But to have more solid ideas, I’d probably need to take time to read carefully and think about it deeply. Doubt I’ll take much time for that to engage with someone totally unwilling to engage in good-faith discussion (maybe incapable of doing so, but I doubt it). These are just the thoughts that occurred to me in the time reading your post and the 3-5 minutes I spent skimming the study.
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.
-
32
-
Good enough wrote:
Newname wrote:
A new study published by Cambridge University Press suggests that wearing a mask may be associated with an increased risk of Covid infection.
. ...
1. On the topic: I personally can think of a reasonable argument to make from this about the vaccine debate, but it’s a fairly minor one, and I have no idea if you’re actually implying the reasonable point or just using the standard tactic of using all available means to create a climate of doubt, whether that’s well-founded or not.
2. On your attitude toward your audience: There’s no point in the last few years in which I would have assumed the findings of this study to be untrue. But I suppose you frequently adopt a manichean perspective, so it’s all-or-nothing, isn’t it? I suppose also that such a perspective infects your overall understanding of the discussion here. You act as though reasonable questions are partisan attacks even when they are just the kinds of questions a neutral party might ask to arrive at well-founded facts. That manner of questioning, incidentally, is part and parcel of scientific inquiry.
3. On the data: From the Statement about data availability in that study: “The datasets generated and/or analysed in the current study are not publicly available due to them containing personal data, but will be made available.”
Fine. And if someone reading this study wanted to reserve judgment until the data were made available, that would be reasonable. It seems that you and DanM, however, tend to regard the absence of certain information as red flags if the conclusions disagree with your own but dismiss them if their findings seem to support your prior assumptions. If I’m wrong about that, please show me.
4. On associations, correlations, and what can be demonstrated or proven: As noted above, the study itself makes THE VERY statements about what data can prove and not prove that other posters have mentioned when you speak of correlations with the Wikipedia data you post (and then act as though you don’t know that there are useful questions and useless questions to ask about data. You ask useless questions then start acting though you’ve won the argument when no one answers them.). The methods of science involve very strict ways of arriving at conclusions. I haven’t seen any willingness in you to apply much rigorous thinking at all to ideas you suggest.
You write such long comments yet say nothing of value.
47 -
For the final time. highly vaxxed nations had high Covid death rates and lowly vaxxed ones had low death rates.
You guys can pretend this is meaningless but you are just being silly. Refusing to accept the facts and the obvious.
Same people who believe Jews are a harassed, powerless group at Harvard.
Simply astounding
47 -
Newname wrote:
For the final time. highly vaxxed nations had high Covid death rates and lowly vaxxed ones had low death rates.
You guys can pretend this is meaningless but you are just being silly. Refusing to accept the facts and the obvious.
Same people who believe Jews are a harassed, powerless group at Harvard.
Simply astounding
Is this the part where you and DanM launch into a flurry of posts to bury your self-own?
63 -
Good enough wrote:
Newname wrote:
For the final time. highly vaxxed nations had high Covid death rates and lowly vaxxed ones had low death rates.
You guys can pretend this is meaningless but you are just being silly. Refusing to accept the facts and the obvious.
Same people who believe Jews are a harassed, powerless group at Harvard.
Simply astounding
Is this the part where you and DanM launch into a flurry of posts to bury your self-own?
Self own ? People are refusing the latest Covid injections. 15% uptake in the US.
Read the stories about the latest findings. Here is one line to get you started:
"The frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect."
16 -
Newname wrote:
For the final time. highly vaxxed nations had high Covid death rates and lowly vaxxed ones had low death rates.
You guys can pretend this is meaningless but you are just being silly. Refusing to accept the facts and the obvious.
Same people who believe Jews are a harassed, powerless group at Harvard.
Simply astounding
lol LOL
he’s done it again.
Called out for lying (can’t produce evidence of correlation he claims)
so:
JEWS!!!
72 -
DanM wrote:
Self own ? People are refusing the latest Covid injections. 15% uptake in the US.
Read the stories about the latest findings. Here is one line to get you started:
"The frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect."
OK. I’ll read.
“The vaccine is read well enough to create the strong protection against the coronavirus, the scientists say, but the frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect.”
I’m sorry: If you quote a sentence, am I supposed to believe all of the sentence or just the part you get all fixated on?
Did the author make clear that the first part of the sentence is merely reporting the researchers’ statement and the second is a statement of pure undisputed fact, or do the two parts both reflect the scientists’ statement?
