Where's Your Line In The Sand?

roscoe

Well-known member
You haven't proven your case with data. Because you can't. The official data, as provided by the CDC, proves otherwise.

What? That is not true. Roughly 400 million doses of vaccine have been given in the US (so, around 200 million people). And ~9,000 people died in some period (which they don't identify) after vaccination. So the correlation between vaccination and death is pretty much at statistical zero.

See the math problem? In a population of ~200 million over the period of about 7 months (when large scale vaccinations started), 9,000 deaths falls within chance. Easily. And there has been no demonstration or suggestion of a causal connection, biologically speaking. Innumerate people see that 9,000 number and their minds get whirling.

That VAERS website is, in effect, cherry-picking the data by only talking about the 9,000 deaths. They don't talk about the overall sample population (400 million shots/200 million people), nor the time period in which the data were collected. It is a pretty classic misuse of statistics. And since it appears to be intentional, I interpret it as a lie, intended to spread fear. Traditional conspiracy-mongering.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...

That VAERS website is, in effect, cherry-picking the data by only talking about the 9,000 deaths. They don't talk about the overall sample population (400 million shots/200 million people), nor the time period in which the data were collected. It is a pretty classic misuse of statistics. And since it appears to be intentional, I interpret it as a lie, intended to spread fear. Traditional conspiracy-mongering.
No kidding. And since it's the CDC that's publishing the "cherry-picked" data, I would be willing to wager that the real situation is much worse than their misused statistics say it is. And they already have a pretty good track record wrt telling lies intended to spread fear. You're right on target with that opinion, only you don't realize how pervasive and all-inclusive it is. If they do that for one data point, you think they might be doing that for all their data points? Hmmmm.....????
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No kidding. And since it's the CDC that's publishing the "cherry-picked" data, I would be willing to wager that the real situation is much worse than their misused statistics say it is. And they already have a pretty good track record wrt telling lies intended to spread fear. You're right on target with that opinion, only you don't realize how pervasive and all-inclusive it is. If they do that for one data point, you think they might be doing that for all their data points? Hmmmm.....????

So why do you trust the VAERS website? If they are cherry-picking from compromised data (as you suggest), it literally makes no sense to believe anything they are saying.
 

Good Ol' Boy

Active member
No kidding. And since it's the CDC that's publishing the "cherry-picked" data, I would be willing to wager that the real situation is much worse than their misused statistics say it is. And they already have a pretty good track record wrt telling lies intended to spread fear. You're right on target with that opinion, only you don't realize how pervasive and all-inclusive it is. If they do that for one data point, you think they might be doing that for all their data points? Hmmmm.....????


Exactly.

Theyre cherry picking data when it goes against the propaganda he's being fed but I bet you he believes half a million people have actually died directly due to the Teriyaki Tickle.

The propaganda folks in this country are willing to believe is extremely disturbing.

My point was that even though that 9000 number is likely way low, in the past trials stop at or below 50 deaths for actual legitimate vaccines. Even IF its "only 9000" (highly unlikely) that's waaaaay past the point where in the past they would have stopped trials.

And thats not even talking about long term effects. People are literally choosing to be lab rats.
 

Good Ol' Boy

Active member
Well if you believe the CDC is pushing propaganda in favor of the globalist then their numbers on deaths from the "virus" would be exaggerated and their deaths from the "vaccine" would be underrated.

So its likely much more than 9000, we're just not hearing about it.

And as I stated trials are normally stopped at 50 or less deaths so whats going on here?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Well if you believe the CDC is pushing propaganda in favor of the globalist then their numbers on deaths from the "virus" would be exaggerated and their deaths from the "vaccine" would be underrated.

So its likely much more than 9000, we're just not hearing about it.

And as I stated trials are normally stopped at 50 or less deaths so whats going on here?

To be clear - I believe the CDC numbers. Since I have personally seen friends and family members get sick (and some die) from COVID, I am not at all surprised by the CDC estimates of total mortality (currently around 650,000 in the US).

But as to the number 9,000. Why does the CDC reject that number? Because dying after receiving the vaccine is not the same as dying because of the vaccine. is there a plausible causal link, biologically? Did someone die of something not plausibly related to a vaccine (e.g. lung cancer)? Or did they get a blood clot and die (a plausible link). Simply because a death happens in some time period after a vaccine does not mean that person died from the vaccine. The CDC has looked at these deaths and not found a causal link, except for J&J.

Even if those VAERS numbers were real (which we have no reason to believe), there has to be a few other things before the CDC would be a hold put on it, whether the threshold was 50 or 9,000.

