{myadvertisements[zone_1]}
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Those who received the jab will seek revenge
#1
No kidding. I haven't been harmed and will just keep my garden and do some fishing & hunting while this plays out over the next three years. I did my part to warn as many as possible, except for you dumb jerks, sorry.

https://usawatchdog.com/vax-die-off-for-...h-1-22-22/
Expand gardens now to avoid the Holodomor
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#2
Now, to start off seven, both my wife and I did not get any shot, so my beef is not with the overall wisdom as to whether or not one should get the shot.

That having been said, I started to read your link, and I was taken aback by the claim: (not my interpretation, but rather a direct quote from the article)
Quote:The CDC is now reporting a 40% increase in death totals for 2021.

This claim, if true, is alarming to say the least. This is a statistic of particular interest to me, as I was calming my wife by assuring that if there was any great negative event to occur due to reactions to the shot, the death rate will tell the entire story. There is simply no way to hide the truth here.

As a bit of a background, she was a bit panicky and was expecting a massive die-off, whereas I am simply unconvinced of the safety of the shot, and am of the opinion that if 1% of those who received the shot died, then that would be a massively bad medical event. We differ on the degree of the expected negative outcomes, as she was concerned about  (not necessarily expecting) a massively larger death rate.

Again, I think that blindly getting the shot at this point is, in general, a bad idea without real long-term study of its effects.

Now that I got that out of the way, I will return to the quote.

It turns out, that the statement is a (deliberate or otherwise) misstatement of the truth, apparently. If you examine the following link: https://yukonfreedom.com/40-rise-nationw...data-show/, you will see (right there in the title as well) (emphasis mine)
Quote:Death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show excess deaths increased by more than 40% among Americans 18 to 49 years old during a 12-month period ending in October of 2021, and that COVID caused only about 42% of those deaths.

"Excess deaths" is a totally different thing than "deaths" - it is a change in a change.

For example, if you normally expect 1,000,000 people to die in a given time period, and at the end of the period, you see that 1,000,100 people die, then you have 100 excess deaths, that is, 100 more people died than you expected to die.

At the end of the next time period, let's say that you also expected 1,000,000 people to die (it usually increases due to increasing or aging population, but let's just keep it simple for this example). At the end of the time period, you see that 1,000,140 people die, or 140 excess deaths.

Strictly speaking, this is an increase of 40% of excess deaths (40 / 100), but a 0.004% increase in deaths (40 / 1,000,100). It makes for a good headline, but hardly a significant increase.

I have read a ton of technical papers in my life. And I have one hard and fast rule - if any paper makes a claim that is either ridiculously wrong, or technically correct, but stated in a way that makes it look like a different thing, then the paper gets tossed. This particular "mistake" is particularly grievous. 

This particular increase may or may not be serious, or even statistically significant. But to state it as he stated it is somewhere between sloppy to downright misleading.

I believe that there will be some very serious consequences to widescale immunization of an insufficiently tested medical treatment. But claims like this are not the way to go.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#3
Extravagant headlines receive the clicks. Rush rush rush, we will to battle.

Doesn't matter much of the actual numbers, its perception caused by the facts of the event. Even if more people are saved (in keeping good health or by death) by those who suffer the injection, those who suffer will magnify their experiences.

My opinion based on constantly reading those who are on the front line is, its far worse than the government or pharma-freak show is reporting. I really shouldn't care but I want to keep abreast of what is now occurring.

Here is the latest Malone report: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/human-...uDjEtv0bHo

I doubt any of the volunteers will be living a long healthy lifestyle.
Expand gardens now to avoid the Holodomor
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#4
(01-23-2022, 04:19 PM)brunt Wrote: Now, to start off seven, both my wife and I did not get any shot, so my beef is not with the overall wisdom as to whether or not one should get the shot.

That having been said, I started to read your link, and I was taken aback by the claim: (not my interpretation, but rather a direct quote from the article)
Quote:The CDC is now reporting a 40% increase in death totals for 2021.

This claim, if true, is alarming to say the least. This is a statistic of particular interest to me, as I was calming my wife by assuring that if there was any great negative event to occur due to reactions to the shot, the death rate will tell the entire story. There is simply no way to hide the truth here.

As a bit of a background, she was a bit panicky and was expecting a massive die-off, whereas I am simply unconvinced of the safety of the shot, and am of the opinion that if 1% of those who received the shot died, then that would be a massively bad medical event. We differ on the degree of the expected negative outcomes, as she was concerned about  (not necessarily expecting) a massively larger death rate.

Again, I think that blindly getting the shot at this point is, in general, a bad idea without real long-term study of its effects.

Now that I got that out of the way, I will return to the quote.

It turns out, that the statement is a (deliberate or otherwise) misstatement of the truth, apparently. If you examine the following link: https://yukonfreedom.com/40-rise-nationw...data-show/, you will see (right there in the title as well) (emphasis mine)
Quote:Death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show excess deaths increased by more than 40% among Americans 18 to 49 years old during a 12-month period ending in October of 2021, and that COVID caused only about 42% of those deaths.

"Excess deaths" is a totally different thing than "deaths" - it is a change in a change.

For example, if you normally expect 1,000,000 people to die in a given time period, and at the end of the period, you see that 1,000,100 people die, then you have 100 excess deaths, that is, 100 more people died than you expected to die.

At the end of the next time period, let's say that you also expected 1,000,000 people to die (it usually increases due to increasing or aging population, but let's just keep it simple for this example). At the end of the time period, you see that 1,000,140 people die, or 140 excess deaths.

Strictly speaking, this is an increase of 40% of excess deaths (40 / 100), but a 0.004% increase in deaths (40 / 1,000,100). It makes for a good headline, but hardly a significant increase.

I have read a ton of technical papers in my life. And I have one hard and fast rule - if any paper makes a claim that is either ridiculously wrong, or technically correct, but stated in a way that makes it look like a different thing, then the paper gets tossed. This particular "mistake" is particularly grievous. 

This particular increase may or may not be serious, or even statistically significant. But to state it as he stated it is somewhere between sloppy to downright misleading.

I believe that there will be some very serious consequences to widescale immunization of an insufficiently tested medical treatment. But claims like this are not the way to go.

My experience of media mirrors this:

Wet Streets Cause Rain: Michael Crichton on the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effe – Calhoun Press
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}