- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 37% of placentas from jabbed mothers contain spike protein
Posted on 3/13/26 at 1:53 pm to jclem11
Posted on 3/13/26 at 1:53 pm to jclem11
quote:
According to the MAGA Drs. we should have seen millions and millions dropping dead from the vax by now and that has not happened.
Millions did die.
Because of the success of the vaccine rollout and uptake, I'd assume 70-90% of those deaths were in vaccinated individuals (About 97.1% of the U.S. population over 16 has gotten at least one dose, and about 82.7% of those over 16 are fully vaccinated.)
So... 12.5 million people died in the usa from 2021-2024... roughly 10 million people vaccinated have died.
Was it all from the shot? No... but neither was every covid death from covid.
0
Posted on 3/13/26 at 1:53 pm to jclem11
quote:
According to the MAGA Drs. we should have seen millions and millions dropping dead from the vax by now and that has not happened.
My gut tells me that you're a lying bitch but perhaps you'll provide a link to back up this claim?
Posted on 3/13/26 at 2:30 pm to shinerfan
quote:
My gut tells me that you're a lying bitch but perhaps you'll provide a link to back up this claim?
There are not enough hours in the day to link all the stupid shite this board has spewed about the vax the last five years. lmao.
I was repeatedly told by this board that I would be dead by now from the vax and it's been going on 5 years on since I got the two doses and I'm not dead like the poliboard vaxx experts said I would be.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 3:50 pm to Night Vision
The "journal"
quote:
The association's Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JP&S) was previously named the Medical Sentinel from 1996 to 2003 and masquerades as a legitimate scientific journal. It is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed, or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the viewpoints advocated by AAPS are rejected by other scientists and medical groups.[67] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[67]
As of September 2016, JP&S was listed on Beall's List of potential or probable predatory open-access journals.[68] Quackwatch lists JP&S as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[69] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described the journal as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[70] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[71] Writing in The Guardian, science columnist Ben Goldacre described the journal as the "in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines."[72]
quote:
Publishing of scientifically discredited claims
Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of scientifically discredited claims,[67] including:
That human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus is not a cause for concern.[73][74]
That HIV does not cause AIDS.[75]
That there is a link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer.[8]
That there are possible links between autism and vaccinations.[8]
That government efforts to encourage smoking cessation and emphasize the addictive nature of nicotine are misguided.[76] In the fall of 2009, economist Michael Marlow published an article in AAPS' journal arguing that tobacco tax would decrease public health when people "switch to higher tar and nicotine brands as they smoke less."[7
Posted on 3/13/26 at 4:10 pm to Sailin Tiger
quote:
Publishing of scientifically discredited claims
-That human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus is not a cause for concern
-That there is a link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer
Hmm... these are wrong?
Breastfeeding lessens the risk of breast cancer... women don't breastfeed flushed feti
How is global warming actually harmful? no hockey stick graphs, please
Posted on 3/13/26 at 4:38 pm to SallysHuman
The abortion --> breast cancer idea comes from a misunderstanding of how the risk factors work. Pregnancy does slightly lower lifetime breast cancer risk because breast cells mature during pregnancy. But abortion doesn't reverse that process or increase risk which is why the large epidemiological studies haven't found an association. It's one of those cases where a mechanism sounds plausible but doesn't show up in real-world data. Dunno about the climate change one.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 4:48 pm to jclem11
To be fair, the internet did produce some wild predictions in 2021 - everything from “mass die-offs/dying suddenlies" to “microchips”. But it also produced a lot of overconfidence on the other side about things like transmission and durability of protection. In hindsight the reality ended up being more boring - the vaccines were very good at preventing severe disease early on, less good at stopping spread than hoped, and like most medical interventions came with some real but uncommon risks. Five years later the lesson is probably less “one side was crazy” and more “everyone was trying to reason in real time with incomplete information”.
This post was edited on 3/13/26 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 3/13/26 at 4:53 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
“everyone was trying to reason in real time with incomplete information”.
Absolutely not. You're telling me the medical community/government officials dismissing natural immunity was just an honest mistake? bullshite.
Were there honest mistake made? Sure. But I saw more than enough to convince me that some of it was willful and malicious. Pharmacies refusing to fill ivermectin orders was not people just doing their best and making honest mistakes.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 4:57 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Pregnancy does slightly lower lifetime breast cancer risk because breast cells mature during pregnancy. But abortion doesn't reverse that process or increase risk which is why the large epidemiological studies haven't found an association.
