|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 28, 2021 12:55:19 GMT -6
None of that engenders confidence. And THAT is the essence of this whole conversation. Nothing is engendering my confidence at this point. Certainly not the CDC or FDA, and certainly not crazy people on the internet, and CERTAINLY not our politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 13:06:15 GMT -6
 š |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 13:45:04 GMT -6
Iām aware of the 6 week period. Maybe they did that to strengthen the point they were trying to make. The same way people critical of it like to come from an angle that all the adverse event data bases are completely useless. So fair enough, criticize the 6 week period but on the flip side they could say āthis only represents 1-10% of the real adverse events.ā Yes, the databases caution against using them for this kind of study, but then they arenāt provided any additional data to work from. So, what is one supposed to do in that case if they have concerns? I donāt think either side has too firm of ground to stand on right now. For example, how is anyone making a true risk calculation without having enough time for any(potential)long term vaccine adverse effects to be revealed? It would be great if scientist had access to the real numbers to make a case one way or the other but they donāt. Is it possible thatās because there is a massive backlog and havenāt even begun to get through investigating the number of cases? Thatās what Dr. Malone says his colleagues are telling him. You don't cherry pick data to "strengthen the point they were trying to make". Clearly that's what they did. And you support them doing that?!? A legitimate scientific study NEVER does that. Period. A legitimate study identifies what can be proven with the evidence at hand. It does NOT assume that the opposite must be true in the absence of such evidence. That's not how science works, nor does it make any basic logical sense. What you don't do is, in the absence of evidence, just make it up or say "what is one supposed to do?". There is no flip side here. Malone's detractors (real scientists) are simply pointing out what can't be proven with the data at hand and/or pointing out the study is severely flawed because of the obvious cherry picking and mathematical errors. The Malone crowd is the one trying to push theories based on a lack of evidence. These are two completely different things,and not the "tit for tat" you claim it to be. Sometimes, there is no evidence or the evidence is inconclusive, and that's all you're left with, in which case that's what you officially and publicly conclude. Then you go back to the drawing board and look for more evidence. But you don't manipulate data to fit your narrative, especially when you're making an outlandish claim like two people die from the vaccine for every three that are saved. You damn well better have an AIR TIGHT case if you're going to say something like that. It's the height of irresponsibility to put something like this out there when the "study" is so obviously full of holes. The authors and Malone should be embarrassed, but I don't think they will be because it appears that scientific credibility was never high on their list of priorities in the first place. They have a narrative they're trying to sell, for whatever reason, and they're not going to let little things like facts get in their way. Everything you're saying is based on conjecture and hearsay, no actual real evidence. Who is saying 1-10% of "real adverse events"? Based on what? Some video? Basic scientific literacy in this country has gone to hell... They said they chose the dutch study because they felt it had the best reporting standards. If they are full of it, it will play out. I'm just saying if they cherry picked they wouldn't be the only ones doing it(doesn't make it ok and I hope they aren't). My point is that you can't yell at these guys..or me for that matter...for being so irresponsible without recognizing corners have been cut to get the vaccines out. If you accept to way the vaccines were approved then you are accepting shaky science. That is Dr. Malone's gripe. He considers it the height or irresponsibility to have a vaccine campaign like this without true informed consent. How about asymptomatic spread, where's the hard data on that? So much of this has been a shit show so to act like one side of the argument is standing on hallowed scientific ground is a joke. We don't have a problem with scientific literacy, we have a problem with people asking us to continue to accept a crumbling narrative that has been riddled with political and God only knows what other motivations. How anyone still puts complete faith in it, I'll never understand but just yelling "it's science!" at everyone with a differing opinion doesn't cut it anymore...not after 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 28, 2021 13:53:03 GMT -6
