|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 14:20:17 GMT -6
Inconclusion is not the same thing as conclusion. So, you are open to the thought that some of the vaers reported deaths may be accurately attributed to the vaccines? I never said I wasn't. I'm open to whatever the data says, whenever it is that we actually get it but, until then, we don't know. That's the definition of inconclusion. Conversely, you don't know that any of the deaths ARE attributable to the vaccine so, until proven otherwise, continuing to speak (or spread misinformed videos) as if they are is fear mongering and conspiracy theorist. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 14:22:24 GMT -6
You can call them whatever you want. That's beside the point. Let's call them supporters of unfounded VAERS claims if that's more to your liking. To me, conspiracy theory is 5G or spoons sticking to people. I have not and will not share any of that. Now, if you're talking about Weinstein in particular, he's an evolutionary biologist and someone that I enjoyed listening to pre-covid. He's a brilliant guy actually and for the record he's a liberal. Thinking back, I shared a conversation with him, Dr. Malone and someone else I can't remember at the moment who was a little off the rails but in the context of those 3 gentlemen having a discussion, I felt they corrected him when needed. Another one was Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory. People with a different take than yours on covid for sure but people with the credentials to at least not be reduced to being called a conspiracy theorist I'd think. As far as RGO goes, I don't get the impression that there are young, vulnerable readers here but maybe I'm wrong. That's what I meant by us discussing vaers here isn't carrying the same responsibility as the platform of a politician. Of course on any level no one should intentionally spread false information but I don't see anyone here doing that. Weinstein, a liberal who I openly criticize, has been instrumental in spreading the conspiracy theory that the world's doctors and health officials have been 'captured' by big pharma and that they are intentionally suppressing the cheap and 100% effective prophylactic drug ivermectin. He's been instrumental in spreading Malone's false narratives about the dangers of vaccines. Part of what makes conspiracy theorists so compelling is they often have credentials of some sort. To be clear, my feeling is that the conspiracy theory aspect of Weinstein et al is their belief that ivermectin is being suppressed by the world's doctors and officials because they are 'captured'. The ivermectin data is proving to be full of holes but I don't think the investigation of its usefulness is a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 14:30:17 GMT -6
To me, conspiracy theory is 5G or spoons sticking to people. I have not and will not share any of that. Now, if you're talking about Weinstein in particular, he's an evolutionary biologist and someone that I enjoyed listening to pre-covid. He's a brilliant guy actually and for the record he's a liberal. Thinking back, I shared a conversation with him, Dr. Malone and someone else I can't remember at the moment who was a little off the rails but in the context of those 3 gentlemen having a discussion, I felt they corrected him when needed. Another one was Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory. People with a different take than yours on covid for sure but people with the credentials to at least not be reduced to being called a conspiracy theorist I'd think. As far as RGO goes, I don't get the impression that there are young, vulnerable readers here but maybe I'm wrong. That's what I meant by us discussing vaers here isn't carrying the same responsibility as the platform of a politician. Of course on any level no one should intentionally spread false information but I don't see anyone here doing that. Weinstein, a liberal who I openly criticize, has been instrumental in spreading the conspiracy theory that the world's doctors and health officials have been 'captured' by big pharma and that they are intentionally suppressing the cheap and 100% effective prophylactic drug ivermectin. He's been instrumental in spreading Malone's false narratives about the dangers of vaccines. I don't think it's the wildest theory to think some of the covid decisions have been politically motivated and may be a result of capture on some level. Case in point: nypost.com/2021/05/01/teachers-union-collaborated-with-cdc-on-school-reopening-emails/ |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 14:41:24 GMT -6
So, you are open to the thought that some of the vaers reported deaths may be accurately attributed to the vaccines? I never said I wasn't. I'm open to whatever the data says, whenever it is that we actually get it but, until then, we don't know. That's the definition of inconclusion. Conversely, you don't know that any of the deaths ARE attributable to the vaccine so, until proven otherwise, continuing to speak (or spread misinformed videos) as if they are is fear mongering and conspiracy theorist. Until we know for sure it is going to continue to be a point of interest for people, I just don't see any way around that. I actually agree with you that if it's going to continue to exist in its current form then it is probably doing more harm than good. Maybe there is some legal reason they have to post it publicly? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 14:46:38 GMT -6