I think I get what you mean, but I'll need to mull it over.
Basically (for simplicity), if the baseline risk is 10, a full pregnancy and breastfeeding can bring that down... but abortion doesn't make it go up, right?
Does that account for stunted biological processes? Since the pregnancy/breastfeeding cycle is begun but not carried through?
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:01 pm to Flats
Fair. I think you’re right that some of the messaging crossed the line from “communicating uncertainty” into “overconfidence” The natural immunity issue is probably the cleanest example of that.
IMO, there’s a difference between bad messaging, bad policy, and bad science. e.g. natural immunity absolutely provides protection - the immunology on that was never controversial. The policy debate was whether governments should treat prior infection the same as vaccination when designing mandates. Some countries eventually did, others didn’t. That’s a policy choice, not really a scientific claim.
The ivermectin situation is another case where several things got mixed together. Early on there were small studies suggesting benefit, which is normal in drug research. But when the larger randomized trials came out they didn’t show much effect, and some early studies turned out to be unreliable, were retracted, etc.
Pharmacies are in a weird position because they aren’t just filling prescriptions - they’re also responsible for dispensing drugs consistent with medical standards of care. When a drug becomes politically charged like ivermectin was, corporate pharmacies tend to clamp down hard to avoid liability while mom&pop's know their local customer base, took more chances.
IMO, there’s a difference between bad messaging, bad policy, and bad science. e.g. natural immunity absolutely provides protection - the immunology on that was never controversial. The policy debate was whether governments should treat prior infection the same as vaccination when designing mandates. Some countries eventually did, others didn’t. That’s a policy choice, not really a scientific claim.
The ivermectin situation is another case where several things got mixed together. Early on there were small studies suggesting benefit, which is normal in drug research. But when the larger randomized trials came out they didn’t show much effect, and some early studies turned out to be unreliable, were retracted, etc.
Pharmacies are in a weird position because they aren’t just filling prescriptions - they’re also responsible for dispensing drugs consistent with medical standards of care. When a drug becomes politically charged like ivermectin was, corporate pharmacies tend to clamp down hard to avoid liability while mom&pop's know their local customer base, took more chances.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:05 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
That’s a policy choice, not really a scientific claim.
And the policy we chose was screw the science, you all need the vax. That's not a mistake no matter how pretty a picture you paint and it was made by the medical community AND our government "institutions".
quote:
When a drug becomes politically charged like ivermectin was, corporate pharmacies tend to clamp down hard
Yeah, especially with the crystal clear message coming from our health "experts" and federal government that ivermectin was dangerous and shouldn't be used. What to you think that would do to a liability case?
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:16 pm to Flats
I don’t think the disagreement between us is really about whether mistakes were made - there clearly were. The part that’s tricky is how decisions get made when the science is still developing. Early in the pandemic there were at least 3 different things happening at once -
scientists trying to understand the virus, governments trying to reduce hospital overload, & public messaging trying to push behaviors at population scale. Those 3 incentives don’t always line up neatly.
On natural immunity, I agree the messaging was overly blunt. Infection does produce immunity & immunologists always knew that. The policy debate was whether governments should rely on prior infection as part of their vaccination strategy. Some countries eventually did, others didn’t. IMO, reasonable people can disagree about that.
The ivermectin fight is a good example of how politics distorts both sides of a scientific question. As I said, early small studies created excitement, then larger trials didn’t show much benefit. At the same time the messaging around it became extremely polarized which probably made institutions react more aggressively than they otherwise would have. We swing at shadows a lot.
One thing the pandemic exposed is that our institutions often suck at communicating uncertainty. They try to simplify the message for the public & get backfire effects, looking like everyone is saying “the science is settled” even when scientists are still arguing about details behind the scenes.
scientists trying to understand the virus, governments trying to reduce hospital overload, & public messaging trying to push behaviors at population scale. Those 3 incentives don’t always line up neatly.
On natural immunity, I agree the messaging was overly blunt. Infection does produce immunity & immunologists always knew that. The policy debate was whether governments should rely on prior infection as part of their vaccination strategy. Some countries eventually did, others didn’t. IMO, reasonable people can disagree about that.
The ivermectin fight is a good example of how politics distorts both sides of a scientific question. As I said, early small studies created excitement, then larger trials didn’t show much benefit. At the same time the messaging around it became extremely polarized which probably made institutions react more aggressively than they otherwise would have. We swing at shadows a lot.
