The state's surgeon general published analysis warning men aged 18-39 from taking mRNA vaccines due to a statistically significant increase in cardiac-related deaths. Twitter removed it.
The fact government agencies won't say lose weight if you're fat to help protect yourself from Covid tells you all you need to know about much you should trust them. Pfizer can't make enough money we give people crazy ideas like maybe they don't need to get the vaccine if they're healthy.
Here we go again… People desperate to hear what they want to hear get all up in arms because somebody said what they wanted to hear and even though the problems with making any guidance on the basis of the said aforementioned b.s. they were referencing are multiple and manifest, off they go with the censoring talk without trying to defend the basis of the argument they were making.
News flash, you get ignored and banned because you’re too lazy to back up your shit. Instead you run off to corners of the internet where angry people too readily pat themselves on the back for being against the dominant story not because they done quality research but because they like the self-appointed title of being a “free thinker” when they’re not thinking at all, they’re feeling which is so much easier. To further bolster their ego they invent some nefarious cabal out to silence them instead of a health community trying to give them people well researched advice that is statistically likely to result in the best outcomes. I know it hurts your ego to admit that but you need to take your ego out of the equation for second and deal with your own subconscious motivators, they’re making you lazy and leading you to believe shit because you want to believe rather than because it makes rational sense on the basis of evidence.
As usual, most of the folks waving this latest horseshit around online haven’t bothered to read it closely so they’re going to make the rest of us functionally literate folks do the homework for them. Btw, this is why no one takes you seriously whether you’re taking horse dewormer or going all anti-vaxer on people. I hope you do your financial research with more rigor. Here are the problems with the “research” you’re touting as sufficient to reverse everyone else’s work in the field.
1. It’s not a study.
2. It’s not peer reviewed by anyone for accuracy.
3. No authors are listed.
4. If you even bothered to fully read the link you’d see that whoever authored it warns the reader that they used the death certificate code of ACME I3-152 which is a catch all code for “other forms of heart disease”, not a very precise measure by any means. That’s why the anonymous author states “the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac related.”
5. Add to all this the fact that 19-39 year old males don’t die of heart disease very often and it throws into question all sorts of statistical basis’ for the conjecture people are trying to run with.
So if you’d bothered to read this turd without massive political blinders and understand the basics of statistics you’d get pretty quickly that it shouldn’t guide a thing (the anonymous author says as much if you read). If Florida’s surgeon general is referencing this as a reason to not get a vaccine, he’s in pretty deep political territory, not fact or science land. I personally don’t find it at all hard to believe that a DeSantis appointed political figure would want to please his boss over genuinely inform the public with solid science so I don’t really give a hoot what comes behind his name. This is shit research just like the shit research conservatives were trying to score points with on invermectine. Which, is why twitter banned it as disinformation. Which they can do and should do to keep lazy political hacks such as yourselves from creaming the internet with bullshit that other folks that don’t bother to read will accept and repeat until the whole country gets progressively more ill informed.
Well said! I'm not sure what your background is but I agree it is nauseating listening to the diatribe of BS from readers on this website in their own echo chamber....actually I stand corrected, it's more disturbing and saddening than anything else. Everything is so politically extreme all the time. I'm not sure happened to them in their childhoods but they just seem really unhappy and angry all the time. They want to kill anyone that disagrees with their echochamber views.
I live in Florida and it is increasingly becoming like a cross between The Truman Show and The Hand Maids Tale with reality being squeezed away every day by the fascist governor. They keep talking about 'freedom' and yet everyday the goons running this state work hard at removing liberty and peoples rights from any one who is a minority group or disagrees with their screwed up Evangelical pretend christianity.
I think Chris writes some interesting market analysis but it's becoming evident that this blog is just a front for him to promote absolutely extreme right wing talking points. The formula is simple, its like Tucker Carlson - keep everyone riled up and angry by pushing outlandish opinions and you get more subscriptions and make more money. Same as Alex Jones but not as extreme.
Sadly, I agree. I still appreciate some of the people Chris gets in on financial topics but he lost a lot of my respect when he liked a clearly anti-Semitic rant from a reader that was struggling with the difference between nationality and religious beliefs a few posts back. Maybe he was just liking the first handful of replies that he gets to his post, not sure. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he’s more intelligent than your basic anti-Semite but when he goes off half cocked like he did in this post, it makes me wonder. Maybe you’re right and Chris is using the Alex Jones method to get subscribers. Hard to say. Still, if he wants to keep me as a subscriber (not saying he gives a rat’s ass about what I think), he needs to stop putting crap like this in a finance blog. It ain’t finance, it’s not well researched or insightful, it’s just alt-right click bait. For anyone that really does their own evidence-based thinking and can read, Chris is embarrassing himself. His lack of analytic ability here makes it harder to pay attention some of his better work in proper finance topics.
I agree that an absolute rather than relative risk increase would represent a much more accurate (and far less scary) number than 84%, due to the small number of cardiac events in this demographic. I suspect, however, that the choice to present a relative risk increase statistic was intentional and directly related to the decision to also utilize a relative risk reduction in the initial Covid shot studies. Let’s at least be intellectually honest here and admit that if we’re criticizing the authors of this piece for presenting relative rather than absolute numbers, then the efficacy of the shots themselves is not the 95% sold to the public (the relative risk reduction) but rather 0.84% (the absolute risk reduction), using Pfizer’s own trial results. Of over 40,000 trial participants, only three died from Covid, one in the test group and two in the control. (On the other hand, all-cause mortality was actually higher in the group receiving the shots, particularly due to cardiac-related causes, which is something that should’ve raised red flags.) You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to claim that the increased risk of cardiac events in this age group following administration of these experimental pharmaceutical products is negligible (which it is), you should also acknowledge that the risk of a severe Covid outcome is equally (if not more) negligible for the same demographic. Regardless of the safety and efficacy of these shots, mandating them for anyone—and especially healthy young people—is not only reckless but immoral.
You’re still not reading. I’m not critizing the methods or the results nearly as much as I’m critiquing anyone for using this as a basis for anything. This study isn’t a study. It’s a badly collected series of data collated by someone that doesn’t identify themselves and has been reviewed by no one. It has glaring flaws the anonymous author clearly recognizes that make it useless as a discussion tool. There is no foundation of quality work to discuss so I’m not going to engage with you on the basis of any of it’s points. Get quality research that backs your claims and we’ll discuss it all you want. But if it’s not published, peer reviewed, with a large sample size, includes a clear and sensible methodology, then keep it to yourself because it’s as pointless as any discussion flowing around it. Meanwhile, there is a large body of published and peer reviewed work (which again, this ain’t!) on the vaccine that doesn’t agree with whatever this turd is and that you’re trying to ignore, so a logical person would conclude that you’re on a political mission or looking for a reason to express unfounded anger.
You can make all the conjecture you want but that’s all it is, unsupported conjecture. Why aren’t you referencing any of the huge peer reviewed studies showing that the cardiac risk, even in this age group, is much smaller than their risk of dying from covid I wonder? Both are admittedly small. My guess is that you want to believe you’re right more than you want to analyze. Apologies for being snarky here, I’m just so tired of saying the obvious.
As for your point about mandating a vaccine, the U.S. government has done no such thing. You’re tilting at windmills, i.e. making up something to be upset about and it makes the rest of your arguments moot because they all base on the idea that the vaccine is mandated, which it isn’t and hasn’t been for the general population. Yes, the military mandated it but then they shot me up with an anthrax vaccine when they deemed I needed it and they made it really clear when I joined them that I was to maintain my body a level of readiness they deemed needed or I would get kicked out, it was part of the contract. They even kicked a few people out that wouldn’t do it but that was on the individuals that didn’t read the contract, not the military.
Yes, private companies have had some requirements you probably haven’t appreciated but that is their right and it’s not a government mandate. As long as a private business doesn’t discriminate on the basis of a fairly narrow set of criteria that mostly have to do with race, sexual identity, or creed, it’s fair game. They say you have to wear a shirt to shop here, do it or shop elsewhere. It’s no different than if you came to a party at my house and acted the fool causing you to get told to leave. You enter the grounds at my pleasure, you leave on the same basis. Don’t like it, make your own store or go talk that shit at your own home. It’s not a “freedom” issue. You just don’t get to do what you want, where you want, when you want if you don’t own the joint. Honestly, like I mentioned, even if you do own the joint there are limits. These aren’t limits to your personal freedom, they’re just the line where your freedom starts to bump into others freedom not to deal with you. No reason to get butt hurt because you failed a popularity contest or didn’t make a successful social media platform.
What people need is solid research to help guide them in a personal decision. What you’re referencing is far, far away from anything like that. Stop muddying the water by pretending this is thoughtful analysis people should be seriously considering for conversation when it has pretty much zero standing. That is my least favorite trick of the right these days, pretending to be open minded when they’re blindered as all hell to anything they don’t personally believe to be the case. Makes them a grasping and thirsty bunch of lazy people that run around reposting thoughtless bullshit to get attention and then they have the balls to try and push thoughtful people to accept these sad jokes as something we have to do the work to refute, it’s infuriating and exhausting. I’d love it if you were bringing us something with meat on it. This ain’t even spam.
That’s a lot of word salad, but I’d maintain that it’s you that’s not reading, since most of your points were addressed in my previous comment and others on this page. In particular, I think you well know why the types of studies you’re requesting haven’t been performed. It boils down to there being no money in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Covid poses a minuscule risk to healthy people, that the approved treatment protocols were government-funded ATMs for corporate health systems (while being deadly for patients), that some of the most-effective treatments and prophylactics were essentially free and thus had to be suppressed through an unprecedented propaganda campaign in order to justify EUA products in their stead, and that showing the jabs to be neither safe nor effective (let alone necessary even if they were) was going to cost drug companies billions in lost revenue. Literally every government or private institution that has the resources to conduct such a study also has a major vested interest in not proving the truths which are becoming more blatantly obvious now with each passing day as the evidence continues to snowball.
As for mandates, there absolutely were (and still are) government mandates in place. The CMS mandate has driven off thousands of healthcare workers and first responders who were desperately needed, most of whom have natural immunity that’s superior to whatever temporary protection the shots may provide. In my case, it was the contractor mandate which was fortunately defeated in the courts that threatened my employment. (Thousands of us moved quickly enough to convince our company and others in our industry that such a move would not be complied with, and would cost our employers dearly at a time when they were already understaffed.) Just because the government attempts to pass off illegal mandates as free-market business decisions doesn’t make it so. There is a term for that, however...
I’m not writing a thesis here for you. It’s a chat. Interestingly other people got through it without a struggle and understood it. Sorry if it confused you.
To make this quick, save you time, keep you on topic, and make it easy for you; I’ll bullet point:
1. You didn’t address my issue with whatever it was that got posted by the surgeon general of Florida. You changed the topic to a Pfizer study you didn’t link to as you threw out numbers without support and still tried to use the numbers in the Florida’s surgeon general as if they were useful for a comparison. You don’t support shit research with good research to validate it. You let good research stand on it own.
2. The studies about vaccine dangers and the risk of death or long term ailments are exhaustive, huge, and mostly don’t back what you’re saying. That you didn’t read them doesn’t mean they don’t exist just that whatever media bubble you’re in didn’t get you access. We have very good evidence about the risks. It’s most of what the entire medical establishment has been focused on for the last 2 years and 2 decades if you’re talking about mRNA vaccines. They’re not nearly as new as conservative keep trying to repeat. If you can’t find the studies with a two minute search on google scholar, I’d say you didn’t look. I’m not getting suckered into doing your homework for you, unless you want to pay me, just because you don’t have the stomach to read what you don’t want to hear.
