This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
This is attacking the messenger... a common distraction technique. I'm not playing that game. Address the facts, please.
Let's start by looking for a point on which we can agree. I think we can both agree that the CDC would like to see as many people vaccinated and boosted as possible, right?
I think that we could also agree that millions of people aren't getting vaccinated because they believe that the vaccine might cause damage. (In fact, we have 100+ million who haven't gotten boosted.)
The CDC would like to see all those people get vaccinated and/or boosted, right? They've said that over and over.
We also can probably agree that millions of people aren't getting vaccinated because they believe vaccine damage exists.
The CDC knows this, right?
Well, by failing to present data to specifically address and refute these concerns about vaccine damage, the CDC is complicit in these people refusing to get vaccinated! Read that again. The. CDC. is. complicit. in people refusing to get vaccinated.
Only half of double vaccinated have gotten boosted. WHY? Some are lazy, some think they're protected, but some people aren't getting boosted because they no longer trust the CDC. The CDC could fix that by presenting specific and overwhelming data that vaccine damage doesn't exist. The CDC could commission studies to address each of these vaccine damage concerns and then report real data to the media. They could gather data on newly diagnosed cases of, for example, heart disease by week by vaccination status. They could do it at the HMO level or the hospital level. They could work with the BLS and to get data on the specific reasons for new disability claims AND gather that data by vaccination status and time since vaccination. The data and coding is mostly already there.
Why hasn't the CDC done that?
If this data were presented transparently, it could sway a few million people to get boosted and save maybe a few thousand lives... so why aren't they doing it?
I'm a big fan of robust and compelling data, but I'm unconvinced that it would sway opinions much. People are adept at finding rationalizations for their preconceptions.
two very specific windows that perfectly correlate mass vaccination with huge rises in disability claims
The dude crying about selecting the correct month for line fit then goes and says this.
Clearly you are holding my work to a much higher standard than yours. Pretty classic for someone "assuming the hypothesis" of 'vax bad' and trying to find something to prove it.
It's hard to argue with a hypothesis like yours when it's virtually unfalsifiable.
It's not clear to me that Harambe's hypothesis isn't statistically testable via some sort of multiple regression model.
What is clear is that 2021 is highly anomalous, it's not because of the vaccine, and using it as a baseline without considering confounding factors is silly.
We can handwave away the massive decrease in disability claims during 2020 that are totally out of trend, use this unexplained low point as the new baseline, and then pretend that noise = 'perfect correlation' with two vaccine rollouts. There you go, checkmate.
Are you even aware of who, Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chielf Scientist of Pfizer, is and what he's said about the depopulation shots? And since Leftists love for "fact checkers" to do gatekeep their thinking:
But, if you really were a US heart surgeon supporting the boosts, dox yourself here now, so you be prosecuted for gross negligence in the near future.
The large scale trials were started over two years ago. So a lotta people should start dropping dead within 6 months and then an absurd number in the 6 months after that. I’ll wait patiently.
This is worse than the 'wait 2 weeks' that these guys were laughing about 2 years ago. Soon it'll be '3 years!!' then '5 years!!' then 'The CDC is changing the definition of a year to hide vaccine deaths!!'
You appear to be directly accusing the CDC of actively covering up vaccine damage. Am I reading this correctly?
If so, that's a pretty extraordinary claim.
This is attacking the messenger... a common distraction technique. I'm not playing that game. Address the facts, please.
Let's start by looking for a point on which we can agree. I think we can both agree that the CDC would like to see as many people vaccinated and boosted as possible, right?
I think that we could also agree that millions of people aren't getting vaccinated because they believe that the vaccine might cause damage. (In fact, we have 100+ million who haven't gotten boosted.)
The CDC would like to see all those people get vaccinated and/or boosted, right? They've said that over and over.
We also can probably agree that millions of people aren't getting vaccinated because they believe vaccine damage exists.
The CDC knows this, right?
Well, by failing to present data to specifically address and refute these concerns about vaccine damage, the CDC is complicit in these people refusing to get vaccinated! Read that again. The. CDC. is. complicit. in people refusing to get vaccinated.
