- 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: Fifteen bodies were examined (all died from 7 days to 6 months after vaccination
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:44 pm to BurntOrangeMan
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:44 pm to BurntOrangeMan
Graphs aren’t hard. They just need better descriptive labels. You are the one who is clearly finding them hard if you think this new graph says what you think it does. The additive nature of the bars on the graph clearly points to totals relative to the entire population at each age, not the proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated who die. The green is bigger because most people at the older end are vaccinated, not because a higher % are dying.
1
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:45 pm to loogaroo
quote:
ages 28 to 95).
Can not believe a 95 year old died
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:51 pm to MikeTheTiger71
Wrong.
The ONS data was updated in December to include stratification in 10 year groupings & the original graph holds true.
You are either delusional or dumb, possibly both.
The ONS data was updated in December to include stratification in 10 year groupings & the original graph holds true.
You are either delusional or dumb, possibly both.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:54 pm to NineLineBind
quote:
Then let's allow more studies to occur, stop censoring other studies that have been done, and quit calling those who do the studies "science deniers". We'd get a much more accurate picture than we have at the moment.
I second that.
There is no denying something is happening.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:01 pm to BurntOrangeMan
Do you have the link to the more stratified data because the original 10-59 graph doesn’t tell the story you think it does. I’d be shocked if the person who put it together in the first place could create a new graph that wasn’t similarly flawed. And let’s be clear, the graphs aren’t coming from ONS, they are someone’s flawed presentation of ONS data intended to support a biased argument.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:02 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Yeah. I’m no doctor but this lacks credibility at all.
Families demanded the autopsies.
Almost all, not all, almost all had vaccine induced medical problems as identified by looking at their heart tissue and other tissues under a microscope.
Spin it however you want those are the facts.
The question is what about those that have not died. Do 90+% of them have these same issues?
Bill Gates wants to reduce the worlds population. His words. Bill Gates is going to see his wet dreams come true.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:11 pm to MikeTheTiger71
So delusional and dumb it is.
Again, UK ONS (Office for National Statistics).
Demonstrate for us that you can @ utilize a search engine.
Again, UK ONS (Office for National Statistics).
Demonstrate for us that you can @ utilize a search engine.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:25 pm to BurntOrangeMan
Yes, you are delusional and dumb if you think the graphs were created by ONS. They were not. They were someone else’s presentation of ONS data created in a flawed manner. ONS did not update the graphs because they didn’t create them in the first place. It’s not my fault if you cannot now find the new graphs you claim exist.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:40 pm to BurntOrangeMan
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:40 pm to Esquire
quote:
Upset? Watching the people of Walmart like yourself attempt scientific thought is highly entertaining
I don't shop at Walmart.
Nice try!
Science? The CDC has been wrong all along yet you bootlickers continue to trust them.
Serious question!
If the CDC told you to suck your neighbors cock because his jizz would protect you from the China Virus, would you do it?
This post was edited on 1/8/22 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:45 pm to MikeTheTiger71
You are a fricking idiot with zero self awareness.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 3:54 pm to BurntOrangeMan
Oh, the irony. Pretty typical. Lose the factual argument and turn to ad hominem attacks. Next time you go off questioning the intellectual capacity of others, you should probably make sure you have a frickin clue about what you’re talking about. You’re clearly completely incapable of understanding and defending what you posted.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 4:04 pm to MikeTheTiger71
You could not read an elementary graph, are unable to understand the basics of data equalization, have now confused two separate graphs & never have been able to locate the data source after three submittals.
To the point, you are a fricking idiot with zero self awareness.
To the point, you are a fricking idiot with zero self awareness.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 4:05 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Spin it however you want those are the facts*
*as determined by Doctors for COVID Ethics because we can trust them.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 4:22 pm to BurntOrangeMan
I am not asking you for the data source for this new graph you say exists. I asked for the graph. It’s not my job to prove your point for you. The graphs you have presented so far don’t say what you think they do. You can question my intelligence all you want. The fact of the matter is that I understand them better than you do. The first graph shows that the older you get in the 10-59 age range, the more likely you are to be vaccinated. The second graph shows more people are vaccinated than unvaccinated. Neither shows that for similar age ranges with similar expected moralities vaccinated people have higher mortality rates. The fact that you think they do is proof of YOUR inability to read graphs, not mine. It’s not my fault you don’t understand that.
This post was edited on 1/8/22 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 1/8/22 at 5:10 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
The data is from the UK ONS (Office for National Statistics) & they have updated to breakdown the age range by 10 years grouping vs simply 10-59. University of London professors created the graph from the ONS data.
Then again..
quote:
quote: You should be able to point me to the underlying data and summary if it’s so straightforward We'll try this again as well.. UK ONS (Office for National Statistics)
The disconnect is due to your lack of reading comprehension and understanding of underlying data vs a graph & in short the primary issue is that you are a moron which has now been pointed out in full display as redundantly as everything else you manage to frick up.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 5:44 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
I’m sure all 15 breathed air, drank water, drove in cars, took showers and wore clothes in even closer proximity of the time of their deaths. Which one of those things should we stop doing since they clearly contributed to their deaths.
If the vaccines really are that dangerous, it should be a fairly easy thing to prove in death statistics. Vaccinated people should be dying at a higher rate by age than unvaccinated people. That would be solid evidence, not cherry picked autopsies. How many other people who died did this doctor exclude from his findings? How many people in the same time period who died of COVID had in common that they were unvaccinated?
Hey dummass the average death rate is up 40%, Do you actually think the statistic makers are going to break it down between the vaxed and unvaxed? What an airhead.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 8:19 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
The disconnect is due to your lack of reading comprehension and understanding of underlying data vs a graph & in short the primary issue is that you are a moron which has now been pointed out in full display as redundantly as everything else you manage to frick up.
Those quotes are relative to the FIRST graph you posted, which I have now provided ample evidence does not show what you think it does. You are the one who claimed there was an update at 10 year increments that would clear up the problems with that graph. I am still waiting for you to produce that update that shows what you claim. If there is no new graph and you meant simply that the data is now available at a more granular level, then it is up to you to show how that backs up your claim. It’s not my job to dig into it and do that analysis for you.
Posted on 1/9/22 at 1:29 am to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
Those quotes are relative to the FIRST graph you posted, which I have now provided ample evidence does not show what you think it does. You are the one who claimed there was an update at 10 year increments that would clear up the problems with that graph. I am still waiting for you to produce that update that shows what you claim. If there is no new graph and you meant simply that the data is now available at a more granular level, then it is up to you to show how that backs up your claim. It’s not my job to dig into it and do that analysis for you.
Too late bitch, you took the hook. Now for the 5th time.. that data source that you keep avoiding.
Than we can talk about the real elephant in the room you seem to not merely dodge, but completely ignore.
Posted on 1/9/22 at 7:10 am to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
Than we can talk about the real elephant in the room you seem to not merely dodge, but completely ignore.
In other words, you are full of shite. You made a claim that you cannot back up. I don’t think that phrase means what you think it does, much like the two graphs you produced. You can keep repeating the same thing over and over and that won’t suddenly make it true. Once you told me what the source data was, I was perfectly capable of finding and understanding it. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the raw data doesn’t support your claim. You’re either too ignorant to realize that or think everyone else is too stupid to understand that data presentations can be manipulated to look like they show something they actually do not. So, now go ahead and repeat your mantra again. It won’t change the fact that you have not produced the evidence I indicated should be fairly simple to produce if your claim were correct.
This post was edited on 1/9/22 at 8:08 am
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News