I am however, happy to make a monetary bet that published, peer reviewed, large sample size research both exists and indicates that vaccinating men in the 19-39 age range does reduce the likelyhood that they get or transmit covid to others vs. non-vaccinated people as a group. If you’d rather argue the point that there is more danger from the vaccine than actually getting covid, even though that’s pretty self serving when not spreading it to people that might have different outcomes is as important as not getting it, I’m willing to make the same bet on the same basis. I’m alway down to make a easy buck. So what’s it worth to you to have me do your homework? I’m going to say a few hundred bucks because that’ll more than cover Chris’s subscription costs. I’m starting to feel like this wasn’t money well spent.
2. There you go again with the “there is a big conspiracy” to keep cheap drugs from the people talk that you can’t prove. Give us the evidence of the conspiracy or stop saying it. You playing a thought experiment about the motivators of governments is not evidence. You’re saying that something you can’t prove is a thing and I’m saying it doesn’t exist. You need hard evidence to make claims like that, not thought experiments or deductive reasoning.
3. You got me on the last point. Although the CMS mandate is hardly a nation wide mandate as it doesn’t apply in 25 states, there is a mandate from the government that people employed by funds from the government to provide services to Medicaid and Medicare patients be vaccinated.
I’m glad you kept your job, truely. But I have family in the medical field as nurses and nurse practitioners in California. My family members are infuriated that nurses that work in neo-natal units have refused to vaccinate given the risk to patients and stoked they got fired. They understand the risk to their little patients that spend weeks and months on respirators that scar their lungs and do everything they can to avoid getting covid, test constantly, and isolate the minute they pop positive. Natural immunity to corona viruses is a bit of misnomer. You’re never immune to covid. If you’ve already had covid, your resistance wanes with every passing day and falls of hard at around three months so a booster does just that. It increases the period of time your less likely to get or spread covid. There have been some good points made about the possibly longer resistance in people that get exposed to covid naturally but no one is saying you get lasting immunity for more than a season or two. That anyone that works with high risk patients refuses the vaccine is more than grounds enough for dismissal in a free market economy. California is a right to work state, you don’t need a reason to get canned. There are lots of jobs for people in the medical field in this economy. They can get another one and even if they can’t, I don’t pity them.
So you made a good point, people working with Medicare and Medicaid patients do have a mandate in about half of U.S. states. Given that it is literally their job to help people recover their health and not be a disease vector, I’m less than impressed by your anger about the requirement unless you can actually prove that the risk to the individual outweighs the risk to their patients and by a lot, because this is a group of people that professionally put themselves at risk of contracting other people’s diseases by working in the field they do and they make an oath as part of their profession and work to do no harm and follow that mandates of the state in which they live. Really not much different than the military.
Like I said, I’ll make you a solid size monetary bet that you can’t prove that the risks to the individual outweigh the risks to the patients with the solid level of research that I mentioned. You’re not wrong about the mandate, and maybe I should take back what I said about tilting at windmills but man you’re stretching pretty hard to get angry about something that makes absolute sense the minute you realize the patient population they work with. The vast majority of the population doesn’t have a mandate and the one’s that do signed on to professions that have understandable requirements that you maintain you body in a state so as to be a minimum risk to others or the teams effectiveness. Nothing “immoral” about it unless you support your point that the vaccine is much, much more dangerous for the nurse or doctor than it is for the at risk patient, which you haven’t done. So you’re still kinda tilting at windmills with a made up enemy, caveats aside.
Thank you for the civil discourse, but I think you’re still missing my point.
You (correctly) called out the study cited by Dr. Ladapo for presenting relative rather than absolute risk numbers, which is essentially manipulating statistics to make something inconsequential seem really scary. I pointed out that this is exactly what was done in the Pfizer clinical trials, which had a similar effect of making the shots seem fantastically effective when the reality is that the absolute risk reduction is minuscule. This is not necessarily a function of the shots being ineffective as much as the fact that Covid itself poses very little risk to almost everyone, in the same manner that cardiac issues both with and without the Covid shots are rare in healthy young men.
Since this trial was the very basis for what has become by far the largest uninformed medical experiment in the history of the planet, I didn’t realize I’d need to link it, but here it is:
The bottom line is that the risks posed by both Covid and the shots are highly unlikely but potentially severe for an unlucky few. I’m sure that the numbers could be successfully tortured to produce whatever conclusion the sponsor of a particular study is looking to reach.
You imply that it’s entirely appropriate to coerce healthcare workers to receive Covid shots as a condition of employment, but I disagree. Even if Covid were as deadly as media propaganda has implied, and even if the shots were perfectly safe and effective, I would still call this immoral. I recognize that you would disagree. Thankfully, these premises are all untrue, and while we can torture data, cherry-pick studies, and argue over degrees, the fact that Covid is not generally problematic for healthy people, that there are uncommon yet potentially severe dangers associated with the shots that are now even acknowledged by the manufacturers and governments pushing them, and that the shots, while producing some level of protection from severe Covid for some period of time, neither prevent infection nor transmission. Coupled with the fact that almost all of these healthcare workers already have natural immunity which is at least as good as that conveyed by the shots, and yes, it *is* unjustifiable to attempt to force even healthcare workers to submit to these products on any grounds.
This article, written by a woman who is definitely not anti-vax, has a plethora of source material linked:
Predictably, California politicians used this study to justify continued lockdowns and mask mandates, but at its heart, what the results really suggest is that these products do essentially nothing to protect anyone except the person receiving the shot:
Once you’ve established doubt as to whether the shots effectively protect others, there’s no basis for mandates in any form, regardless of what the actual truth is on necessity, efficacy, or safety.
If I personally had hard evidence proving a conspiracy to suppress cheap and effective alternative treatments, I’d be presenting it in a courtroom, not here. However, there are most definitely tidbits that suggest such an occurrence. Although predating the shots and directed at lockdowns, the Fauci-Collins emails conspiring to slander and silence the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are an excellent example of the practice:
Tell me again who the actual science-deniers are here? My money’s on the people like Fauci, who have publicly admitted to lying about the efficacy of masks, herd immunity, and quarantine periods in pursuit of what he perceived to be a greater good:
It’s hard to argue that known safe, cheap and effective alternative treatments and prophylactics weren’t available. Vitamin D and Ivermectin are probably the best examples:
It’s self-evident why drug companies wouldn’t want that to become public knowledge. If you maintain that regulatory capture isn’t a thing in every corner of our government, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say to convince you. No doubt Fauci will be on several boards of medical and pharmaceutical companies in the near future.
I agree that private mandates are more defensible. In a truly free market, some businesses could be expected to mandate while others would not. The extent that those businesses lost talent to competitors taking the opposite position (which could occur in either direction) would quickly demonstrate which policy, if either, was superior in the eyes of customers and employees. We’ve seen this play out as people fled lockdown states in droves for places like Florida, as well as in businesses first loosely enforcing and then quickly ending things like mask mandates the moment government threats suddenly vanished. However, when the government interferes to the extent of mandating shots for entire sectors of the economy, market participants are unable to suss out the correct practice, as employees find their backs against the wall, having to choose between being employable at all in their chosen profession or standing up for their right to assess whether the shots were appropriate for their individual circumstances, all at the whims of tyrannical politicians and unelected bureaucrats.
In the end, I’m not presenting a case to try to send anyone to prison here (although I certainly dream of that occurring). I don’t need to establish my position beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact that rational people are sincerely debating these issues is more than enough to indicate that mandates were never an appropriate course of action here.
Your final paragraphs boil down to defending the involuntarily transfer of risk from the elderly and unwell to the young and healthy. While that’s a perfectly acceptable reason for individuals to voluntarily choose such a course of action for themselves, it is unconscionable as an excuse for coercing that behavior in others. We can argue safety and efficacy until the cows come home, but that doesn’t impact the morality of mandates one iota.
Obviously, we’ve drifted from the topic of the original post to mandates, and I’ll take the blame for that. I don’t much care what governments recommend about anything, although my preference would be for them to stay out of healthcare entirely. I do care when they threaten my livelihood if I simply decline to submit to their ideas about how I should handle my personal health, and that’s why I’m passionate about that in particular. Regarding the original post, if we must have politicians and bureaucrats opining on medical issues, I am glad to finally see differing opinions entering the official discourse, as blind acceptance of what has been largely a political narrative over the past 18 months has done significant damage to both our health and our economy.
Hey, Chris. It’s getting late where I am and it’s going to take me more than a second to digest everything you’ve given me but I appreciate the effort and the obvious intention to be even handed. You did a better job of it than I did. I’ll do my part and read through the material you’ve given me, just not tonight.
If I came off as haughty or dismissive earlier please forgive it. I can see you’re trying to make a considered and thought out point here and that you put in some work, which I respect. Let me give it the time it deserves and get back to it later. May take me a week until I have another day off and by then we’ll likely be the only ones reading it but given the length of our posts that might already be true. Lol!
Sigh, Chris. True to my word I started going through your links. I really wanted to get something from this but all I gotta say your evidence is really disappointing.
It says on the first page “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
Remember what I was saying about why you need to use published, peer reviewed, and include large sample size studies? This isn’t me talking, this is scientists’ own guidelines. If you’re going to try and reference their work, you really should use their methods. The work you cited fails on all but the last point. In fact none of your “evidence” meets the standard. It starts in a bad place and quickly devolves.
But I ignored this problem for a second and actually download the study results and read them…. low and behold on page 8 of 21 you see this:
“Safety data are now available for ~44,000 ≥16-year-old participants; 12,006 individuals have ≥6 months of safety follow-up data after a second BNT162b2 dose. The safety profile observed at a median of 2 months post-immunization was confirmed up to 6 months post-immunization in this analysis. No cases of myocarditis were noted”
I’m not saying you were trying to use this study to say that the vaccine was worse than covid but Berenson sure tried to say that. And a lot of right wingers have been pushing that mistaken conclusion with the study you mentioned as well.
You don’t need to distill that or have Alex Berenson interpret the results for you. You should be able to read that for yourself. Most study summaries aren’t that hard to read and if they are, look for interviews with their authors, not an ex-New York Times reporter that has been called out by some of the study authors he’s tried to misquote or mistakenly summarize.
In short, Alex Berenson isn’t someone I’d let write my cliff notes. Here is a list of some of his greatest screw ups…
1. He has blamed the vaccines for causing spikes in severe illness, by pointing to data that actually demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. (See above)
2. He has blamed the vaccines for suppressing our immune systems, by misrepresenting how immune systems work.
3. He has suggested that countries such as Israel have suffered from their early vaccine rollout, even though deaths and hospitalizations among vaccinated groups in Israel plummeted with the introduction of vaccines.
4. He has implied that for most non-seniors, the side effects of the vaccines are worse than having COVID-19 itself..wtf?!
He gets a lot of what he says wrong and he’s not a research scientist. How’d you miss that? I’m guessing because your news sources are so biased they wouldn’t tell you that and you took his word for truth without reading his source material. Again, I’m disappointed because it took me less time to download and read the material to find the flaws than it did to write about to you about it. Which means you’re forming opinions based on pseudo-science and asking other people do your work for you.
It seems to me what you’re trying to say is that the risk to young people of dying from covid is so low that they shouldn’t vaccinate, a la Florida’s surgeon general but here is where I strongly disagree. There have been tens of thousands of deaths from covid in the 19-39 age group and zero proven causally correlated case of people dying from the vaccine in that age group. Remember get your sample size large enough and some people in it are going to die from almost everything. That doesn’t prove causality, just means some folks died. Hence the concept of statistical significance where you start looking for extremely abnormal numbers of people dying from whatever effect your looking for which absolutely didn’t happen with the vaccine. Lots of anti-vaxers tried to push the myocarditis tip by ignoring that point. Yes, some exceedingly small number did die of myocarditis, but I challenge you to find a study with a statically significant numbers fitting a confidence interval.
