Vaccine deaths skyrocket

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
And so are you, so please don't go making claims about how it definitely works better than vaccines.


..as you are about vaccines.


The problem with quoting results like this is that it is cherry-picking - presenting only the articles that are favorable to your view and ignoring those that are not, such as this from another government website:
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

And this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w


I doubt if your Dr will ever have an opportunity to talk to my Dr. But you do you and other people will listen to their own doctors, not to yours.
Your Dr Fao Chi is a quack. I posted the fact February of last year. Pay attention. I posted in March 2020 that he was funding gain of function research. He was still lying about it this summer.
He lies under oath in sworn testimony like your Mike Mannn lies under oath.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
There is a confirmed count, and it is over 600,000.
In point of fact, that is an estimate, not a confirmed count. A few years ago we had a flu with 80,000 deaths. A half year later, that had to be revised down to 61,000 deaths because the estimates had been way too high in the process of the flu season.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
That's not the criteria that is used by medical personnel doing the reporting. The criteria is whether covid was a major contributor to a person's death. So dying of with covid and diabetes and asthma where covid contributed as an immediate factor counts as a covid death - as it should. The odd reports of a motorcycle accident being counted as a covid death because the victim tested positive post mortem are a few weird aberrations and are not the rule for medical reporting.
Nope. Not a "few aberrations" a year ago here in Colorado, they had to change from counting people deadbwith covid to only people dead from covid after several MEs caught them counting people that should not be counted (one was a dude dead of acute alcoh poisoning with alcohol levels many times the LETHAL limit). When they did the numbers dropped by TWENTY FIVE PERCENT. That's an enormous overcoat. Most other states have not made this change.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Nope. Not a "few aberrations" a year ago here in Colorado, they had to change from counting people deadbwith covid to only people dead from covid after several MEs caught them counting people that should not be counted (one was a dude dead of acute alcoh poisoning with alcohol levels many times the LETHAL limit). When they did the numbers dropped by TWENTY FIVE PERCENT. That's an enormous overcoat. Most other states have not made this change.
This analysis is right out of this report in the Coloradan. It is a good example of how a story can be carefully edited to make it sound worse than it is. First of all, the article was from May, 2020 - very early in the pandemic. Systems were still being developed for gathering and reporting covid deaths. But here is what the original article said:

Colorado health officials on Friday changed how they count the number of people lost to the coronavirus outbreak in the state.

As a result, the state's stated COVID-19 death toll dropped by nearly 300 people who had contracted the virus but died of other causes that may or may not have been related to infection.

On Thursday, Colorado reported 1,091 coronavirus deaths under its prior method. But on Friday, the state clarified that 878 people have died as a direct result of COVID-19 infection as of May 9, while another 272 had tested positive but died of other causes as of Friday.

In a Friday afternoon news conference, Rachel Herlihy, the state epidemiologist, apologized for confusion about how coronavirus deaths are counted. She said the state would begin reporting the number of deaths where COVID-19 is believed to be a contributing factor, in addition to total coronavirus case deaths, the larger number.
So the number was corrected, and the current number of 668K reflects the correction done a long time ago.

The speculation that other states are still doing it wrong is just speculation not supported by any evidence.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
In point of fact, that is an estimate, not a confirmed count.
It is the best estimate we have, and we don't need to know the exact number to understand the seriousness of the pandemic. The high number of deaths is confirmed by other data, such as the overall lifespan and the smallest growing in population in at least 120 years.


A few years ago we had a flu with 80,000 deaths. A half year later, that had to be revised down to 61,000 deaths because the estimates had been way too high in the process of the flu season.
Because of the seriousness of the covid, the statistics have been tracked more carefully than they tracked the flu. But all this quibbling about precision in the numbers is just to distract from the fact that even if the numbers were off by 50%, it would still be serious enough to warrant all the attention it is getting.

People: Do your part. Get vaccinated.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Nope, I couldn't care less who wants to get a vaccine..
If you didn't care you would not be so adamant about saying negative things about the vaccine. Those actions speak louder than your protestations to the contrary.

.I even showed you the graphs after Ivermectin was implemented.....those facts are indeed FACTS.
...cherry-picked facts that are not supported by the other articles I cited.

People, do your part. Get vaccinated!
 

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
If you didn't care you would not be so adamant about saying negative things about the vaccine.

Not true. I know smoking can kill you, but if you smoke, I'll still tell you or anyone else the dangers of smoking. But if you decide that you're going to smoke, then so be it.

Those actions speak louder than your protestations to the contrary.

Not even remotely.....because I know for a fact that you and everyone else that are not critical thinkers and get their news from the MSM, are being lied to..... You got a vaccine because you were told to, not because you took the time to investigate them. People wear masks because they were told to. They took them off because they were told they could. No other reason.
...cherry-picked facts that are not supported by the other articles I cited.

No, they weren't cherry picked, they were FACTUAL graphs showing the use of Ivermectin and how it drove down the covid cases exponentially.

People, do your part. Get vaccinated!

People, do your part....RESEARCH everything, question EVERYTHING, and don't run out to get vaccinated when there are NO LONG TERM SIDE EFFECTS KNOWN. These vaccines are killing people and injuring many to the point that they can't life a normal life! They are silencing these people and they are doing it PURPOSELY.
And for the love of all that is good, do NOT believe what the idiot box in your living room is spewing. They are LYING to you, all day, everyday!

See, two can play that game.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
No, they weren't cherry picked, they were FACTUAL graphs...
Cherry-picked data can be factual, and still imply conclusions that are not supported by other data. Excluding any data that is not supportive of ones view is that opposite of what a scientist should do. A scientists should actively seek out data contrary data and evaluate it. That's what I do. I come to places like this to get a sense of what contrary theories there are out there and evaluate those theories in light of other data. Sometimes it leads to a reconsideration of my own view, and sometimes I can reconcile that contrary data with what I have already seen. But to just ignore contrary data is the definition of cherry-picking.