First - Is the number meaningful, statistically? how many people were in the trial sample? 50 out of 1000 is a lot. 50 out of 50 million is near statistical nothing.

Second - is the juice worth the squeeze? In other words, are we talking about a baldness drug, or a vaccine that has the potential to save millions of lives? We were willing to take more risks for the COVID vaccine because the risk of doing nothing is much greater. In WW2 we had some 15,000 airmen die in training. We knew the risk, but did it anyway because the risk of not sending a big air-force out to fight the Nazis was much greater to American society than the deaths of those trainees. Since 650,000 Americans have died of the COVID, the risk of doing nothing far outweighed the risk of the vaccine trials.

But, as I said, there have not been any actual deaths medically attributed to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Only J&J.

Now, if you think the COVID pandemic doesn't exist, and the CDC is making everything up, from the numbers of deaths to the VAERS numbers, then I don't know what to say. I mean, you can argue the Earth is flat, too, but there is no evidence to support it. All CDC data is open for examination, and no group has actually examined the data in detail and claimed that they are not real. There are lists of deaths from COVID and you can call the families yourself. The conspiracy types just dismiss is outright, but that is not any kind of a serious refutation.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
To be clear - I believe the CDC numbers.

Well, then, you're conflicted because the Adverse Events Reporting System IS the CDC and then you tell us you don't believe what they're reporting. You can't have it both ways:

But as to the number 9,000. Why does the CDC reject that number?

That is the CDC-reported number (more or less rounded).

Take your meds, @roscoe you're not making sense.

One thing to consider is that a lot of adverse events are simply not getting reported because the clinicians don't want to go through the time and bother of doing the paperwork, so any number reported by the CDC is more likely to be too low than too high.

Another thing to consider is that among collected peer groups those among the health care professions have a much higher rate of vaccine hesitancy than among the general population at large. You suppose they know something we don't know?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
....Because dying after receiving the vaccine is not the same as dying because of the vaccine. is there a plausible causal link, biologically? ...
Ya, now just apply the same logic to "dying with Covid" versus "dying from Covid" and see where that takes you wrt Covid mortality statistics.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
C'mon @roscoe - clear your mind and think this thing through looking at the big picture, and your arguments mostly even support reaching the following conclusions:
1) The CDC (and Federal government at large) is not to be trusted to be telling the truth and providing unbiased impartial statistics, information and advice.
2) The Covid pandemic is not the existential and mortal threat it's made out to be.
3) The vaccines are not as effective nor as safe as they're made out to be.
4) All parties with vested interests have been manipulating and misrepresenting to benefit their own interests and not public health and safety.
5) Much harm has been done, personal, political, economic, social and cultural by the responses resulting from #4.
6) Also due to #4 already-existing safe and effective therapeutics were not just overlooked but shunned.

It didn't have to be this way. One has to wonder if in the end we'd have been better off if absolutely nothing had been done and if the virus had been allowed to run its natural course, without these statistical and computer model generated data that so often were used to support bad decisions. Most likely by now it would all have been over, and without all the extra harm done by the path we did take.

If it makes you feel better, you're allowed to blame Trump. After all, he was President when this all started, and he made the mistake of believing and listening to his government "experts" instead of his own wisdom and common sense. Ya, @roscoe - blame Trump. He should have gone with his gut instinct instead of the self-serving "advice" of his "experts". Also, he was the one that pushed for accelerated vaccine development. Ya, blame Trump for that one, too. The buck stops at the top.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, then, you're conflicted because the Adverse Events Reporting System IS the CDC and then you tell us you don't believe what they're reporting. You can't have it both ways:



That is the CDC-reported number (more or less rounded).

Take your meds, @roscoe you're not making sense.

One thing to consider is that a lot of adverse events are simply not getting reported because the clinicians don't want to go through the time and bother of doing the paperwork, so any number reported by the CDC is more likely to be too low than too high.

Another thing to consider is that among collected peer groups those among the health care professions have a much higher rate of vaccine hesitancy than among the general population at large. You suppose they know something we don't know?
Meds? Really? Give me a break.

You need to read the CDC page. It does not attribute those deaths to the vaccine. You did that. It reports that AERS number as a method of tracking to see if there is a problem with the vaccine. It is a checking system. But they say explicitly:

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 331 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 6, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,946 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.