If you quote an article, how did you determine which sentences in the article are germane and which not? This passage also appears there: “In this scenario not only is the vaccine not making the right protein, it could lead to a rogue protein being produced. There is no evidence of this occurring in the Covid jabs, the authors stress, and they say any trials on other mRNA therapeutics would detect any such problems in early stages.”
So OK: thanks for showing me that “there is no evidence of this occurring in the Covid jabs.” Thanks for sharing an article indicating that unintended effects have not produced harmful outcomes. I appreciate your service.
62 -
Harambe wrote:
Monkeys Skyping ran the correlation a few pages back. There was none.
Time to move on, fella.
Why does Newname avoid this?
52 -
Sciencey stuff wrote:
DanM wrote:
Self own ? People are refusing the latest Covid injections. 15% uptake in the US.
Read the stories about the latest findings. Here is one line to get you started:
"The frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect."
OK. I’ll read.
“The vaccine is read well enough to create the strong protection against the coronavirus, the scientists say, but the frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect.”
I’m sorry: If you quote a sentence, am I supposed to believe all of the sentence or just the part you get all fixated on?
Did the author make clear that the first part of the sentence is merely reporting the researchers’ statement and the second is a statement of pure undisputed fact, or do the two parts both reflect the scientists’ statement?
If you quote an article, how did you determine which sentences in the article are germane and which not? This passage also appears there: “In this scenario not only is the vaccine not making the right protein, it could lead to a rogue protein being produced. There is no evidence of this occurring in the Covid jabs, the authors stress, and they say any trials on other mRNA therapeutics would detect any such problems in early stages.”
So OK: thanks for showing me that “there is no evidence of this occurring in the Covid jabs.” Thanks for sharing an article indicating that unintended effects have not produced harmful outcomes. I appreciate your service.
3 years later, "what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect".
Pardon me for not quoting the full sentence.
That's the last of those unknown off-target effects, right ? I trust we will not hear about any more of those, correct ?
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.", Donald Rumsfeld, February 12, 2002.
13 -
DanM wrote:
3 years later, "what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect".
Pardon me for not quoting the full sentence.
That's the last of those unknown off-target effects, right ? I trust we will not hear about any more of those, correct ?
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.", Donald Rumsfeld, February 12, 2002.
OK. And you may or may not misunderstand my perspective. You might think I have some kind of goal of defending some side for a particular reason and that I think every question you ask is misguided or foolish.
I think you have a healthy dose of skepticism about certain things and that you ask some good questions. And I think you’ve made reasonable points at times.
And I believe, regardless of how Rumsfeld might have applied his taxonomy, a number of questions on the vaccine issue are “difficult ones.”
And so I believe that precise attention to detail, rigorous analysis, an open mind, and good faith debate are remarkably important to that process. I believe that if anyone involved in the process makes an error, that error is in need of correction.
But alongside your good qualities, you frequently rely on insinuation, incomplete reasoning or poor logic, or errors that look as though they could be obfuscation. Hey, we’re all human. But you and Newname act as though just about anything from others — even some pretty demonstrably good stuff — is dishonesty or utter wrongheadedness, and even when others might be in the wrong, you simply don’t come close to holding yourselves to that standard.
I mean, not even close.
41 -
DanM wrote:
Sciencey stuff wrote:
OK. I’ll read.
“The vaccine is read well enough to create the strong protection against the coronavirus, the scientists say, but the frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect.”
I’m sorry: If you quote a sentence, am I supposed to believe all of the sentence or just the part you get all fixated on?
Did the author make clear that the first part of the sentence is merely reporting the researchers’ statement and the second is a statement of pure undisputed fact, or do the two parts both reflect the scientists’ statement?
If you quote an article, how did you determine which sentences in the article are germane and which not? This passage also appears there: “In this scenario not only is the vaccine not making the right protein, it could lead to a rogue protein being produced. There is no evidence of this occurring in the Covid jabs, the authors stress, and they say any trials on other mRNA therapeutics would detect any such problems in early stages.”
So OK: thanks for showing me that “there is no evidence of this occurring in the Covid jabs.” Thanks for sharing an article indicating that unintended effects have not produced harmful outcomes. I appreciate your service.
3 years later, "what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect".
Pardon me for not quoting the full sentence.
That's the last of those unknown off-target effects, right ? I trust we will not hear about any more of those, correct ?