Even if you imagine for a second that the handful of possible cases recorded are causal, and you’d have to imagine that because you don’t have causal proof. Most importantly, the deaths due to myocarditis pale by comparison to the number of deaths from covid in that young age range.
More importantly, there have been over one million total deaths in the U.S. from the virus and the virus doesn’t care if you’re 25 or 60, infection is infection. More cases=more death. Math so simple even Alex Jones could manage it. Remember part of the reason we get vaccinated isn’t just to save our own skin, it’s to protect everyone else so we can reduce case loads, which are causally related to accompanying deaths. To wit, the point of a vaccine is as much for the greater population as it is for you especially in the early days when the virus was more deadly. Only very self-centered people miss that, thankfully most medical professionals don’t miss that point and get vaccinated when the studies show very low incident rates due to the vaccine.
Now about doing your own work. I got through the study summary download you referenced in about 45 minutes. Doesn’t take long to read it, it’s only 21 pages. Not a huge ask. This is why you don’t start from a position of belief and then go out to try and prove it. You get sucked by tools like Berenson.
This is also why I’m constantly losing my patience with the right wing because this happens over and over again. They pretend to reference science they haven’t read, write sometimes erudite sounding b.s. that other people repeat, again without reading it, which then hits the internet and fires up a secondary group that repeats the pseudo science ad nauseum. If you had bothered to read what he was referencing, you would have figured out pretty quick that either he sucks at reading or he has an alterior motive.
I could go through your whole list and probably come to the same conclusions over and over again but I don’t see the point of spending that much more time to do something you should be able to do for yourself. We won’t get anywhere with this conversation because you’re going to keep leaving science and send me to people like Berenson and worse. I did read them, btw., just out of respect for your civility.
Your take away from the Scientific American article was way off, as well though. It did not indicate that the shot was only good for the person getting it. During the three month window vaccinated people were around 50% less likely to transmit than none vaccinated. Of course we know that drops over time but it’s far from non-effective. It just wasn’t the silver bullet the mother/author was hoping for. If you want to ask the obvious question relating to health care workers: Are they going to have to keep getting boosters? The answer likely depends on what the variants do. If they continue to get less deadly over time, hopefully we can get to a point where medical workers don’t need to worry anymore. But in the early days, vaccines definitely slowed transmission rates significantly and the data shows up most strongly in the transmission rates of countries that didn’t have the vaccine or had low adoption rates like the U.S. when you compare them to high adoption rate countries. Sadly, there weren’t many of those because of supply, economics, and politics.
What is true, and a lot of the right tried to ignore, is that the vaccine was and is remarkably good at keeping you from GETTING COVID in the first few months and if you don’t get covid, you can’t transmit it. Doesn’t mean that you won’t get a non-symptomatic case and transmit. It just means you’re significantly less likely to get the case in the first place. Doesn’t mean the vaccine doesn’t work, just means people didn’t understand how it worked. There are good studies to show reduced transmission rates among vaccinated communities. Here is a peer reviewed and published one for you that shows an almost 50% actual reduction in transmission rates. So again, your take away from the Scientific American article is way off but the author said that already. I’m just repeating the point because it seems you missed it:
By the time you’re trying to argue that invermectin actually worked you’re totally off the deep end, brother. You’re grabbing meta studies that were smashed together because every other “study” you list there had major sample size problems (too small) that invalidate the data. Invermectine heads everywhere we’re trying to hide that by lumping sometimes as much as 92 super small size studies that were as scientifically useless in collections as they were individually. They were doing this to try and hide the sample size problems they had. A meta study is not how you fix a sampling problem because it compounds the original small sample size distortions. Any statistician will tell you that. When proper per reviewed studies were done, shocker, they didn’t match the collection of random small studies. You wouldn’t mathematically expect them to because of the small sample size distortions I mentioned. In fact, if they did match it’d be an almost certain indication someone was trying to cook the books. It’s just y’all that don’t seem to get how statistics work and then jump to the “there must be a conspiracy” conclusion again.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I doubt I’m making any headway here but I still appreciate you trying to reintroduce civility into this conversation. All the best and I do hope you get out of the right wing media echo chamber. These people are dangerous and don’t know what they’re talking about 90% of the time when it comes to science.
Whatever happened to critical thinking Edward? Well said, my old mom is watching too much YouTube “experts” who are just grifters commenting to get engagement outrage so they make money, root of all evil is money and that’s why dis/misinformation will continue to exist.
Our education system is failing us, example: why do we have people who still believe the earth is flat? But you bet those YouTubers selling such junk info is making lots of ad and sponsor/donations revenue 🤣
I’d say the internet happened to critical thinking, Jeff. Now that anybody can just spout an unsupported opinion for clicks, the internet is full of these tools. The radio shock jocks started it in the late 80’s and early 90’s but the true peak didn’t hit until you had cheap blogs and chat forums that made competing for who can be the most red faced and aggrieved a cash generating commodity.
Easy to spot the people that have gotten hooked on this shit because you engage them and explain why their latest spastic rage spew isn’t based on quality evidence and they change the topic instantly like a drunk that can’t follow a conversation. See OilMan below who responded like a guy that didn’t read what he was responding to and instantly veered off topic to what he wanted to talk about. It’s easy to spot an addict: doesn’t do proper research or read the “evidence” they’re referencing, then changes the topic, repeats a lot, or claims to be “just asking questions” when you call them out because they’re not ready to actually defend their position because it’s not a thought out position, it’s just a reaction to a group of people they enjoy hating. Thought out responses would require a thinking person to stay on topic, use and respond to solid evidence, and organize their thoughts to address actual facts and the evidence that their counterpart offered, and ultimately change their mind.
Way too much work for the anger addict or the side show barkers that feed them. Rational thought and solid evidence won’t give them the finger tip anger/adrenaline high they’re looking for. They also tend to write in two to three sentence responses because that’s all the work they’re looking to put in before they get lazy and and declare the “libtard” vanquished so they can go on to other more self congratulating comments in their circle jerk echo chambers.
Liberals do the same thing but you find a lot less of them because they’re mostly super young vs. upper end of middle aged, have other venues and things to do with their lives that are more rewarding, and being young they grow out of it vs. the old folks that lean into it as they increasing self isolate from culture. This is why you find a fair number of life long hard core liberals that turn into conservatives in old age but very few conservatives that turn liberal. It’s not wisdom kicking in because who ever told us that age brings wisdom needs to be laughed out of the room. Sometimes, maybe, but it’s hardly a causal relationship. The mind is a muscle, if it’s atrophied through lack of use and isolation, old age just brings bitterness.
This whole process leads people to think their unsupported feelings and hunches matter and have value. Thanks to the commodification of anger, sadly they do. Which is what makes the quality of evidence mean even less.
They say sex sells, but for middle aged conservatives I’d argue that anger sells better than sex. Makes them feel intelligent, like they possess insider knowledge the rest of us “sheople” don’t. It’d be funny if the anger addict’s terminal destination wasn’t misplaced violence. This is how rational thinking died in our country.
Agree, I commented about it as well and in their own report it states the glaring limitations of the study...watch them just stop doing further studies which would make zero sense if they say what they are saying, the Florida Surgeon General needs to expand his studies further.
My hunch is this was politically bias and driven unfortunately, but right wingers be right wingers about it and will not "do your own research" and actually read the report in its totality and most don't even understand the importance of peer reviewed studies in the scientific community.
Also the report is a very poor "medical" report, they don't lay out their methodologies, sources, etc. all in detail like many scientific studies/experiments I read in scientific journals. So like I always do, I question everything and read the facts myself--left wing and right wing media has failed to do this.
So funny how you guys are patting yourselves on the backs about “following the science” and blaming MAGA or Russia or whoever the latest scapegoat is. Too bad your office of disinformation got cancelled. So there is no merit to the surgeon generals warnings? Just purely political?
There seems to be some correlation but the sample size and methods need to be expanded and further studies issued. That’s how the scientific process works and I want to see peer review. Ask yourself, why DIDN'T they list the authors? The scientists/doctors who did these studies? That’s really strange don’t you think? And the media on both sides doesn’t report this but just mindless headlines to get engagement and views. This is why I can’t stand media on either side, true journalism is pretty dead as we all get dumber and dumber and a lot of that has to do with engagement, outrage, and modern day “journalism”. That’s why people trust and listen to unqualified YouTubers over really flawed conspiracies and so on because that is what pays those YouTubers so they’ll keep grifting.
Info wars is a great example, he blew up because he actually had valid points and data on 9/11, but after his engagement and following dropped off, what did he do? What any capitalist would do, generate more outrage regardless if it’s the truth or not because that is what makes Info Wars money.
We live in a world chock full of inputs, most of which lack quality. Transparency is important but it’s equally and unseperably important that the people that profess to inform us do their work and stop throwing out unexamined bullshit to get paid in money and attention. We all only have so much bandwidth for using our analytical brains and over stimulus with crap input diminishes people’s ability to process and find quality information. Hence the reason that transparency and solid evidence are inseparable if you’re interested in solid decision making. The crap the surgeon general of Florida posted has none of that. It didn’t expand the conversation meaningfully. It gave opportunity to people that already had an opinion to try and present it as fact, when what he offered wasn’t capable of doing that and so worsened the conversation by wasting all of our time and misinforming the people that already had a bias to believing the vaccine is worse that the disease. Then Chris doubled down on the fuck up by not examining the info before reposting and blogging it because he was impressed by a persons title and degree rather than their evidence. This is how stupid spreads.
“Just asking questions” or “opening the conversation” needs to always be founded in solid work because if you’re not doing that you’re diminishing the value of the conversation. This is the opposite of being a free thinker, it’s being a lazy follower. Lazy at best and usually rooted in much worse. Info needs to rest on more than just a vague feeling you don’t like an idea. Pushing info from that perspective is worse than useless. As consumers, we should do our part by not rewarding these fools but humans just aren’t that smart. You’ll get money from us with an emotional reaction far quicker than a rational argument. Asking the crowd to do your work is dangerous both because of what I just said and the fact that the people pushing this crap almost never underline how questionable it is because the smart reader would ask themselves why they’re wasting time with it then. Do some good work with a solid well researched basis, then ask for the respect of being read and maybe paid.
Twitter - the tool - is great; very useful. Twitter - the company - is poison. I use Twitter because where else are you going to be able to get a practically minute-by-minute reaction to macroeconomic topics and indicators from the likes of Luke Gromen, Chris Irons, Peter Schiff, Tracy Shuchart, George Gammon, Brent Johnson, etc. all under one roof? I block or ignore all the culture war stuff (except Alex Berenson). I'm looking forward to see if Elon can clean the purple-haired-gender-studies-majors-turned-public-health-censors out of the company.
Can you imagine how toxic that work place must be? Can you imagine how exhausting it would be to work there?
Plus, where are you going to get Peter Schiff's reaction to the CPI number and find out who's starting in goal for the Predators within the same 2 inches of screen space?
I finally took the step to get off Twitter permanently over the last few months, I don't see the point of going back to a company that's this active in not allowing free speech of evidence backed opinions. Not all opinions are created equal, and I don't think twitter should manage that, cause it then leads to this politisation of what is acceptable or not according to their arbitrary rules. They can do whatever they want, I don't need to support it, nor consuming their products.
