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.
Twoggle returns and immediately posts the debunked Rancourt “17 million” deaths that is so patently absurd.
It’s already been discussed on this thread a few pages back too, and you had no response for the critiques beyond dumping another 5 tweet and 4 YouTube videos to change the subject. compelling
Twoggle returns and immediately posts the debunked Rancourt “17 million” deaths that is so patently absurd.
It’s already been discussed on this thread a few pages back too, and you had no response for the critiques beyond dumping another 5 tweet and 4 YouTube videos to change the subject. compelling
Only snarkiness folks. They have nothing.
Victory lap!!!!
Ok help me out. Point out the exact evidence he provided
Ah yes more independent experts like Peter McCullough who was sued by Baylor because he desperately tried to claim an affiliation when them after they fired him.
Prof Morris read Rancourts 130 page fantasy novel and smashed it to bits:
@denisrancourt has published a 130-page document purporting to show that the excess deaths in various southern hemisphere countries are driven by vaccines, and calling for vaccinations to be halted everywhere.
Not to mention that Rancourt is FUNDED by known grifters. He’s deep in COIs he won’t disclose. Telling.
Personally I suggest that Rancourt should have picked a smaller, more believable number when writing fantasy novels. One needs to get the read to suspend disbelief and swinging for the fences with hilarious hyperbole does break the immersion a bit. Some people seem to be fans, tough.
My point is simple and clear and backed by logical data. Here’s a 3 hour video and 170 page document explaining how every piece of data from 50 independent organizations is actually wrong and if you interpret them backwards and ignore half of them, they prove my point. Don’t ask me to make a prediction though because that’s too much.
I remember our famous friend Bad Wiggins and Facts Matter. We know how the low IQ set does with predictions.
Not to mention that Rancourt is FUNDED by known grifters. He’s deep in COIs he won’t disclose. Telling.
Personally I suggest that Rancourt should have picked a smaller, more believable number when writing fantasy novels. One needs to get the read to suspend disbelief and swinging for the fences with hilarious hyperbole does break the immersion a bit. Some people seem to be fans, tough.
Morris clearly didn’t read the 180-page report from Rancourt, et al. and he thinks it was 130 pages (did he misplace 50 pages?) — maybe that is why Morris is arguing about raw all-cause mortality graphs and Rancourt is using baseline-adjusted, all-cause mortality in specific vulnerable age groups, while controling for seasonality and taking into account how the vaccine and lockdowns were rolled out in each country. They looked at only 17 countries to start and are working on a report with 150 countries. Morris (and the hundreds of millions his institution and department receives from mRNA royalties and Pfizer) is tweeting about something that is unrelated to the Rancourt, et al. report, but it sounds good if one doesn’t read the report or watch the videos.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Not to mention that Rancourt is FUNDED by known grifters. He’s deep in COIs he won’t disclose. Telling.
Personally I suggest that Rancourt should have picked a smaller, more believable number when writing fantasy novels. One needs to get the read to suspend disbelief and swinging for the fences with hilarious hyperbole does break the immersion a bit. Some people seem to be fans, tough.
Morris clearly didn’t read the 180-page report from Rancourt, et al. and he thinks it was 130 pages (did he misplace 50 pages?) — maybe that is why Morris is arguing about raw all-cause mortality graphs and Rancourt is using baseline-adjusted, all-cause mortality in specific vulnerable age groups, while controling for seasonality and taking into account how the vaccine and lockdowns were rolled out in each country. They looked at only 17 countries to start and are working on a report with 150 countries. Morris (and the hundreds of millions his institution and department receives from mRNA royalties and Pfizer) is tweeting about something that is unrelated to the Rancourt, et al. report, but it sounds good if one doesn’t read the report or watch the videos.
There is not a single graph in the 210 pages that shows the death data are better fits to vaccination timelines vs COVID deaths - and remember this is for countries far beyond the US and its sphere of Big Pharma influence. Rancourt ignores this because he knows he cannot refute it. His only argument is that “if you count COVID deaths as vaccine deaths, the vaccine was deadly” and he has done no work to show the deaths aren’t COVID.
A tremendous oversight after 230 pages of writing!