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 13:56:29 GMT -6
Iām aware of the 6 week period. Maybe they did that to strengthen the point they were trying to make. The same way people critical of it like to come from an angle that all the adverse event data bases are completely useless. So fair enough, criticize the 6 week period but on the flip side they could say āthis only represents 1-10% of the real adverse events.ā Yes, the databases caution against using them for this kind of study, but then they arenāt provided any additional data to work from. So, what is one supposed to do in that case if they have concerns? I donāt think either side has too firm of ground to stand on right now. For example, how is anyone making a true risk calculation without having enough time for any(potential)long term vaccine adverse effects to be revealed? It would be great if scientist had access to the real numbers to make a case one way or the other but they donāt. Is it possible thatās because there is a massive backlog and havenāt even begun to get through investigating the number of cases? Thatās what Dr. Malone says his colleagues are telling him. In my opinion this just doesn't hold up. A paper which games the numbers to strengthen a point should be called out as being highly suspect, not promoted as reliable scientific findings the way Dr Malone has done. No, they can't just say that it only represents 1-10% of the real events...if they have data to prove that theory, they should use that data. VAERS and other self-reporting data isn't useless when used as intended. It's only useless when taken out of context, which is what these authors have done. If a scientist has concerns, they should do their very best to test their hypothesis in a rigorous and verifiable way. Again, I'm not arguing that there is no cause for concern with new treatments. I'm also not arguing that big pharma and the government are 100% reliable when it comes to this stuff. What I am saying is that these authors are doing a disservice by spreading unfounded theories as scientific evidence. Where there's smoke there's fire...maybe so, but these guys are more like a fog machine. I think Dr. Malone was being provocative. Not saying I agree with that approach at all. It has certainly caused a stir and if these findings get thoroughly debunked over the coming days then they'll have to deal with the repercussions of that. My only point with vaers is that no one on the flip side of the argument can say with proof(at the moment) that none of those deaths or adverse reactions are due to the vaccines. So it's not a winnable argument for either side. Add onto that Dr. Malone's multiple statements about what colleagues at the FDA are telling him about a back log and being overwhelmed and you have all the ingredients for people to be able to look at it and fear the worst. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2021 14:48:40 GMT -6
Another simple but important point worth making:
Though I imagine there is data out there that speaks to this, I have not read in depth about the number of Covid cases estimated to have been prevented by the vaccine in the US. Either way, lets have a little thought experiment.
To be charitable to the opposing argument, and though I expect the percentage is higher, let's say that only 1% of the 150,000,000 vaccinated in the US were actually "saved" from death. So if the 3:2 ratio being pushed by Malone were true, that means that the vaccine has killed 1,000,000 people in the US. 1,000,000 people. Let that sink in.
Let's be even more charitable. Let's say the vaccine only saved 0.1% of 150,000,000. That still means that according to that study's 3:2 ratio, 100,000 have been killed by the vaccine. 100,000. Last time I checked, there aren't anywhere close to that number of reported deaths in VAERS, so what gives? And that's assuming that all of the deaths reported to VAERS are actually due to the vaccine, which so far isn't supported by the evidence we have. Something doesn't add up here. Hmmm...
Now, for those of you reading Dr. Malone's tweets and giving this 3:2 ratio any consideration, stop and think about this for a minute. Because, if you're going to give any credibility to such a claim, you're going to have say out loud that you believe it's even remotely possible that a million or more people in the US have been killed by the vaccine, or that even 100,000 have been killed by the vaccine.
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 28, 2021 14:51:25 GMT -6
So youāre willing to take him at his word about these unnamed colleagues that supposedly tell him the secret things that prove he is right? This man who cites his own work when asked to prove his work? This man who you yourself are calling a provocateur? This man who is, at best, comfortable with blatant imprecision and at worst, with simply lying?