I got D's in Trig and Calculus at U of I Champaign-Urbana and a C in cost accounting. Went into Poly Sci and killed it. So for us right sided (left sided) brains, what is the possibility of getting a heart attack in the age groups in the study? Maybe 2%? reading from here: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/heart-attack-age-range#incidence-rate
It seems that Men 20-29 have 2.1 MI's per 100k people. (21/million or about 348 for the cohort 18-44 see infra) I'm not going to look it up, but I bet an equal or higher incidence of death or disability comes from falling off cliffs doing awesome selfies. In the group 30-39 it increases to 16.9 per 100k Total estimated incidents are about 2806 in the country (stats from Norway). So based on what the politically correct Governor Freedom's appointment's statistics what is the higher incidence? 4/100k Yeah that's double but statistically insignificant IMHO. More people get injured masturbating than dying on an MI at that age (anecdotal, Tankster, 2022).
Per Wikipedia, a trusted source there were about 332 million in the US in 2021. 18-44 total 16.6 million. Half male is 8.3 million
What is it compared to other causes of death after injection? Other maladies, like stroke or falling off a ladder (had to make sure you're still reading? Man to Henny Youngman: "How's your wife?" Henny: "Compared to what?" Same here. How many more people died?
Khabib Nurmagomedov and Nikita Kucherov say Number One Bullshit to the article, the SG and his sources. Sorry Chris, or anybody please tell us the numbers and as the Free Citizens of Florida who had the ability to make the choice whether to evacuate Charlotte and Lee County before Ian, we (almost) always had the right to decide whether to get the shots or not. Is the SG spewing or is it lacking context?
I think it’s disingenuous to claim that almost everyone had a choice here.
People were facing not only the loss of employment that they may have had decades invested in, but also employer-subsidized healthcare for their families. Many of these situations were precipitated not by private companies but as a result of questionable executive edicts pressuring those companies. When taxation and regulation permeate every corner of the economy, the line between governments and corporations starts to get pretty blurry and “suggestions” by those in power become indistinguishable from commands.
Kids who had worked to gain admission to universities were subjected to bait and switch tactics when administrators arbitrarily and capriciously instituted vaccine requirements—only after tuition had been paid, of course—on a demographic that is at functionally zero risk of severe Covid outcomes. They would’ve been out tens of thousands of dollars and been set back years in their career plans. Many of these universities were state-run, and almost all of them are beholden to state funding in one way or another (i.e. research grants).
Military members were illegally required to accept EUA shots under threat of disciplinary action and/or administrative separation. More than a handful of cases are still being litigated around the fact that, 14 months after it gained FDA approval, BLA-licensed Comirnaty remains unavailable everywhere in the US, and what the DOD was trying to pass off as such is actually fraudulently-labeled Bio-N-Tech EUA product. Keep an eye on, e.g., Coker v. Austin for some fireworks that are about to go off in the government’s face around this issue in particular.
In the end, what happened here was illegal and unethical state-sponsored coercion of a large segment of the population. I know far more people who are bitter over their decision to get the shots due to fearmongering, outright lies, and coercion than those who still believe that “the three times I’ve had Covid since I got the jabs would’ve been so much worse if I hadn’t been vaccinated.” (That’s just the normal folks, let alone those who believe their health has been harmed by the shots.)
I think you’ll see all this reflected in a big way at the ballot box in a few weeks. Unfortunately, unlike Governor DeSantis, who was pretty good on Covid after a bit of a rough start standing aside while lockdowns and mask mandates made brief appearances in Florida, most Republicans have been just as awful as most Democrats, and they aren’t deserving of the protest votes they’re about to receive, in what will be more of a referendum on the Covid regime than any kind of actual path to increased freedom and protection from these sorts of government overreach in the future.
To use an analogy, if I hold a gun to your head and suggest that you hand over your wallet, I’m not technically *making* you do anything, but I think we’d all agree that your choice to give me your cash so I don’t take your life isn’t really a “choice” at all. (Not to mention that you have absolutely no assurance that I’ll lower the weapon and leave you alone even after receiving your compliance.)
You lost the point of your comment. The SG posted un peer reviewed, no cited info. I already got the point on the “science” of Covid responses by government. FL results were middling. Excess deaths say it all..
Keep it up, you’re pugnaciousness is what we like…
Hard to discern your angle here, but you’re aware that all-cause excess deaths since the rollout of the shots are markedly elevated compared to 2019 and 2020, right?
I learned a long time ago, don't rise to the bait. You posted about the SG of FL being cancelled by TWTR. May people smarter than me called it out for lack of probity, backup, specificity and as such shouldn't be posted as it isn't peer reviewed and fits the Desantis narrative, which is as BS as anybody. For all his blather we had middling results with cases and outcomes/deaths/whatever which is a hot potato because the USA is so pitiful on testing and case followup. Different story. TWTR maybe full of cancelers, but whether they got it right or wrong based on lack a verifiable facts, he should have been banned. Then you went down the rabbit hole of masks, Covid, lack of effectiveness of vaccines, lack of choice imposed by the free enterprise system where employers in an employment at will state can fire you for being tattooed if they like, whatever.
Why can't cruise lines ban unvaccinated people? Cuz Governor Ron said no. Is that what you want? It's like many GOP'ers, Mr. Walker on abortion. OK for me, banned for thee. The libertarian in you should be outraged at their raw grab for power. Abortion is between a woman and her family and the US just imposed Christian Law on all people, despite the fact that "None" is the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US. 63% of the people have banned a life saving medical procedure for everyone because their religion bans it. I know Jews run the country/world, (just read ZH) and the religion recognizes that if the fetus is a pursuer, like an attacker who is going to kill the mother, it can be killed. Let's move on, but I'm not tapping out on this. Stay focused.
You lost control of the discussion and IMHO rose to the bait and ended up in the cooler to be gutted, scaled and made for dinner.
These data are preliminary, based on surveillance data, and should be interpreted with caution. The results have several limitations:
"While this method has been used to assess risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination, it violates the assumption that an event does not affect subsequent exposure (for mRNA vaccines), which may introduce bias."
^ this is it right here, they need to follow up and do a larger study, multiple cohorts and larger sample size
"This study cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death. We used death certificate data and not medical records. COVID testing status was unknown for those who did not die of/with COVID. Cardiac-related deaths were ascertained if an ACME code of I3-I52 were on their death certificate, thus, the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related."
^ again, their study needs to be expanded further, like why didn't you use MEDICAL RECORDS??? and they even say underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related!
So these study needs to get peer reviewed and also done across other states and countries. Although Florida's study has good data, it's not large enough sample size and their methodologies has limitations as they stated in their own report.
Also, Florida's report is NOT A PUBLISHED STUDY and NOT PEER REVIEWED. THERE ARE ZERO AUTHORS LISTED. That is NOT normal and needs to be questioned and made know by reporters.
This is all accurate, and I think Dr. Ledapo has acknowledged as much. The problem is that nobody is doing these expanded studies, because every organization that has the resources to accomplish that also has financial and/or political interests in keeping the likely outcome of such studies under wraps for as long as possible, despite the fact that these safety signals have been present since the initial trials in 2020. What Florida has done here is to begin shining some light on the issue, which is a necessary first step in moving the narrative to a place where these high-quality confirmation studies can be conducted. Disregarding this information because it isn’t a massive double-blind, peer-reviewed study published in a prestigious medical journal is missing the point, in my opinion.
I could do this for for a minute but it’s futile. You never actually looked for studies before saying they hadn’t been done. Just like a lot of other fools here but at least you can stop saying the research wasn’t done. Now you just have to admit you didn’t like the result.
The first study seems to be comparing adverse events 0-3 weeks after vaccination to those occurring between 3 and 6 weeks of vaccination. So if there were, say 10 cases of myocarditis in the first three weeks and 10 more in the subsequent three weeks, they would conclude no risk signal, without looking at either the background incidence of myocarditis or anything diagnosed outside of six weeks. I’d say that’s a pretty good example of a study being tailored to a desired outcome.
The second paper seems to be an analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials. I just skimmed it, but some of the numbers in there don’t even seem to match the source data. For example, this paper cites 2 all-cause deaths in the vaccine group and 4 in the placebo group, but Pfizer’s own numbers are 15 and 14 respectively. I see that it was published two months prior to the public release of the six-month Pfizer data, and perhaps it’s based on an earlier data set representing a truncated study period? (The Pfizer study results and an independent analysis are both linked in my earlier comment here.) Notably, all of this predates the court-ordered public release of the raw trial data, information that Pfizer requested to keep sealed for 75 years...for some reason.
The third study isn’t linked from the press release, but it appears to suffer the same relative vs absolute risk reduction statistical manipulation as the Pfizer trial, as expounded on in my other comment.
All of these are over a year old. Since then, multiple government health agencies have admitted that there have been cases of adverse events such as myocarditis, especially in young males. I didn’t think we were even debating this anymore in 2022, as it was kind of conceded.
I’m sorry but this ‘scientific’ study was the worst piece of ‘scientific’ research I have ever seen labelled such. Twitter should take this down and it is disappointing to see that it has re-emerged. The political tone of some of the posts on quotheraven make me question a lot of the economics they have an interesting view on. If you are this wrong on a piece of shabby research is your understanding of economic research as poorly grasped?
You lost the point of your comment. The SG posted an un peer reviewed, no cited info tweet. I already got the point on the “science” of Covid responses by government. FL results were middling. TWTR is #1 bullshit and we know it. No worries, after Elon works his magic, it will now be full of bots and disinfluencers.
Something we should all be aware of..... watch Musk’s face when he is forced to kiss ass. Twitter will never change as long as this is allowed to continue.
Twitter will not censor Moderna, Fauci, and all because they are the ones being protected or shielded along with all people associated with our global governments and aligned organizations.
No, they won’t censure them because they reference good research unlike the surgeon general of Florida. But enjoy the ego boost your conspiracy theories give you. They should benefit someone after all.
This is all predictable and enraging. Thanks for sharing this.
Twitter is a portal to Hell. It's guarded by woke archangels and teeming with armies of satanic bots. Truth is labeled misinformation and lies are labeled truth. The algos are designed to suck you in, stoke your rage, make you fight. It will destroy your critical thinking ability and rot your brain.
Elon must think it is fixable but its beyond redemption.
Ladopo needs to be Head of HHS under President Desantis and clean house with the FDA and CDC. All doctors who have done harm must be held accountable: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-do-no-harm-part-2
The fact government agencies won't say lose weight if you're fat to help protect yourself from Covid tells you all you need to know about much you should trust them. Pfizer can't make enough money we give people crazy ideas like maybe they don't need to get the vaccine if they're healthy.
Here we go again… People desperate to hear what they want to hear get all up in arms because somebody said what they wanted to hear and even though the problems with making any guidance on the basis of the said aforementioned b.s. they were referencing are multiple and manifest, off they go with the censoring talk without trying to defend the basis of the argument they were making.
News flash, you get ignored and banned because you’re too lazy to back up your shit. Instead you run off to corners of the internet where angry people too readily pat themselves on the back for being against the dominant story not because they done quality research but because they like the self-appointed title of being a “free thinker” when they’re not thinking at all, they’re feeling which is so much easier. To further bolster their ego they invent some nefarious cabal out to silence them instead of a health community trying to give them people well researched advice that is statistically likely to result in the best outcomes. I know it hurts your ego to admit that but you need to take your ego out of the equation for second and deal with your own subconscious motivators, they’re making you lazy and leading you to believe shit because you want to believe rather than because it makes rational sense on the basis of evidence.
