But those that believe it's vaccine related won't believed whatever story comes out about what caused it. So, while I agree with you, waiting won't change anything other than it will be said its obviously part of the cover up
Bronny James had a heart attack at USC yesterday
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
- Status
Could easily be a heart condition he was born with such as an enlarged heart. Those issues existed with young athletes long before COVID existed.
Last edited:
Yes Bronnie James, son of the best athlete to ever roam the world has a weak heart lol.
I’ve read a lot of bad takes on this forum, but this one might take the cake…
Considering that nobody even really knows who Lebron's father is, how can you be so certain that there is no family history of heart issues?
Anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant. Also call "trusting science" shit just means you are ignorant. Please come out of the dark ages and take advantage of the the amazing technological wonders of our time. Either that or just move to a cave and stop bothering us.
Yet you refuse to stand by your previous assertions even after threatening to inundate us with the evidence. You're a fraud. As a scientist, I can say with certainty that you aren't a real scientist. Probably work directly for the government, not capable of intellectual honesty.
Please cite peer reviewed papers not self published books by know internet whack jobs with forwards by even larger conspiracy theory whack jobs.
Pfizer knew these things were deadly, as did the FDA.
As a scientist, didn't you ever wonder why the FDA wanted to keep these documents hidden for 75 years?
As a scientist, to what do you attribute the dramatic increase of both deaths and disabilities in 2021 and 2022, as outlined in Ed Dowd's book?
The vaccines are safe and effective. I provided multiple peer reviewed papers above for you to read. If you don't read them, that's on you. But I've proven my point.
As of RFK Jr, I hope everyone is aware of this very, very sad story which is what happens when you listen to people like him instead of scientists.
Samoa's perfect storm: How a collapse in vaccination rates killed more than 70 children
As parents mourn their dead, Brian Deer unpicks the myths and missteps that allowed measles to traumatise a nation.
www.telegraph.co.uk
I have literally stood by ever one of my previous statements. They all say "vaccines are safe and effective." I provided citations. Do you want more citations? If so, prove to me you read the first batch.
This is wildly incorrect. Please see the citations I provided above. They answer your questions about efficacy in children.
What haven't I done? What statements have I not stood by? I provided citations. Prove to me you've read them and I'll send you more.
You are still confusing policy (and apparently the news media) with science. The science is clear. How you translate that science into policy decisions (e.g. what level of risk are we willing to accept) is a completely different question, which can be argued because it involves qualitative value judgments (e.g. how important is in person schooling vs the need to reduce transmission vectors). I'm not here to talk about the latter, only to show you that the science is (and has been all along) solid.
OK, we will have to agree to disagree. As a layperson, "science" is what the scientists tell me. And the scientists that we counted on didn't know and lied. I understand that the nature of science doesn't change. But our understanding, or lack thereof, does. And that is what I call "science". What is your name for it?
Bottom line is that the scientist not only let us down, but were corrupt in doing so
So that's a perfectly reasonable question that I would be happy to answer for you. There are a couple of things you are not considering:
1) Death is not the only end point that should be considered for covid. Even if you are skeptical of all the potential longer term effects of covid
(here is a Nature paper on it:
More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Scientific Reports
COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with...
www.nature.com
I would think that if you had the ability to safely reduce either the likelihood that someone (especially a child) would get seriously ill you would take it.
2) Even though the death risk (which again is not the only end point you should be considering) is low, the risk from the vaccine is even lower. And the extremely small risks from the vaccine (e.g. rare and transient heart issues) are higher if you get covid than from the vaccine.
Do you have a peer reviewed citation to back this up or are you just basing this on anecdotal evidence?
How are your assertions explained with this data directly from VAERS?
All charts and tables below reflect the data release on 7/21/2023 from the VAERS website, which includes U.S. and foreign data, and is updated through: 7/14/2023
| High-Level Summary | COVID19 vaccines (Dec’2020 – present) | All other vaccines 1990-present | US Data Only COVID19 vaccines (Dec’2020 – present) | US Data Only All other vaccines 1990-present |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Adverse Reactions | 1,574,580 | 941,308 | 971,317 | 815,807 |
| Number of Life-Threatening Events | 38,084 | 15,243 | 14,554 | 10,319 |
| Number of Hospitalizations | 206,108 | 88,941 | 84,663 | 40,785 |
| Number of Deaths | 35,611* | 10,367* | 17,631 | 5,581 |
| # of Permanent Disabilities after vaccination | 67,030 | 22,230 | 17,171 | 13,669 |
| Number of Office Visits | 237,149 | 60,959 | 194,961 | 58,048 |
| # of Emergency Room/Department Visits | 151,477 | 217,589 | 116,505 | 207,470 |
| # of Birth Defects after vaccination | 1,274 | 224 | 589 | 119 |
VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 7/14/2023 – VAERS Analysis
vaersanalysis.info
well, "death" is the only thing that can be tracked. There is no way to track how bad the infection was especially when you factor in age, comorbidities and type of vax used. We know that theySo that's a perfectly reasonable question that I would be happy to answer for you. There are a couple of things you are not considering:
1) Death is not the only end point that should be considered for covid. Even if you are skeptical of all the potential longer term effects of covid
(here is a Nature paper on it:
but I would posit that some of these may not be covid related, but more study is needed)More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Scientific Reports
COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with...