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 28, 2021 14:53:59 GMT -6
In my opinion this just doesn't hold up. A paper which games the numbers to strengthen a point should be called out as being highly suspect, not promoted as reliable scientific findings the way Dr Malone has done. No, they can't just say that it only represents 1-10% of the real events...if they have data to prove that theory, they should use that data. VAERS and other self-reporting data isn't useless when used as intended. It's only useless when taken out of context, which is what these authors have done. If a scientist has concerns, they should do their very best to test their hypothesis in a rigorous and verifiable way. Again, I'm not arguing that there is no cause for concern with new treatments. I'm also not arguing that big pharma and the government are 100% reliable when it comes to this stuff. What I am saying is that these authors are doing a disservice by spreading unfounded theories as scientific evidence. Where there's smoke there's fire...maybe so, but these guys are more like a fog machine. I think Dr. Malone was being provocative. Not saying I agree with that approach at all. It has certainly caused a stir and if these findings get thoroughly debunked over the coming days then they'll have to deal with the repercussions of that. My only point with vaers is that no one on the flip side of the argument can say with proof(at the moment) that none of those deaths or adverse reactions are due to the vaccines. So it's not a winnable argument for either side. Add onto that Dr. Malone's multiple statements about what colleagues at the FDA are telling him about a back log and being overwhelmed and you have all the ingredients for people to be able to look at it and fear the worst. The thing is that no credible scientist/analyst/etc. is saying that none of the VAERS reports are true . Every credible person acknowledges that there are side effects and possibly deaths which might show up in the VAERS data or elsewhere. The purpose of the VAERS system is to give individuals a portal to report occurrences post vaccine, thereby giving safety monitors more information with which they might identify trends. The purpose is not to use this data alone to make a determination about the role of the vaccine in these occurrences. Using this type of self-reporting data as the authors did is extremely misleading. Making a sloppy correlation = causation assertion and backing it with "well, you can't prove it's not true" is not a very effective scientific argument. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 28, 2021 15:04:32 GMT -6
You don't cherry pick data to "strengthen the point they were trying to make". Clearly that's what they did. And you support them doing that?!? A legitimate scientific study NEVER does that. Period. A legitimate study identifies what can be proven with the evidence at hand. It does NOT assume that the opposite must be true in the absence of such evidence. That's not how science works, nor does it make any basic logical sense. What you don't do is, in the absence of evidence, just make it up or say "what is one supposed to do?". There is no flip side here. Malone's detractors (real scientists) are simply pointing out what can't be proven with the data at hand and/or pointing out the study is severely flawed because of the obvious cherry picking and mathematical errors. The Malone crowd is the one trying to push theories based on a lack of evidence. These are two completely different things,and not the "tit for tat" you claim it to be. Sometimes, there is no evidence or the evidence is inconclusive, and that's all you're left with, in which case that's what you officially and publicly conclude. Then you go back to the drawing board and look for more evidence. But you don't manipulate data to fit your narrative, especially when you're making an outlandish claim like two people die from the vaccine for every three that are saved. You damn well better have an AIR TIGHT case if you're going to say something like that. It's the height of irresponsibility to put something like this out there when the "study" is so obviously full of holes. The authors and Malone should be embarrassed, but I don't think they will be because it appears that scientific credibility was never high on their list of priorities in the first place. They have a narrative they're trying to sell, for whatever reason, and they're not going to let little things like facts get in their way. Everything you're saying is based on conjecture and hearsay, no actual real evidence. Who is saying 1-10% of "real adverse events"? Based on what? Some video? Basic scientific literacy in this country has gone to hell... So much of this has been a shit show so to act like one side of the argument is standing on hallowed scientific ground is a joke. You have a point here. The way it has all gone down has been problematic. The thing is, people can't just respond by using a whole mess of bad science to cast doubt on the good. It can't be argued that 'the other side is shady and here's a bunch of shady studies to prove it'. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2021 15:10:44 GMT -6
