$20 and free copy of Molecular Biology of the Cell to someone who can explain what frameshifting is.
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.
-
21
-
2600 bro wrote:
The hand-waving comment relates to an unproven assumption that the reduction in measles deaths of 0.2/100k after the vaccine drugs would not have occurred without the vaccine drugs given the trend of reduction that had been happening from 1900 to 1960 (13.2/100k reduced to 0.2/100k).
I never claimed that the vaccine drugs had zero effect. In fact the articles I posted claimed they have an effect, but relatively small compared to the changes that happened during most of the early 1900s. The piece authored by one of the founders of the infectious disease research in the U.S. warns doctors about over-stating the benefits of vaccine drugs as to do so will ultimately cause people to lose faith in medical science. The surveys I posted show that this is happening. Those who continue down this path will only cause ore people to lose faith in medical science.
02 -
twoggle wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
The hand-waving comment relates to an unproven assumption that the reduction in measles deaths of 0.2/100k after the vaccine drugs would not have occurred without the vaccine drugs given the trend of reduction that had been happening from 1900 to 1960 (13.2/100k reduced to 0.2/100k).
I never claimed that the vaccine drugs had zero effect. In fact the articles I posted claimed they have an effect, but relatively small compared to the changes that happened during most of the early 1900s. The piece authored by one of the founders of the infectious disease research in the U.S. warns doctors about over-stating the benefits of vaccine drugs as to do so will ultimately cause people to lose faith in medical science. The surveys I posted show that this is happening. Those who continue down this path will only cause ore people to lose faith in medical science.
That's because those articles were written before the majority of important vaccines were approved and/or widely distributed. There's a reason nobody with any level of respect has written this since 1971 - because it's not true anymore.
31 -
Anyone can see that I started sharing videos from independent sources prior to you trying to derail that COVID conversation by focusing only on things you thought I was saying about measles. The original post of useful links started at:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11045022&page=827#post-16549
Now that I have the links/videos sorted into categories, I can add to the list and post them on occasion. Fortunately, that will be a drop in the bucket compared to the number of posts of those who are defending these dangerous drugs.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.10 -
twoggle wrote:
Harambe wrote:
I will, of course, also note the trend. When you post a refutation of an argument twoggle is making, there are immediately multiple posts with 20+ links in what appears to be a desperate attempt to change the subject.
But hey, I'm just noticing patterns as an independent thinker.
Anyone can see that I started sharing videos from independent sources prior to you trying to derail that COVID conversation by focusing only on things you thought I was saying about measles. The original post of useful links started at:
Yes, we're aware you've posted these links before. Usually when it seems like you want to change the subject.
I'll repost what I said since you won't engage with it:
Basically this. Unless you're going to argue that preventing infections does not prevent deaths?
This is more classic twoggle doubt-casting. It's all they do. They think that pointing out imperfections in the reams of pro-vaccine data is equivalent to positively supporting an antivaxx viewpoint. It's not - and everyone else can see this.
In fact, we've moved into new territory. Now we are being asked to prove a negative. That is, show that the decrease in measles deaths from 1964 to today (200-1000x decrease) was not caused by anything else other than vaccines. The antivaxxers have now ventured into the 'logically impossible' realm of evidence demands. A new low. Anyway, for those of us with an open mind it's clear to see that a vaccine that prevents 96+% of infections is the principal explanation for the decrease in deaths. But hey, a couple of scientists in 1975 - before most of the modern vaccines were in widespread use - could not imagine the future we live in. Therefore it must be false!This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.01 -
Harambe wrote:
Actually, there were many new links with useful, independent information.
I never asked anyone to prove a negative. I simply pointed out the proven facts that the death rate from measles went from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k in 60 years prior to the vaccine drugs and then 0.2/100k to near zero in 60 years since. I also pointed out the obvious that we don't know what reduction there would have continued without the vaccine drugs. The authors of the articles are correct that the overwhelming majority of deaths were prevented prior to the vaccine drugs. These facts are indisputable simple based on the numbers.
But now that I continue posting useful links, you seem to be set on focusing on measles.
10 -
twoggle wrote:
Actually, there were many new links with useful, independent information.
