then you should understand that it doesn't prevent someone from becoming infected and spreading it to others, which, in the case that masks reduce infection, would be plainly warranted in the case of a new surge. So I'm having trouble understanding why you would connect the idea of the vaccine being ineffective and the need for mask use.

      Why don't masks reduce the spread of infected respiratory droplets? Why wouldn't people staying at home stop the virus from spreading to new hosts?

      I'm not interested in a comparison between infection rate/deaths in NY and FL as covid spreads most in densely-populated areas and NYC's population is magnitudes larger than Jacksonville or Miami.
      You get a few points for recognizing that the covid shots are for selfish purpose only -- the goal of reducing severity of symptoms. The media contradicts themselves by saying we need to get the shots to protect our neighbors but then they say the vaxxed have to wear masks. Few people keep track of the idea that the covid shots were not tested to stop the spread of a virus -- this is because , even if the shots help at all, they do not operate in the lungs ... but only in the blood -- If I have summarized this okay.


      You lose points on analysis of the graph since california and florida are similar enough to make the point that masks and lockdowns were useless.

      And 5-10 years is warranted since this is a whole new technology involving generation of proteins -- borrowing normal mRNA activity to produce something new in the body. We don't even have a half year of checking the effectiveness of the covid shots against future sickness -- so at this point we have no reason to promote the covid shots. Plus, as noted so often, we have safe treatments such as Ivermectin, high-dosage Vitamin-D and Budesonide. There never was a reason to create the SARS-COV2 shots.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

        You get a few points for recognizing that the covid shots are for selfish purpose only -- the goal of reducing severity of symptoms. The media contradicts themselves by saying we need to get the shots to protect our neighbors but then they say the vaxxed have to wear masks. Few people keep track of the idea that the covid shots were not tested to stop the spread of a virus -- this is because , even if the shots help at all, they do not operate in the lungs ... but only in the blood -- If I have summarized this okay.

        You lose points on analysis of the graph since california and florida are similar enough to make the point that masks and lockdowns were useless.

        And 5-10 years is warranted since this is a whole new technology involving generation of proteins -- borrowing normal mRNA activity to produce something new in the body. We don't even have a half year of checking the effectiveness of the covid shots against future sickness -- so at this point we have no reason to promote the covid shots. Plus, as noted so often, we have safe treatments such as Ivermectin, high-dosage Vitamin-D and Budesonide. There never was a reason to create the SARS-COV2 shots.
        You didn't answer my question: how deadly would covid need to be before it makes more sense to get the vaccine than it does to wait 5-10 years? To use an extreme example, if the virus was guaranteed to kill you in 2 weeks, would that justify vaccination? There must be some threshold you have in your mind for when vaccination is safer.

        Do you agree that, assuming masks work, requesting that people who have had the covid vaccine wear masks makes sense and does not mean the vaccine is ineffective?

        You also didn't answer my question about masks and lock downs. I don't care about the statistics between states, I want to know about the physical function. Why don't masks stop viral respiratory droplets? How can a vaccine spread if people stay home?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

          You didn't answer my question: how deadly would covid need to be before it makes more sense to get the vaccine than it does to wait 5-10 years? To use an extreme example, if the virus was guaranteed to kill you in 2 weeks, would that justify vaccination? There must be some threshold you have in your mind for when vaccination is safer.

          Do you agree that, assuming masks work, requesting that people who have had the covid vaccine wear masks makes sense and does not mean the vaccine is ineffective?

          You also didn't answer my question about masks and lock downs. I don't care about the statistics between states, I want to know about the physical function. Why don't masks stop viral respiratory droplets? How can a vaccine spread if people stay home?
          We can ask the opposite question. How did the positive covid tests increase when everyone was at home? The first answer is that the PCR tests have a 97% false positive rate. How come we repeat stuff that did not supposedly stop the spread of a disease these last 16 months?

          Additionally Lockdowns violate God-given rights. They also are stealing away the livelihood of people. This is not just an economic issue since people also suffer untreated illnesses of other sorts plus there are increases in suicides, child and spouse abuse, drinking and drugs. There also are people getting prescriptions for depression.