So much of this has been a shit show so to act like one side of the argument is standing on hallowed scientific ground is a joke.Ā Ā You have a point here.Ā The way it has all gone down has been problematic. The thing is, people can't just respond by using a whole mess of bad science to cast doubt on the good.Ā It can't be argued that 'the other side is shady and here's a bunch of shady studies to prove it'. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2021 15:26:05 GMT -6
You don't cherry pick data to "strengthen the point they were trying to make". Clearly that's what they did. And you support them doing that?!? A legitimate scientific study NEVER does that. Period. A legitimate study identifies what can be proven with the evidence at hand. It does NOT assume that the opposite must be true in the absence of such evidence. That's not how science works, nor does it make any basic logical sense. What you don't do is, in the absence of evidence, just make it up or say "what is one supposed to do?". There is no flip side here. Malone's detractors (real scientists) are simply pointing out what can't be proven with the data at hand and/or pointing out the study is severely flawed because of the obvious cherry picking and mathematical errors. The Malone crowd is the one trying to push theories based on a lack of evidence. These are two completely different things,and not the "tit for tat" you claim it to be. Sometimes, there is no evidence or the evidence is inconclusive, and that's all you're left with, in which case that's what you officially and publicly conclude. Then you go back to the drawing board and look for more evidence. But you don't manipulate data to fit your narrative, especially when you're making an outlandish claim like two people die from the vaccine for every three that are saved. You damn well better have an AIR TIGHT case if you're going to say something like that. It's the height of irresponsibility to put something like this out there when the "study" is so obviously full of holes. The authors and Malone should be embarrassed, but I don't think they will be because it appears that scientific credibility was never high on their list of priorities in the first place. They have a narrative they're trying to sell, for whatever reason, and they're not going to let little things like facts get in their way. Everything you're saying is based on conjecture and hearsay, no actual real evidence. Who is saying 1-10% of "real adverse events"? Based on what? Some video? Basic scientific literacy in this country has gone to hell... They said they chose the dutch study because they felt it had the best reporting standards. Ā If they are full of it, it will play out. Ā I'm just saying if they cherry picked they wouldn't be the only ones doing it(doesn't make it ok and I hope they aren't). Ā My point is that you can't yell at these guys..or me for that matter...for being so irresponsible without recognizing corners have been cut to get the vaccines out. Ā If you accept to way the vaccines were approved then you are accepting shaky science. Ā That is Dr. Malone's gripe. Ā He considers it the height or irresponsibility to have a vaccine campaign like this without true informed consent. Ā How about asymptomatic spread, where's the hard data on that? Ā So much of this has been a shit show so to act like one side of the argument is standing on hallowed scientific ground is a joke. Ā We don't have a problem with scientific literacy, we have a problem with people asking us to continue to accept a crumbling narrative that has been riddled with political and God only knows what other motivations. Ā How anyone still puts complete faith in it, I'll never understand but just yelling "it's science!" at everyone with a differing opinion doesn't cut it anymore...not after 2020. Ā You're equating policy decisions with science. Bad policy is made all the time, regardless of the quality (bad or good) of any underlying science that may have been used to justify it. Though rushed as the approval (this is policy) of the vaccine may have been, at least it went through actual clinical trials (this is science), etc. Until Ivermectin, HCQ, etc has been made to live up to at least that same standard that the vaccine was held to, you're still arguing apples and oranges. You're viewing this thru the lens of vaccine versus Ivermectin/HCQ/etc or good policy versus bad policy when, at least for my part, I'm just trying to argue for good science versus bad science (which bad science isn't really science at all). Though I would disagree with you, if you think it was bad policy to approve the vaccine, fine. If you think bad science went into providing evidence of the vaccine's effectiveness and safety, fine. But don't then allow that to lead you to making the logical fallacy that any kooky theory out there, regardless of it's origin or dirth of evidence, must automatically then be true simply because said kooky theory has aligned itself as the "anti" to the vaccine, or masks, or social distancing or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 15:37:05 GMT -6
