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.
Many people have years of expertise, not just Morris. The tests were common, but his graphs don’t control for the fact that healthy people likely to test far less than sicker people. The sicker people testing more often would be more likely to be “covid positive” and, of course, sicker people are more likely to die than others. His graphs have bias built in to them. RCT studies that are well conducted eliminate this bias.
You do realize that the employer for Morris had an $800 million increase in revenue in FY 2021 largely from mRNA royalties and that his department has a partnership with Pfizer … and Pfizer employees.
As I have said many times, it is not the doctors, but the CDC that is corrupted. I posted an article showing death certificates and examples of the CDC ignoring the actual cause of death.
Morris bad, Rancourt good. 17 million secret deaths that no one else can find. 🙄
Please show evidence of the CDC changing a death certificate, which would be required to fake the hundreds of the thousands of COVID necessary for Rancourts theories. 😂
This is just abysmal - even for you.
Yet again. If the evidence doesn’t confirm your bias, you stick your fingers in your ears in an attempt to ignore it.
(not that it was hard to do since that’s his m.o.)
Now his stooge sidekick will be along any time now to feebly try and back him up.
Your evidence free posting gives me daily motivation! Keep it up!
As does yours. 👍 It’s my daily entertainment. Wordle, then read Harambe/2600bro go apesh!t trying to explain away evidence that doesn’t confirm his bias. Science be damned! Thank you for posting. 😂
I'm beginning to think you actually took the vax, because you are now acting demented. Not in The Lancet or on the NIH website? And to remind you (if you ever knew to begin with which you likely didn't), those papers had to undergo both peer and editorial review before publication.
Right, it's often not clear to people who have little experience with academic journals, but the first link is to an article published in Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie and accessed through the NIH website, which are two very different things. The second link is to an article published in The Lancet Rheumatology, which isn't the same journal as The Lancet. The Lancet has been around for 200 years, while The Lancet Rheumatology was only on volume 3 at the time the article was published.
Thank you for this opportunity to clear up the confusion. Academic practices can be arcane and needlessly confusing. Peer review is great, but saying an article is peer reviewed is much less impressive after you've been through it a few times.
Your evidence free posting gives me daily motivation! Keep it up!
As does yours. 👍 It’s my daily entertainment. Wordle, then read Harambe/2600bro go apesh!t trying to explain away evidence that doesn’t confirm his bias. Science be damned! Thank you for posting. 😂
As does yours. 👍 It’s my daily entertainment. Wordle, then read Harambe/2600bro go apesh!t trying to explain away evidence that doesn’t confirm his bias. Science be damned! Thank you for posting. 😂
Excellent! Keep it coming 😂😂😂
Wordle. Check. (Tweak in 3 btw).
Read 2600bro/Harambe’s inability to defend a position. Check.
Productive morning so far. 😀
Speaking of evidence-absent posts. When 2600bro knows he can’t defend his position, the snarky comments come out. 😂 I LOVE IT! .
Many people have years of expertise, not just Morris. The tests were common, but his graphs don’t control for the fact that healthy people likely to test far less than sicker people. The sicker people testing more often would be more likely to be “covid positive” and, of course, sicker people are more likely to die than others. His graphs have bias built in to them. RCT studies that are well conducted eliminate this bias.
You do realize that the employer for Morris had an $800 million increase in revenue in FY 2021 largely from mRNA royalties and that his department has a partnership with Pfizer … and Pfizer employees.
As I have said many times, it is not the doctors, but the CDC that is corrupted. I posted an article showing death certificates and examples of the CDC ignoring the actual cause of death.
Morris bad, Rancourt good. 17 million secret deaths that no one else can find. 🙄
Please show evidence of the CDC changing a death certificate, which would be required to fake the hundreds of the thousands of COVID necessary for Rancourts theories. 😂
This is just abysmal - even for you.
Yes. Note AGAIN all that can be done is cast doubt on data that -disproves- the antivaxxers theory. Were some death certificates in error? Certainly! Are some doctors corrupt? Yes! Is there any evidence the level of error is remotely large enough to alter the striking correlation between Covid cases, deaths, and excess deaths?
Not even close.
The absolute best the antivaxxers can do is find isolated examples of incompetence and hope everyone else is dumb enough to believe the opposite of what the data show. It’s magical thinking.
Similarly saying “x study or y study isn’t perfect” — ok find a study that is better that shows the conclusion you want. They can’t. In fact, the data they trot out is far, far lower quality (e.g. often not even sanity checked: )
So it turns out the the guy that allegedly stole NZ data for Steve Kirsch has run the numbers... And his conclusion?