          Your question about those with the experimental shots wearing masks has too many speculations to make it useful to answer. Then you talk about some hypothetical idea of a virus that is guaranteed to kill in two weeks. If we did find that the sars-cov-2 shots were not increasing the susceptibility to sickness and hospitalizations ... and instead we found that people were protected from death and harm, certainly people would probably want the shots instead of dying in 2 weeks. However, that does not mean we know that they will live 2 years or 5 years longer. We do not know if the people will end up with infertility and sickness that make them regret living longer.

          For the most part, we should stick with details pertinent to real facts we see today.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            You didn't answer my question: how deadly would covid need to be before it makes more sense to get the vaccine than it does to wait 5-10 years? To use an extreme example, if the virus was guaranteed to kill you in 2 weeks, would that justify vaccination? There must be some threshold you have in your mind for when vaccination is safer.
            Why would there have to be a threshold in his mind? That would only be true if he were rational.

            Which part of him claiming utterly absurd numbers of deaths from vaccinations, peddling various unproven/disproven drugs to treat covid, and making ludicrous claims about PCR tests, makes you think he's in any way rational?
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Why would there have to be a threshold in his mind? That would only be true if he were rational.

              Which part of him claiming utterly absurd numbers of deaths from vaccinations, peddling various unproven/disproven drugs to treat covid, and making ludicrous claims about PCR tests, makes you think he's in any way rational?
              I didn't find your post where your refuted the https://cormandrostenreview.com/ or where you refuted Kary Mullis' point that the PCR process is not useful for diagnostic testing.

              You are totally rejecting scientific studies without having an equally scientific argument on your side. I'm not sure how you can challenge anything with the mere waving of your hands.

              I do give you some credit that you showed under ideal circumstances, the PCR test can identify the existence of a sequence of RNA/DNA with a high percent of accuracy. Of course, this does not mean that the test sample matches the broader RNA/DNA of interest. Sensitivity is one goal of the process -- the ability to detect the sequence of interest. However, selectivity is also important, namely the ability to fail the test by identifying samples that are similar but are not the targeted RNA/DNA.

              The analogy is that you want to find someone entering a Dodgers baseball game. If you gave her a blue cap, she would be lost in the crowd. Instead you give her a white Dodgers hat. There still may be a hundred people with that hat but it is not 5000 of them. The matching process then could focus on white hats. However, white Yankees caps would have to be weeded out. You may end up with 10 white Dodger's caps. You could still select the wrong person but the error rate of matches is much better than if Yankees hats were not excluded.
              Last edited by mikewhitney; 08-05-2021, 05:59 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                I didn't find your post where your refuted the https://cormandrostenreview.com/
                What a bizarre website. You realize any group of nutters can make a random website right?

                or where you refuted Kary Mullis' point that the PCR process is not useful for diagnostic testing.
                When the first PCR was invented, it was pretty terrible, and diagnostic testing with it would certainly not have been appropriate. Over the decades since then it's undergone a massive amount of improvements by a host of different researchers and groups. PCR is now regarded as one of the best test methodologies due to its extremely high sensitivity and specificity, and so is used in diagnostic labs worldwide for a vast number of different bacteria and viruses.

                In my current job I've happened to measure the accuracy of our lab's PCR test (not for covid) and compare it to other tests we use, and it had 100% specificity (ie no false positives in the thousands of samples I tested).

                You are totally rejecting scientific studies without having an equally scientific argument on your side. I'm not sure how you can challenge anything with the mere waving of your hands.
                Nothing you ever seem to cite is actually a peer reviewed scientific study. Instead you cite crazy people making crazy claims in random opinion pieces from non-credible media outlets.

                Nothing you've said gives me cause to believe that you have the skills or abilities necessary to actually understand what you are reading or assess its scientific merit. Scientific papers are not generally written for the average person to try and read and understand, they are written for other scientists, and assessing them well is a skill that takes years of learning and experience, and having yourself published scientific papers helps tremendously in terms of comprehension of what it is you're reading and what's gone into it. A big part of post-graduate university study is learning some of these skills. If you haven't done formal post-grad study there's probably little to no value in you trying to read scientific papers because you will be misunderstanding them as much or more as you'll be understanding them. And if you've never published a peer reviewed paper yourself, then there's no point in trying to form a view about a controversy with a peer reviewed paper because you won't understand the process sufficiently to have an informed opinion.