Weinstein, a liberal who I openly criticize, has been instrumental in spreading the conspiracy theory that the world's doctors and health officials have been 'captured' by big pharma and that they are intentionally suppressing the cheap and 100% effective prophylactic drug ivermectin. He's been instrumental in spreading Malone's false narratives about the dangers of vaccines. I don't think it's the wildest theory to think some of the covid decisions have been politically motivated and may be a result of capture on some level. Case in point: nypost.com/2021/05/01/teachers-union-collaborated-with-cdc-on-school-reopening-emails/C'mon man. This isn't 'capture'. It seems like you're leaning in to whatever narrative supports your beliefs. On one hand, the government is verging on authoritarianism because they enact guidelines without taking those affected into account. On the other hand, the government is being shady because they consult with the organizations who are directly affected by guidelines. If they hadn't consulted with various school organizations, the Post headline would be 'CDC Enacts School Guidelines Without Consulting Teachers' and *some would be sharing that as an example of authoritarianism. *sorry, realized I shouldn't put words in your mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 14:48:35 GMT -6
I never said I wasn't. I'm open to whatever the data says, whenever it is that we actually get it but, until then, we don't know. That's the definition of inconclusion. Conversely, you don't know that any of the deaths ARE attributable to the vaccine so, until proven otherwise, continuing to speak (or spread misinformed videos) as if they are is fear mongering and conspiracy theorist. Until we know for sure it is going to continue to be a point of interest for people, I just don't see any way around that. I actually agree with you that if it's going to continue to exist in its current form then it is probably doing more harm than good. Maybe there is some legal reason they have to post it publicly? I don't know. There may or may not be "any way around it", but that still doesn't mean you have to help them. Reducing the spread of misinformation starts with each person taking responsibility for what they post. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 14:52:17 GMT -6
C'mon man. This isn't 'capture'. It seems like you're leaning in to whatever narrative supports your beliefs. On one hand, the government is verging on authoritarianism because they enact guidelines without taking those affected into account. On the other hand, the government is being shady because they consult with the organizations who are directly affected by guidelines. If they hadn't consulted with various school organizations, the Post headline would be 'CDC Enacts School Guidelines Without Consulting Teachers' and *some would be sharing that as an example of authoritarianism. *sorry, realized I shouldn't put words in your mouth. Shouldn't CDC guidance be based solely on scientific data though and not have a union of any sort influencing their language? That seems like a slippery slope to me. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 15:02:50 GMT -6
C'mon man. This isn't 'capture'. It seems like you're leaning in to whatever narrative supports your beliefs. On one hand, the government is verging on authoritarianism because they enact guidelines without taking those affected into account. On the other hand, the government is being shady because they consult with the organizations who are directly affected by guidelines. If they hadn't consulted with various school organizations, the Post headline would be 'CDC Enacts School Guidelines Without Consulting Teachers' and *some would be sharing that as an example of authoritarianism. *sorry, realized I shouldn't put words in your mouth. Shouldn't CDC guidance be based solely on scientific data though and not have a union of any sort influencing their language? That seems like a slippery slope to me. No, I don't think that. I think regulatory bodies should absolutely consult with the groups they regulate whenever possible. I'm really stumped but I want to be clear...are you saying that you think they shouldn't? You're ok with the CDC enacting guidelines without consulting with the groups that are subject to those guidelines? I realize it's a slippery slope, but every single public policy ever written is a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 15:07:41 GMT -6
Shouldn't CDC guidance be based solely on scientific data though and not have a union of any sort influencing their language? That seems like a slippery slope to me. No, I don't think that. I think regulatory bodies should absolutely consult with the groups they regulate whenever possible. I'm really stumped but I want to be clear...are you saying that you think they shouldn't? You're ok with the CDC enacting guidelines without consulting with the groups that are subject to those guidelines? I realize it's a slippery slope, but every single public policy ever written is a slippery slope. Just be to clear, basically proof reading and altering the language is what's creepy to me. That seems like more than consulting to me. If the CDC was going to give the teacher's union this much input then they should have given the same courtesy to parents of students. The overall point being, if someone is concerned about financial or political influences during covid, I don't consider that a conspiracy theory, that actually seems fairly obvious to me. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 15:23:00 GMT -6