One thing the pandemic exposed is that our institutions often suck at communicating uncertainty. They try to simplify the message for the public & get backfire effects, looking like everyone is saying “the science is settled” even when scientists are still arguing about details behind the scenes.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:20 pm to SallysHuman
yeah, your simple example is basically the right way to think about it. A full pregnancy and breastfeeding nudge lifetime risk down a bit compared with someone who never goes through that process. The question researchers looked at was exactly what you're asking - if pregnancy starts but ends early, does that leave breast cells in some sort of intermediate state that raises risk?
That hypothesis was actually proposed years ago, but when large epidemiological studies looked at women over time, they didn’t find an increased breast-cancer rate after abortion or miscarriage.
That hypothesis was actually proposed years ago, but when large epidemiological studies looked at women over time, they didn’t find an increased breast-cancer rate after abortion or miscarriage.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:23 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
They try to simplify the message for the public & get backfire effects, looking like everyone is saying “the science is settled”
Lying is not simplifying a message and Fauci claiming that he's "science" wasn't an honest actor trying to simplify anything, it was 100% meant to shut down conversation.
I completely agree that there were honest mistakes made, but you can dress the rest of that garbage up with as many invisible gold threads as you like. That emperor has no clothes.
This post was edited on 3/13/26 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:26 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I don’t think the disagreement between us is really about whether mistakes were made - there clearly were.
When you know you're misleading/outright lying, is it really a mistake?
It's not like the industry "mistakenly" believed there was no natural immunity w/ Covid. Its position/messaging wasn't a mistake. It was purposeful, deceitful, and for reasons that benefited the industry at a cost borne by patients and the general public.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:27 pm to Night Vision
Tried to tell everyone that shite was bad.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:27 pm to Flats
I’m not going to try to convince anyone that Fauci handled every press conference perfectly. If there’s a HoF for self-owns the “I am the science” line deserves a plaque.
I think a major part of FUBAR of the pandemic was that public messaging and scientific debate got fused together in a really awkward/retarded way. Scientists argue and hedge all the time when talking to each other, but public health messaging tends to flatten that into simple directives that look awful after biological reality renders its verdict.
When those two worlds collide you end up with exactly what we saw - people hearing certainty where there was actually a lot of uncertainty behind the scenes.
I think a major part of FUBAR of the pandemic was that public messaging and scientific debate got fused together in a really awkward/retarded way. Scientists argue and hedge all the time when talking to each other, but public health messaging tends to flatten that into simple directives that look awful after biological reality renders its verdict.
When those two worlds collide you end up with exactly what we saw - people hearing certainty where there was actually a lot of uncertainty behind the scenes.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:30 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
but public health messaging tends to flatten that into simple directives that look awful after biological reality renders its verdict.
So why should we trust them?
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:35 pm to Flats
That's a major challenge of epistemology/philosophy of science. I'll do my best. 
I don’t think the answer is simply “trust 'em” Obviously Individual experts and institutions get things wrong all the time. Science does usually converge on better answers over time is b/c it’s a community process where researchers replicate each other’s work, criticize it, argue about it, have incentives to prove each other wrong, etc.
During the pandemic most of what the public saw was the simplified public-health messaging layer, not the messy scientific debate underneath. When those two get conflated it understandably makes people suspicious.
I don’t think the answer is simply “trust 'em” Obviously Individual experts and institutions get things wrong all the time. Science does usually converge on better answers over time is b/c it’s a community process where researchers replicate each other’s work, criticize it, argue about it, have incentives to prove each other wrong, etc.
During the pandemic most of what the public saw was the simplified public-health messaging layer, not the messy scientific debate underneath. When those two get conflated it understandably makes people suspicious.
This post was edited on 3/13/26 at 5:39 pm
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:48 pm to David_DJS
I get that. One thing I’ve always wondered about that interpretation - what would we expect to see if it wasn’t intentional deception?
In a fast-moving crisis I think you'd probably still see blunt messaging, policy overshoot, and things getting revised later as the evidence evolved. So how do we tell the difference between bad crisis communication and deliberate lying?
In a fast-moving crisis I think you'd probably still see blunt messaging, policy overshoot, and things getting revised later as the evidence evolved. So how do we tell the difference between bad crisis communication and deliberate lying?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News