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.", Donald Rumsfeld, February 12, 2002.
Why is this any worse than say, aberrant translation during viral replication?
Something was unknown. Now it’s known. Doesn’t mean things are worse!41 -
warth wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Monkeys Skyping ran the correlation a few pages back. There was none.
Time to move on, fella.
Why does Newname avoid this?
Deaths per 1 million (world rank out of 230) AND Jab rate (% of population)
Peru 6,507 (1) 81.39%
Greece 3,647 (15) 76.43%
UK 3,438 (19) 79.97%
USA 3,384 (20) 81.39%
Italy 3,267 (21) 86.28%
Brazil 3,260 (22) 88.08%
Mexico 2,626 (38) 76.22%
Now let's look at the nations with low death rates.
Kenya 105 (190) 26.83%
Somalia 77 (197) 50.99%
Haiti 74 (199) 4.50%
Ethiopia 61 (205) 35.72%
Congo 14 (221) 15.54%
No correlation!
25 -
Hello everybody. Fastboy reporting. The vaccines are very safe and effective.
10 -
Newname wrote:
warth wrote:
Why does Newname avoid this?
Deaths per 1 million (world rank out of 230) AND Jab rate (% of population)
Peru 6,507 (1) 81.39%
Greece 3,647 (15) 76.43%
UK 3,438 (19) 79.97%
USA 3,384 (20) 81.39%
Italy 3,267 (21) 86.28%
Brazil 3,260 (22) 88.08%
Mexico 2,626 (38) 76.22%
Now let's look at the nations with low death rates.
Kenya 105 (190) 26.83%
Somalia 77 (197) 50.99%
Haiti 74 (199) 4.50%
Ethiopia 61 (205) 35.72%
Congo 14 (221) 15.54%
No correlation!
When someone says “correlation” we expect correlation coefficients.
Monkeys Skyping did this… you can’t.
It’s becoming embarrassing.You also skipped at the Eastern European countries at the top of your death list that have very low vaccinate rates. Completely embarrassing.
31 -
fastboy77 wrote:
Hello everybody. Fastboy reporting. The vaccines are very safe and effective.
🫡🫡
12 -
wait…the T cell exhaustion hand wringing was all a lie??
52 -
2600 bro wrote:
Newname wrote:
For the final time. highly vaxxed nations had high Covid death rates and lowly vaxxed ones had low death rates.
You guys can pretend this is meaningless but you are just being silly. Refusing to accept the facts and the obvious.
Same people who believe Jews are a harassed, powerless group at Harvard.
Simply astounding
lol LOL
he’s done it again.
Called out for lying (can’t produce evidence of correlation he claims)
so:
JEWS!!!
Iconic Unkle. Frame this
32 -
2600 bro wrote:
wait…the T cell exhaustion hand wringing was all a lie??
The control group is sweating a bit lol. Poor antibody and cell mediated immunity. High risk of autoimmune issues.
51 -
Russell Brand interviews Steve Kirsch:
BOMBSHELL New Zealand Vaccine Data Breach - Steve Kirsch Reveals SHOCKING Findings
13 -
Gringoo wrote:
Russell Brand interviews Steve Kirsch:
BOMBSHELL New Zealand Vaccine Data Breach - Steve Kirsch Reveals SHOCKING Findings
Kirsch's claims about the alleged New Zealand vaccine related mortality are extensively debunked at this link:
Conclusion
Kirsch’s analysis of a subset of New Zealand vaccination data is methodologically flawed and makes unjustified assumptions about the data, such as by claiming the data represent a random sample, when no evidence was provided to show this was the case. It also cherry-picked the data it presented, implying that the rise in mortality seen in the elderly also applied to other age groups.
In fact, this rise was limited to the elderly; no significant changes in mortality in children and younger adults occurred in New Zealand between 2020 and 2022.
New Zealand’s strict elimination policy during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic produced a huge negative excess mortality, as it didn’t only minimize COVID-19 deaths, but also reduced deaths from causes like respiratory illnesses, traffic accidents, and surgical complications.
This policy later shifted to a more relaxed mitigation policy. This also meant that the causes of death diminished by COVID-19 restrictions made a comeback, in tandem with a rise in mortality rate in the elderly. While this rise is genuine, it doesn’t represent excess mortality from vaccines as some have claimed, but a return to baseline mortality.This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted. Reason provided: Added conclusion quotation63
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.