User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 5:50:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone can upload to ResearchGate. Looks like it was uploaded as a joke and then sent to Kirsch. Y'all got trolled. This was a test to see who thinks critically. Kirsch utterly failed and took some of you with him You seem familiar.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 5:52:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You seem familiar.... There is no way it is a single person using that account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 5:59:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes it does, it's clearly preventing severe disease vs omicron, and vs Delta it prevented the majority of infections as well. All of that is purely your own opinion. Not fact, but something you say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 7:19:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My concern all along is that the shots could cause long-term health problems. That's the main reason I won't get one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 7:20:16 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you feel about the disease? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My concern all along is that the shots could cause long-term health problems. That's the main reason I won't get one. Had it through Christmas 2020. Biggest nothingburger EVER. I've had mild common colds that were worse. I'd take COVID over a cold or flu any day. No lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 7:29:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that happens to a much, much higher degree when you get the virus. It infects every part of your body. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The spike protein can and does get into all of your organs from the harmful experimental gene therapy shots. This was measured early on in the Japanese studies and has been cited as part of the reason for some of the more severe side effects like myocarditis. It isn't some "crock of shit", it's a known fact. Further, since the antibodies produced by the shots far outnumber antibodies produced by an actual infection, that would indicate that the number of spike proteins involved from the shots are higher than those from the actual infection. And that happens to a much, much higher degree when you get the virus. It infects every part of your body. Let's review the last sentence in my post again. Since the antibodies produced by the shots far outnumber antibodies produced by an actual infection, that would indicate that the number of spike proteins involved from the shots are higher than those from the actual infection. What part of more harmful spike proteins from the shots than from an actual infection do you not understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 8:24:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The cure to COVID is turning off your TV. Yep! A disease so deadly... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:05:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's review the last sentence in my post again. Since the antibodies produced by the shots far outnumber antibodies produced by an actual infection, that would indicate that the number of spike proteins involved from the shots are higher than those from the actual infection. What part of more harmful spike proteins from the shots than from an actual infection do you not understand? You seem to think this spike protein is an antibody. It's not. It's an antigen. Antibodies to the spike aren't harmful. Also it's not the raw quantity so much as the timing. You get the shot at two weeks and six months, forcing you immune system to adapt what it had previously made. If you get an infection that's one immune conferring event (a strong one) versus three separate events separated in time with the shots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:06:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Please create a pin thread mods
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:08:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you feel about the disease? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My concern all along is that the shots could cause long-term health problems. That's the main reason I won't get one. I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:21:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You seem to think this spike protein is an antibody. It's not. It's an antigen. Antibodies to the spike aren't harmful. Also it's not the raw quantity so much as the timing. You get the shot at two weeks and six months, forcing you immune system to adapt what it had previously made. If you get an infection that's one immune conferring event (a strong one) versus three separate events separated in time with the shots. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Let's review the last sentence in my post again. Since the antibodies produced by the shots far outnumber antibodies produced by an actual infection, that would indicate that the number of spike proteins involved from the shots are higher than those from the actual infection. What part of more harmful spike proteins from the shots than from an actual infection do you not understand? You seem to think this spike protein is an antibody. It's not. It's an antigen. Antibodies to the spike aren't harmful. Also it's not the raw quantity so much as the timing. You get the shot at two weeks and six months, forcing you immune system to adapt what it had previously made. If you get an infection that's one immune conferring event (a strong one) versus three separate events separated in time with the shots. You don't read very well, do you? The point you keep missing is that antibodies levels correlate directly to the number of spike proteins encountered. As such, a higher antibody count from the shots by definition means higher numbers of spike proteins than would be seen by a natural infection. That has nothing to do with timing. It has to do with basic biology that you seem to be lacking the understanding of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:32:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't read very well, do you? The point you keep missing is that antibodies levels correlate directly to the number of spike proteins encountered. As such, a higher antibody count from the shots by definition means higher numbers of spike proteins than would be seen by a natural infection. That has nothing to do with timing. It has to do with basic biology that you seem to be lacking the understanding of. You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 10:45:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You don't read very well, do you? The point you keep missing is that antibodies levels correlate directly to the number of spike proteins encountered. As such, a higher antibody count from the shots by definition means higher numbers of spike proteins than would be seen by a natural infection. That has nothing to do with timing. It has to do with basic biology that you seem to be lacking the understanding of. You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. Glad you know how every human body works across the planet. Are you God? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 11:14:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You don't read very well, do you? The point you keep missing is that antibodies levels correlate directly to the number of spike proteins encountered. As such, a higher antibody count from the shots by definition means higher numbers of spike proteins than would be seen by a natural infection. That has nothing to do with timing. It has to do with basic biology that you seem to be lacking the understanding of. You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. No, you won't. And, I just explained why that is. There are papers that show this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2022 11:15:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You don't read very well, do you? The point you keep missing is that antibodies levels correlate directly to the number of spike proteins encountered. As such, a higher antibody count from the shots by definition means higher numbers of spike proteins than would be seen by a natural infection. That has nothing to do with timing. It has to do with basic biology that you seem to be lacking the understanding of. You're certainly going to get a higher dose of spike protein from the virus, and you're going to to get most off it in places you don't want it to be. You said to twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 1:53:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? What do you call it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:27:57 AM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:30:31 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:59:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 1:56:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it your belief that neither COVID-19 nor influenza are diseases? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? In the case of Kung Flu, we refer to it as "cover story for stealing freedoms". A little long but accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 6:06:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it your belief that neither COVID-19 nor influenza are diseases? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? Not in a traditional sense, absolutely not. I've never heard anyone refer to the flu as a disease. When I hear someone say Covid disease, I think it's a sensationalist term used to spread fear. I call them viruses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 6:24:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not in a traditional sense, absolutely not. I've never heard anyone refer to the flu as a disease. When I hear someone say Covid disease, I think it's a sensationalist term used to spread fear. I call them viruses. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? Not in a traditional sense, absolutely not. I've never heard anyone refer to the flu as a disease. When I hear someone say Covid disease, I think it's a sensationalist term used to spread fear. I call them viruses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 7:14:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: COVID-19 is a disease that is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The flu is another disease caused by another virus. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's hilarious you call it a disease. Do you call the flu a disease? Not in a traditional sense, absolutely not. I've never heard anyone refer to the flu as a disease. When I hear someone say Covid disease, I think it's a sensationalist term used to spread fear. I call them viruses. I know what the formal definitions are, I simply disagree, lol and  at anyone who uses the term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 8:16:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes it does, it's clearly preventing severe disease vs omicron, and vs Delta it prevented the majority of infections as well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which the dangerous shot doesn't stop from happening lol. Yes it does, it's clearly preventing severe disease vs omicron, and vs Delta it prevented the majority of infections as well. Bullshit |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 8:33:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Dude said turn off TV. That's a great idea. I rarely watch now. Here in FLA, we are so free, we don't even really think much about Covid. I had Covid 13 months ago; I'm not getting a shot. It's experimental stuff with very little testing. I have all of you bots on ignore so don't bother telling me it's "approved."
You folks can shoot all that garbage in your body if you please. We've seen the goal posts moved over and over again. You can't get around that with stupid arguments about how the shots do this or that or reduce this or that; I don't give a rip. Ray Charles could see what's going on with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 8:56:34 PM EDT
[#26]
This hasn't seemed to be posted yet. I was waiting for an analysis of the paper.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/scientific-evidence-shows-covid-19-vaccination-reduces-risk-infection-mortality-analysis-cases-deaths-from-145-countries-methodologically-flawed-steve-kirsch/ It list some reasons why the paper was flawed. A quick summary is you cannot take the covid data before the vaccine came out and project what it would have kept doing had the vaccine not came out. You can't do this because of other confounding factors like new variants that are more contagious. I also like how he points out that the unvaccianted are at a greater risk of dying so how can the vaccine lead to deaths? Piss poor paper. The religious junk at the end didn't help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 9:16:54 PM EDT
[#27]
The Covid shots clearly had a positive effect on preventing Covid infection and reducing the severity of infection until recently. Omicron is something very different. We’ve seen a HUGE and rapid spike in cases over the past 2 weeks in my AO but some interesting things are happening.