What makes you think health care professionals have a lower rate of vaccination? Or a higher rate of hesitancy? You have a statistic you want to cite or is this just another assertion?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
C'mon @roscoe - clear your mind and think this thing through looking at the big picture, and your arguments mostly even support reaching the following conclusions:
1) The CDC (and Federal government at large) is not to be trusted to be telling the truth and providing unbiased impartial statistics, information and advice.
2) The Covid pandemic is not the existential and mortal threat it's made out to be.
3) The vaccines are not as effective nor as safe as they're made out to be.
4) All parties with vested interests have been manipulating and misrepresenting to benefit their own interests and not public health and safety.
5) Much harm has been done, personal, political, economic, social and cultural by the responses resulting from #4.
6) Also due to #4 already-existing safe and effective therapeutics were not just overlooked but shunned.

Again, this is all just assertion on your part. You have provided no evidence whatsoever. It all sounds like a thousand other conspiracy theories I have read online. This one requires the complicit actions of hundreds of thousands of doctors, nurses, PAs, medical assistants, data analysis, scientists, etc. across dozens of countries. Just flat-Earther stuff.

But with 650,000 deaths, I do regard it as a threat. That is more than all dead US servicemembers in WW2, over 4 years. Unless you think those people are alive.
 
Last edited:

str8_forward

Well-known member
No kidding. And since it's the CDC that's publishing the "cherry-picked" data, I would be willing to wager that the real situation is much worse than their misused statistics say it is. And they already have a pretty good track record wrt telling lies intended to spread fear. You're right on target with that opinion, only you don't realize how pervasive and all-inclusive it is. If they do that for one data point, you think they might be doing that for all their data points? Hmmmm.....????
 

roscoe

Well-known member
That piece is factually incorrect in many, many particulars, but I don't expect you to fact check anything, that is for sure. I think we get a good flavor of the kooky paranoia on display in this choice paragraph:

If we allow the government to decide this medical decision for us, it is a short step for the government to say it can decide other medical decisions for you, e.g., all persons over 75 never be resuscitated; people may have only three children (or two or one) with mandatory sterilization for women.

Frankly, I'm feeling this:

1634489499961.png
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Meds? Really? Give me a break.
Again, this is all just assertion on your part. You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

I, personally, have been taking a certain medication that begins with an "i", and whose mention here might get this post censored. I have been taking a prophylactic dose since January, I have not worn a mask since January, I am not vaccinated, I have attended multiple "super-spreader" events, and have not been sick with Covid (and if I have it's been a completely assymptomic infection), and I have suffered absolutely no adverse side effects from this medication. Other than a fondness for oats and hay and a laugh that sounds a bit like a "ney". That last part was a joke, but all the former is true and the real joke, and it's a sad and pathetic joke, so not to be laughed at, but to be mourned for all the unnecessary fatalities, is because of all the people, like you, that believe what the mainstream media and the so-called medical "experts" believe or misrepresent about it, lies that have been disproven by several dozen controlled clinic trials, peer-reviewed and published, for a new use for a medication invented fourty years ago, whose inventor received the Nobel Prize for it, is on the WHO's list of world essential medicines, is FDA-approved for certain other non-Covid uses, has been given billions of doses with an extremely low record of adverse reactions because of its extremely wide safe therapeutic range. This is all public infomation and easily enough found through reputable channels. Enough evidence for you? If you aren't asking yourself "why isn't this medication being used to fight Covid here in the U.S?" (as it is in many other countries), and if you are instead participating in propagating the lies about it then you are aiding and abetting murder, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
I, personally, have been taking a certain medication that begins with an "i", and whose mention here might get this post censored. I have been taking a prophylactic dose since January, I have not worn a mask since January, I am not vaccinated, I have attended multiple "super-spreader" events, and have not been sick with Covid (and if I have it's been a completely assymptomic infection), and I have suffered absolutely no adverse side effects from this medication. Other than a fondness for oats and hay and a laugh that sounds a bit like a "ney". That last part was a joke, but all the former is true and the real joke, and it's a sad and pathetic joke, so not to be laughed at, but to be mourned for all the unnecessary fatalities, is because of all the people, like you, that believe what the mainstream media and the so-called medical "experts" believe or misrepresent about it, lies that have been disproven by several dozen controlled clinic trials, peer-reviewed and published, for a new use for a medication invented fourty years ago, whose inventor received the Nobel Prize for it, is on the WHO's list of world essential medicines, has been given billions of doses with an extremely low record of adverse reactions because of its extremely wide safe therapeutic range. This is all public infomation and easily enough found through reputable channels. Enough evidence for you? If you aren't asking yourself "why isn't this medication being used to fight Covid here in the U.S?" (as it is in many other countries), and if you are instead participating in propagating the lies about it then you are aiding and abetting murder, plain and simple.