No, I don't think that. I think regulatory bodies should absolutely consult with the groups they regulate whenever possible. I'm really stumped but I want to be clear...are you saying that you think they shouldn't? You're ok with the CDC enacting guidelines without consulting with the groups that are subject to those guidelines? I realize it's a slippery slope, but every single public policy ever written is a slippery slope. Just be to clear, basically proof reading and altering the language is what's creepy to me. That seems like more than consulting to me. If the CDC was going to give the teacher's union this much input then they should have given the same courtesy to parents of students. I just don't see it that way. The union requested that the CDC include a couple of teacher-specific provisions. Totally reasonable. “In the event of high community-transmission results from a new variant of SARS-CoV-2, a new update of these guidelines may be necessary.” and "special remote work concessions for teachers “who have documented high-risk conditions or who are at increased risk for … COVID-19,” and that similar arrangements should extend to “staff who have a household member” with similar risks." I'm not sure how the CDC would consult with parents and I'm not sure why they would in this case. Are you thinking that parents wouldn't want the CDC to include a provision that guidelines might be updated if the situation changes? In my opinion this is not even smoke, let alone fire. But it is a good example of the way clickbait media sensationalizes rational and mundane things. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 15:24:45 GMT -6
Until we know for sure it is going to continue to be a point of interest for people, I just don't see any way around that. I actually agree with you that if it's going to continue to exist in its current form then it is probably doing more harm than good. Maybe there is some legal reason they have to post it publicly? I don't know. There may or may not be "any way around it", but that still doesn't mean you have to help them. Reducing the spread of misinformation starts with each person taking responsibility for what they post. I get it, you've decided who you think I am or what I'm about. Fine, but I think if you look back you'll see you're adding an awful lot to what I'm actually doing or saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 15, 2021 15:35:50 GMT -6
So, I just reread Seawells last VAERs comment about it havring short comings but unfortunately being the only source of data we have on vax injuries…and I’m failing to see why people are attacking him for saying something so reasonable?
He’s being accused of being a far right winger, stoking the flames of fear, spreading conspiracy theories, and for essentially projecting his biases into these issues…which is funny because it seems like everyone is projecting their biases on him.
Don’t get me wrong, EVERYONE projects their biases on these issues, because that what biases are/do, but maybe everyone could at least give him the benefit of the doubt with his comments? Idk, this is starting to feel less like a discussion and more like a bunch of finger pointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 15:48:48 GMT -6
There may or may not be "any way around it", but that still doesn't mean you have to help them. Reducing the spread of misinformation starts with each person taking responsibility for what they post. I get it, you've decided who you think I am or what I'm about. Fine, but I think if you look back you'll see you're adding an awful lot to what I'm actually doing or saying. To be clear, I don't think you or anybody in this thread, regardless of their views, is a bad person. But misinformation on Covid is having real-world impacts on us all, so I also don't think people in this thread such as Ehren, or Benny, or Matt, or myself, or whomever should feel bad for pointing that out. ✌️ |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 15:52:32 GMT -6
So, I just reread Seawells last VAERs comment about it havring short comings but unfortunately being the only source of data we have on vax injuries…and I’m failing to see why people are attacking him for saying something so reasonable? He’s being accused of being a far right winger, stoking the flames of fear, spreading conspiracy theories, and for essentially projecting his biases into these issues…which is funny because it seems like everyone is projecting their biases on him. Don’t get me wrong, EVERYONE projects their biases on these issues, because that what biases are/do, but maybe everyone could at least give him the benefit of the doubt with his comments? Idk, this is starting to feel less like a discussion and more like a bunch of finger pointing. Not sure if you're including me here, but since I've done a lot of talking I'll say this: Josh seems like a good guy. I get the sense that he's genuinely interested in a healthy debate and that he's aiming to land somewhere in the middle. I don't think he's a right wing nut. I do think he's posted sources ranging from very questionable to full on conspiracy theory, with the caveat that 'I don't necessarily believe all of it but I find it interesting'. I guess I feel compelled to say something about that stuff. Either way, he's respectful in his comments, as are you, and it's not my intention to paint any sort of picture of anyone...only to offer a reflection of how some comments sound. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Sept 15, 2021 16:06:00 GMT -6
Yeah, I don't think Josh is a right wing nut either. I DO get the impression that his news diet leans right, though, and that while he's making a genuine good-faith effort to stay center (which, frankly, comrades, is more than i can say for myself 🤣 ☭), his views on *this particular subject* reflect a bias he doesn't seem to know he has.