As usual, most of the folks waving this latest horseshit around online haven’t bothered to read it closely so they’re going to make the rest of us functionally literate folks do the homework for them. Btw, this is why no one takes you seriously whether you’re taking horse dewormer or going all anti-vaxer on people. I hope you do your financial research with more rigor. Here are the problems with the “research” you’re touting as sufficient to reverse everyone else’s work in the field.
1. It’s not a study.
2. It’s not peer reviewed by anyone for accuracy.
3. No authors are listed.
4. If you even bothered to fully read the link you’d see that whoever authored it warns the reader that they used the death certificate code of ACME I3-152 which is a catch all code for “other forms of heart disease”, not a very precise measure by any means. That’s why the anonymous author states “the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac related.”
5. Add to all this the fact that 19-39 year old males don’t die of heart disease very often and it throws into question all sorts of statistical basis’ for the conjecture people are trying to run with.
So if you’d bothered to read this turd without massive political blinders and understand the basics of statistics you’d get pretty quickly that it shouldn’t guide a thing (the anonymous author says as much if you read). If Florida’s surgeon general is referencing this as a reason to not get a vaccine, he’s in pretty deep political territory, not fact or science land. I personally don’t find it at all hard to believe that a DeSantis appointed political figure would want to please his boss over genuinely inform the public with solid science so I don’t really give a hoot what comes behind his name. This is shit research just like the shit research conservatives were trying to score points with on invermectine. Which, is why twitter banned it as disinformation. Which they can do and should do to keep lazy political hacks such as yourselves from creaming the internet with bullshit that other folks that don’t bother to read will accept and repeat until the whole country gets progressively more ill informed.
Well said! I'm not sure what your background is but I agree it is nauseating listening to the diatribe of BS from readers on this website in their own echo chamber....actually I stand corrected, it's more disturbing and saddening than anything else. Everything is so politically extreme all the time. I'm not sure happened to them in their childhoods but they just seem really unhappy and angry all the time. They want to kill anyone that disagrees with their echochamber views.
I live in Florida and it is increasingly becoming like a cross between The Truman Show and The Hand Maids Tale with reality being squeezed away every day by the fascist governor. They keep talking about 'freedom' and yet everyday the goons running this state work hard at removing liberty and peoples rights from any one who is a minority group or disagrees with their screwed up Evangelical pretend christianity.
I think Chris writes some interesting market analysis but it's becoming evident that this blog is just a front for him to promote absolutely extreme right wing talking points. The formula is simple, its like Tucker Carlson - keep everyone riled up and angry by pushing outlandish opinions and you get more subscriptions and make more money. Same as Alex Jones but not as extreme.
Sadly, I agree. I still appreciate some of the people Chris gets in on financial topics but he lost a lot of my respect when he liked a clearly anti-Semitic rant from a reader that was struggling with the difference between nationality and religious beliefs a few posts back. Maybe he was just liking the first handful of replies that he gets to his post, not sure. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he’s more intelligent than your basic anti-Semite but when he goes off half cocked like he did in this post, it makes me wonder. Maybe you’re right and Chris is using the Alex Jones method to get subscribers. Hard to say. Still, if he wants to keep me as a subscriber (not saying he gives a rat’s ass about what I think), he needs to stop putting crap like this in a finance blog. It ain’t finance, it’s not well researched or insightful, it’s just alt-right click bait. For anyone that really does their own evidence-based thinking and can read, Chris is embarrassing himself. His lack of analytic ability here makes it harder to pay attention some of his better work in proper finance topics.
I agree that an absolute rather than relative risk increase would represent a much more accurate (and far less scary) number than 84%, due to the small number of cardiac events in this demographic. I suspect, however, that the choice to present a relative risk increase statistic was intentional and directly related to the decision to also utilize a relative risk reduction in the initial Covid shot studies. Let’s at least be intellectually honest here and admit that if we’re criticizing the authors of this piece for presenting relative rather than absolute numbers, then the efficacy of the shots themselves is not the 95% sold to the public (the relative risk reduction) but rather 0.84% (the absolute risk reduction), using Pfizer’s own trial results. Of over 40,000 trial participants, only three died from Covid, one in the test group and two in the control. (On the other hand, all-cause mortality was actually higher in the group receiving the shots, particularly due to cardiac-related causes, which is something that should’ve raised red flags.) You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to claim that the increased risk of cardiac events in this age group following administration of these experimental pharmaceutical products is negligible (which it is), you should also acknowledge that the risk of a severe Covid outcome is equally (if not more) negligible for the same demographic. Regardless of the safety and efficacy of these shots, mandating them for anyone—and especially healthy young people—is not only reckless but immoral.
You’re still not reading. I’m not critizing the methods or the results nearly as much as I’m critiquing anyone for using this as a basis for anything. This study isn’t a study. It’s a badly collected series of data collated by someone that doesn’t identify themselves and has been reviewed by no one. It has glaring flaws the anonymous author clearly recognizes that make it useless as a discussion tool. There is no foundation of quality work to discuss so I’m not going to engage with you on the basis of any of it’s points. Get quality research that backs your claims and we’ll discuss it all you want. But if it’s not published, peer reviewed, with a large sample size, includes a clear and sensible methodology, then keep it to yourself because it’s as pointless as any discussion flowing around it. Meanwhile, there is a large body of published and peer reviewed work (which again, this ain’t!) on the vaccine that doesn’t agree with whatever this turd is and that you’re trying to ignore, so a logical person would conclude that you’re on a political mission or looking for a reason to express unfounded anger.
You can make all the conjecture you want but that’s all it is, unsupported conjecture. Why aren’t you referencing any of the huge peer reviewed studies showing that the cardiac risk, even in this age group, is much smaller than their risk of dying from covid I wonder? Both are admittedly small. My guess is that you want to believe you’re right more than you want to analyze. Apologies for being snarky here, I’m just so tired of saying the obvious.
As for your point about mandating a vaccine, the U.S. government has done no such thing. You’re tilting at windmills, i.e. making up something to be upset about and it makes the rest of your arguments moot because they all base on the idea that the vaccine is mandated, which it isn’t and hasn’t been for the general population. Yes, the military mandated it but then they shot me up with an anthrax vaccine when they deemed I needed it and they made it really clear when I joined them that I was to maintain my body a level of readiness they deemed needed or I would get kicked out, it was part of the contract. They even kicked a few people out that wouldn’t do it but that was on the individuals that didn’t read the contract, not the military.
Yes, private companies have had some requirements you probably haven’t appreciated but that is their right and it’s not a government mandate. As long as a private business doesn’t discriminate on the basis of a fairly narrow set of criteria that mostly have to do with race, sexual identity, or creed, it’s fair game. They say you have to wear a shirt to shop here, do it or shop elsewhere. It’s no different than if you came to a party at my house and acted the fool causing you to get told to leave. You enter the grounds at my pleasure, you leave on the same basis. Don’t like it, make your own store or go talk that shit at your own home. It’s not a “freedom” issue. You just don’t get to do what you want, where you want, when you want if you don’t own the joint. Honestly, like I mentioned, even if you do own the joint there are limits. These aren’t limits to your personal freedom, they’re just the line where your freedom starts to bump into others freedom not to deal with you. No reason to get butt hurt because you failed a popularity contest or didn’t make a successful social media platform.
What people need is solid research to help guide them in a personal decision. What you’re referencing is far, far away from anything like that. Stop muddying the water by pretending this is thoughtful analysis people should be seriously considering for conversation when it has pretty much zero standing. That is my least favorite trick of the right these days, pretending to be open minded when they’re blindered as all hell to anything they don’t personally believe to be the case. Makes them a grasping and thirsty bunch of lazy people that run around reposting thoughtless bullshit to get attention and then they have the balls to try and push thoughtful people to accept these sad jokes as something we have to do the work to refute, it’s infuriating and exhausting. I’d love it if you were bringing us something with meat on it. This ain’t even spam.
That’s a lot of word salad, but I’d maintain that it’s you that’s not reading, since most of your points were addressed in my previous comment and others on this page. In particular, I think you well know why the types of studies you’re requesting haven’t been performed. It boils down to there being no money in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Covid poses a minuscule risk to healthy people, that the approved treatment protocols were government-funded ATMs for corporate health systems (while being deadly for patients), that some of the most-effective treatments and prophylactics were essentially free and thus had to be suppressed through an unprecedented propaganda campaign in order to justify EUA products in their stead, and that showing the jabs to be neither safe nor effective (let alone necessary even if they were) was going to cost drug companies billions in lost revenue. Literally every government or private institution that has the resources to conduct such a study also has a major vested interest in not proving the truths which are becoming more blatantly obvious now with each passing day as the evidence continues to snowball.
As for mandates, there absolutely were (and still are) government mandates in place. The CMS mandate has driven off thousands of healthcare workers and first responders who were desperately needed, most of whom have natural immunity that’s superior to whatever temporary protection the shots may provide. In my case, it was the contractor mandate which was fortunately defeated in the courts that threatened my employment. (Thousands of us moved quickly enough to convince our company and others in our industry that such a move would not be complied with, and would cost our employers dearly at a time when they were already understaffed.) Just because the government attempts to pass off illegal mandates as free-market business decisions doesn’t make it so. There is a term for that, however...
I’m not writing a thesis here for you. It’s a chat. Interestingly other people got through it without a struggle and understood it. Sorry if it confused you.
To make this quick, save you time, keep you on topic, and make it easy for you; I’ll bullet point:
1. You didn’t address my issue with whatever it was that got posted by the surgeon general of Florida. You changed the topic to a Pfizer study you didn’t link to as you threw out numbers without support and still tried to use the numbers in the Florida’s surgeon general as if they were useful for a comparison. You don’t support shit research with good research to validate it. You let good research stand on it own.
2. The studies about vaccine dangers and the risk of death or long term ailments are exhaustive, huge, and mostly don’t back what you’re saying. That you didn’t read them doesn’t mean they don’t exist just that whatever media bubble you’re in didn’t get you access. We have very good evidence about the risks. It’s most of what the entire medical establishment has been focused on for the last 2 years and 2 decades if you’re talking about mRNA vaccines. They’re not nearly as new as conservative keep trying to repeat. If you can’t find the studies with a two minute search on google scholar, I’d say you didn’t look. I’m not getting suckered into doing your homework for you, unless you want to pay me, just because you don’t have the stomach to read what you don’t want to hear.
I am however, happy to make a monetary bet that published, peer reviewed, large sample size research both exists and indicates that vaccinating men in the 19-39 age range does reduce the likelyhood that they get or transmit covid to others vs. non-vaccinated people as a group. If you’d rather argue the point that there is more danger from the vaccine than actually getting covid, even though that’s pretty self serving when not spreading it to people that might have different outcomes is as important as not getting it, I’m willing to make the same bet on the same basis. I’m alway down to make a easy buck. So what’s it worth to you to have me do your homework? I’m going to say a few hundred bucks because that’ll more than cover Chris’s subscription costs. I’m starting to feel like this wasn’t money well spent.
2. There you go again with the “there is a big conspiracy” to keep cheap drugs from the people talk that you can’t prove. Give us the evidence of the conspiracy or stop saying it. You playing a thought experiment about the motivators of governments is not evidence. You’re saying that something you can’t prove is a thing and I’m saying it doesn’t exist. You need hard evidence to make claims like that, not thought experiments or deductive reasoning.
3. You got me on the last point. Although the CMS mandate is hardly a nation wide mandate as it doesn’t apply in 25 states, there is a mandate from the government that people employed by funds from the government to provide services to Medicaid and Medicare patients be vaccinated.