I would think that if you had the ability to safely reduce either the likelihood that someone (especially a child) would get seriously ill you would take it.
2) Even though the death risk (which again is not the only end point you should be considering) is low, the risk from the vaccine is even lower. And the extremely small risks from the vaccine (e.g. rare and transient heart issues) are higher if you get covid than from the vaccine.
Bottom line is any claim of vaccine or virus statistics other than death is a complete non-starter.
If you are talking about just the explaining of science to the lay person, that's science communication. The people who do that (and I work with many) often have a BS in science and then a masters in English or communications (or something video production or marketing). They are not publishing scientists. I agree that effective communication of science is very difficult. Here is an anecdote: My group was once told to try to write things at a sixth grade level when putting out things for the general public (eg on our website). There used to be a feature in Word where it would tell you what grade level your text was. We started with what we thought was a pretty simple version of our findings (it told us 13th grade), and by the time we dumbed it down to 6th grade it was "We used computers to do stuff." Which obviously is not terribly useful. The point is that most scientific findings are complicated and nuanced. For many topics, the general public will never understand anything beyond a very simplified version of the concept. And to complicate matters even more, science is constantly evolving, especially for something like a novel virus. So by the time the communications are released, there is likely going to be new information to add to (or perhaps even contradict) the previous communications.
TL; DR, science is complicated and good science communication is hard.
I completely disagree with this statement. The scientists saved millions of lives and over a trillion dollars just in the US.
Report: COVID-19 vaccines saved US $1.15 trillion, 3 million lives
COVID-19 vaccines prevented more than 18.5 million US hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths, according to new estimates.
Last edited:
You cannot use raw data from VAERS. I would hope that at this point in time everyone would know that.
VAERS data is only useful after it is QA/QC'd and analyzed. Here is more information on this topic:
What VAERS Is (And Isn’t) | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Anyone can report a post-vaccination health issue to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System—which anti-vaccination activists often misuse to sow misinformation and distrust.
This in incorrect. Lots of other statistics are tracked, but hospitalizations is another easy one to track.
Please provide a peer reviewed citation to support this statement.
This is partially true, but test did get better over time. Again, other metrics than positive tests (e.g. hospitalizations) are good indicators of vaccine efficacy.
I mean, that's your choice I guess. I've never had covid but had several bad colds and tested multiple times because I didn't want to get anyone else seriously ill.
This is completely incorrect (see above)
Dude, you talk in circles. You ask for facts then won't accept them.You cannot use raw data from VAERS. I would hope that at this point in time everyone would know that.
VAERS data is only useful after it is QA/QC'd and analyzed. Here is more information on this topic:
What VAERS Is (And Isn’t) | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Anyone can report a post-vaccination health issue to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System—which anti-vaccination activists often misuse to sow misinformation and distrust.publichealth.jhu.edu
In the US, it would appear, much of the data has been suppressed. A google search yields a lot of data from 2020 but little thereafter. In the age of the WWW, this is inexcusable.
But the Brits have a study....and it is pretty scary.
Nearly 100,000 more deaths involving heart conditions and stroke than usual since pandemic began
Nearly 100,000 more deaths involving heart conditions and stroke than usual since pandemic began
Bullshit. You talk in circles. You ask for data and are given data. Then you ask for different data. Then you ask for peer-reviewed data which is a) a cabal used to get more grant money so there is no such thing as "peer-reviewed" and b) these studies take years and c) I suspect the studies that go against the grain are spiked (as we know they were during the Fauci COVID years).
So tell me, who are these honest and reliable "scientists" you refer to? I didn't see ANY from the WHO or CDC....nor any of the self proclaimed scientists on any of the news channels.
Last edited:
Wrong. When the aggregate data for COVID collected over 2.5 years of vaccines results in 3x times higher total reported deaths than ALL OTHER VACCINES for over 30 years, then you can make a definitive statement about the relative safety of COVID vaccines.You cannot use raw data from VAERS. I would hope that at this point in time everyone would know that.
VAERS data is only useful after it is QA/QC'd and analyzed. Here is more information on this topic:
What VAERS Is (And Isn’t) | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Anyone can report a post-vaccination health issue to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System—which anti-vaccination activists often misuse to sow misinformation and distrust.