Morris clearly didn’t read the 180-page report from Rancourt, et al. and he thinks it was 130 pages (did he misplace 50 pages?) — maybe that is why Morris is arguing about raw all-cause mortality graphs and Rancourt is using baseline-adjusted, all-cause mortality in specific vulnerable age groups, while controling for seasonality and taking into account how the vaccine and lockdowns were rolled out in each country. They looked at only 17 countries to start and are working on a report with 150 countries. Morris (and the hundreds of millions his institution and department receives from mRNA royalties and Pfizer) is tweeting about something that is unrelated to the Rancourt, et al. report, but it sounds good if one doesn’t read the report or watch the videos.
There is not a single graph in the 210 pages that shows the death data are better fits to vaccination timelines vs COVID deaths - and remember this is for countries far beyond the US and its sphere of Big Pharma influence. Rancourt ignores this because he knows he cannot refute it. His only argument is that “if you count COVID deaths as vaccine deaths, the vaccine was deadly” and he has done no work to show the deaths aren’t COVID.
A tremendous oversight after 230 pages of writing!
Displayed graphs has nothing to do with the Rancourt et al. paper. He discusses the data and findings in sections 6.4 & 6.5 starting on page 113. If they were to present a graph for every age group for each of the 17 countries, that could have taken up another 100 pages. During the debate presentation, Rancourt did show some of those graphs for vulnerable age groups and how they closely aligned with the vaccine drug rollout in various countries. It was easy for him to switch between graphs on the screen. After he finishes his report in 150 countries, I hope he makes those graphs for each of the countries available online.
By the way, the Rancourt, et al. paper is 180 pages, yet Morris states it is 130 pages and in your post it somehow becomes both 210 and 230 pages. One reason I post expert videos is sometimes the attention span needed to read a report (or even the page numbers of a report) is lacking.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
There is not a single graph in the 210 pages that shows the death data are better fits to vaccination timelines vs COVID deaths - and remember this is for countries far beyond the US and its sphere of Big Pharma influence. Rancourt ignores this because he knows he cannot refute it. His only argument is that “if you count COVID deaths as vaccine deaths, the vaccine was deadly” and he has done no work to show the deaths aren’t COVID.
A tremendous oversight after 230 pages of writing!
Displayed graphs has nothing to do with the Rancourt et al. paper. He discusses the data and findings in sections 6.4 & 6.5 starting on page 113. If they were to present a graph for every age group for each of the 17 countries, that could have taken up another 100 pages. During the debate presentation, Rancourt did show some of those graphs for vulnerable age groups and how they closely aligned with the vaccine drug rollout in various countries. It was easy for him to switch between graphs on the screen. After he finishes his report in 150 countries, I hope he makes those graphs for each of the countries available online.
By the way, the Rancourt, et al. paper is 180 pages, yet Morris states it is 130 pages and in your post it somehow becomes both 210 and 230 pages. One reason I post expert videos is sometimes the attention span needed to read a report (or even the page numbers of a report) is lacking.
I see nothing of value in the 260 pages myself. He should publish all data and figures. Not cherry pick.
I love when they try and attack the source. They do this because they can’t dispute the data and the science. Classic ad hominem fallacy. At least they’re not up to their typical straw men. Oh wait, they are 😂
These guys are walking, talking fallacies. Not to be confused with walking, talking phalluses (which also describes them). 😂
You call him Chokervic. He's in your head bro. It's an unhealthy preoccupation.
And why? Because he's smarter and braver than you? Let it go. Breathe. Relax. Nothing compelling for 3.75 years. You going to ruminate about nothing for another 3.75?
Comedy.
It’s a genius nickname even you admit it.
I’ve banished many antivaxxers from this thread. You will leave soon enough. That’s a win - something Chokervic couldn’t do.
Why are you relegated to talking about a tennis player who couldn't muster better than runner up (French) and fourth round (US Open) finishes in 2019, but who still went on to get the all time slams record during and after Covid? I though you were so smart that you didn't occupy yourself with such trivial things. I mean, you told us so. Yet, here you are. It's quite pathetic.
3.75 years, and you've convinced absolutely nobody, except your brethren on this thread, that the vaccines, if we really accept that definition, are no better than natural infection for conveying immunity in most people but have greater side effects that have jacked a lot of people up. Completely unnecessary and useless except in the riskiest groups (which seems to be your entire focus for corroborating vaccines = good).
You don't banish anyone. They banish themselves because this is incredibly tiring, arguing with an automaton who brings nothing compelling. No-vax ~ now that was a genius nickname. Dude bothers you so. In your head. You can't stop dwelling on him, and, now Kelce?