Only half of double vaccinated have gotten boosted. WHY? Some are lazy, some think they're protected, but some people aren't getting boosted because they no longer trust the CDC. The CDC could fix that by presenting specific and overwhelming data that vaccine damage doesn't exist. The CDC could commission studies to address each of these vaccine damage concerns and then report real data to the media. They could gather data on newly diagnosed cases of, for example, heart disease by week by vaccination status. They could do it at the HMO level or the hospital level. They could work with the BLS and to get data on the specific reasons for new disability claims AND gather that data by vaccination status and time since vaccination. The data and coding is mostly already there.
Why hasn't the CDC done that?
If this data were presented transparently, it could sway a few million people to get boosted and save maybe a few thousand lives... so why aren't they doing it?
They probably are gathering data to address the rise in claims. When they come out and say it's because of COVID in a few months/a year, will you listen?
This is attacking the messenger... a common distraction technique. I'm not playing that game. Address the facts, please.
Let's start by looking for a point on which we can agree. I think we can both agree that the CDC would like to see as many people vaccinated and boosted as possible, right?
I think that we could also agree that millions of people aren't getting vaccinated because they believe that the vaccine might cause damage. (In fact, we have 100+ million who haven't gotten boosted.)
The CDC would like to see all those people get vaccinated and/or boosted, right? They've said that over and over.
We also can probably agree that millions of people aren't getting vaccinated because they believe vaccine damage exists.
The CDC knows this, right?
Well, by failing to present data to specifically address and refute these concerns about vaccine damage, the CDC is complicit in these people refusing to get vaccinated! Read that again. The. CDC. is. complicit. in people refusing to get vaccinated.
Only half of double vaccinated have gotten boosted. WHY? Some are lazy, some think they're protected, but some people aren't getting boosted because they no longer trust the CDC. The CDC could fix that by presenting specific and overwhelming data that vaccine damage doesn't exist. The CDC could commission studies to address each of these vaccine damage concerns and then report real data to the media. They could gather data on newly diagnosed cases of, for example, heart disease by week by vaccination status. They could do it at the HMO level or the hospital level. They could work with the BLS and to get data on the specific reasons for new disability claims AND gather that data by vaccination status and time since vaccination. The data and coding is mostly already there.
Why hasn't the CDC done that?
If this data were presented transparently, it could sway a few million people to get boosted and save maybe a few thousand lives... so why aren't they doing it?
They probably are gathering data to address the rise in claims. When they come out and say it's because of COVID in a few months/a year, will you listen?
It's astute of you to see this future possibility. I agree that this is a possible future scenario.
It's possible that the long game all along has to ignore vaccine damage as long as possible in hopes that it will go away. If so, then there is no need to address vaccine damage. There is some evidence (those surveys you discount) that the risk of vaccine damage goes down with each booster after the standard double dose. (There are several reasons why this might occur.)
If that happens, then vaccine damage could eventually become very rare (as you believe it already is). There would be no need to address vaccine damage.
OTOH, if vaccine damage gets much worse, eventually it could reach the point that it would be impossible to deny. At that point, the powers-that-be could realize that their reputations and careers might be on the line for harming so many people so they blame vaccine damage on long covid. Since they have published no real data on vaccine damage or long covid, they could probably get away with this.
So the short answer to your question is no. The CDC/Fauci/WHO/NIH have lost credibility with me on anything related to covid.
We can handwave away the massive decrease in disability claims during 2020 that are totally out of trend, use this unexplained low point as the new baseline, and then pretend that noise = 'perfect correlation' with two vaccine rollouts. There you go, checkmate.
Hopefully this chart will illustrate my point. I don't have access to my stock market charting software for Bureau of Labor Statistics charts so I had to draw this.
Economic, health, and financial data don't tend to move in straight lines over time. They move up and down (noise) within a channel or trendline. When a data stream moves outside its trend channel, it typically indicates a new trend is starting.
I wish the BLS data went back farther, but I'll work with what we have.
First, note that the channels are about the same width. That is, the noise level is about the same. Second, note the slope of the trends. The most recent trend channel is much steeper than any previous channel.