~160,553 NZers have died of the vaccine. The problem?
Finally, let’s note the financial incentives involved for the two parties. Many universities get funding from partnerships with private industry. Morris does not seem to have a direct tie — so the attempt to discredit here is at least once removed. Antivaxxer bloggers rely on subscriptions from gullible contrarians. They MUST post in a way that keeps the income stream coming. The incentives here are painfully obvious, and certainly more corruption than working for a university where some labs get funding from private industry.
Rare side effects from the vaccine exist. Nobody is debating this. They are so rare they don’t change the risk:benefit calculus. Interesting that some claim these side effects are being silenced or covered up. Hard to say that’s the case here unless we are operating with very different definitions. 🤔
Cricket News: New Zealand will begin administering COVID-19 vaccinations to its men's cricket team and support staff on Saturday before they travel to England for a
Two cases of immune reactions to a vaccine that was given hundreds of millions of times globally!
It’s so rare that single case studies get published!
You are supporting my points with these. The vaccines are heavily studied, monitored, and found to be extremely safe and effective.
Imagine if we had a case study every time someone ended up with a post COVID infection immune disorder. Heres a study that founds thousands in Hong Kong alone; googled in 15 seconds -
Also FYI neither of your studies or mine was published in “The Lancet” or by the NIH. Ifs clear you rarely if ever engage with scientific literature! 😂
I'm beginning to think you actually took the vax, because you are now acting demented. Not in The Lancet or on the NIH website? And to remind you (if you ever knew to begin with which you likely didn't), those papers had to undergo both peer and editorial review before publication.
Oh no, someone doesn't understand elementary facts about scientific publishing. Regardless of the validity of these publications, you should be aware that the top level domain doesn't tell the actual journal the article was published in especially for PubMed which is simply an index of outside publications.
The fact that a domain expert like Morris can refute hundreds of hours of work by many different antivaxxers in his free time really speaks to the intellectual gap between antivaxxers and the rest of us.
Posting this famous study here for no reason at all:
We find a strong positive association between cognitive ability and swift vaccination, which remains even after controlling for confounding variables with a twin-design. The results suggest that the complexity of the vaccination decision may make it difficult for individuals with lower cognitive abilities to understand the benefits of vaccination.
The quantitative reasoning around vaccination is simply too complex for many to understand. It's on us to make it simpler, but also we need to recognize that some people will never grasp the issue and we cannot stop their descent into antivaxx contrarianism.
Neither the vaccine nor COVID are associated with widespread immune issues. There seems to be a relatively small subset of people who experience 'long COVID' of which immune dysregulation is a common symptom.
In either case, note that DanM is again gleeful about others' suffering. This is all the antivaxx movement is.
Morris bad, Rancourt good. 17 million secret deaths that no one else can find. 🙄
Please show evidence of the CDC changing a death certificate, which would be required to fake the hundreds of the thousands of COVID necessary for Rancourts theories. 😂
This is just abysmal - even for you.
Yes. Note AGAIN all that can be done is cast doubt on data that -disproves- the antivaxxers theory. Were some death certificates in error? Certainly! Are some doctors corrupt? Yes! Is there any evidence the level of error is remotely large enough to alter the striking correlation between Covid cases, deaths, and excess deaths?
Not even close.
The absolute best the antivaxxers can do is find isolated examples of incompetence and hope everyone else is dumb enough to believe the opposite of what the data show. It’s magical thinking.
Similarly saying “x study or y study isn’t perfect” — ok find a study that is better that shows the conclusion you want. They can’t. In fact, the data they trot out is far, far lower quality (e.g. often not even sanity checked: )
Finally, let’s note the financial incentives involved for the two parties. Many universities get funding from partnerships with private industry. Morris does not seem to have a direct tie — so the attempt to discredit here is at least once removed. Antivaxxer bloggers rely on subscriptions from gullible contrarians. They MUST post in a way that keeps the income stream coming. The incentives here are painfully obvious, and certainly more corruption than working for a university where some labs get funding from private industry.
Every 6 months we have to deal with a Kirsch-poster on this thread. They quickly run away.
Yes. Note AGAIN all that can be done is cast doubt on data that -disproves- the antivaxxers theory. Were some death certificates in error? Certainly! Are some doctors corrupt? Yes! Is there any evidence the level of error is remotely large enough to alter the striking correlation between Covid cases, deaths, and excess deaths?
Not even close.
The absolute best the antivaxxers can do is find isolated examples of incompetence and hope everyone else is dumb enough to believe the opposite of what the data show. It’s magical thinking.