Good grief...you guys are posting faster than russian bots over here so I can't reply to all of it š I didn't say "here's some bad science to disprove other bad science." I said some people are quick to accept science that seems to fit their belief system(ignoring flaws) and quick to reject anything that doesn't fit that(amplifying flaws). That is a double standard and it has been woven throughout this thread. Harp on the Malone tweet all you want, but I have shared hours of very high level discussions over the past couple of weeks between scientists and doctors and it ALL gets treated the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2021 15:48:13 GMT -6
I didn't say "here's some bad science to disprove other bad science." Well, yeah, you kind of did. Or at least that's what Malone/Kory/Weinstein are doing, and you seem to be supporting them. Harp on the Malone tweet all you want, but I have shared hours of very high level discussions over the past couple of weeks between scientists and doctors and it ALL gets treated the same. Sharing videos isn't the same as sharing actual research papers, and the one paper you did share, via Malone's tweet, is simply not even close to being scientifically supportable. "Dr. Malone said so" is just not enough. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 28, 2021 15:48:19 GMT -6
Good grief...you guys are posting faster than russian bots over here so I can't reply to all of it š I didn't say "here's some bad science to disprove other bad science." I said some people are quick to accept science that seems to fit their belief system(ignoring flaws) and quick to reject anything that doesn't fit that(amplifying flaws). That is a double standard and it has been woven throughout this thread. Harp on the Malone tweet all you want, but I have shared hours of very high level discussions over the past couple of weeks between scientists and doctors and it ALL gets treated the same. Ha!!! Yeah, lotta comments coming at you : ) I freely admit that I tend to take information that aligns with my beliefs on face value more than I probably should. But there's a difference between that and pointing out the flaws in the arguments against my particular beliefs. I'd be fine to be proven wrong, pretty much always, but I guess I need to see sound evidence. As an aside, the Malone tweet has been removed without explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 16:09:56 GMT -6
Good grief...you guys are posting faster than russian bots over here so I can't reply to all of it š I didn't say "here's some bad science to disprove other bad science." I said some people are quick to accept science that seems to fit their belief system(ignoring flaws) and quick to reject anything that doesn't fit that(amplifying flaws). That is a double standard and it has been woven throughout this thread. Harp on the Malone tweet all you want, but I have shared hours of very high level discussions over the past couple of weeks between scientists and doctors and it ALL gets treated the same. Ha!!!Ā Yeah, lotta comments coming at you : ) I freely admit that I tend to take information that aligns with my beliefs on face value more than I probably should.Ā But there's a difference between that and pointing out the flaws in the arguments against my particular beliefs.Ā I'd be fine to be proven wrong, pretty much always, but I guess I need to see sound evidence. As an aside, the Malone tweet has been removed without explanation. We are all guilty of it for sure so Iām not excluding myself from it. The removal of the tweet is very interesting. I hope he follows up. He has to at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 28, 2021 16:10:32 GMT -6
I didn't say "here's some bad science to disprove other bad science." Well, yeah, you kind of are. Or at least that's what Malone/Kory/Weinstein are doing, and you seem to be supporting them. Harp on the Malone tweet all you want, but I have shared hours of very high level discussions over the past couple of weeks between scientists and doctors and it ALL gets treated the same. Sharing videos isn't the same as sharing actual research papers, and the one paper you did share, via Malone's tweet, is simply not even close to being scientifically supportable. "Dr. Malone said so" is just not enough. You're being a little harsh, no? All Seawell has really said is that he wants to hear out these doctors and scientist with alternative views. If you donāt like that, fine, but heās not exactly āspreading the faithā as it were. Heās posted more than once that itāll be interesting to see if/how/when Kory/Malone et al get debunked. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 16:15:21 GMT -6