And now i feel weird about talking about Josh in the third person like this, so I will say, hello, josh! I appreciate you and your input, regardless of how much i disagree!
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 16:31:29 GMT -6
Sweet. You guys seem like a good bunch. Now, can we get back to the question at hand: Why is DrBill a *right wing nut?
*DrBill isn't a right wing nut.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 17:46:39 GMT -6
Tbone81 , I really appreciate that man, means a lot! On that note though, I think my time here in this thread has run its course. It has become too much of a time suck(nobody's fault but my own). So, I am hereby canceling myself🤣 Be good to one another ✌🏼 
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 15, 2021 18:29:30 GMT -6
Sweet. You guys seem like a good bunch. Now, can we get back to the question at hand: Why is DrBill a right wing nut? Really? No worries, I've been called way worse than that. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 18:35:09 GMT -6
Sweet. You guys seem like a good bunch. Now, can we get back to the question at hand: Why is DrBill a right wing nut? Really? No worries, I've been called way worse than that. Joking!!! I thought for sure that would be clear but I apologize if not. I don't think that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Sept 15, 2021 19:02:00 GMT -6
Sweet. You guys seem like a good bunch. Now, can we get back to the question at hand: Why is DrBill a right wing nut? Oh no doubt about it, the man is outta his gourd!!! 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by narxist on Sept 16, 2021 1:33:49 GMT -6
So, I just reread Seawells last VAERs comment about it havring short comings but unfortunately being the only source of data we have on vax injuries…and I’m failing to see why people are attacking him for saying something so reasonable? Because VAERs is not a source of data on "vax injuries" at all.
It is a reporting system. That's what the RS at the end stands for. The data we have access to is a database of reports. Not a database of vaccine related injuries.
Imagine a fictional data set called HAERS. It includes a report about every single person who got hurt, sick, or died within 7 days of having gotten a haircut over the past year. It includes many instances of people dying after having gotten a haircut, and some tiny number of them probably actually died from an allergic reaction to something they were exposed to at the barber. But the vast majority of the reported deaths were caused by something completely unrelated to the haircut. The total number of reports tells you absolutely nothing at all about how dangerous it is to get your hair cut. There might be 30,000 reports where someone died but only 5 that were actually caused by a Barbasol allergy or something.
Now change the H to a V.
We have absolutely no idea how many of the reports in that data set have anything whatsoever to do with Vaccines. Talking about it as though we did is participating in a disinformation campaign that is contributing to millions of people making decisions that are leading to unnecessary death and prolonging all of our lives being turned upside down by this pandemic.
|
|
|
|
Post by narxist on Sept 16, 2021 9:02:26 GMT -6
Perhaps this is a clearer way of explaining why the raw VAERS data should not be interpreted to be informative about vaccine safety.
So, some quick back of the napkin math:
850/52 = 16
So, it is within the range of normal for 16 out of every 100,000 people in the US to die every week.
16/100,000 = 0.00016
It is normal for 0.016% of Americans to die every week.
