- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Study - no relationship between vaccination status of populations and prevalence of COVID
Posted on 10/7/21 at 1:50 pm to lagallifrey
Posted on 10/7/21 at 1:50 pm to lagallifrey
quote:
That is not a study
ETA:
If you can't understand the investigation and subsequently provided analysis is a study, what's the point of speaking the same language?
You might as well say dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes.
This post was edited on 10/7/21 at 1:55 pm
1
Posted on 10/7/21 at 2:01 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
...their [European Journal of Epidemiology] data actually shows the higher the vaccine rate, the higher the infection rate.
Isn't THAT interesting...
I'm sure the WHO, CDC and Herr Fauxi etal will be sharing that info with their perspective MSM-Pravda-Politiburo lapdogs.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 2:05 pm to IceTiger
quote:
f you can't understand the investigation and subsequently provided analysis is a study, what's the point of speaking the same language? You might as well say dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes.
You’re talking nonsense here. There was no paper detailing his hypothesis, materials and methods, results, and analysis. So at this point we just have a sound byte. I don’t make decisions off of sound bites, just because someone is deemed an expert with “credentials.” If I did, I would just listen to that idiot Fauci.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 2:29 pm to lagallifrey
quote:
There was no paper
So...?
There was investigation and analysis. Do things not become truth until it goes from the autopsy document sheets to Adobe pro?
Do you need a published piece of paper before it goes from point of interest to study by your definition...where does it meet your uppity definition.
We are in an age where even if he wanted to publish his findings...no one dare do it, the media has been tasked to avoid him. Look at Merkel's reaction.
We can't play by the establishment rules to validate science or truth. That age, if we ever lived in it, has long since passed.
He could legitimately be a liar, but a group of his fellows backed him versus politicians.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 2:46 pm to IceTiger
quote:
There was investigation and analysis. Do things not become truth until it goes from the autopsy document sheets to Adobe pro? Do you need a published piece of paper before it goes from point of interest to study by your definition...where does it meet your uppity definition.
Yes, I need a paper detailings his findings before I believe him. I need to see his methods, results, before his assertion is meaningful. I need to see how he reached his conclusions. That’s how it works. Otherwise it’s just blind faith in some unknown expert.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 3:32 pm to lagallifrey
I mean doesn't this just demonstrate what we know?
What about hospitalizations? That's the important thing here.
It doesn't matter if it spreads as long as people don't suffer from severe symptoms of it.
The mandate is only in place because the vulnerable people are choosing not to get it and ending up taking beds in hospitals. If the vulnerable had been taking it, I'm not sure anyone would have wanted a mandate.
What about hospitalizations? That's the important thing here.
It doesn't matter if it spreads as long as people don't suffer from severe symptoms of it.
The mandate is only in place because the vulnerable people are choosing not to get it and ending up taking beds in hospitals. If the vulnerable had been taking it, I'm not sure anyone would have wanted a mandate.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 3:39 pm to lagallifrey
quote:
his methods
Autopsy, examination of vein thrombosis and autoimmune issues
quote:
results
20/50 corpses exhibited potentially fatal issues with those two characteristics
quote:
I need to see how he reached his conclusions
Via Autopsy through examining the corpses, As well as immune blood work tests showing immunization issues and physically finding blood clots in the corpse.
quote:
That’s how it works
Well, I just answered your questions...? What else do you need?
quote:
Otherwise it’s just blind faith in some unknown expert.
It's not, I just pointed out what he did and how he did it.
It says it in the article.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 3:57 pm to IceTiger
quote:
He himself then expanded the focus and also autopsied more than 40 deceased vaccinated people. Even if his results are only a snapshot, it is a dramatic one: 30 to 40 percent died from the vaccination itself. The pathologist cited “rare, severe side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases”.
That is a generic statement without data to back it up. I want to see the cases listed. What were the findings at autopsy, specifically? What tests did he run? What was their medical history? He says it was related to the vaccine. It might be, but again this statement doesn’t prove it.
You believe him, and that’s fine, but it’s on faith because you want to believe him.
He may be right or wrong, but you haven’t presented the evidence to know one way or the other. I need to see it for myself. That’s how this works. I have seen enough junk science, both published and unpublished, and enough poorly written news articles citing studies without understanding them, to know that I should withhold judgment until I look at the materials and methods, results, and analysis.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News