50% of the population in my state is “fully vaccinated” (meaning recently got the 2nd shot or a booster). From our state dept of health, here’s a chart of new weekly cases, vaxxed vs unvaxxed. within the past 3 weeks, the vaxxed have been catching Covid at the same rate as the unvaxxed.  Attached FileAlthough there’s been a massive jump in overall cases, the number of hospitalizations has remained steady, suggesting that omicron is significantly less severe than prior strains. However, one notable shift in hospitalization numbers is that unvaxxed hospitalizations are trending down while vaxxed hospitalizations are trending up.  Attached FileOmicron has only been around here for a few weeks but the infection and hospitalization trends have gotten VERY weird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 9:29:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This hasn't seemed to be posted yet. I was waiting for an analysis of the paper. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/scientific-evidence-shows-covid-19-vaccination-reduces-risk-infection-mortality-analysis-cases-deaths-from-145-countries-methodologically-flawed-steve-kirsch/ It list some reasons why the paper was flawed. A quick summary is you cannot take the covid data before the vaccine came out and project what it would have kept doing had the vaccine not came out. You can't do this because of other confounding factors like new variants that are more contagious. I also like how he points out that the unvaccianted are at a greater risk of dying so how can the vaccine lead to deaths? Piss poor paper. The religious junk at the end didn't help. Except that's wrong. The pre-vaccine data gives a baseline with which to compare. A Bayesian analysis the way they are using it is a time history. So, by definition, you would *want* the data to start prior to the availability of the shots. What the analysis points out rather dramatically is that the shots have done nothing to thwart the bug. The paper is a superset of the 68 country analysis that was done that showed no correlation between shot uptake percentage and cases. (The paper actually showed higher case rates as shot uptake increased but the data scatter was so large, the curve fit really didn't fit all that well so their conclusion was no correlation.) Since most people don't understand what a Bayesian analysis is, I'm going with the "critique" author didn't have a clue what the hell they were even looking at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 9:34:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Covid shots clearly had a positive effect on preventing Covid infection and reducing the severity of infection until recently. Omicron is something very different. We’ve seen a HUGE and rapid spike in cases over the past 2 weeks in my AO but some interesting things are happening. 50% of the population in my state is “fully vaccinated” (meaning recently got the 2nd shot or a booster). From our state dept of health, here’s a chart of new weekly cases, vaxxed vs unvaxxed. within the past 3 weeks, the vaxxed have been catching Covid at the same rate as the unvaxxed. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/421435/1A02B08E-A242-429B-916C-C1DEC25FF586_jpe-2238335.JPG Although there’s been a massive jump in overall cases, the number of hospitalizations has remained steady, suggesting that omicron is significantly less severe than prior strains. However, one notable shift in hospitalization numbers is that unvaxxed hospitalizations are trending down while vaxxed hospitalizations are trending up. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/421435/ED9FED2C-9A45-4480-A99A-B6D7F45A0F8C_jpe-2238342.JPG Omicron has only been around here for a few weeks but the infection and hospitalization trends have gotten VERY weird. The problem with virtually all of the public "health" figures is that when the patient's shot status is unknown, they get lumped into the "unvaccinated" category. That also applies to the people who previously had Kung Flu who would not need a shot. In addition, the hospitalization numbers often posted don't say whether they are there "for" Kung Flu or "with" Kung Flu. In Texas, for example, the percentage of patients in the hospital "with" Kung Flu is only 17% statewide and that includes people who just by coincidence tested positive on admission. As a result, vax status is irrelevant (and isn't reported) because the vast majority of people are there for other reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 10:25:29 PM EDT
[#30]
It's as if millions of jabbidians suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 10:29:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that's wrong. The pre-vaccine data gives a baseline with which to compare. A Bayesian analysis the way they are using it is a time history. So, by definition, you would *want* the data to start prior to the availability of the shots. What the analysis points out rather dramatically is that the shots have done nothing to thwart the bug. The paper is a superset of the 68 country analysis that was done that showed no correlation between shot uptake percentage and cases. (The paper actually showed higher case rates as shot uptake increased but the data scatter was so large, the curve fit really didn't fit all that well so their conclusion was no correlation.) Since most people don't understand what a Bayesian analysis is, I'm going with the "critique" author didn't have a clue what the hell they were even looking at. I should have seen this coming. As the link explains, we know the prevaccine data wouldn't have projected in the way that is used. We know delta and omicron is more contagious, vaccine or not. Those ignored confounding factors. So who would have guessed the flawed projection would be lower than the actual numbers. Plus the giant problem that the data is a mix of vaccinated and unvaccianted. All we have to do is look around see see it's flawed. As we saw at https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination It's not even close, vaccines save lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 10:55:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i dont know what the shot is i am very suspicious of anything the gov is forcing this hard they either really care about your health and wellbeing or some sinister shit is going on the history of any gov says its sinister This. 100% This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:21:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I should have seen this coming. As the link explains, we know the prevaccine data wouldn't have projected in the way that is used. We know delta and omicron is more contagious, vaccine or not. Those ignored confounding factors. So who would have guessed the flawed projection would be lower than the actual numbers. Plus the giant problem that the data is a mix of vaccinated and unvaccianted. All we have to do is look around see see it's flawed. As we saw at https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination It's not even close, vaccines save lives. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except that's wrong. The pre-vaccine data gives a baseline with which to compare. A Bayesian analysis the way they are using it is a time history. So, by definition, you would *want* the data to start prior to the availability of the shots. What the analysis points out rather dramatically is that the shots have done nothing to thwart the bug. The paper is a superset of the 68 country analysis that was done that showed no correlation between shot uptake percentage and cases. (The paper actually showed higher case rates as shot uptake increased but the data scatter was so large, the curve fit really didn't fit all that well so their conclusion was no correlation.) Since most people don't understand what a Bayesian analysis is, I'm going with the "critique" author didn't have a clue what the hell they were even looking at. I should have seen this coming. As the link explains, we know the prevaccine data wouldn't have projected in the way that is used. We know delta and omicron is more contagious, vaccine or not. Those ignored confounding factors. So who would have guessed the flawed projection would be lower than the actual numbers. Plus the giant problem that the data is a mix of vaccinated and unvaccianted. All we have to do is look around see see it's flawed. As we saw at https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination It's not even close, vaccines save lives. Clearly, neither you nor they understand what a Bayesian analysis is used for and it is being used precisely correctly in this particular case. The contagiousness of the variants isn't relevant when looking at the correlation between shots and case rates in the Bayesian analysis. In short, it's a red herring. The harmful experimental gene therapy shots haven't saved lives from the beginning as even the Pfizer 6-month data showed conclusively. Further, the actual real-world data showing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths don't support that argument either. It's not even close, they've been a colossal failure from the beginning and continue to cause nothing but harm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:38:26 PM EDT
[#34]
The shots, they are not “vaccines” are the actual virus the wuhan lab created per design and instruction from the US govt.
It got out, probably on purpose because it was an election year and helped the Dems steal the elections they needed to steal. The shots are causing the spread of the virus, and they are causing many side effects which will continue to expand and linger for many years to come. I still don’t know anyone who died from the virus. But I know several who died from heart attacks and stroke after taking the shots. My mil and fil both developed skin cancer at the same time, few months after getting the jab. The poison these companies are pumping is criminal. On a side note, I’m seeing a trend of attacking “fat” people. The “fat” people will be next ones under full assault when they tire of the pandemic. Then who will be the attacked group after “fat” people? Slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:40:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is not possible to get COVID-19 from a COVID-19 vaccination, because none of the COVID-19 vaccines contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. It is safe to put your minds at ease about this matter. Wtf….the shots (NOT “vaccines”) are the virus. Experimental shot made of the synthesized virus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2022 11:46:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no way it is a single person using that account. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You seem familiar.... There is no way it is a single person using that account. No. It’s a team of Pfizer employees posting lies 24/7 for couple of years now. Truly detestable organisms. Maybe lab created in Wuhan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 1:12:02 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is not possible to get COVID-19 from a COVID-19 vaccination, because none of the COVID-19 vaccines contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. It is safe to put your minds at ease about this matter. But Liberals have been telling us for Years that Viruses learn from other Viruses. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 6:24:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clearly, neither you nor they understand what a Bayesian analysis is used for and it is being used precisely correctly in this particular case. The contagiousness of the variants isn't relevant when looking at the correlation between shots and case rates in the Bayesian analysis. In short, it's a red herring. The harmful experimental gene therapy shots haven't saved lives from the beginning as even the Pfizer 6-month data showed conclusively. Further, the actual real-world data showing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths don't support that argument either. It's not even close, they've been a colossal failure from the beginning and continue to cause nothing but harm. You cannot ignore confounding factors. When creating projections those projections come from the current data. So the projections requires all variables to remain constant. But as we know ease of transmission of the different variants are quite different. Thus you end up thinking cases are outside the probability projections but in reality it's because of the variant causing more cases, not the vaccine causing more cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 6:28:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You cannot ignore confounding factors. When creating projections those projections come from the current data. So the projections requires all variables to remain constant. But as we know ease of transmission of the different variants are quite different. Thus you end up thinking cases are outside the probability projections but in reality it's because of the variant causing more cases, not the vaccine causing more cases. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Clearly, neither you nor they understand what a Bayesian analysis is used for and it is being used precisely correctly in this particular case. The contagiousness of the variants isn't relevant when looking at the correlation between shots and case rates in the Bayesian analysis. In short, it's a red herring. The harmful experimental gene therapy shots haven't saved lives from the beginning as even the Pfizer 6-month data showed conclusively. Further, the actual real-world data showing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths don't support that argument either. It's not even close, they've been a colossal failure from the beginning and continue to cause nothing but harm. You cannot ignore confounding factors. When creating projections those projections come from the current data. So the projections requires all variables to remain constant. But as we know ease of transmission of the different variants are quite different. Thus you end up thinking cases are outside the probability projections but in reality it's because of the variant causing more cases, not the vaccine causing more cases. No, the projections don't rely on the infectivity at all, as you would have noticed had you read the actual paper. Further, a Bayesian analysis specifically DOESN'T require all the variables to be constant. That's another reason why it's being used in this case. I'll chalk your comment up to not knowing what Bayesian analysis is and/or how it's being used in this context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 6:45:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, the projections don't rely on the infectivity at all, as you would have noticed had you read the actual paper. Further, a Bayesian analysis specifically DOESN'T require all the variables to be constant. That's another reason why it's being used in this case. I'll chalk your comment up to not knowing what Bayesian analysis is and/or how it's being used in this context. He paper is worthless. Using Bayesian Statistics you cannot just have all these random unknown variables. If you want to know what the probability of current cases and deaths being lower because of the vaccine, from looking at the previous data, it will be the previous data with it's set conditions. If you had a month pre vaccine with 1,000 deaths and then a month post vaccine with 2,000 deaths you would try to say the probability for 2,000 deaths is to low, so the vaccine didn't work. But if the virus mutates and is now 10x more transmissible, your analysis is garbage. Furthermore you could also look at the 2,000 deaths and see 1,800 are not vaccinated and only 200 are. Do the same analysis with the only 200 and you will get a different outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 7:05:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He paper is worthless. Using Bayesian Statistics you cannot just have all these random unknown variables. If you want to know what the probability of current cases and deaths being lower because of the vaccine, from looking at the previous data, it will be the previous data with it's set conditions. If you had a month pre vaccine with 1,000 deaths and then a month post vaccine with 2,000 deaths you would try to say the probability for 2,000 deaths is to low, so the vaccine didn't work. But if the virus mutates and is now 10x more transmissible, your analysis is garbage. Furthermore you could also look at the 2,000 deaths and see 1,800 are not vaccinated and only 200 are. Do the same analysis with the only 200 and you will get a different outcome. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, the projections don't rely on the infectivity at all, as you would have noticed had you read the actual paper. Further, a Bayesian analysis specifically DOESN'T require all the variables to be constant. That's another reason why it's being used in this case. I'll chalk your comment up to not knowing what Bayesian analysis is and/or how it's being used in this context. He paper is worthless. Using Bayesian Statistics you cannot just have all these random unknown variables. If you want to know what the probability of current cases and deaths being lower because of the vaccine, from looking at the previous data, it will be the previous data with it's set conditions. If you had a month pre vaccine with 1,000 deaths and then a month post vaccine with 2,000 deaths you would try to say the probability for 2,000 deaths is to low, so the vaccine didn't work. But if the virus mutates and is now 10x more transmissible, your analysis is garbage. Furthermore you could also look at the 2,000 deaths and see 1,800 are not vaccinated and only 200 are. Do the same analysis with the only 200 and you will get a different outcome. Again, the Bayesian analysis doesn't have to control for all of the things you are claiming. It looks at the start of the event and the results that event causes (or doesn't cause) based on a Bayesian curve of the likely resulting output function from the input. The transmissibility isn't relevant because the analysis is looking at shot percentage as a function of time and case/hospitalization/death rates (depending on which curve) as a function of time both with and without the input function. If the shots were useful, the Bayesian analysis would pick up the reduction of c/h/d rates and call that a positive causation (not an actual causation but a statistical