I’m glad you kept your job, truely. But I have family in the medical field as nurses and nurse practitioners in California. My family members are infuriated that nurses that work in neo-natal units have refused to vaccinate given the risk to patients and stoked they got fired. They understand the risk to their little patients that spend weeks and months on respirators that scar their lungs and do everything they can to avoid getting covid, test constantly, and isolate the minute they pop positive. Natural immunity to corona viruses is a bit of misnomer. You’re never immune to covid. If you’ve already had covid, your resistance wanes with every passing day and falls of hard at around three months so a booster does just that. It increases the period of time your less likely to get or spread covid. There have been some good points made about the possibly longer resistance in people that get exposed to covid naturally but no one is saying you get lasting immunity for more than a season or two. That anyone that works with high risk patients refuses the vaccine is more than grounds enough for dismissal in a free market economy. California is a right to work state, you don’t need a reason to get canned. There are lots of jobs for people in the medical field in this economy. They can get another one and even if they can’t, I don’t pity them.
So you made a good point, people working with Medicare and Medicaid patients do have a mandate in about half of U.S. states. Given that it is literally their job to help people recover their health and not be a disease vector, I’m less than impressed by your anger about the requirement unless you can actually prove that the risk to the individual outweighs the risk to their patients and by a lot, because this is a group of people that professionally put themselves at risk of contracting other people’s diseases by working in the field they do and they make an oath as part of their profession and work to do no harm and follow that mandates of the state in which they live. Really not much different than the military.
Like I said, I’ll make you a solid size monetary bet that you can’t prove that the risks to the individual outweigh the risks to the patients with the solid level of research that I mentioned. You’re not wrong about the mandate, and maybe I should take back what I said about tilting at windmills but man you’re stretching pretty hard to get angry about something that makes absolute sense the minute you realize the patient population they work with. The vast majority of the population doesn’t have a mandate and the one’s that do signed on to professions that have understandable requirements that you maintain you body in a state so as to be a minimum risk to others or the teams effectiveness. Nothing “immoral” about it unless you support your point that the vaccine is much, much more dangerous for the nurse or doctor than it is for the at risk patient, which you haven’t done. So you’re still kinda tilting at windmills with a made up enemy, caveats aside.
Thank you for the civil discourse, but I think you’re still missing my point.
You (correctly) called out the study cited by Dr. Ladapo for presenting relative rather than absolute risk numbers, which is essentially manipulating statistics to make something inconsequential seem really scary. I pointed out that this is exactly what was done in the Pfizer clinical trials, which had a similar effect of making the shots seem fantastically effective when the reality is that the absolute risk reduction is minuscule. This is not necessarily a function of the shots being ineffective as much as the fact that Covid itself poses very little risk to almost everyone, in the same manner that cardiac issues both with and without the Covid shots are rare in healthy young men.
Since this trial was the very basis for what has become by far the largest uninformed medical experiment in the history of the planet, I didn’t realize I’d need to link it, but here it is:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1
Alex Barenson distills the all-cause mortality data presented in Pfizer’s trial results far better than I can, so I’ll link to that too:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/more-people-died-in-the-key-clinical
Regarding the reporting of relative rather than absolute risks:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
The bottom line is that the risks posed by both Covid and the shots are highly unlikely but potentially severe for an unlucky few. I’m sure that the numbers could be successfully tortured to produce whatever conclusion the sponsor of a particular study is looking to reach.
You imply that it’s entirely appropriate to coerce healthcare workers to receive Covid shots as a condition of employment, but I disagree. Even if Covid were as deadly as media propaganda has implied, and even if the shots were perfectly safe and effective, I would still call this immoral. I recognize that you would disagree. Thankfully, these premises are all untrue, and while we can torture data, cherry-pick studies, and argue over degrees, the fact that Covid is not generally problematic for healthy people, that there are uncommon yet potentially severe dangers associated with the shots that are now even acknowledged by the manufacturers and governments pushing them, and that the shots, while producing some level of protection from severe Covid for some period of time, neither prevent infection nor transmission. Coupled with the fact that almost all of these healthcare workers already have natural immunity which is at least as good as that conveyed by the shots, and yes, it *is* unjustifiable to attempt to force even healthcare workers to submit to these products on any grounds.
This article, written by a woman who is definitely not anti-vax, has a plethora of source material linked:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vaccinated-covid-transmission-is-not-low/
Predictably, California politicians used this study to justify continued lockdowns and mask mandates, but at its heart, what the results really suggest is that these products do essentially nothing to protect anyone except the person receiving the shot:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people
Once you’ve established doubt as to whether the shots effectively protect others, there’s no basis for mandates in any form, regardless of what the actual truth is on necessity, efficacy, or safety.
If I personally had hard evidence proving a conspiracy to suppress cheap and effective alternative treatments, I’d be presenting it in a courtroom, not here. However, there are most definitely tidbits that suggest such an occurrence. Although predating the shots and directed at lockdowns, the Fauci-Collins emails conspiring to slander and silence the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are an excellent example of the practice:
https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-emails-and-some-alleged-science/
Tell me again who the actual science-deniers are here? My money’s on the people like Fauci, who have publicly admitted to lying about the efficacy of masks, herd immunity, and quarantine periods in pursuit of what he perceived to be a greater good:
https://youtu.be/kLXttHlUgK8
https://youtu.be/7NQRLQdLg7w
https://youtu.be/pj3mkXwMm4I
https://youtu.be/P1a3S7tKmbA?t=35s
It’s hard to argue that known safe, cheap and effective alternative treatments and prophylactics weren’t available. Vitamin D and Ivermectin are probably the best examples:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/17/3584/htm
https://c19ivermectin.com/
It’s self-evident why drug companies wouldn’t want that to become public knowledge. If you maintain that regulatory capture isn’t a thing in every corner of our government, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say to convince you. No doubt Fauci will be on several boards of medical and pharmaceutical companies in the near future.
I agree that private mandates are more defensible. In a truly free market, some businesses could be expected to mandate while others would not. The extent that those businesses lost talent to competitors taking the opposite position (which could occur in either direction) would quickly demonstrate which policy, if either, was superior in the eyes of customers and employees. We’ve seen this play out as people fled lockdown states in droves for places like Florida, as well as in businesses first loosely enforcing and then quickly ending things like mask mandates the moment government threats suddenly vanished. However, when the government interferes to the extent of mandating shots for entire sectors of the economy, market participants are unable to suss out the correct practice, as employees find their backs against the wall, having to choose between being employable at all in their chosen profession or standing up for their right to assess whether the shots were appropriate for their individual circumstances, all at the whims of tyrannical politicians and unelected bureaucrats.
In the end, I’m not presenting a case to try to send anyone to prison here (although I certainly dream of that occurring). I don’t need to establish my position beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact that rational people are sincerely debating these issues is more than enough to indicate that mandates were never an appropriate course of action here.
Your final paragraphs boil down to defending the involuntarily transfer of risk from the elderly and unwell to the young and healthy. While that’s a perfectly acceptable reason for individuals to voluntarily choose such a course of action for themselves, it is unconscionable as an excuse for coercing that behavior in others. We can argue safety and efficacy until the cows come home, but that doesn’t impact the morality of mandates one iota.
Obviously, we’ve drifted from the topic of the original post to mandates, and I’ll take the blame for that. I don’t much care what governments recommend about anything, although my preference would be for them to stay out of healthcare entirely. I do care when they threaten my livelihood if I simply decline to submit to their ideas about how I should handle my personal health, and that’s why I’m passionate about that in particular. Regarding the original post, if we must have politicians and bureaucrats opining on medical issues, I am glad to finally see differing opinions entering the official discourse, as blind acceptance of what has been largely a political narrative over the past 18 months has done significant damage to both our health and our economy.
Hey, Chris. It’s getting late where I am and it’s going to take me more than a second to digest everything you’ve given me but I appreciate the effort and the obvious intention to be even handed. You did a better job of it than I did. I’ll do my part and read through the material you’ve given me, just not tonight.
If I came off as haughty or dismissive earlier please forgive it. I can see you’re trying to make a considered and thought out point here and that you put in some work, which I respect. Let me give it the time it deserves and get back to it later. May take me a week until I have another day off and by then we’ll likely be the only ones reading it but given the length of our posts that might already be true. Lol!
Stay well!
Sigh, Chris. True to my word I started going through your links. I really wanted to get something from this but all I gotta say your evidence is really disappointing.
Did you read the first page of:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1
It says on the first page “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
Remember what I was saying about why you need to use published, peer reviewed, and include large sample size studies? This isn’t me talking, this is scientists’ own guidelines. If you’re going to try and reference their work, you really should use their methods. The work you cited fails on all but the last point. In fact none of your “evidence” meets the standard. It starts in a bad place and quickly devolves.
But I ignored this problem for a second and actually download the study results and read them…. low and behold on page 8 of 21 you see this:
“Safety data are now available for ~44,000 ≥16-year-old participants; 12,006 individuals have ≥6 months of safety follow-up data after a second BNT162b2 dose. The safety profile observed at a median of 2 months post-immunization was confirmed up to 6 months post-immunization in this analysis. No cases of myocarditis were noted”
I’m not saying you were trying to use this study to say that the vaccine was worse than covid but Berenson sure tried to say that. And a lot of right wingers have been pushing that mistaken conclusion with the study you mentioned as well.
You don’t need to distill that or have Alex Berenson interpret the results for you. You should be able to read that for yourself. Most study summaries aren’t that hard to read and if they are, look for interviews with their authors, not an ex-New York Times reporter that has been called out by some of the study authors he’s tried to misquote or mistakenly summarize.
In short, Alex Berenson isn’t someone I’d let write my cliff notes. Here is a list of some of his greatest screw ups…
1. He has blamed the vaccines for causing spikes in severe illness, by pointing to data that actually demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. (See above)
2. He has blamed the vaccines for suppressing our immune systems, by misrepresenting how immune systems work.
3. He has suggested that countries such as Israel have suffered from their early vaccine rollout, even though deaths and hospitalizations among vaccinated groups in Israel plummeted with the introduction of vaccines.
4. He has implied that for most non-seniors, the side effects of the vaccines are worse than having COVID-19 itself..wtf?!
He gets a lot of what he says wrong and he’s not a research scientist. How’d you miss that? I’m guessing because your news sources are so biased they wouldn’t tell you that and you took his word for truth without reading his source material. Again, I’m disappointed because it took me less time to download and read the material to find the flaws than it did to write about to you about it. Which means you’re forming opinions based on pseudo-science and asking other people do your work for you.
It seems to me what you’re trying to say is that the risk to young people of dying from covid is so low that they shouldn’t vaccinate, a la Florida’s surgeon general but here is where I strongly disagree. There have been tens of thousands of deaths from covid in the 19-39 age group and zero proven causally correlated case of people dying from the vaccine in that age group. Remember get your sample size large enough and some people in it are going to die from almost everything. That doesn’t prove causality, just means some folks died. Hence the concept of statistical significance where you start looking for extremely abnormal numbers of people dying from whatever effect your looking for which absolutely didn’t happen with the vaccine. Lots of anti-vaxers tried to push the myocarditis tip by ignoring that point. Yes, some exceedingly small number did die of myocarditis, but I challenge you to find a study with a statically significant numbers fitting a confidence interval.
Even if you imagine for a second that the handful of possible cases recorded are causal, and you’d have to imagine that because you don’t have causal proof. Most importantly, the deaths due to myocarditis pale by comparison to the number of deaths from covid in that young age range.