If you were to compare the reports of the two in like periods, COVID vaccines would have resulted in 40 times higher incidence rate of death reported in the VAERS system than ALL OTHER VACCINES COMBINED. Do you honestly believe an honest QA/QC of the data would overcome 40 times higher reported deaths from a few COVID vaccines compared to all other vaccines combined? The only way you can claim that you cannot make a definitive statement about the relative safety is if you are intentionally dishonest.
Last edited:
Are you indicating peer reviews can lack validity? I'm agreeing with 99% of your stance here but we both know better
How am I talking in circles? You provided a dataset (good start) and I explained to you why you can't use that dataset to do what you are trying to do. And it's not even me saying that it's Johns Hopkins. So if you think you know more than all the PhDs at Hopkins....well, good luck with all that.Dude, you talk in circles. You ask for facts then won't accept them.
In the US, it would appear, much of the data has been suppressed. A google search yields a lot of data from 2020 but little thereafter. In the age of the WWW, this is inexcusable.
But the Brits have a study....and it is pretty scary.
Nearly 100,000 more deaths involving heart conditions and stroke than usual since pandemic began
Nearly 100,000 more deaths involving heart conditions and stroke than usual since pandemic beganwww.bhf.org.uk
The British study you cite is not peer reviewed. I will try to take a look at it, but I am not as familiar with the British reporting system so probably cannot comment in depth.
Not 100% sure what you are asking. Peer reviewed papers CAN have issues with them, but the system is self correcting (i.e. if I publish a crap paper, you can publish criticisms of that paper (also peer reviewed) and if the criticisms are valid, the paper might be retracted, or at least revised). But the level of rigor in publishing a peer reviewed paper is much, much higher than a newspaper article or substack post.
Non-peer reviewed papers, e.g. studies by think tanks at best (which may or may not use good methodology) or "statistical analyses" by some guy on the internet with no training at worst, have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Please show me a peer reviewed study that says this.
Again, you cannot use raw VAERS data the way you are attempting to use it. See the JHU link above.
I don't care about "peer reviews" to be honest they aren't honest. Peer review counts on people to be honest and they no longer are. The scientific community has been compromised. We saw it in spades from spiking the notion that it was a lab leak to masks work to ridiculous spacing, to no-risk kids being told to get a half dozen shots.
Sorry, I am out of the conversation because I don't believe you are being honest with yourself, to me, or the board. We saw it. We heard it. We lived it. There is no turning back.
I agree that's its infinitely more reliable but we also both know that while they're more reliable they're no absolute. They're often flawed for many reasons. Still more reliable but you're overselling the validity of them. More valuable than the others absolutely but there's always other factors in play.
Sorry, the "experts" have lost credibility. You can thank the CDC, Dr. Fauci, and many others.
You gave me data and I (who understand the data) explained why what you are doing is statistically incorrect. Did you read the JHU link?
LOL. Peer reviewed data is the gold standard. Is it perfect? No, nothing is. But it is orders of magnitude better than some guy with a youtube channel. If you can't accept that peer reviewed papers are the standard we should be looking at, then I can't really a have a scientific conversation with you.
Again, you are conflating "news media" and "policy talking heads" with scientists. Go look at any of authors on the citations I've shared. They are the people in the trenches doing the work (like me, although I am in a different field).
I agree. But would you agree that if you know one type of source is better (but not perfect) than all the others that is the source you should use?
you talk in circles. If I quote an outlet you say it is the news media. If I quote a study, you say it isn't peer-reviewed. When their is systemic corruption, "peer-reviewed" means nothing. they are ALL corrupt. We saw that when the community decided that they wanted to censor people. We saw that with Dr. Robert Malone, one of the founders of mRNA. He was silenced until recently. He was actually banned on Facebook, Twitter and all main stream media outlets. When the peers are bought off an corrupted, what is the use of peer reviews?
The Lancet:
Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19
Wrong again. You cannot use raw VAERS data only because you do not want to and neither does the CDC. If it were even within a order of magnitude relative occurrence than you could say the data might not be as strong of an indicator but it's 40X higher occurrence than THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF ALL OTHER VACCINES.
Is it your claim that VAERS tells us nothing? If so, why has the CDC used this information for over 30 years?
I've told my doctor that I lost a lot of faith in the medical profession due to their handling of COVID. I think most doctors know this.
'known internet whack jobs with forwards by even larger conspiracy theory whack jobs"Please cite peer reviewed papers not self published books by know internet whack jobs with forwards by even larger conspiracy theory whack jobs.
The vaccines are safe and effective. I provided multiple peer reviewed papers above for you to read. If you don't read them, that's on you. But I've proven my point.
As of RFK Jr, I hope everyone is aware of this very, very sad story which is what happens when you listen to people like him instead of scientists.
Samoa's perfect storm: How a collapse in vaccination rates killed more than 70 children
As parents mourn their dead, Brian Deer unpicks the myths and missteps that allowed measles to traumatise a nation.
Right out of the playbook. Congratulations, you've been captured!
- Status
