Joe Biden, even after four covid shots, still is testing positive for covid 15 days after first testing positive. It’s almost as if the covid shot is total and complete sh*t.
Sorry, did Biden get airlifted to Walter Reed? I try to follow the news, but may have missed it.
At least some scientists have enough integrity to admit that a picture seen through a lens is not at all what he originally said it was.
Picture of Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun, located 4.2 light years? Nope… slice of sausage.
Photo de Proxima du Centaure, l’étoile la plus proche du Soleil, située à 4,2 année-lumière de nous. Elle a été prise par le JWST. Ce niveau de détails… Un nouveau monde se dévoile jour après jour. pic.twitter.com/88UBbHDQ7Z
Note: The 8th survey did not ask these questions. Instead it asked if the respondent was hospitalized as a result of a vaccine adverse event. The response to this question was 3%.
Oops, the 8th survey did ask this question, but it was below a lot of other questions. The response rate was 6% for "serious" or "very serious."
Great info. Actual real world data trumps anything else. These vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Layer on the risk profile for children with the very mild latest evolution of Covid and government / employer vaccine policies look increasingly reckless and destructive.
The peak was 31,000. The pandemic had an obvious effect on state function -- hence the drop. So we've seen an increase of 2k in ~ 2 years. That is a bit above trend but not terribly (also we'd need to normalize to age pyramid changes, etc, boomers can't seem to avoid getting old and frail).
I see 27k -> 31k over 10 years = 400/yr
2k/2 = 1k/yr so ~2.5x
Regardless, the increase has been since the pandemic and the vaccine release. One of these things is known to cause moderately frequent lasting effects, especially in populations already susceptible to long-term disabilities. The other is not. One has killed 100ks of Americans verifiably, the other has not.
Looking at this graph and thinking 'vaccine' and not 'COVID' is just staggering bias.
Again, you've cherry-picked to get an absolute peak with 31,000, and it's still 2.5x lower! If you went just a few months before or after, the number would be under 30k and 29k, respectively. Then factor in that disabilities didn't start to rise with the onset of the pandemic, but the onset of the vaccine. April-June 2021 is precisely where the greatest slope is, which was exactly when the majority of Americans received the two shots. There's another big jump from Oct-Dec 2021 when boosters were given.
But even if we ignore all of this and use your cherry-picked stats, we'd still have incredible statistical significance. Even if we buy the stat-warping lull argument, the lines of best fit before and after are not the same.
31k isn't cherry pick, it's the last piece of data before the pandemic and it's perfectly on trend with previous numbers. In fact, the stats he 31k a few months before the pandemic as well.
COVID hits, claims drop ~2k immediately (government disruptions) and then steadily climb since then. There is very little temporal correlation with vaccines. Claiming there are 'big jumps' that coincide with dosing is serious data squinting as the data are very, very noisy. Care to explain the MASSIVE jump in early 2016? Probably the vax... or noise? Definitely the vax.
The increase in disability claims is COVID until proven otherwise. You know, the disease that's killed like a million Americans and put ~5-10x that in the hospital?
Oops, the 8th survey did ask this question, but it was below a lot of other questions. The response rate was 6% for "serious" or "very serious."
Great info. Actual real world data trumps anything else. These vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Layer on the risk profile for children with the very mild latest evolution of Covid and government / employer vaccine policies look increasingly reckless and destructive.
I wonder if there may be selection bias in who answers these surveys as the only people I've ever heard talk about them are extreme vaccine skeptics. Nah...
Great info. Actual real world data trumps anything else. These vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Layer on the risk profile for children with the very mild latest evolution of Covid and government / employer vaccine policies look increasingly reckless and destructive.
I wonder if there may be selection bias in who answers these surveys as the only people I've ever heard talk about them are extreme vaccine skeptics. Nah...
Yeah, I'm sure there is some type of selection bias... probably (I had to look it up) volunteer bias. Even if the selection process is random, the people who take the time to respond (volunteers) are more likely to be someone who has had a very positive or very negative reaction. I call this the YELP effect because people who have had a subjectively negative experience are more likely to post a review than someone who has a neutral or even a positive response.