Your taking of the drug is anecdotal, and you have no evidence it has helped you. Have you been tested for antibodies? Do you know whether you have actually been exposed to COVID? The fact that you haven't noticed symptoms literally means nothing. You might have caught it and spread it to more vulnerable people without knowing it. You think we should have let Typhoid Mary keep cooking for people just because she didn't show symptoms?

These questions have to be tackled epidemiologically. For example, after Sturgis, South Dakota saw massive spikes, but not everyone got it - it is a probability that increased. I mean. are you arguing that it hasn't killed 650,000 Americans?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Because of the indoor events I attended there is no possible way in h*** that I haven't been exposed.

OK, so you are Typhoid Mary/COVID wiscoaster. But that is not how we run public health systems and make decisions when millions of lives are at stake.
 

str8_forward

Well-known member
I, personally, have been taking a certain medication that begins with an "i", and whose mention here might get this post censored. I have been taking a prophylactic dose since January, I have not worn a mask since January, I am not vaccinated, I have attended multiple "super-spreader" events, and have not been sick with Covid (and if I have it's been a completely assymptomic infection), and I have suffered absolutely no adverse side effects from this medication. Other than a fondness for oats and hay and a laugh that sounds a bit like a "ney". That last part was a joke, but all the former is true and the real joke, and it's a sad and pathetic joke, so not to be laughed at, but to be mourned for all the unnecessary fatalities, is because of all the people, like you, that believe what the mainstream media and the so-called medical "experts" believe or misrepresent about it, lies that have been disproven by several dozen controlled clinic trials, peer-reviewed and published, for a new use for a medication invented fourty years ago, whose inventor received the Nobel Prize for it, is on the WHO's list of world essential medicines, is FDA-approved for certain other non-Covid uses, has been given billions of doses with an extremely low record of adverse reactions because of its extremely wide safe therapeutic range. This is all public infomation and easily enough found through reputable channels. Enough evidence for you? If you aren't asking yourself "why isn't this medication being used to fight Covid here in the U.S?" (as it is in many other countries), and if you are instead participating in propagating the lies about it then you are aiding and abetting murder, plain and simple.

I have never been to mecca to get gin....

Got 120 pills before starting my latest assignment and this gives me good 240 days without worries while working in Europe..........

Also, had the wuhan shit in October or November 2020 with very little symptoms and antibodies are plentiful in my system.

Refuse to get the vaxx (which rules out about half of this planet for any other assignment) and my employer is okay with that, otherwise I would have taken early retirement. My wife is vaxxed and unhappy about my decision.

Too bad, unlike many others, I will die for my convictions and principles.

This is my line in the sand !
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
OK, so you are Typhoid Mary/COVID wiscoaster. But that is not how we run public health systems and make decisions when millions of lives are at stake.
There would have been a whole lot less lives at stake, and lost, if the public health systems had been run by me.

The public health systems are not run for the benefit of the public's health and safety. Until you acknowledge that, you'll continue to be deceived by them and your own health and safety will continue to be at risk because of how they are run. This is nothing new with Covid; it has always been this way.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
There would have been a whole lot less lives at stake, and lost, if the public health systems had been run by me.

The public health systems are not run for the benefit of the public's health and safety. Until you acknowledge that, you'll continue to be deceived by them and your own health and safety will continue to be at risk because of how they are run. This is nothing new with Covid; it has always been this way.
Bureaucracies do tend to acquire institutional inertia, but I don't think they exist for their own sakes. There are good ones and bad ones, but civilization has never existed, going back more than 6000 years, without them. They are one of the costs of civilization, like taxes and power hierarchies.

But to conspire in the way you are talking about would require, as I said, hundreds of thousands of people in independent organizations across dozens of countries that don't even really get along. Not plausible.

COVID is real, and the death toll is real. The world will have diversity of opinion on solutions, but nothing that the US is doing in anything we have not done before (especially vaccine mandates, which go back to George Washington).

If you want to take ivermectin, go for it. The fact that you feel like you have to hide it is a sign of paranoia. No one is going to arrest you for it. It is not a Schedule 1 narcotic. In fact, make a chloroquine-ivermectin cocktail. No one cares. But doctors just don't want millions people to go out and take it and expect it to prevent COVID, because it is a treatment, not a vaccine. Herd immunity through vaccination is why we no longer have smallpox, polio, etc. Ivermectin will not prevent COVID infection, and you may still be communicable. The problem for the world is the communicability of COVID. Ivermectin may may prevent death:


but it definitely is a strong drug with the potential to injure or kill:

 
Top