I never asked anyone to prove a negative. I simply pointed out the proven facts that the death rate from measles went from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k in 60 years prior to the vaccine drugs and then 0.2/100k to near zero in 60 years since. I also pointed out the obvious that we don't know what reduction there would have continued without the vaccine drugs. The authors of the articles are correct that the overwhelming majority of deaths were prevented prior to the vaccine drugs. These facts are indisputable simple based on the numbers.
But now that I continue posting useful links, you seem to be set on focusing on measles.
Yes, you are asking people to prove a negative. Rather an accept positive evidence for the measles vaccine, you are asking others to disprove all other possible explanations for the reduction before you accept an explanation.
This is true for any infectious disease. Sanitation and antibiotics are the remaining 2 of the 3 greatest public health achievements in history.
Those two advances cut the death rate 66x. Vaccines cut the death rate an additional 200x.
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
01 -
twoggle wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
The hand-waving comment relates to an unproven assumption that the reduction in measles deaths of 0.2/100k after the vaccine drugs would not have occurred without the vaccine drugs given the trend of reduction that had been happening from 1900 to 1960 (13.2/100k reduced to 0.2/100k).
I never claimed that the vaccine drugs had zero effect. In fact the articles I posted claimed they have an effect, but relatively small compared to the changes that happened during most of the early 1900s. The piece authored by one of the founders of the infectious disease research in the U.S. warns doctors about over-stating the benefits of vaccine drugs as to do so will ultimately cause people to lose faith in medical science. The surveys I posted show that this is happening. Those who continue down this path will only cause ore people to lose faith in medical science.
Measles? 😂 This is one of the fakest thing BP has done over the years. Convince people that it is a deadly disease when it’s no more dangerous than a hang nail. Now, go ahead, 260dimwit, and quote us the CDC or WHO stats about hundreds of thousands of deaths in some super remote and utterly unverifiable place like Madagascar so that I can get another good laugh.
10 -
Hang Nail wrote:
twoggle wrote:
The hand-waving comment relates to an unproven assumption that the reduction in measles deaths of 0.2/100k after the vaccine drugs would not have occurred without the vaccine drugs given the trend of reduction that had been happening from 1900 to 1960 (13.2/100k reduced to 0.2/100k).
I never claimed that the vaccine drugs had zero effect. In fact the articles I posted claimed they have an effect, but relatively small compared to the changes that happened during most of the early 1900s. The piece authored by one of the founders of the infectious disease research in the U.S. warns doctors about over-stating the benefits of vaccine drugs as to do so will ultimately cause people to lose faith in medical science. The surveys I posted show that this is happening. Those who continue down this path will only cause ore people to lose faith in medical science.
Measles? 😂 This is one of the fakest thing BP has done over the years. Convince people that it is a deadly disease when it’s no more dangerous than a hang nail. Now, go ahead, 260dimwit, and quote us the CDC or WHO stats about hundreds of thousands of deaths in some super remote and utterly unverifiable place like Madagascar so that I can get another good laugh.
Data relevant to the USA:
1 in 5 unvaccinated kids are hospitalized, 1-3 in 1000 are dead. More are permanently cognitively impaired or deaf.
Most parents I know would prefer not to see their child hospitalized, permanently deaf, or dead.
Maybe antivaxxers don't care about that stuff.
01 -
warns doctors about over-stating the benefits of vaccine drugs as to do so will ultimately cause people to lose faith in medical science. The surveys I posted show that this is happening. Those who continue down this path will only cause ore people to lose faith in medical science.
I'll call this out especially.
Faith in medical science is dropping because people, like the antivaxxers on this thread, are knowingly (or, if they're very stupid, unknowingly) spreading misinformation about the vaccines.
01 -
Harambe wrote:
Hang Nail wrote:
Measles? 😂 This is one of the fakest thing BP has done over the years. Convince people that it is a deadly disease when it’s no more dangerous than a hang nail. Now, go ahead, 260dimwit, and quote us the CDC or WHO stats about hundreds of thousands of deaths in some super remote and utterly unverifiable place like Madagascar so that I can get another good laugh.
Data relevant to the USA:
1 in 5 unvaccinated kids are hospitalized, 1-3 in 1000 are dead. More are permanently cognitively impaired or deaf.
Most parents I know would prefer not to see their child hospitalized, permanently deaf, or dead.
Maybe antivaxxers don't care about that stuff.
Lies, lies, lies. I had it. My family had it. My entire school and their families had it. Nobody was hospitalized. Nobody died. You are completely devoid of common scientific sense.