382,000,000*0.00016 = 61,120
So, if 382,000,000 of literally any event occur, we should expect approximately 60,000 people to die within a week of that event. It doesn't matter whether that event is a vaccine, a handshake, or an especially spicy episode of Dancing with the stars. The correlation in time between the two events does not tell us anything about whether one caused the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 16, 2021 11:06:22 GMT -6
So, I just reread Seawells last VAERs comment about it havring short comings but unfortunately being the only source of data we have on vax injuries…and I’m failing to see why people are attacking him for saying something so reasonable? Because VAERs is not a source of data on "vax injuries" at all.
It is a reporting system. That's what the RS at the end stands for. The data we have access to is a database of reports. Not a database of vaccine related injuries.
Imagine a fictional data set called HAERS. It includes a report about every single person who got hurt, sick, or died within 7 days of having gotten a haircut over the past year. It includes many instances of people dying after having gotten a haircut, and some tiny number of them probably actually died from an allergic reaction to something they were exposed to at the barber. But the vast majority of the reported deaths were caused by something completely unrelated to the haircut. The total number of reports tells you absolutely nothing at all about how dangerous it is to get your hair cut. There might be 30,000 reports where someone died but only 5 that were actually caused by a Barbasol allergy or something.
Now change the H to a V.
We have absolutely no idea how many of the reports in that data set have anything whatsoever to do with Vaccines. Talking about it as though we did is participating in a disinformation campaign that is contributing to millions of people making decisions that are leading to unnecessary death and prolonging all of our lives being turned upside down by this pandemic.
This is so funny, everyone playing linguistic gymnastics to justify attacking a pretty benign comment. No where in that comment did seawell say that the data in VAERs was all accurate or that they all represented legitimate vax injuries. Only that it’s the only source of data we have on it. You can nit pick over the language all you want but everyone is projecting their own biases here. If VAERs is a source of raw data, and if in that data is information about vax injuries, and if there’s no other data base that contains vax injuries, THEN (wait for it)…VAERs is the only source of data we have on vax injuries. It’s logic. Anything else anyone is inferring is just that…a projection of something that wasn’t said. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 16, 2021 11:58:29 GMT -6
Because VAERs is not a source of data on "vax injuries" at all.
It is a reporting system. That's what the RS at the end stands for. The data we have access to is a database of reports. Not a database of vaccine related injuries.
Imagine a fictional data set called HAERS. It includes a report about every single person who got hurt, sick, or died within 7 days of having gotten a haircut over the past year. It includes many instances of people dying after having gotten a haircut, and some tiny number of them probably actually died from an allergic reaction to something they were exposed to at the barber. But the vast majority of the reported deaths were caused by something completely unrelated to the haircut. The total number of reports tells you absolutely nothing at all about how dangerous it is to get your hair cut. There might be 30,000 reports where someone died but only 5 that were actually caused by a Barbasol allergy or something.
Now change the H to a V.
We have absolutely no idea how many of the reports in that data set have anything whatsoever to do with Vaccines. Talking about it as though we did is participating in a disinformation campaign that is contributing to millions of people making decisions that are leading to unnecessary death and prolonging all of our lives being turned upside down by this pandemic.
This is so funny, everyone playing linguistic gymnastics to justify attacking a pretty benign comment. No where in that comment did seawell say that the data in VAERs was all accurate or that they all represented legitimate vax injuries. Only that it’s the only source of data we have on it. You can nit pick over the language all you want but everyone is projecting their own biases here. If VAERs is a source of raw data, and if in that data is information about vax injuries, and if there’s no other data base that contains vax injuries, THEN (wait for it)…VAERs is the only source of data we have on vax injuries. It’s logic. Anything else anyone is inferring is just that…a projection of something that wasn’t said. Well...VAERS came up again when Bill (who I think is smart and nice) used it to calculate the risk of covid vs vaccine. Josh's comment made it sound like he was justifying the use of VAERS for this purpose. Maybe he wasn't after all, but that's why these comments are being made. |
|
|
|
Post by narxist on Sept 16, 2021 12:04:12 GMT -6
Linguistic gymnastics? Really? 
Stay safe out there.
|
|