The surveys I compiled to show a 1 in 22 ratio serious adverse events are probably overreporting serious events because people who had serious adverse events are more likely to take the time to fill out the survey. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's overstated by a factor of 2-4x.
But even if it's overstated by a factor of 4, that's still millions of serious adverse events... far more than have been officially recognized.
In the details of one of the Kirsch polls there was one household where 13 out of 13 members were vaccinated and reported to have been hospitalized for vaccine related injuries. This seems incredibly improbable.
No. Whoever you are citing that said this is wrong. That's why you have to look at the data yourself.
I just did a page search for "13" in all five of the Kirsch polls. You (or whoever you are citing) confused a response. Question 17 of the 4July poll asked, "Did any of your household members die from having a Covid infection?" and there were 13 Yes responses. That doesn't mean 13 in one household; it means 13 respondents had a death in THEIR individual household.
Also, there is no question that asks, specifically, how many people live in your household. Question 15 asks about number of people in the household, but the highest response is A5 "8+ other people." So whoever you are citing is just flat wrong.
Although I screened the three newest polls for "13" I haven't reviewed their data yet. What I know is the first three Kirsch polls and the two Zogby polls have similar results on some key questions.
I suggest that you go back and look at these polls again with an open mind.
I may have misremembered the details, but the June 25 survey (mislabeled June 24 in Kirsch's blog) does ask about number of persons in the household who have been vaccinated (up to 20 and a improbable distribution) and a followup asks about the number of persons in the household who had an an adverse reaction "not including yourself" (up to 19 and with a similar improbable distribution).
In my defense, for the last couple years people like Kirsch have thrown so much dumb sh1t against the wall that it's hard to keep straight all the ways they've been wrong. Frankly we need better skeptics.
Keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out. --- Richard Feynman
No. Whoever you are citing that said this is wrong. That's why you have to look at the data yourself.
I just did a page search for "13" in all five of the Kirsch polls. You (or whoever you are citing) confused a response. Question 17 of the 4July poll asked, "Did any of your household members die from having a Covid infection?" and there were 13 Yes responses. That doesn't mean 13 in one household; it means 13 respondents had a death in THEIR individual household.
Also, there is no question that asks, specifically, how many people live in your household. Question 15 asks about number of people in the household, but the highest response is A5 "8+ other people." So whoever you are citing is just flat wrong.
Although I screened the three newest polls for "13" I haven't reviewed their data yet. What I know is the first three Kirsch polls and the two Zogby polls have similar results on some key questions.
I suggest that you go back and look at these polls again with an open mind.
I may have misremembered the details, but the June 25 survey (mislabeled June 24 in Kirsch's blog) does ask about number of persons in the household who have been vaccinated (up to 20 and a improbable distribution) and a followup asks about the number of persons in the household who had an an adverse reaction "not including yourself" (up to 19 and with a similar improbable distribution).
In my defense, for the last couple years people like Kirsch have thrown so much dumb sh1t against the wall that it's hard to keep straight all the ways they've been wrong. Frankly we need better skeptics.
Keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out. --- Richard Feynman
I'd never heard of Kirsch until I saw these polls mentioned on one of the conspiracy sites. He's been fast and loose with his interpretation of data and sensationalistic in making his points. Still, he started this survey approach, which I think is a GREAT idea because we aren't getting meaningful data anywhere else.
I also understand why people like Kirsch are so sensational. They sincerely believe that millions of people are going to die because of the boneheaded and possibly corrupt action of medical leaders and Big Pharma. The see the ends as justifying the means so they sensationalize these reports in hopes that more people will see them and act.
Meanwhile, on the other side, reports of adverse effects are rejected off hand by pro vaxxers on circular logic. "The vaccine is safe so the adverse events you're seeing aren't vaxx related so don't report them. The events then don't get reported so there is no data on adverse events. Since there is no data on adverse events, the vaccine is safe."