12 -
Harambe wrote:
twoggle wrote:
Actually, there were many new links with useful, independent information.
I never asked anyone to prove a negative. I simply pointed out the proven facts that the death rate from measles went from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k in 60 years prior to the vaccine drugs and then 0.2/100k to near zero in 60 years since. I also pointed out the obvious that we don't know what reduction there would have continued without the vaccine drugs. The authors of the articles are correct that the overwhelming majority of deaths were prevented prior to the vaccine drugs. These facts are indisputable simple based on the numbers.
But now that I continue posting useful links, you seem to be set on focusing on measles.
Yes, you are asking people to prove a negative. Rather an accept positive evidence for the measles vaccine, you are asking others to disprove all other possible explanations for the reduction before you accept an explanation.
This is true for any infectious disease. Sanitation and antibiotics are the remaining 2 of the 3 greatest public health achievements in history.
Those two advances cut the death rate 66x. Vaccines cut the death rate an additional 200x.
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
I answered all of these points & questions in earlier posts.
I also know that a reduction in death rates from 13.2 deaths/100k to 0.2 deaths/100k is far greater than 0.2 deaths/100k to near zero. Statistical games are not convincing to anyone who knows basic math.
Still focused on measles rather than dangerous, contaminated COVID mRNA drugs?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.10 -
Hang Nail wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Data relevant to the USA:
1 in 5 unvaccinated kids are hospitalized, 1-3 in 1000 are dead. More are permanently cognitively impaired or deaf.
Most parents I know would prefer not to see their child hospitalized, permanently deaf, or dead.
Maybe antivaxxers don't care about that stuff.
Lies, lies, lies. I had it. My family had it. My entire school and their families had it. Nobody was hospitalized. Nobody died. You are completely devoid of common scientific sense.
Data vs. anecdotes. As always. Always nice to see the hardcore antivaxxers come out.
DanM, sub-9, etc - this is who's in your camp. Seem nice?
30 -
twoggle wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Yes, you are asking people to prove a negative. Rather an accept positive evidence for the measles vaccine, you are asking others to disprove all other possible explanations for the reduction before you accept an explanation.
This is true for any infectious disease. Sanitation and antibiotics are the remaining 2 of the 3 greatest public health achievements in history.
Those two advances cut the death rate 66x. Vaccines cut the death rate an additional 200x.
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
I answered all of these points & questions in earlier posts.
I also know that a reduction in death rates from 13.2 deaths/100k to 0.2 deaths/100k is far greater than 0.2 deaths/100k to near zero. Statistical games are not convincing to anyone who knows basic math.
Still focused on measles rather than dangerous, contaminated COVID mRNA drugs?
I posit if we had discovered the measles vaccine in 1900 the rate would have dropped to 0.001 by 1920. Real shame we didn’t.
Twoggle realizes the measles data is counterproductive to his dogma: what about COVID!
Yes, the COVID vaccine that has saved tens of millions of lives with zero major safety signals? Batch to batch variation in vaccines has not been correlated with any adverse events! The data isn’t there. Just hand wringing and hypothesis.
10 -
twoggle wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Yes, you are asking people to prove a negative. Rather an accept positive evidence for the measles vaccine, you are asking others to disprove all other possible explanations for the reduction before you accept an explanation.
This is true for any infectious disease. Sanitation and antibiotics are the remaining 2 of the 3 greatest public health achievements in history.
Those two advances cut the death rate 66x. Vaccines cut the death rate an additional 200x.
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
I answered all of these points & questions in earlier posts.
I also know that a reduction in death rates from 13.2 deaths/100k to 0.2 deaths/100k is far greater than 0.2 deaths/100k to near zero. Statistical games are not convincing to anyone who knows basic math.
Still focused on measles rather than dangerous, contaminated COVID mRNA drugs?
When dealing with logarithmically distributed data, it's best to always deal with geometric, rather than arithmetic comparisons. That's what I did to show vaccines caused a greater proportional decrease in the death rate than prior efforts.
You still wont' answer the question though. For someone with so many opinions on the topic:
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?10 -
Another sleepless night for Harambro. Spam posting all night, but unable to muster a cogent argument. It has to be frustrating for him at this point to be met with science and data whenever he tries to make a point. 😂 Twoggle simply owned him again.