one). Which strain is irrelevant to determining whether the shots are "causing" a relevant change in the c/h/d rates (output function). What the analysis shows is that the shots do not "cause" a statistically relevant change in c/h/d rates. Ergo, according to this analysis, the shots are ineffective. In previous work (the 68 country look at a snapshot in time), it was shown there was no correlation between c/h/d rates and shot uptake percentage as one would normally expect. This broader paper is much more refined and sought to not only establish whether there was a correlation but a statistical "causation". They didn't find one. Pretty much that simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 7:34:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, the Bayesian analysis doesn't have to control for all of the things you are claiming. It looks at the start of the event and the results that event causes (or doesn't cause) based on a Bayesian curve of the likely resulting output function from the input. The transmissibility isn't relevant because the analysis is looking at shot percentage as a function of time and case/hospitalization/death rates (depending on which curve) as a function of time both with and without the input function. If the shots were useful, the Bayesian analysis would pick up the reduction of c/h/d rates and call that a positive causation (not an actual causation but a statistical one). Which strain is irrelevant to determining whether the shots are "causing" a relevant change in the c/h/d rates (output function). What the analysis shows is that the shots do not "cause" a statistically relevant change in c/h/d rates. Ergo, according to this analysis, the shots are ineffective. In previous work (the 68 country look at a snapshot in time), it was shown there was no correlation between c/h/d rates and shot uptake percentage as one would normally expect. This broader paper is much more refined and sought to not only establish whether there was a correlation but a statistical "causation". They didn't find one. Pretty much that simple. You typed all that just to be wrong. Using your word the resulting output function doesn't work. And we know this because of all the..wait for it...confounding factors. If your Bayesian analysis can't detect this:  It's not working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 7:50:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You typed all that just to be wrong. Using your word the resulting output function doesn't work. And we know this because of all the..wait for it...confounding factors. If your Bayesian analysis can't detect this: https://i.imgur.com/PX6jQxr.png It's not working. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again, the Bayesian analysis doesn't have to control for all of the things you are claiming. It looks at the start of the event and the results that event causes (or doesn't cause) based on a Bayesian curve of the likely resulting output function from the input. The transmissibility isn't relevant because the analysis is looking at shot percentage as a function of time and case/hospitalization/death rates (depending on which curve) as a function of time both with and without the input function. If the shots were useful, the Bayesian analysis would pick up the reduction of c/h/d rates and call that a positive causation (not an actual causation but a statistical one). Which strain is irrelevant to determining whether the shots are "causing" a relevant change in the c/h/d rates (output function). What the analysis shows is that the shots do not "cause" a statistically relevant change in c/h/d rates. Ergo, according to this analysis, the shots are ineffective. In previous work (the 68 country look at a snapshot in time), it was shown there was no correlation between c/h/d rates and shot uptake percentage as one would normally expect. This broader paper is much more refined and sought to not only establish whether there was a correlation but a statistical "causation". They didn't find one. Pretty much that simple. You typed all that just to be wrong. Using your word the resulting output function doesn't work. And we know this because of all the..wait for it...confounding factors. If your Bayesian analysis can't detect this: https://i.imgur.com/PX6jQxr.png It's not working. Nope, you're wrong again. First, you didn't read the paper where they showed in 145 countries why the shots had no impact. What part of there are no confounding factors do you not understand? This was all explained by me and in the paper, which you clearly neither read nor understood. Second, you've been shown this from one of the biggest states in the union that shows they have no impact:  So, once again, you've shown your complete ignorance of both science and statistics. Heck of a job, Brownie! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 9:04:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Covid shots clearly had a positive effect on preventing Covid infection and reducing the severity of infection until recently. Omicron is something very different. We’ve seen a HUGE and rapid spike in cases over the past 2 weeks in my AO but some interesting things are happening. 50% of the population in my state is “fully vaccinated” (meaning recently got the 2nd shot or a booster). From our state dept of health, here’s a chart of new weekly cases, vaxxed vs unvaxxed. within the past 3 weeks, the vaxxed have been catching Covid at the same rate as the unvaxxed. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/421435/1A02B08E-A242-429B-916C-C1DEC25FF586_jpe-2238335.JPG Although there’s been a massive jump in overall cases, the number of hospitalizations has remained steady, suggesting that omicron is significantly less severe than prior strains. However, one notable shift in hospitalization numbers is that unvaxxed hospitalizations are trending down while vaxxed hospitalizations are trending up. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/421435/ED9FED2C-9A45-4480-A99A-B6D7F45A0F8C_jpe-2238342.JPG Omicron has only been around here for a few weeks but the infection and hospitalization trends have gotten VERY weird. That last graph is pretty easy to explain. Before Omicron, vaxxers had more protection from Alpha and Delta. Whereas unvaxxers did not. When Omicron came along, unvaxxers hospital numbers started to drop overall because Omicron is milder. But, Vaxxers, now completely vulnerable to Omicron, where they were less so vs Alpha and Delta, have their numbers go up because the entire vaxxer community is now susceptible to Omicron. So naturally their numbers would go up even if it is milder than something they were pretty protected from before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 9:49:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, you're wrong again. First, you didn't read the paper where they showed in 145 countries why the shots had no impact. What part of there are no confounding factors do you not understand? This was all explained by me and in the paper, which you clearly neither read nor understood. Second, you've been shown this from one of the biggest states in the union that shows they have no impact: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/191393/Capture_JPG-2210045.jpg So, once again, you've shown your complete ignorance of both science and statistics. Heck of a job, Brownie! That's right, group vaccinated with not vaccinated to hide the benefits of the vaccine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 10:55:19 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's right, group vaccinated with not vaccinated to hide the benefits of the vaccine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nope, you're wrong again. First, you didn't read the paper where they showed in 145 countries why the shots had no impact. What part of there are no confounding factors do you not understand? This was all explained by me and in the paper, which you clearly neither read nor understood. Second, you've been shown this from one of the biggest states in the union that shows they have no impact: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/191393/Capture_JPG-2210045.jpg So, once again, you've shown your complete ignorance of both science and statistics. Heck of a job, Brownie! That's right, group vaccinated with not vaccinated to hide the benefits of the vaccine. If there were any benefits, they're hiding. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:34:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That last graph is pretty easy to explain. Before Omicron, vaxxers had more protection from Alpha and Delta. Whereas unvaxxers did not. When Omicron came along, unvaxxers hospital numbers started to drop overall because Omicron is milder. But, Vaxxers, now completely vulnerable to Omicron, where they were less so vs Alpha and Delta, have their numbers go up because the entire vaxxer community is now susceptible to Omicron. So naturally their numbers would go up even if it is milder than something they were pretty protected from before. This is correct |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2022 11:38:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clearly, neither you nor they understand what a Bayesian analysis is used for and it is being used precisely correctly in this particular case. The contagiousness of the variants isn't relevant when looking at the correlation between shots and case rates in the Bayesian analysis. In short, it's a red herring. The harmful experimental gene therapy shots haven't saved lives from the beginning as even the Pfizer 6-month data showed conclusively. Further, the actual real-world data showing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths don't support that argument either. It's not even close, they've been a colossal failure from the beginning and continue to cause nothing but harm. You know the "study" in the OP is a troll, right? The author is a political science student who listed his main qualification as "English language". It's posted just to see who is so dumb enough to take the bait. You did, and Kirsch did and that's pretty funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2022 12:52:42 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know the "study" in the OP is a troll, right? The author is a political science student who listed his main qualification as "English language". It's posted just to see who is so dumb enough to take the bait. You did, and Kirsch did and that's pretty funny. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Clearly, neither you nor they understand what a Bayesian analysis is used for and it is being used precisely correctly in this particular case. The contagiousness of the variants isn't relevant when looking at the correlation between shots and case rates in the Bayesian analysis. In short, it's a red herring. The harmful experimental gene therapy shots haven't saved lives from the beginning as even the Pfizer 6-month data showed conclusively. Further, the actual real-world data showing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths don't support that argument either. It's not even close, they've been a colossal failure from the beginning and continue to cause nothing but harm. You know the "study" in the OP is a troll, right? The author is a political science student who listed his main qualification as "English language". It's posted just to see who is so dumb enough to take the bait. You did, and Kirsch did and that's pretty funny. Tell me you didn't actually read the paper without actually telling me you didn't read the paper. It comes as no surprise you don't understand it. Let's see if you can at least describe what a Bayesian analysis is. We'll wait. BTW, if you use Google, you'll get the wrong answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2022 4:17:32 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell me you didn't actually read the paper without actually telling me you didn't read the paper. It comes as no surprise you don't understand it. Let's see if you can at least describe what a Bayesian analysis is. We'll wait. BTW, if you use Google, you'll get the wrong answer. I looked at it It's a joke paper. It's HILARIOUS you're taking it seriously. The author is some pro vax Canadian poly sci student that wanted to see how dumb people are |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
