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.
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...
Not sure you watched the videos as they are videos of two tenured professors. A couple of more interesting items:
1. Here's a former department/medical director at the Cleveland Clinic:
Dr. Dan Neides, former medical director and chief operating officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute gives a tearful apology to the families he may have unknowingly harmed.
2. A very important thread with links to research showing how charts you sometimes see from the mRNA PR personnel are mislabeled as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated."
🧵 THREAD: This might shake the world.
The #1 chart used to promote the COVID vaccine is this one. It leads you to believe ‘Unvaccinated’ people are more likely to die from COVID-19. This is VERY misleading though, and not for the reasons you might think. Read on… pic.twitter.com/avSF25ZMtz
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...
Not sure you watched the videos as they are videos of two tenured professors. A couple of more interesting items:
1. Here's a former department/medical director at the Cleveland Clinic:
2. A very important thread with links to research showing how charts you sometimes see from the mRNA PR personnel are mislabeled as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated."
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.
Well, since you’ve been wrong at every turn, at least you have getting the last word going for you. 😂
2. A very important thread with links to research showing how charts you sometimes see from the mRNA PR personnel are mislabeled as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated."
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...
“Ahhhhhhh. It does not confirm my bias. Ahhhhhhhh.”
Neides? The anti-vaxxer (pre-COVID) who "left" the Cleveland Clinic in 2017 to launch his own brand of supplements and "wellness therapies..."
Gotcha.
Again I fail to see any actual evidence beyond hand-wringing. This is getting boring.
“Ahhhhhhh. It doesn’t confirm my bias. Ahhhhhh.”
Facts are like kryptonite to these boys.
Maybe you can step in and provide evidence the COVID death and excess death counts in the US are inaccurate and inaccurate to the level that is necessary to support the vaccine-death counts twoggle is providing! He seems to be failing to provide any evidence.
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...
Not sure you watched the videos as they are videos of two tenured professors. A couple of more interesting items:
1. Here's a former department/medical director at the Cleveland Clinic:
2. A very important thread with links to research showing how charts you sometimes see from the mRNA PR personnel are mislabeled as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated."
1) Ignoring the grifter who is trying to sell supplements and hasn't been affiliated with a respected hospital for a while.
2) Interesting thought experiment:
1. Clearly the lowest death rate is provably vaccinated people
2. Let's assume the 'unvaccinated' group is a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
3. The death rate of this mix is considerably higher than the provably vaccinated group.
4. Let's assume vaccinated person getting labeled as 'unknown' is totally random due to health system intricacies. Can we infer anything about the death rate of the unvaccinated in this 'unknown' group? I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
Do we need to make some assumptions here? Yes. But no more (actually less) than antivaxxers make every day as they torture data to fit their narrative.
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:
Yes, very interesting. Too bad the excess deaths start before the mRNA shots were approved and continue in near perfect temporal correlation with COVID tests, hospitalizations, and deaths. And lack any correlation with shots delivered. So these data completely support the pro-vax arguement.
And, in fact, there were basically no excess deaths in the second half of 2023... again entirely consistent with widespread immunity to COVID and no toxicity from the vaccines.
AbstractBackground. High-risk human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that significantly reduce the incidence of preinvasive a
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:
Yes, very interesting. Too bad the excess deaths start before the mRNA shots were approved and continue in near perfect temporal correlation with COVID tests, hospitalizations, and deaths. And lack any correlation with shots delivered. So these data completely support the pro-vax arguement.
And, in fact, there were basically no excess deaths in the second half of 2023... again entirely consistent with widespread immunity to COVID and no toxicity from the vaccines.
Curious!
But the CDC could be fabricating millions of death certificates and Pfizer paying off everyone who conducts observational analyses… so you just can be certain! oh well!
Maybe you can step in and provide evidence the COVID death and excess death counts in the US are inaccurate and inaccurate to the level that is necessary to support the vaccine-death counts twoggle is providing! He seems to be failing to provide any evidence.
Thanks! :)
He’s provided plenty. You just stick you head in the sand and scream “Ahhhhhhhhhh. It doesn’t confirm my bias!!!!!. Ahhhhhhhhh.”
I do enjoy seeing you do that time and time again though.
Maybe you can step in and provide evidence the COVID death and excess death counts in the US are inaccurate and inaccurate to the level that is necessary to support the vaccine-death counts twoggle is providing! He seems to be failing to provide any evidence.
Thanks! :)
He’s provided plenty. You just stick you head in the sand and scream “Ahhhhhhhhhh. It doesn’t confirm my bias!!!!!. Ahhhhhhhhh.”
I do enjoy seeing you do that time and time again though.
Ok help me out. Point out the exact evidence he provided. Pretend I’m extra stupid or whatever! Go for it!