Similarly saying “x study or y study isn’t perfect” — ok find a study that is better that shows the conclusion you want. They can’t. In fact, the data they trot out is far, far lower quality (e.g. often not even sanity checked: )
Finally, let’s note the financial incentives involved for the two parties. Many universities get funding from partnerships with private industry. Morris does not seem to have a direct tie — so the attempt to discredit here is at least once removed. Antivaxxer bloggers rely on subscriptions from gullible contrarians. They MUST post in a way that keeps the income stream coming. The incentives here are painfully obvious, and certainly more corruption than working for a university where some labs get funding from private industry.
Every 6 months we have to deal with a Kirsch-poster on this thread. They quickly run away.
Yes, maybe I should issue my annual reminder. I will outlast any antivaxxer deluge of BS. If you change the subject I will call you out then continue laughing at the new, even poorer excuse for 'evidence' you deliver.
You cannot win with tenacity. I will always get the last word. You will lose interest and leave defeated before I do. There is only so much to do at the Cincinnati Zoo.
Morris bad, Rancourt good. 17 million secret deaths that no one else can find. 🙄
Please show evidence of the CDC changing a death certificate, which would be required to fake the hundreds of the thousands of COVID necessary for Rancourts theories. 😂
This is just abysmal - even for you.
Yes. Note AGAIN all that can be done is cast doubt on data that -disproves- the antivaxxers theory. Were some death certificates in error? Certainly! Are some doctors corrupt? Yes! Is there any evidence the level of error is remotely large enough to alter the striking correlation between Covid cases, deaths, and excess deaths?
Not even close.
The absolute best the antivaxxers can do is find isolated examples of incompetence and hope everyone else is dumb enough to believe the opposite of what the data show. It’s magical thinking.
Similarly saying “x study or y study isn’t perfect” — ok find a study that is better that shows the conclusion you want. They can’t. In fact, the data they trot out is far, far lower quality (e.g. often not even sanity checked: )
Finally, let’s note the financial incentives involved for the two parties. Many universities get funding from partnerships with private industry. Morris does not seem to have a direct tie — so the attempt to discredit here is at least once removed. Antivaxxer bloggers rely on subscriptions from gullible contrarians. They MUST post in a way that keeps the income stream coming. The incentives here are painfully obvious, and certainly more corruption than working for a university where some labs get funding from private industry.
While Morris isn't being given money directly, his department is partly supported by Pfizer and his university received hundreds of millions of $$$ in mRNA royalties in a single fiscal year. So, he is benefiting indirectly from Pfizer and Moderna. That is one reason I have suggested many times that persons focus on getting information from independent researchers (obviously that would exclude persons with a significant amount of pharma money coming into their department and hundreds of millions of $$$ coming into their university.
I showed that the CDC screwed up as far as some death certificates in Minnesota. That is a very good reason to audit the death certificates and the IC codes in the CDC database if there is going to be trust in the system. If there's no *independent* audit, that's fine, but I don't think they'll be any increase in trust.
There are tons of useless observational studies that have unaddressed confounders and/or don't provide access to detailed data about the populations and outcomes. What we do know with the randomized controlled trials (gold standard) of the mRNA drugs is that there was zero benefit seen as far as death goes. Maybe if the manufacturer hadn't stopped the studies, we would have seen increasing deaths from the mRNA drugs or maybe some decreasing deaths. But all we're left with is no benefits as far as deaths and a whole bunch of observational studies. At the bottom of this post, I will once again post the short and excellent video on the dangers of relying on poor observational studies that seem magical and make great press releases.
There is one thing that is absolutely crucial when looking at excess mortality -- whether it be "all cause" or individual causes of death -- and that is the "pull forward effect." If you don't factor that in to your analysis, not only don't you have a clue what you're doing, but it can make it appear that COVID cured some unrelated conditions.
What happens when you get a year of high excess mortality that causes older and/or more frail persons to die, is that the following year will tend to have much lower excess mortality because the pool of older + more frail persons is reduced. So, often you'll see one year of high excess mortality followed by little to no excess mortality. It is often seen when looking at individual causes of death as well. For example, in the U.S., there were ~52,000 flu deaths in 2017-2018 flu season and then it dropped significantly to ~28,000 in 2018-2019 flu season. So, if you see a continued high excess mortality after several years of COVID, there is a huge problem (which I believe is the jabs + residual effects of the lockdowns). Here is a video about the issue:
Prof. Retsef Levi (@RetsefL) Explains Why You Should Be Very Worried About Multi-Year Excess Mortality
"If you had a bad year when you had excess mortality, the pool of people that are likely to die has shrunk. So in the next year, in all likelihood, you're not going to see… pic.twitter.com/pBmJvivMlI
All of this is simply common sense -- Pool of older and frail are *significantly* reduced by death in one year, this will tend to lead to little or no *excess* death in subsequent year(s). A few biased pro-mRNA persons just brush it aside and ignore it.