I didn't say "here's some bad science to disprove other bad science." Well, yeah, you kind of did. Or at least that's what Malone/Kory/Weinstein are doing, and you seem to be supporting them. Harp on the Malone tweet all you want, but I have shared hours of very high level discussions over the past couple of weeks between scientists and doctors and it ALL gets treated the same. Sharing videos isn't the same as sharing actual research papers, and the one paper you did share, via Malone's tweet, is simply not even close to being scientifically supportable. "Dr. Malone said so" is just not enough. Iām supporting their right to do so based on their accomplishments. If they are proven to be wrong through this then weāll be better off for knowing that as well. I think itās a good time to restate what Iāve said a couple of times beforeā¦sharing interesting information doesnāt equal endorsement. I am genuinely curious and am openly processing what is going on here. If your mind is thoroughly made up then I will probably continue to piss you off but it isnāt my intention. āš» |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 28, 2021 16:15:29 GMT -6
Hey guys, food for thought here: PCR tests are garbage, filled with false positives (and sometimes false negatives)ā¦so what do we really know about anything? We can draw some conclusions about people that were/are acutely symptomatic (even though thats a problematic number as well). But without knowing how many people were infected almost every study, survey, poll etc is skewed in one direction or another. COVID has literally the worst diagnostic criteria ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 16:19:45 GMT -6
Hey guys, food for thought here: PCR tests are garbage, filled with false positives (and sometimes false negatives)ā¦so what do we really know about anything? We can draw some conclusions about people that were/are acutely symptomatic (even though thats a problematic number as well). But without knowing how many people were infected almost every study, survey, poll etc is skewed in one direction or another. COVID has literally the worst diagnostic criteria ever. Iām going to start sending you my posts and let you edit them first. You say what Iām trying to sayā¦so much better š |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2021 16:28:45 GMT -6
Well, yeah, you kind of are. Or at least that's what Malone/Kory/Weinstein are doing, and you seem to be supporting them. Sharing videos isn't the same as sharing actual research papers, and the one paper you did share, via Malone's tweet, is simply not even close to being scientifically supportable. "Dr. Malone said so" is just not enough. You're being a little harsh, no? All Seawell has really said is that he wants to hear out these doctors and scientist with alternative views. If you donāt like that, fine, but heās not exactly āspreading the faithā as it were. Heās posted more than once that itāll be interesting to see if/how/when Kory/Malone et al get debunked. I don't believe it to be harsh to point this stuff out when the consequences of people spreading misinformation lead to real world problems that affect us all. The internet has turned this into a real mess. I'm not angry with Seawell, but I am frustrated with the current level of scientific literacy that I see expressed by people everywhere. We should expect better. The world is, in fact, not flat. This particular "study" that Malone is promoting, is just something that I can't get on board with, so it particularly got me riled up. But no malice is meant here. So, I'll apologize if I ruffled any feathers. Where's the peace sign emoji?  |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 18:26:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2021 20:40:23 GMT -6
So just to follow up a bit, the journal has now issued an expression of concern. Says they have reached out to the authors of the study with the concerns and will report back after their investigation. Good! If they can defend it, then let them, if they can't, then let the chips fall where they may. www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705 |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jul 2, 2021 17:51:22 GMT -6
Looks like the paper has now been retracted. Good.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jul 2, 2021 18:41:35 GMT -6
Itās nice to see the system worked. Maybe all the censorship is unnecessary then?
In other words, Twitter didnāt take this link down so weāre able to see it was challenged and debunked. If you just nuke it on Twitter or YouTube, then it can live on much longer because that often raises more questions than answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jul 2, 2021 20:44:21 GMT -6
Itās nice to see the system worked. Maybe all the censorship is unnecessary then? In other words, Twitter didnāt take this link down so weāre able to see it was challenged and debunked. If you just nuke it on Twitter or YouTube, then it can live on much longer because that often raises more questions than answers. Well it took two editors resigning and a bunch of outcry from the scientific community at large to get a paper pulled that never should have been published in the first place, so I don't know if I would say it "worked", but I hear what you're saying. |
|