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.
DanM has had you under your desk in the fetal position for months. He gets your blood pressure up so high that I doubt you’ll outlast him.
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:
Yes, very interesting. Too bad the excess deaths start before the mRNA shots were approved and continue in near perfect temporal correlation with COVID tests, hospitalizations, and deaths. And lack any correlation with shots delivered. So these data completely support the pro-vax arguement.
And, in fact, there were basically no excess deaths in the second half of 2023... again entirely consistent with widespread immunity to COVID and no toxicity from the vaccines.
Curious!
There are fewer people participating on the contaminated mRNA jab experiment. The pool of vulnerable people was reduced by lockdowns, dangerous jabs, "covid" and medical care during 2020. The fewer people taking the jabs and the pull forward effect will of course reduce the excess deaths, at least for a time. That's just common sense.
The pro-mRNA drug argument was destroyed a while ago when the gold-standard randomized controlled trials showed no benefit. We're just left with public relations in the form of biased observational studies.
It is true that not everyone dies or gets seriously ill shortly after taking an mRNA drug (of course!). Since there are no long-term studies any plenty of independent scientists warning about various serious long-term effects, I suspect that is one of several reasons why fewer are taking these jabs.
Trust in public health and people running the healthcare system is poor and has declined drastically over the last 40 years, only to have a somewhat partisan split recently as shown in the charts in the study linked below. More public relations, attacks on independent researchers and doctors and more poor studies and fabricated CDC data will only continue to destroy public trust over time (which I assume is your secret agenda) :-)
This essay reviews more than forty years of public opinion polling to look at trust in medicine, the health system, and public health. We use polling data to explore the reasons for the decline and current level of public tru...
Yes, very interesting. Too bad the excess deaths start before the mRNA shots were approved and continue in near perfect temporal correlation with COVID tests, hospitalizations, and deaths. And lack any correlation with shots delivered. So these data completely support the pro-vax arguement.
And, in fact, there were basically no excess deaths in the second half of 2023... again entirely consistent with widespread immunity to COVID and no toxicity from the vaccines.
Curious!
There are fewer people participating on the contaminated mRNA jab experiment. The pool of vulnerable people was reduced by lockdowns, dangerous jabs, "covid" and medical care during 2020. The fewer people taking the jabs and the pull forward effect will of course reduce the excess deaths, at least for a time. That's just common sense.
The pro-mRNA drug argument was destroyed a while ago when the gold-standard randomized controlled trials showed no benefit. We're just left with public relations in the form of biased observational studies.
It is true that not everyone dies or gets seriously ill shortly after taking an mRNA drug (of course!). Since there are no long-term studies any plenty of independent scientists warning about various serious long-term effects, I suspect that is one of several reasons why fewer are taking these jabs.
Trust in public health and people running the healthcare system is poor and has declined drastically over the last 40 years, only to have a somewhat partisan split recently as shown in the charts in the study linked below. More public relations, attacks on independent researchers and doctors and more poor studies and fabricated CDC data will only continue to destroy public trust over time (which I assume is your secret agenda) :-)
1) The vaccine deaths already happened, but doctors, the CDC, and global scientists conspired to hide them.
2) Because the vaccines work so well (wait I mean because they kill people) there is less demand for them, and a smaller vulnerable population, so unfortunately no future data will show vaccine deaths ...
So I guess we just have to take your work for it! Oh well!
There are fewer people participating on the contaminated mRNA jab experiment. The pool of vulnerable people was reduced by lockdowns, dangerous jabs, "covid" and medical care during 2020. The fewer people taking the jabs and the pull forward effect will of course reduce the excess deaths, at least for a time. That's just common sense.
The pro-mRNA drug argument was destroyed a while ago when the gold-standard randomized controlled trials showed no benefit. We're just left with public relations in the form of biased observational studies.
It is true that not everyone dies or gets seriously ill shortly after taking an mRNA drug (of course!). Since there are no long-term studies any plenty of independent scientists warning about various serious long-term effects, I suspect that is one of several reasons why fewer are taking these jabs.
Trust in public health and people running the healthcare system is poor and has declined drastically over the last 40 years, only to have a somewhat partisan split recently as shown in the charts in the study linked below. More public relations, attacks on independent researchers and doctors and more poor studies and fabricated CDC data will only continue to destroy public trust over time (which I assume is your secret agenda) :-)
1) The vaccine deaths already happened, but doctors, the CDC, and global scientists conspired to hide them.
2) Because the vaccines work so well (wait I mean because they kill people) there is less demand for them, and a smaller vulnerable population, so unfortunately no future data will show vaccine deaths ...
So I guess we just have to take your work for it! Oh well!
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit.
Building straw men? That looks like a true talent of yours.