                Basically it seems to me that you putting all the effort you are into 'learning' and talking about this stuff is a waste of your time and everyone else's, because you don't possess the right skillset to evaluate what your reading. By all means, if this sort of thing generally interests you, go to university and do a science degree, and then a postgraduate science degree, and then publish a few scientific papers. It's quite fun & interesting and I can personally recommend it as a career path.

                I do give you some credit that you showed under ideal circumstances, the PCR test can identify the existence of a sequence of RNA/DNA with a high percent of accuracy.
                In my country, New Zealand, the government has managed to keep us covid free and living life normally by virtue of locking the borders and having an occasional short and stringent lockdown when cases slip past their border quarantine. Nonetheless, covid tests in their thousands are continuously carried out throughout the country to make continuously sure the virus isn't here (the fact that people aren't turning up in hospitals with covid symptoms, is of course further confirmation it isn't here)... and they don't generate false positives. The government is able to do thousands and thousands of tests on a population of covid free individuals and get continuously negative results.

                There have though been plenty of problems with false negatives especially early in the infection cycle, i.e. someone in border isolation quarantine testing negative at first only to later turn out to have covid and subsequently display symptoms and then test positive. This tendency to give zero false positives but some false negatives is pretty typical of modern PCR technology in general. It's also why your continual posts about PCR false positives come across as bananas - the exact opposite of your claims is the truth.

                Of course, this does not mean that the test sample matches the broader RNA/DNA of interest.
                Scientists in my country have been fully genetically sequencing each and every positive case of covid here. This has allowed them to trace the path of infection from person to person during outbreaks because there are tiny tiny changes that accumulate in the genome, so the covid strain one person has can be a tiny tiny bit different to that of another strain, and so it can be determined if there was one introduction of covid into the country that spread in a certain way or if multiple strains were introduced from different sources. But this full genetic sequence serves to confirm to us that the positive PCR tests are 100% accurate because each and every time a person tests PCR positive for covid, subsequent genetic sequencing shows they do indeed have covid.
                Last edited by Starlight; 08-05-2021, 07:04 PM.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  What a bizarre website. You realize any group of nutters can make a random website right?

                  When the first PCR was invented, it was pretty terrible, and diagnostic testing with it would certainly not have been appropriate. Over the decades since then it's undergone a massive amount of improvements by a host of different researchers and groups. PCR is now regarded as one of the best test methodologies due to its extremely high sensitivity and specificity, and so is used in diagnostic labs worldwide for a vast number of different bacteria and viruses.

                  ...
                  Scientists in my country have been fully genetically sequencing each and every positive case of covidhere. This has allowed them to trace the path of infection from person to person during outbreaks because there are tiny tiny changes that accumulate in the genome, so the covid strain one person has can be a tiny tiny bit different to that of another strain, and so it can be determined if there was one introduction of covid into the country that spread in a certain way or if multiple strains were introduced from different sources. But this full genetic sequence serves to confirm to us that the positive PCR tests are 100% accurate because each and every time a person tests PCR positive for covid, subsequent genetic sequencing shows they do indeed have covid.
                  You know that the cormandrostenreview was a peer review of, right, the corman drosten study. Maybe that point went over your head.

                  You know also that even as late as 2019 that Kary Mullis was pointing out the PCR process was not for diagnostics. You also should know that millions of PCR processing resutls were found positive for people who did not need to go to the hospital. You also probably know that above somewhere of 25 to 30 CT that the false positives become predominant -- that this was calculated in the corman drosten review and found similarly in at least one hospital's review of its own PCR processing.

                  Do you have the studies, processes, and raw data for the testing of all the positive "PCR" test results? We have seen a ton of corruption in the states. Florida had a PCR center that reported 100% positives -- go figure. We cannot simply trust the system when so much of our lives and livelihoods are at stake.

                  I do wonder when you test for selectivity if you are testing anything similar to the computer models for SARS-COV-2 that are relied upon for the PCR process. Some studies were done that showed that the samples with positive PCR results actually turned out to be influenza A an B strains -- if memory serves. So your lab situation may not have as much a difficulty as achieving sensitivity for the computer generated SARS-COV-2.