For persons disinclined to watch a 3 hour video, there's a written critique of Rancourt's paper by Tracy Beth Høeg at the link below. It's apparently this article that lead to the live debate.
Rancourt continues to ignore ANY confounding effects, primarily the delta & omicron waves of covid are significant, which is largely Morris's point and illustrated by his graphics and correlation metrics that were posted upthread.
Without this, my assessment is still that Rancourt's paper is rubbish and arguably dishonest.
Finally, and pre-emptively, I looked at Rancourt's paper prior to seeing Morris or Høeg's assessment and came to essentially the same criticisms.
It's a well known issue in statistical attribution that it is subject to bias if significant comfounding elements are left out and Rancourt has failed to acknowledge their existence, never mind include them in the (implicit) regression analysis.
I’ve banished many antivaxxers from this thread. You will leave soon enough. That’s a win - something Chokervic couldn’t do.
Why are you relegated to talking about a tennis player who couldn't muster better than runner up (French) and fourth round (US Open) finishes in 2019, but who still went on to get the all time slams record during and after Covid? I though you were so smart that you didn't occupy yourself with such trivial things. I mean, you told us so. Yet, here you are. It's quite pathetic.
3.75 years, and you've convinced absolutely nobody, except your brethren on this thread, that the vaccines, if we really accept that definition, are no better than natural infection for conveying immunity in most people but have greater side effects that have jacked a lot of people up. Completely unnecessary and useless except in the riskiest groups (which seems to be your entire focus for corroborating vaccines = good).
You don't banish anyone. They banish themselves because this is incredibly tiring, arguing with an automaton who brings nothing compelling. No-vax ~ now that was a genius nickname. Dude bothers you so. In your head. You can't stop dwelling on him, and, now Kelce?
"I am a physician-epidemiologist who has consistently questioned the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. In the summer of 2021, I was the lead author on the first major study pointing out the risks of post-Pfizer vaccination myocarditis in adolescents. We found that the potential benefits of full vaccination did not appear to outweigh the risks in healthy adolescent males just looking at post-vaccination myocarditis risks alone. Not long after, I was senior author of another analysis published in BMJ-Journal of Medical Ethics that found the harms of the booster dose in college age students likely outweighed potential benefits by at least 18-fold. What is more, I have written multiple timesabout the COVID-19 vaccines being implicated in numerous deaths and have a related peer-reviewed paper hopefully coming soon. Finally, I have most recently voiced my concern about the production process of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine and the potential risks of DNA plasmid contamination to the Public Health Integrity Committee."
Not weighing the merits of her critique of the 17 million deaths, this is her introduction. But, now she is the credible expert here? Monkeys, weren't you the one constantly touting that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks in -all- age groups? That's literally what you said. That's not what she said.
We all know people who were harmed by the vaccines, and some of them died. Only, if it wasn't in the first 48-72 hours, then no attribution was made. But you and your brethren would tell me that a family member's major adverse vaccine reaction was merely a headache. So, honestly, to hell with you guys.
People could see early and often that the virus really wasn't that deadly and that the vaccine really wasn't that effective. So, if you happened to be taking a wait and see approach and successfully developed immunity, somehow you had to wear the scarlet letter, like No-vax. But the No-vaxers of the world actually were -generally- correct (generally is not always and everywhere), and that just pisses off all you self-proclaimed high IQers to no end. It really is comedy gold.
For persons disinclined to watch a 3 hour video, there's a written critique of Rancourt's paper by Tracy Beth Høeg at the link below. It's apparently this article that lead to the live debate.
Rancourt continues to ignore ANY confounding effects, primarily the delta & omicron waves of covid are significant, which is largely Morris's point and illustrated by his graphics and correlation metrics that were posted upthread.
Without this, my assessment is still that Rancourt's paper is rubbish and arguably dishonest.
Finally, and pre-emptively, I looked at Rancourt's paper prior to seeing Morris or Høeg's assessment and came to essentially the same criticisms.
It's a well known issue in statistical attribution that it is subject to bias if significant comfounding elements are left out and Rancourt has failed to acknowledge their existence, never mind include them in the (implicit) regression analysis.
Rancourt specifically addressed potential confounding of delta and omicron in his paper. A person can agree or disagree with what he said about it, but he wasn't ignoring it. I hope people watch the full debate and look at the graphs. It will be more important when they look at 150 countries and hopefully share all of the same graphs shown in the debate in a supplement.