People, do your part....RESEARCH everything, question EVERYTHING,
This is good advice, but it also means not to exclude data that is contrary to what you believe. Also I would advise people to watch out for appeals to arrogance. For example, when you see a posting that cites an academic or technical paper from a professional journal, and then invites you to conclude what the poster wants you to conclude from it, consider the possibility that fully understanding that paper may be beyond your current training and expertise. When faced with the choice between agreeing with the poster's analysis of the technical article, or admitting that you are not qualified to understand it, the temptation is to give in to your arrogance and refuse to believe that you might not be qualified for understanding that paper. This is why such ploys are often successful. This is the basis behind the children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." In that story, the con artist appeals to the arrogance of the emperor and all his advisors to keep them from admitting that they just don't see what others are seemingly able to see. Finally it takes a small child with no pretense of superiority to defend to recognize and admit that the emperor does not have any clothes on. So don't be tricked by con artists who lull you into thinking you must be stupid if you cannot understand a technical journal. If you are not a professional in the field for which the journal was written, just admit to yourself that you may not have the specialized training needed to critically review the paper, and defer to those who do have that skill. That is why you seldom see misinformation based on publications made for the general population because it is easier to bamboozle people with faulty analyses of articles they cannot evaluate.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Cherry-picked data can be factual, and still imply conclusions that are not supported by other data. Excluding any data that is not supportive of ones view is that opposite of what a scientist should do. A scientists should actively seek out data contrary data and evaluate it. That's what I do. I come to places like this to get a sense of what contrary theories there are out there and evaluate those theories in light of other data. Sometimes it leads to a reconsideration of my own view, and sometimes I can reconcile that contrary data with what I have already seen. But to just ignore contrary data is the definition of cherry-picking.


This is good advice, but it also means not to exclude data that is contrary to what you believe. Also I would advise people to watch out for appeals to arrogance. For example, when you see a posting that cites an academic or technical paper from a professional journal, and then invites you to conclude what the poster wants you to conclude from it, consider the possibility that fully understanding that paper may be beyond your current training and expertise. When faced with the choice between agreeing with the poster's analysis of the technical article, or admitting that you are not qualified to understand it, the temptation is to give in to your arrogance and refuse to believe that you might not be qualified for understanding that paper. This is why such ploys are often successful. This is the basis behind the children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." In that story, the con artist appeals to the arrogance of the emperor and all his advisors to keep them from admitting that they just don't see what others are seemingly able to see. Finally it takes a small child with no pretense of superiority to defend to recognize and admit that the emperor does not have any clothes on. So don't be tricked by con artists who lull you into thinking you must be stupid if you cannot understand a technical journal. If you are not a professional in the field for which the journal was written, just admit to yourself that you may not have the specialized training needed to critically review the paper, and defer to those who do have that skill. That is why you seldom see misinformation based on publications made for the general population because it is easier to bamboozle people with faulty analyses of articles they cannot evaluate.
"This is good advice, but it also means not to exclude data that is contrary to what you believe."

Take your own advice
 

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
Cherry-picked data can be factual, and still imply conclusions that are not supported by other data.

Everything I posted is supported by data.
This is good advice, but it also means not to exclude data that is contrary to what you believe.

No kidding....but people like you didn't do any research regarding the vaccines....you just went out and got it just because someone told you to.
There was nothing for you to research...YOU are the research....there are no long term studies at all, not one. They are failed vaccines.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Everything I posted is supported by data.


No kidding....but people like you didn't do any research regarding the vaccines....
Once again we see the appeal to arrogance. The arrogant believe they are just as good as epidemiologists in critically reading and understanding a technical paper on vaccines. The less arrogant will look to trusted people to explain it to them.


you just went out and got it just because someone told you to.
Yes, those I trust and who are smarter than me about disease told me it would be good get vaccinated.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Once again we see the appeal to arrogance. The arrogant believe they are just as good as epidemiologists in critically reading and understanding a technical paper on vaccines. The less arrogant will look to trusted people to explain it to them.



Yes, those I trust and who are smarter than me about disease told me it would be good get vaccinated.
The vaccine has not been out long enough to make any final judgement about long term harmful benefits. All scientists are not as pure as the wind driven snow.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
Once again we see the appeal to arrogance. The arrogant believe they are just as good as epidemiologists in critically reading and understanding a technical paper on vaccines. The less arrogant will look to trusted people to explain it to them.



Yes, those I trust and who are smarter than me about disease told me it would be good get vaccinated.
'trusted people' like who? The epidemiologists who haven't had a clue this entire pandemic?
The ones who led numerous states to construct expensive field hospitals that were never even used?
The ones that pushed a useless and destructive lockdown of healthy people that has killed countless people, destroyed countless lives, and wrecked countless businesses?
The ones that declared us insane and evil racist conspiracy theorists for suggesting the virus came from a lab in China?

The ones that pushed mask mandates despite the clear evidence that they do not have any appreciable effect?
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
'trusted people' like who? The epidemiologists who haven't had a clue this entire pandemic?
Do you have some better epidemiologists in mind? If so, tell me who they are.


The ones that declared us insane and evil racist conspiracy theorists for suggesting the virus came from a lab in China?
No trusted people ever said that.

The ones that pushed mask mandates despite the clear evidence that they do not have any appreciable effect?
"Assuming the conclusion" fallacy, otherwise known as begging the question.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Do you have some better epidemiologists in mind? If so, tell me who they are.



No trusted people ever said that.


"Assuming the conclusion" fallacy, otherwise known as begging the question.
So you do not object to epidemiologists that you rely on being called clueless.
 
Top