                  You also have rejected all the studies showing Ivermectin, Vitamin-D and other treatments. There are at least a couple thousand medical doctors and scientists for which you claim to have superior knowledge -- without having examining their studies.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    You know that the cormandrostenreview was a peer review of, right, the corman drosten study.
                    The cormandrostenreview was not peer reviewed / to the extent that it was it was rejected. You don't seem to understand enough about the processes involved to understand why what you're claiming is wrong.

                    You know also that even as late as 2019 that Kary Mullis was pointing out the PCR process was not for diagnostics.
                    No, I can find no evidence this claim is true.

                    Mullis was also a well-known nut-case by the end of his life. Perhaps he inhaled a few too many fumes early in his career or something.

                    I do wonder when you test for selectivity if you are testing anything similar to the computer models for SARS-COV-2 that are relied upon for the PCR process.
                    This sentence is nonsensical.

                    You also have rejected all the studies showing Ivermectin, Vitamin-D and other treatments.
                    A quick google tells me your claims about these are utterly bogus.

                    Every time a tiny study finds some possible merit to a treatment only for bigger more careful studies to show it has no merit, you seem appear on this forum and tout the supposed wonderful benefits of the drugs. And it seems to be a different drug you're touting each time because your previous ones were thoroughly disproven. I recall you being super-enthusiastic about the supposed miracle cure of zinc, hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C previously, but those don't seem to have made your latest snake-oil list. Can you yourself not realize that constantly changing your claimed lists of 'treatments' shows a problem with your methodology?

                    The fact of the matter is that viruses are really hard to treat. It's inherently not going to be a matter of just finding the right random combination of off-the-shelf drugs and vitamins. To the extent covid's going to become actually treatable it will because someone invents a targeted antiviral drug. Antiviral drugs as a general category are overall reasonably new and experimental and as a general rule tend to not be very effective at what they try and do. If you're worried that vaccines (a medical technology that's been around and well-proven for over two centuries) are 'experimental', that is as nothing as compared to antivirals.

                    A vaccine just gives your body practice against something that looks vaguely like the virus. Like a person might get better at aiming a gun by practicing on a shooting range against targets that vaguely look like a bad guy. The vaccine doesn't do anything more exciting than look like the virus and give your immune system a practice run against it. Your own immune system just gets a bit better at spotting the virus as a result because it's had practice fighting something similar looking. In that sense, vaccines are about as basic and boring and non-dangerous as any medication can ever get. Whereas antivirals often try to actually alter your body's processes in order to disable cell functions that the virus happens to like to use, and in that sense they can be really dangerous and are really messing with your body.

                    So something that was supposed to be a broad spectrum antiviral drug, like Remdesivir, was a good option to be looking at for covid. Remdesivir was developed to treat Hep C and RSV, which it failed at. After it failed at those, the developing company tried shopping it around on other diseases like Ebola and coronaviruses, and never managed to prove it was any good for those. Fairly typical story for antiviral medication! So they pulled it out when covid turned up and dusted it off, and got a solid maybe result as to whether it helped. The latest data seems to be that it doesn't. Overall it's the right class of drug to be trying to use for Covid though. Unlike the other nutty treatments you keep changing to endorse, if any drug is eventually found to treat covid, it will be an antiviral drug, likely one that is specifically designed for covid. There's some interesting ongoing research trying to modify the Remdesivir drug to target it against covid specifically.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      The cormandrostenreview was not peer reviewed / to the extent that it was it was rejected. You don't seem to understand enough about the processes involved to understand why what you're claiming is wrong.

                      No, I can find no evidence this claim is true.

                      Mullis was also a well-known nut-case by the end of his life. Perhaps he inhaled a few too many fumes early in his career or something.
                      This sentence is nonsensical.
                      A quick google tells me your claims about these are utterly bogus.