Also, note this anomaly. After every sharp decline, there is a fairly quick recovery to the pre-decline high. You can see this in 2010, 2016, 2017 (almost... it took two years), 2019, and 2020. However, the continuing uptrend AFTER reaching the previous high is very modest in every case except 2020. In 2021 after reaching the previous high in 2020, the trend continues up and DOUBLES.
So we have two anomalies in this chart. The current uptrend is faster and steeper than any previous uptrend and the trend continues to go up steeply after reaching the previous pre-decline high. This is NOT business as usual. It's not just a post-decline recovery. Something else is going on here. The current disability number should be around 31.0 million give or take 0.75 million (the width of the previous channels). Instead, it's 32.6. I think some of those could be covid related. Some could vaccine related, especially since we have 8 separate surveys that indicate that vaccine disability is more common than we have been led to believe.
It's hard to believe that such a massive negative health trend has gone unnoticed by the NIH/CDC. If data exists to refute the anti-vaxx surveys, you'd think the CDC would publish it to nip that rumor in the bud. The CDC has not done that. You really have to wonder why.
Hopefully this chart will illustrate my point. I don't have access to my stock market charting software for Bureau of Labor Statistics charts so I had to draw this.
Economic, health, and financial data don't tend to move in straight lines over time. They move up and down (noise) within a channel or trendline. When a data stream moves outside its trend channel, it typically indicates a new trend is starting.
I wish the BLS data went back farther, but I'll work with what we have.
First, note that the channels are about the same width. That is, the noise level is about the same. Second, note the slope of the trends. The most recent trend channel is much steeper than any previous channel.
It's interesting that you've drawn the 4th segment starting in April of 2020, which is both reasonable and suggestive.
What baffles me in all this the failure to embrace that the vaccine doesn't have to be risk free, it just has to be significantly better than the alternative. We know for instance that there is increased incidence of myocarditis in young males, but at a lower level than the same resulting from a covid infection. The statistical footprint of covid is enormous. If the risk of vaccine were even a single order of magnitude less, we'd expect to see it and we don't.
Hopefully this chart will illustrate my point. I don't have access to my stock market charting software for Bureau of Labor Statistics charts so I had to draw this.
Economic, health, and financial data don't tend to move in straight lines over time. They move up and down (noise) within a channel or trendline. When a data stream moves outside its trend channel, it typically indicates a new trend is starting.
I wish the BLS data went back farther, but I'll work with what we have.
First, note that the channels are about the same width. That is, the noise level is about the same. Second, note the slope of the trends. The most recent trend channel is much steeper than any previous channel.
It's interesting that you've drawn the 4th segment starting in April of 2020, which is both reasonable and suggestive.
What baffles me in all this the failure to embrace that the vaccine doesn't have to be risk free, it just has to be significantly better than the alternative. We know for instance that there is increased incidence of myocarditis in young males, but at a lower level than the same resulting from a covid infection. The statistical footprint of covid is enormous. If the risk of vaccine were even a single order of magnitude less, we'd expect to see it and we don't.
Do we know that?
Are more healthy young people getting myocarditis from Covid than from the jab?
Joe Biden, even after four covid shots, still is testing positive for covid 15 days after first testing positive. It’s almost as if the covid shot is total and complete shift.
Only anecdotal, but a dozen or so of my friends that have been jabbed and boosted have gotten covid at least once during the past year-or at least had a positive test for covid. Of my friends that have decided not to get the jab (myself included) none of us have had covid in the past year. Pathogenic priming appears to be a real phenomenon!
Only anecdotal, but a dozen or so of my friends that have been jabbed and boosted have gotten covid at least once during the past year-or at least had a positive test for covid. Of my friends that have decided not to get the jab (myself included) none of us have had covid in the past year. Pathogenic priming appears to be a real phenomenon!
Same experience here.
My family and the folks across the street have avoided the jabs and have not gotten Covid in over a year.
The family next to them are all fully jabbed and boosted and 3 of 4 just are getting over a bout with Covid
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/LK5FFWOXOXVJUY7FJ3O6AX25IQ.jpg)