More importantly, there have been over one million total deaths in the U.S. from the virus and the virus doesn’t care if you’re 25 or 60, infection is infection. More cases=more death. Math so simple even Alex Jones could manage it. Remember part of the reason we get vaccinated isn’t just to save our own skin, it’s to protect everyone else so we can reduce case loads, which are causally related to accompanying deaths. To wit, the point of a vaccine is as much for the greater population as it is for you especially in the early days when the virus was more deadly. Only very self-centered people miss that, thankfully most medical professionals don’t miss that point and get vaccinated when the studies show very low incident rates due to the vaccine.
Now about doing your own work. I got through the study summary download you referenced in about 45 minutes. Doesn’t take long to read it, it’s only 21 pages. Not a huge ask. This is why you don’t start from a position of belief and then go out to try and prove it. You get sucked by tools like Berenson.
This is also why I’m constantly losing my patience with the right wing because this happens over and over again. They pretend to reference science they haven’t read, write sometimes erudite sounding b.s. that other people repeat, again without reading it, which then hits the internet and fires up a secondary group that repeats the pseudo science ad nauseum. If you had bothered to read what he was referencing, you would have figured out pretty quick that either he sucks at reading or he has an alterior motive.
I could go through your whole list and probably come to the same conclusions over and over again but I don’t see the point of spending that much more time to do something you should be able to do for yourself. We won’t get anywhere with this conversation because you’re going to keep leaving science and send me to people like Berenson and worse. I did read them, btw., just out of respect for your civility.
Your take away from the Scientific American article was way off, as well though. It did not indicate that the shot was only good for the person getting it. During the three month window vaccinated people were around 50% less likely to transmit than none vaccinated. Of course we know that drops over time but it’s far from non-effective. It just wasn’t the silver bullet the mother/author was hoping for. If you want to ask the obvious question relating to health care workers: Are they going to have to keep getting boosters? The answer likely depends on what the variants do. If they continue to get less deadly over time, hopefully we can get to a point where medical workers don’t need to worry anymore. But in the early days, vaccines definitely slowed transmission rates significantly and the data shows up most strongly in the transmission rates of countries that didn’t have the vaccine or had low adoption rates like the U.S. when you compare them to high adoption rate countries. Sadly, there weren’t many of those because of supply, economics, and politics.
What is true, and a lot of the right tried to ignore, is that the vaccine was and is remarkably good at keeping you from GETTING COVID in the first few months and if you don’t get covid, you can’t transmit it. Doesn’t mean that you won’t get a non-symptomatic case and transmit. It just means you’re significantly less likely to get the case in the first place. Doesn’t mean the vaccine doesn’t work, just means people didn’t understand how it worked. There are good studies to show reduced transmission rates among vaccinated communities. Here is a peer reviewed and published one for you that shows an almost 50% actual reduction in transmission rates. So again, your take away from the Scientific American article is way off but the author said that already. I’m just repeating the point because it seems you missed it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709178/
By the time you’re trying to argue that invermectin actually worked you’re totally off the deep end, brother. You’re grabbing meta studies that were smashed together because every other “study” you list there had major sample size problems (too small) that invalidate the data. Invermectine heads everywhere we’re trying to hide that by lumping sometimes as much as 92 super small size studies that were as scientifically useless in collections as they were individually. They were doing this to try and hide the sample size problems they had. A meta study is not how you fix a sampling problem because it compounds the original small sample size distortions. Any statistician will tell you that. When proper per reviewed studies were done, shocker, they didn’t match the collection of random small studies. You wouldn’t mathematically expect them to because of the small sample size distortions I mentioned. In fact, if they did match it’d be an almost certain indication someone was trying to cook the books. It’s just y’all that don’t seem to get how statistics work and then jump to the “there must be a conspiracy” conclusion again.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I doubt I’m making any headway here but I still appreciate you trying to reintroduce civility into this conversation. All the best and I do hope you get out of the right wing media echo chamber. These people are dangerous and don’t know what they’re talking about 90% of the time when it comes to science.
Whatever happened to critical thinking Edward? Well said, my old mom is watching too much YouTube “experts” who are just grifters commenting to get engagement outrage so they make money, root of all evil is money and that’s why dis/misinformation will continue to exist.
Our education system is failing us, example: why do we have people who still believe the earth is flat? But you bet those YouTubers selling such junk info is making lots of ad and sponsor/donations revenue 🤣
I’d say the internet happened to critical thinking, Jeff. Now that anybody can just spout an unsupported opinion for clicks, the internet is full of these tools. The radio shock jocks started it in the late 80’s and early 90’s but the true peak didn’t hit until you had cheap blogs and chat forums that made competing for who can be the most red faced and aggrieved a cash generating commodity.
Easy to spot the people that have gotten hooked on this shit because you engage them and explain why their latest spastic rage spew isn’t based on quality evidence and they change the topic instantly like a drunk that can’t follow a conversation. See OilMan below who responded like a guy that didn’t read what he was responding to and instantly veered off topic to what he wanted to talk about. It’s easy to spot an addict: doesn’t do proper research or read the “evidence” they’re referencing, then changes the topic, repeats a lot, or claims to be “just asking questions” when you call them out because they’re not ready to actually defend their position because it’s not a thought out position, it’s just a reaction to a group of people they enjoy hating. Thought out responses would require a thinking person to stay on topic, use and respond to solid evidence, and organize their thoughts to address actual facts and the evidence that their counterpart offered, and ultimately change their mind.
Way too much work for the anger addict or the side show barkers that feed them. Rational thought and solid evidence won’t give them the finger tip anger/adrenaline high they’re looking for. They also tend to write in two to three sentence responses because that’s all the work they’re looking to put in before they get lazy and and declare the “libtard” vanquished so they can go on to other more self congratulating comments in their circle jerk echo chambers.
Liberals do the same thing but you find a lot less of them because they’re mostly super young vs. upper end of middle aged, have other venues and things to do with their lives that are more rewarding, and being young they grow out of it vs. the old folks that lean into it as they increasing self isolate from culture. This is why you find a fair number of life long hard core liberals that turn into conservatives in old age but very few conservatives that turn liberal. It’s not wisdom kicking in because who ever told us that age brings wisdom needs to be laughed out of the room. Sometimes, maybe, but it’s hardly a causal relationship. The mind is a muscle, if it’s atrophied through lack of use and isolation, old age just brings bitterness.
This whole process leads people to think their unsupported feelings and hunches matter and have value. Thanks to the commodification of anger, sadly they do. Which is what makes the quality of evidence mean even less.
They say sex sells, but for middle aged conservatives I’d argue that anger sells better than sex. Makes them feel intelligent, like they possess insider knowledge the rest of us “sheople” don’t. It’d be funny if the anger addict’s terminal destination wasn’t misplaced violence. This is how rational thinking died in our country.
Agree, I commented about it as well and in their own report it states the glaring limitations of the study...watch them just stop doing further studies which would make zero sense if they say what they are saying, the Florida Surgeon General needs to expand his studies further.
My hunch is this was politically bias and driven unfortunately, but right wingers be right wingers about it and will not "do your own research" and actually read the report in its totality and most don't even understand the importance of peer reviewed studies in the scientific community.
Also the report is a very poor "medical" report, they don't lay out their methodologies, sources, etc. all in detail like many scientific studies/experiments I read in scientific journals. So like I always do, I question everything and read the facts myself--left wing and right wing media has failed to do this.
So funny how you guys are patting yourselves on the backs about “following the science” and blaming MAGA or Russia or whoever the latest scapegoat is. Too bad your office of disinformation got cancelled. So there is no merit to the surgeon generals warnings? Just purely political?
There seems to be some correlation but the sample size and methods need to be expanded and further studies issued. That’s how the scientific process works and I want to see peer review. Ask yourself, why DIDN'T they list the authors? The scientists/doctors who did these studies? That’s really strange don’t you think? And the media on both sides doesn’t report this but just mindless headlines to get engagement and views. This is why I can’t stand media on either side, true journalism is pretty dead as we all get dumber and dumber and a lot of that has to do with engagement, outrage, and modern day “journalism”. That’s why people trust and listen to unqualified YouTubers over really flawed conspiracies and so on because that is what pays those YouTubers so they’ll keep grifting.
Info wars is a great example, he blew up because he actually had valid points and data on 9/11, but after his engagement and following dropped off, what did he do? What any capitalist would do, generate more outrage regardless if it’s the truth or not because that is what makes Info Wars money.
It seems transparency is key. If this makes someone more able to weigh his risk/reward, shouldn’t that be worth something?
We live in a world chock full of inputs, most of which lack quality. Transparency is important but it’s equally and unseperably important that the people that profess to inform us do their work and stop throwing out unexamined bullshit to get paid in money and attention. We all only have so much bandwidth for using our analytical brains and over stimulus with crap input diminishes people’s ability to process and find quality information. Hence the reason that transparency and solid evidence are inseparable if you’re interested in solid decision making. The crap the surgeon general of Florida posted has none of that. It didn’t expand the conversation meaningfully. It gave opportunity to people that already had an opinion to try and present it as fact, when what he offered wasn’t capable of doing that and so worsened the conversation by wasting all of our time and misinforming the people that already had a bias to believing the vaccine is worse that the disease. Then Chris doubled down on the fuck up by not examining the info before reposting and blogging it because he was impressed by a persons title and degree rather than their evidence. This is how stupid spreads.
“Just asking questions” or “opening the conversation” needs to always be founded in solid work because if you’re not doing that you’re diminishing the value of the conversation. This is the opposite of being a free thinker, it’s being a lazy follower. Lazy at best and usually rooted in much worse. Info needs to rest on more than just a vague feeling you don’t like an idea. Pushing info from that perspective is worse than useless. As consumers, we should do our part by not rewarding these fools but humans just aren’t that smart. You’ll get money from us with an emotional reaction far quicker than a rational argument. Asking the crowd to do your work is dangerous both because of what I just said and the fact that the people pushing this crap almost never underline how questionable it is because the smart reader would ask themselves why they’re wasting time with it then. Do some good work with a solid well researched basis, then ask for the respect of being read and maybe paid.
Hmmm. okay so I'm confused then... So do masks work or not? Is natural immunity a thing or not? How do we know which "science" to follow?
Un-freaking-believable. Wanna bet this decision was taken by someone or something (an algorithm) without an MD?
Twitter - the tool - is great; very useful. Twitter - the company - is poison. I use Twitter because where else are you going to be able to get a practically minute-by-minute reaction to macroeconomic topics and indicators from the likes of Luke Gromen, Chris Irons, Peter Schiff, Tracy Shuchart, George Gammon, Brent Johnson, etc. all under one roof? I block or ignore all the culture war stuff (except Alex Berenson). I'm looking forward to see if Elon can clean the purple-haired-gender-studies-majors-turned-public-health-censors out of the company.
Can you imagine how toxic that work place must be? Can you imagine how exhausting it would be to work there?
Plus, where are you going to get Peter Schiff's reaction to the CPI number and find out who's starting in goal for the Predators within the same 2 inches of screen space?
I finally took the step to get off Twitter permanently over the last few months, I don't see the point of going back to a company that's this active in not allowing free speech of evidence backed opinions. Not all opinions are created equal, and I don't think twitter should manage that, cause it then leads to this politisation of what is acceptable or not according to their arbitrary rules. They can do whatever they want, I don't need to support it, nor consuming their products.
Me too. Gone from that jail. I only joined it years ago because it was censor free. It's the problem.