                      Every time a tiny study finds some possible merit to a treatment only for bigger more careful studies to show it has no merit, you seem appear on this forum and tout the supposed wonderful benefits of the drugs. And it seems to be a different drug you're touting each time because your previous ones were thoroughly disproven. I recall you being super-enthusiastic about the supposed miracle cure of zinc, hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C previously, but those don't seem to have made your latest snake-oil list. Can you yourself not realize that constantly changing your claimed lists of 'treatments' shows a problem with your methodology?

                      The fact of the matter is that viruses are really hard to treat. It's inherently not going to be a matter of just finding the right random combination of off-the-shelf drugs and vitamins. To the extent covid's going to become actually treatable it will because someone invents a targeted antiviral drug. Antiviral drugs as a general category are overall reasonably new and experimental and as a general rule tend to not be very effective at what they try and do. If you're worried that vaccines (a medical technology that's been around and well-proven for over two centuries) are 'experimental', that is as nothing as compared to antivirals.

                      A vaccine just gives your body practice against something that looks vaguely like the virus. Like a person might get better at aiming a gun by practicing on a shooting range against targets that vaguely look like a bad guy. The vaccine doesn't do anything more exciting than look like the virus and give your immune system a practice run against it. Your own immune system just gets a bit better at spotting the virus as a result because it's had practice fighting something similar looking. In that sense, vaccines are about as basic and boring and non-dangerous as any medication can ever get. Whereas antivirals often try to actually alter your body's processes in order to disable cell functions that the virus happens to like to use, and in that sense they can be really dangerous and are really messing with your body.

                      So something that was supposed to be a broad spectrum antiviral drug, like Remdesivir, was a good option to be looking at for covid. Remdesivir was developed to treat Hep C and RSV, which it failed at. After it failed at those, the developing company tried shopping it around on other diseases like Ebola and coronaviruses, and never managed to prove it was any good for those. Fairly typical story for antiviral medication! So they pulled it out when covid turned up and dusted it off, and got a solid maybe result as to whether it helped. The latest data seems to be that it doesn't. Overall it's the right class of drug to be trying to use for Covid though. Unlike the other nutty treatments you keep changing to endorse, if any drug is eventually found to treat covid, it will be an antiviral drug, likely one that is specifically designed for covid. There's some interesting ongoing research trying to modify the Remdesivir drug to target it against covid specifically.
                      wow. after your google search you must have gone to the wikipedia for your science. I appreciate this high school technique. You can look at the studies at https://c19ivermectin.com/ and the studies do not require a specific theory of healing to prove them effective. Though, for new drugs there probably has to be a theory how it works. Indeed I have backed away from HCQ as a primary treatment since its effectiveness is primarily in the early phase of sickness. Then yours and Fauci's favorite is Remdesivir which proved least effective. When you call me nutty, you are calling the medical doctors and scientists in these studies nutty. It is easy for me to choose between them and you, as specialists in these areas.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        wow. after your google search you must have gone to the wikipedia for your science.
                        Just to be clear, what I mean is that I used google to find multiple scientific studies finding these drugs were ineffective for covid and have enough experience looking at the results of scientific studies to be able to do such a analysis well. Part of that comes because I work as scientist, have a phd in science, and have published peer reviewed papers in multiple fields.

                        You have yet to explain why you consider yourself competent to do any of the analyses you keep presenting. You don't seem to have any of the relevant skills as far as I can tell. You get really basic things wrong continuously.

                        Why do you think you're competent to read and understand the information you're trying to process? Given you seem to misunderstand even really basic things about my posts, what makes you think you can understand a scientific paper?
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                          I showed the whistleblower number which shows covid shot deaths (apparently based on data queries by a computer programmer or related skill) are more like 45,000 in the US. Deaths by covid-19 alone in the first year were maybe 100k (i.e., 500k * 20% ) or 50k when using a lower proportion (where the early proportion by NIH or CDC was 4% by covid-19 alone). The news on this experimental covid shot just gets worse and worse.
                          So let's take a look at the account of the alleged whistleblower. Here's the document in question:
                          https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...77186.15.4.pdf

                          Now, what are the credentials of this alleged whistleblower? Well, they're listed as anonymous, but they are apparently a computer programmer with a B.S. in Mathematics. This is not exactly an occupation that I would consider to be credentialed to try to ascertain information on this sort of thing. They may work with health information, but as someone who works in the health information field myself, I can tell you that simply working with medical data is a far cry from actually being able to say much of anything about anything involving actual medicine.