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Professor Hematologist/ OncologistProfessor of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and MedicineAuthor of 450+ Peer Reviewed papers,...
Yes. Note AGAIN all that can be done is cast doubt on data that -disproves- the antivaxxers theory. Were some death certificates in error? Certainly! Are some doctors corrupt? Yes! Is there any evidence the level of error is remotely large enough to alter the striking correlation between Covid cases, deaths, and excess deaths?
Not even close.
The absolute best the antivaxxers can do is find isolated examples of incompetence and hope everyone else is dumb enough to believe the opposite of what the data show. It’s magical thinking.
Similarly saying “x study or y study isn’t perfect” — ok find a study that is better that shows the conclusion you want. They can’t. In fact, the data they trot out is far, far lower quality (e.g. often not even sanity checked: )
Finally, let’s note the financial incentives involved for the two parties. Many universities get funding from partnerships with private industry. Morris does not seem to have a direct tie — so the attempt to discredit here is at least once removed. Antivaxxer bloggers rely on subscriptions from gullible contrarians. They MUST post in a way that keeps the income stream coming. The incentives here are painfully obvious, and certainly more corruption than working for a university where some labs get funding from private industry.
While Morris isn't being given money directly, his department is partly supported by Pfizer and his university received hundreds of millions of $ in mRNA royalties in a single fiscal year. So, he is benefiting indirectly from Pfizer and Moderna. That is one reason I have suggested many times that persons focus on getting information from independent researchers (obviously that would exclude persons with a significant amount of pharma money coming into their department and hundreds of millions of $ coming into their university.
I showed that the CDC screwed up as far as some death certificates in Minnesota. That is a very good reason to audit the death certificates and the IC codes in the CDC database if there is going to be trust in the system. If there's no *independent* audit, that's fine, but I don't think they'll be any increase in trust.
There are tons of useless observational studies that have unaddressed confounders and/or don't provide access to detailed data about the populations and outcomes. What we do know with the randomized controlled trials (gold standard) of the mRNA drugs is that there was zero benefit seen as far as death goes. Maybe if the manufacturer hadn't stopped the studies, we would have seen increasing deaths from the mRNA drugs or maybe some decreasing deaths. But all we're left with is no benefits as far as deaths and a whole bunch of observational studies. At the bottom of this post, I will once again post the short and excellent video on the dangers of relying on poor observational studies that seem magical and make great press releases.
There is one thing that is absolutely crucial when looking at excess mortality -- whether it be "all cause" or individual causes of death -- and that is the "pull forward effect." If you don't factor that in to your analysis, not only don't you have a clue what you're doing, but it can make it appear that COVID cured some unrelated conditions.
What happens when you get a year of high excess mortality that causes older and/or more frail persons to die, is that the following year will tend to have much lower excess mortality because the pool of older + more frail persons is reduced. So, often you'll see one year of high excess mortality followed by little to no excess mortality. It is often seen when looking at individual causes of death as well. For example, in the U.S., there were ~52,000 flu deaths in 2017-2018 flu season and then it dropped significantly to ~28,000 in 2018-2019 flu season. So, if you see a continued high excess mortality after several years of COVID, there is a huge problem (which I believe is the jabs + residual effects of the lockdowns). Here is a video about the issue:
All of this is simply common sense -- Pool of older and frail are *significantly* reduced by death in one year, this will tend to lead to little or no *excess* death in subsequent year(s). A few biased pro-mRNA persons just brush it aside and ignore it.
I find bloggers whose entire revenue stream relies on clicks and therefore sensationalism/dogma much less trustworthy that professors with tenure at a medical school - sorry bro.
Again, you showed evidence of a handful of mis-aggregated deaths certificates in one state for a secondary analysis.
This is very different from claiming COVID death certificates have been altered. Do you have any evidence of that, other than hypothetical hand-wringing.
Remember COVID deaths are just one part of the evidence, COVID deaths, excess deaths, and positive COVID tests are correlate through space and time across the pandemic... so closely that we can infer that excess deaths and COVID deaths are highly (highly!) overlapping statistics.
You have to have solid evidence to doubt both sides of these correlation for me to doubt the data.
What's interesting that all of the pro-vaccine-death statistics are pulled from highly confounded observational datasets and their conclusions only come out when statistical rigor is removed...
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VTU3GWJHOBIWFLTICL54RHAKCM.jpg)