The scientific approach would be to track every event post-vaccination and look for trends. Based on reports from ER techs, doctors, and nurses, that's not being done. They're being told to shut up.
I've pointed out several times what needs to be done. New cases of diseases that have been possibly linked to the vaccine should be tracked by week by illness by vaccination status. (I'd also like to see it by race and age group. Those surveys *seem* to indicate that adverse events are 2x more likely in blacks and 3x more likely in Hispanics. It should be investigated.
Again, you've cherry-picked to get an absolute peak with 31,000, and it's still 2.5x lower! If you went just a few months before or after, the number would be under 30k and 29k, respectively. Then factor in that disabilities didn't start to rise with the onset of the pandemic, but the onset of the vaccine. April-June 2021 is precisely where the greatest slope is, which was exactly when the majority of Americans received the two shots. There's another big jump from Oct-Dec 2021 when boosters were given.
But even if we ignore all of this and use your cherry-picked stats, we'd still have incredible statistical significance. Even if we buy the stat-warping lull argument, the lines of best fit before and after are not the same.
31k isn't cherry pick, it's the last piece of data before the pandemic and it's perfectly on trend with previous numbers. In fact, the stats he 31k a few months before the pandemic as well.
COVID hits, claims drop ~2k immediately (government disruptions) and then steadily climb since then. There is very little temporal correlation with vaccines. Claiming there are 'big jumps' that coincide with dosing is serious data squinting as the data are very, very noisy. Care to explain the MASSIVE jump in early 2016? Probably the vax... or noise? Definitely the vax.
The increase in disability claims is COVID until proven otherwise. You know, the disease that's killed like a million Americans and put ~5-10x that in the hospital?
I highly doubt anyone in the US was failing to file a disability claim on Feb 1, 2020. Many things didn't truly start to slow down until the 3rd-4th week of March. And the next data point after that is 29.8k, so let's go with that one. And then you also picked a relative low point in 2010, when 2008 (the beginning of data collection for the graph) or 2012, would have created a lower slope yet again. As a reminder, even if we grant every single one of your curve-fitting maneuvers, we still have absurd significance: 250% increases, which start not at the onset of COVID, but over a year later.
Let's notice the other logical fallacies like assuming the hypothesis and circular reasoning. If you asked reasonable, neutral parties what evidence they would want to see to give credence to the idea that the vaccine is correlated with disability rise, two very specific windows that perfectly correlate mass vaccination with huge rises in disability claims would be the smoking gun. Especially when it also corroborates the anecdotal evidence. It's hard to argue with a hypothesis like yours when it's virtually unfalsifiable.
The CDC is warning that a mysterious virus is attacking infants at a much higher rate than ever before. Specifically a form of “parechovirus,” the infection ...
It's hard to argue with a hypothesis like yours when it's virtually unfalsifiable.
It's not clear to me that Harambe's hypothesis isn't statistically testable via some sort of multiple regression model.
What is clear is that 2021 is highly anomalous, it's not because of the vaccine, and using it as a baseline without considering confounding factors is silly.
1. What is clear is that 2021 is highly anomalous,
2. it's not because of the vaccine, and
3. using it as a baseline without considering confounding factors is silly.
1. True
2. Unknown and definitely unproven
3. Agreed.
Since 2021 is anomalous and since we have a possible cause... the vaccine... it would be prudent to test the vaccine damage hypothesis.
One approach would be to survey 1,000 people who have applied for disability in the last... oh... 9 months or so and ask 1) are you vaccinated 2) did your new disability start after you were vaccinated? 3) If so, how long after? 4) Do you think your disability is vaccine related?
NIH or the CDC could easily do this. If the results were less than 0.1% yes (1 in 1,000)... roughly 3,000 disabilities since vaccinations started possibly attributed to vaccine damage... then we could eliminate the disability concern.
On the other hand, if it were 10 times higher, that should warrant an immediate freeze on vaccinations until it could be studied thoroughly.