Harambro, perhaps making a third personality will get you over the top. 😛
21 -
Harambe wrote:
twoggle wrote:
I answered all of these points & questions in earlier posts.
I also know that a reduction in death rates from 13.2 deaths/100k to 0.2 deaths/100k is far greater than 0.2 deaths/100k to near zero. Statistical games are not convincing to anyone who knows basic math.
Still focused on measles rather than dangerous, contaminated COVID mRNA drugs?
When dealing with logarithmically distributed data, it's best to always deal with geometric, rather than arithmetic comparisons. That's what I did to show vaccines caused a greater proportional decrease in the death rate than prior efforts.
You still wont' answer the question though. For someone with so many opinions on the topic:
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
Answered you question previously in post #16610. But math games will only serve to drive people away from vaccine drugs. Anyone can see which reduction is greater 13.2–>0.2 OR 02.—>~0.0. By your logic, a reduction of 1000 deaths/100k to 1 death/100k is not as beneficial as 1 death/100k to 0.00002 deaths/100k.
Large numbers of people are finding out and sharing that the overwhelming amount of death reduction from some childhood illnesses ocurred prior to vaccine drugs. Best way to promote vaccine drugs, IMO, is to avoid over-stating benefits, avoid under-stating adverse effects and look to replace neurotoxic ingredients.
00 -
twoggle wrote:
Harambe wrote:
When dealing with logarithmically distributed data, it's best to always deal with geometric, rather than arithmetic comparisons. That's what I did to show vaccines caused a greater proportional decrease in the death rate than prior efforts.
You still wont' answer the question though. For someone with so many opinions on the topic:
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
Answered you question previously in post #16610. But math games will only serve to drive people away from vaccine drugs. Anyone can see which reduction is greater 13.2–>0.2 OR 02.—>~0.0. By your logic, a reduction of 1000 deaths/100k to 1 death/100k is not as beneficial as 1 death/100k to 0.00002 deaths/100k.
Large numbers of people are finding out and sharing that the overwhelming amount of death reduction from some childhood illnesses ocurred prior to vaccine drugs. Best way to promote vaccine drugs, IMO, is to avoid over-stating benefits, avoid under-stating adverse effects and look to replace neurotoxic ingredients.
Your reply will be met with:
1) Snarkiness
2) Straw men (I predict a lot)
3) Angrrrrrrr!10 -
Sub-9 fella wrote:
I have to confess these are interesting papers. Especially the one on nanoparticles and clotting.
Cue the "superiors"... but, but, but Covid causes heart disease and undetected clotting!
Long live the world's greatest tennis player who will go down in history as an icon for standing up for medical freedom.
If I don't reappear soon, you can safely assume the split personality stole yet another handle.
Again, this is fascinating work, especially the LNP paper. I watched this Vinay Prasad video twogoggle posted too. Are we just going to dismiss it as more youtube and substack? Prasad has his MD from U Chicago, separate fellowships in oncology and hematology, and an MPH from Johns Hopkins, not exactly an antivax, right-wing think tank. He's a professor of epidemiology at UCSF. In other words, he's way more credentialed than these clowns.
Listen to his subtle references to 2600Harambro. And the CDC.Is he just an "antivaxxer" who is vaccinated or does he also see the disingenuousness of all of these clowns? They wonder why they've alienated everyone. They wonder why no one is taking their advice and has less faith in the CDC than ever before, and why people are more inclined than ever not to get even a flu vaccine! Great work scientists. There's nothing political about what you've done.
They wonder why people would be skeptical about a paper put out by the very same organization that shows that maybe, maybe a fifth vaccine will prevent Covid symptoms for another eight months against the current strain that has already evolved away with all kinds of qualifiers.
But, frame shifting! But, Djokovic has long Covid, I just know it! Nothing I say is disingenuous and I haven't lied, cheated, or mischaracterized ever! Nor have I mocked! Don't listen the Vinay Prasad! Djokovic is an antivaxxer! You guys don't even know the difference between arithmetic and geometric mean or when to use a logarithmic scale! Wahhhhhh!
Prasad lays it all out.10 -
Why was the US government ok with Djokovic coming here in 2021 but not in 2022? Why were illegal immigrants allowed to come here, unvaccinated, and then shipped to sanctuary cities, a practice that continues to this day?
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.