I got D's in Trig and Calculus at U of I Champaign-Urbana and a C in cost accounting. Went into Poly Sci and killed it. So for us right sided (left sided) brains, what is the possibility of getting a heart attack in the age groups in the study? Maybe 2%? reading from here: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/heart-attack-age-range#incidence-rate
It seems that Men 20-29 have 2.1 MI's per 100k people. (21/million or about 348 for the cohort 18-44 see infra) I'm not going to look it up, but I bet an equal or higher incidence of death or disability comes from falling off cliffs doing awesome selfies. In the group 30-39 it increases to 16.9 per 100k Total estimated incidents are about 2806 in the country (stats from Norway). So based on what the politically correct Governor Freedom's appointment's statistics what is the higher incidence? 4/100k Yeah that's double but statistically insignificant IMHO. More people get injured masturbating than dying on an MI at that age (anecdotal, Tankster, 2022).
Per Wikipedia, a trusted source there were about 332 million in the US in 2021. 18-44 total 16.6 million. Half male is 8.3 million
What is it compared to other causes of death after injection? Other maladies, like stroke or falling off a ladder (had to make sure you're still reading? Man to Henny Youngman: "How's your wife?" Henny: "Compared to what?" Same here. How many more people died?
Khabib Nurmagomedov and Nikita Kucherov say Number One Bullshit to the article, the SG and his sources. Sorry Chris, or anybody please tell us the numbers and as the Free Citizens of Florida who had the ability to make the choice whether to evacuate Charlotte and Lee County before Ian, we (almost) always had the right to decide whether to get the shots or not. Is the SG spewing or is it lacking context?
I think it’s disingenuous to claim that almost everyone had a choice here.
People were facing not only the loss of employment that they may have had decades invested in, but also employer-subsidized healthcare for their families. Many of these situations were precipitated not by private companies but as a result of questionable executive edicts pressuring those companies. When taxation and regulation permeate every corner of the economy, the line between governments and corporations starts to get pretty blurry and “suggestions” by those in power become indistinguishable from commands.
Kids who had worked to gain admission to universities were subjected to bait and switch tactics when administrators arbitrarily and capriciously instituted vaccine requirements—only after tuition had been paid, of course—on a demographic that is at functionally zero risk of severe Covid outcomes. They would’ve been out tens of thousands of dollars and been set back years in their career plans. Many of these universities were state-run, and almost all of them are beholden to state funding in one way or another (i.e. research grants).
Military members were illegally required to accept EUA shots under threat of disciplinary action and/or administrative separation. More than a handful of cases are still being litigated around the fact that, 14 months after it gained FDA approval, BLA-licensed Comirnaty remains unavailable everywhere in the US, and what the DOD was trying to pass off as such is actually fraudulently-labeled Bio-N-Tech EUA product. Keep an eye on, e.g., Coker v. Austin for some fireworks that are about to go off in the government’s face around this issue in particular.
In the end, what happened here was illegal and unethical state-sponsored coercion of a large segment of the population. I know far more people who are bitter over their decision to get the shots due to fearmongering, outright lies, and coercion than those who still believe that “the three times I’ve had Covid since I got the jabs would’ve been so much worse if I hadn’t been vaccinated.” (That’s just the normal folks, let alone those who believe their health has been harmed by the shots.)
I think you’ll see all this reflected in a big way at the ballot box in a few weeks. Unfortunately, unlike Governor DeSantis, who was pretty good on Covid after a bit of a rough start standing aside while lockdowns and mask mandates made brief appearances in Florida, most Republicans have been just as awful as most Democrats, and they aren’t deserving of the protest votes they’re about to receive, in what will be more of a referendum on the Covid regime than any kind of actual path to increased freedom and protection from these sorts of government overreach in the future.
To use an analogy, if I hold a gun to your head and suggest that you hand over your wallet, I’m not technically *making* you do anything, but I think we’d all agree that your choice to give me your cash so I don’t take your life isn’t really a “choice” at all. (Not to mention that you have absolutely no assurance that I’ll lower the weapon and leave you alone even after receiving your compliance.)
You lost the point of your comment. The SG posted un peer reviewed, no cited info. I already got the point on the “science” of Covid responses by government. FL results were middling. Excess deaths say it all..
Keep it up, you’re pugnaciousness is what we like…
Hard to discern your angle here, but you’re aware that all-cause excess deaths since the rollout of the shots are markedly elevated compared to 2019 and 2020, right?
I learned a long time ago, don't rise to the bait. You posted about the SG of FL being cancelled by TWTR. May people smarter than me called it out for lack of probity, backup, specificity and as such shouldn't be posted as it isn't peer reviewed and fits the Desantis narrative, which is as BS as anybody. For all his blather we had middling results with cases and outcomes/deaths/whatever which is a hot potato because the USA is so pitiful on testing and case followup. Different story. TWTR maybe full of cancelers, but whether they got it right or wrong based on lack a verifiable facts, he should have been banned. Then you went down the rabbit hole of masks, Covid, lack of effectiveness of vaccines, lack of choice imposed by the free enterprise system where employers in an employment at will state can fire you for being tattooed if they like, whatever.
Why can't cruise lines ban unvaccinated people? Cuz Governor Ron said no. Is that what you want? It's like many GOP'ers, Mr. Walker on abortion. OK for me, banned for thee. The libertarian in you should be outraged at their raw grab for power. Abortion is between a woman and her family and the US just imposed Christian Law on all people, despite the fact that "None" is the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US. 63% of the people have banned a life saving medical procedure for everyone because their religion bans it. I know Jews run the country/world, (just read ZH) and the religion recognizes that if the fetus is a pursuer, like an attacker who is going to kill the mother, it can be killed. Let's move on, but I'm not tapping out on this. Stay focused.
You lost control of the discussion and IMHO rose to the bait and ended up in the cooler to be gutted, scaled and made for dinner.
Nice, I've been short MRNA for awhile now, it was stupid how expensive that stock was 🤡. What Twitter did was stupid though, bias there likely.
Here's a great twitter thread from an MD revealing the issues with Florida's study: https://twitter.com/kmpanthagani/status/1578921562761465857?s=20&t=s-RlAtvjAhhAK4ZeMxL0AQ
There's a scientific paper on potential bias of self-controlled case series (SCCS) that Florida uses here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.9179
Florida even says in their report: https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221007-guidance-mrna-covid19-vaccines-analysis.pdf
These data are preliminary, based on surveillance data, and should be interpreted with caution. The results have several limitations:
"While this method has been used to assess risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination, it violates the assumption that an event does not affect subsequent exposure (for mRNA vaccines), which may introduce bias."
^ this is it right here, they need to follow up and do a larger study, multiple cohorts and larger sample size
"This study cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death. We used death certificate data and not medical records. COVID testing status was unknown for those who did not die of/with COVID. Cardiac-related deaths were ascertained if an ACME code of I3-I52 were on their death certificate, thus, the underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related."
^ again, their study needs to be expanded further, like why didn't you use MEDICAL RECORDS??? and they even say underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related!
So these study needs to get peer reviewed and also done across other states and countries. Although Florida's study has good data, it's not large enough sample size and their methodologies has limitations as they stated in their own report.
Also, Florida's report is NOT A PUBLISHED STUDY and NOT PEER REVIEWED. THERE ARE ZERO AUTHORS LISTED. That is NOT normal and needs to be questioned and made know by reporters.
This is all accurate, and I think Dr. Ledapo has acknowledged as much. The problem is that nobody is doing these expanded studies, because every organization that has the resources to accomplish that also has financial and/or political interests in keeping the likely outcome of such studies under wraps for as long as possible, despite the fact that these safety signals have been present since the initial trials in 2020. What Florida has done here is to begin shining some light on the issue, which is a necessary first step in moving the narrative to a place where these high-quality confirmation studies can be conducted. Disregarding this information because it isn’t a massive double-blind, peer-reviewed study published in a prestigious medical journal is missing the point, in my opinion.
Except the studies have been done, Chris.
Here’s one:
https://www.healthpartners.com/hp/about/press-releases/new-study-of-6-2-million-patients-shows-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-are-safe
Here’s another:
https://pssjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13037-021-00291-9
Here’s yet another:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vaccines.html
I could do this for for a minute but it’s futile. You never actually looked for studies before saying they hadn’t been done. Just like a lot of other fools here but at least you can stop saying the research wasn’t done. Now you just have to admit you didn’t like the result.
C’mon man.
The first study seems to be comparing adverse events 0-3 weeks after vaccination to those occurring between 3 and 6 weeks of vaccination. So if there were, say 10 cases of myocarditis in the first three weeks and 10 more in the subsequent three weeks, they would conclude no risk signal, without looking at either the background incidence of myocarditis or anything diagnosed outside of six weeks. I’d say that’s a pretty good example of a study being tailored to a desired outcome.
The second paper seems to be an analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials. I just skimmed it, but some of the numbers in there don’t even seem to match the source data. For example, this paper cites 2 all-cause deaths in the vaccine group and 4 in the placebo group, but Pfizer’s own numbers are 15 and 14 respectively. I see that it was published two months prior to the public release of the six-month Pfizer data, and perhaps it’s based on an earlier data set representing a truncated study period? (The Pfizer study results and an independent analysis are both linked in my earlier comment here.) Notably, all of this predates the court-ordered public release of the raw trial data, information that Pfizer requested to keep sealed for 75 years...for some reason.
The third study isn’t linked from the press release, but it appears to suffer the same relative vs absolute risk reduction statistical manipulation as the Pfizer trial, as expounded on in my other comment.
All of these are over a year old. Since then, multiple government health agencies have admitted that there have been cases of adverse events such as myocarditis, especially in young males. I didn’t think we were even debating this anymore in 2022, as it was kind of conceded.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/israel-pfizer-myocarditis-1.6049766
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-kids-myocarditis-risk/
I’m sorry but this ‘scientific’ study was the worst piece of ‘scientific’ research I have ever seen labelled such. Twitter should take this down and it is disappointing to see that it has re-emerged. The political tone of some of the posts on quotheraven make me question a lot of the economics they have an interesting view on. If you are this wrong on a piece of shabby research is your understanding of economic research as poorly grasped?
I think you’re confusing me with the author of this Substack.
Sorry, corrected my post.
His post is up again though: https://twitter.com/flsurgeongen/status/1578515633159180289
It almost like the the tech industries and social media companies have become agents of the government…
What was the name for that kind of relationship again? 🤔
Stakeholders. But yea...
You lost the point of your comment. The SG posted an un peer reviewed, no cited info tweet. I already got the point on the “science” of Covid responses by government. FL results were middling. TWTR is #1 bullshit and we know it. No worries, after Elon works his magic, it will now be full of bots and disinfluencers.
Keep it up, I like your work.
streisand effect by twitter. calls way more attention when you censor something like this
People will get sick.Vaccine is preventive.Not miracle.Not 100％ safety.Vaccines have been needed throughout history.Don't derry all vaccines
Yale University and another University,do a little research
https://brownstone.org/articles/how-the-eu-is-forcing-twitter-to-censor-and-musk-cant-stop-it/
Something we should all be aware of..... watch Musk’s face when he is forced to kiss ass. Twitter will never change as long as this is allowed to continue.
Twitter will not censor Moderna, Fauci, and all because they are the ones being protected or shielded along with all people associated with our global governments and aligned organizations.
No, they won’t censure them because they reference good research unlike the surgeon general of Florida. But enjoy the ego boost your conspiracy theories give you. They should benefit someone after all.
This is all predictable and enraging. Thanks for sharing this.
Twitter is a portal to Hell. It's guarded by woke archangels and teeming with armies of satanic bots. Truth is labeled misinformation and lies are labeled truth. The algos are designed to suck you in, stoke your rage, make you fight. It will destroy your critical thinking ability and rot your brain.
Elon must think it is fixable but its beyond redemption.