                          So from the get-go we're not dealing with someone whose credentials for determining this appear questionable. But sure, let's see what they have to say. Here's the most pertinent portion:

                          "It is my professional estimate that VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5. On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000."

                          The fact they claim that this would bring the number of "vaccine-related deaths" to at least 45,000 is a rather strong indication that they either do not know what they are talking about or are intentionally embellishing things. Why? Because VAERS is not a list of vaccine-related illnesses or deaths. It's simply a list of people who suffered some kind of medical issue, including death, after getting vaccinated. That's it. That doesn't mean there's any link. So even if the number is underreported and the true number is actually 45,000, that wouldn't be 45,000 "vaccine-related deaths." It would be 45,000 deaths of people who took the vaccine, some of which may be related. This is basic knowledge about VAERS, but apparently our whistleblower is unaware of that. Another reason to wonder exactly why this person is someone we should trust to perform such an analysis.

                          But setting aside all of that, what exactly is their analysis based on? It's based on "queried data from CMS medical claims." And from that, they decided they were underreported by a factor of 5... somehow. How this analysis was performed is not demonstrated or discussed. Now, perhaps a more detailed explanation is forthcoming, but for now all we have is a claim that they somehow performed an analysis that got them this number.

                          So essentially, the claim of it actually being 45,000 comes from an anonymous person with questionable credentials for determining this analysis who didn't explain how they performed the analysis and who demonstrates ignorance of basic information about VAERS.

                          So the claim of this whistleblower, at least in the information they have made available to us, has a lot of rather large holes in it. It's not exactly something to trumpet around as if it's some kind of big development.
                          Last edited by Terraceth; 08-05-2021, 11:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Just to be clear, what I mean is that I used google to find multiple scientific studies finding these drugs were ineffective for covid and have enough experience looking at the results of scientific studies to be able to do such a analysis well. Part of that comes because I work as scientist, have a phd in science, and have published peer reviewed papers in multiple fields.

                            You have yet to explain why you consider yourself competent to do any of the analyses you keep presenting. You don't seem to have any of the relevant skills as far as I can tell. You get really basic things wrong continuously.

                            Why do you think you're competent to read and understand the information you're trying to process? Given you seem to misunderstand even really basic things about my posts, what makes you think you can understand a scientific paper?
                            I've made some analyses of papers and they were confirmed by medical doctors and scientists. This confirmed to me that I was finding correct stuff.

                            Your info has tended to be incomplete and has not helped me understand anything better. You complain about the studies on things like Ivermectin but have never shown what is wrong with the studies. At best you have claimed an interest in double-blind studies, but this is a preference and usually is geared toward new medicines or wildly funded studies.

                            Published papers in themselves are not necessarily a sign of competence -- though it is a better claim of ability than people who have not -- unless it is a medical journal where a medical doctor is hunted down to be represented in a paper that was actually created by Big Pharma.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                              I've made some analyses of papers and they were confirmed by medical doctors and scientists. This confirmed to me that I was finding correct stuff.
                              Let me then, as a scientist, confirm that you are absolutely not finding correct stuff. Not even a little bit of correct stuff.

                              You have been 100% wrong about absolutely everything I have seen you say on the subject. Not a little bit wrong. Not wrong here and there in the details. Completely wrong. All the time. The sources you cite aren't credible sources. The claims you're making range from obviously wrong to utterly ludicrous.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Let me then, as a scientist, confirm that you are absolutely not finding correct stuff. Not even a little bit of correct stuff.

                                You have been 100% wrong about absolutely everything I have seen you say on the subject. Not a little bit wrong. Not wrong here and there in the details. Completely wrong. All the time. The sources you cite aren't credible sources. The claims you're making range from obviously wrong to utterly ludicrous.
                                If I find a scientist who proves himself worthy of listening to, I will pay attention to her or him. That person would have to establish some credibility and would have to review some of the studies that are relevant. Still looking for that person.

                                I do hold out the possibility that what you are saying is correct, but that has yet to be established with any confidence.
                                Last edited by mikewhitney; 08-05-2021, 11:39 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X