2
1
Another One Bites the Dust, Hey, the Vax going to Get You Too
1. What is clear is that 2021 is highly anomalous,
2. it's not because of the vaccine, and
3. using it as a baseline without considering confounding factors is silly.
1. True
2. Unknown and definitely unproven
3. Agreed.
Since 2021 is anomalous and since we have a possible cause... the vaccine... it would be prudent to test the vaccine damage hypothesis.
One approach would be to survey 1,000 people who have applied for disability in the last... oh... 9 months or so and ask 1) are you vaccinated 2) did your new disability start after you were vaccinated? 3) If so, how long after? 4) Do you think your disability is vaccine related?
NIH or the CDC could easily do this. If the results were less than 0.1% yes (1 in 1,000)... roughly 3,000 disabilities since vaccinations started possibly attributed to vaccine damage... then we could eliminate the disability concern.
On the other hand, if it were 10 times higher, that should warrant an immediate freeze on vaccinations until it could be studied thoroughly.
"2021" in the above should have been "April 2020-March 2021". That part is clearly low and clearly for reasons unrelated to the vaccine for the balance of 2020 at least.
The implication is that changes in disability rates are multi-factor over the time period of interest and any analysis that doesn't consider multiple factors is bogus on the face of it. Harambe at least tried a hand-wavy explanation, but those raising this as an issue need to own a credible hypothesis that explains all the changes over the period.
2
0
Another One Bites the Dust, Hey, the Vax going to Get You Too
Japanese Surgeon Calls for End to COVID Vaccine Booster Program in Letter to Prominent Medical Journal: Dr. Kenji Yamamoto, a heart surgeon, has recorded an uptick in vaccine-related immune system deficiencies:
Dr. Kenji Yamamoto, a Japanese cardiovascular surgeon, has penned a letter to the peer-reviewed journal Virology calling for an end to the COVID-19 vaccine booster program in the country.
For some patients, vaccine-induced side effects proved fatal, the letter explains. In addition, Yamamoto believes the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has suppressed the immune systems of a number of patients.
Japanese Surgeon Calls for End to COVID Vaccine Booster Program in Letter to Prominent Medical Journal: Dr. Kenji Yamamoto, a heart surgeon, has recorded an uptick in vaccine-related immune system deficiencies:
For some patients, vaccine-induced side effects proved fatal, the letter explains. In addition, Yamamoto believes the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has suppressed the immune systems of a number of patients.
I am a US heart surgeon who says we should all get 30 boosters. See how easy this is?
Japanese Surgeon Calls for End to COVID Vaccine Booster Program in Letter to Prominent Medical Journal: Dr. Kenji Yamamoto, a heart surgeon, has recorded an uptick in vaccine-related immune system deficiencies:
For some patients, vaccine-induced side effects proved fatal, the letter explains. In addition, Yamamoto believes the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has suppressed the immune systems of a number of patients.
Well, we don’t like the source and we can just discard this guy as a “grifter.” So forget what he says. Couldn’t possibly be any truth to it.
Japanese Surgeon Calls for End to COVID Vaccine Booster Program in Letter to Prominent Medical Journal: Dr. Kenji Yamamoto, a heart surgeon, has recorded an uptick in vaccine-related immune system deficiencies:
For some patients, vaccine-induced side effects proved fatal, the letter explains. In addition, Yamamoto believes the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has suppressed the immune systems of a number of patients.
Well, we don’t like the source and we can just discard this guy as a “grifter.” So forget what he says. Couldn’t possibly be any truth to it.
There are over 1 million doctors in the United States alone. A doctor or even a small group of doctors making a statement of belief, without controlled evidence and specialty in interpreting said data doesn’t merit being in the news.
by far your most credible advocate is ionnaidis.
1
0
after a stewards inquiry, I beat the hobby joggers
While many Guardsmen have outright refused to get vaccinated, some service members have put off getting inoculated while protected by pending lawsuits.
