- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
TigerDoc
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Texas |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 11813 |
| Registered on: | 4/25/2004 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
I was trying to get at something like that earlier regarding how the number is built. If the starting point is “reported after vaccination” rather than confirmed causes, then multiplying it to estimate deaths is going to overshoot by a lot. That seems like the key step everything hinges on.
0
I think those are actually two different moves.
“He has credentials, so he’s right” = appeal to authority
“Are his credentials relevant to this specific claim?” = evaluating expertise
You kind of have to do the second one if you’re going to sort through disagreeing experts at all.
“He has credentials, so he’s right” = appeal to authority
“Are his credentials relevant to this specific claim?” = evaluating expertise
You kind of have to do the second one if you’re going to sort through disagreeing experts at all.
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 4:59 pm to MrFreakinMiyagi
Yeah, lesson there was always read all of OP before mouthing off. :lol:
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 3:11 pm to notsince98
I think he was trying to summarize the gist of the previous thread, but didn't compress it quite right. Still, I think there’s an important space between “quack” & “credentials, therefore credible”.
Someone can have real credentials and still be:
-speaking a bit outside their lane
-making a rough estimate instead of working from solid data or
-just be an outlier compared to others in the field
That’s probably the part worth looking at, more than trying to label the guy.
Someone can have real credentials and still be:
-speaking a bit outside their lane
-making a rough estimate instead of working from solid data or
-just be an outlier compared to others in the field
That’s probably the part worth looking at, more than trying to label the guy.
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
I think your earlier point re: OP's expert was on the right track. There are lots of kinds of expertise and having one doesn't make you an expert on all.
The legal Daubert standard is a good practical version of this idea. A judge doesn't treat all experts the same in all situations and we shouldn't either.
The legal Daubert standard is a good practical version of this idea. A judge doesn't treat all experts the same in all situations and we shouldn't either.
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 1:29 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
I mean, this is exactly what the OP is doing with this alleged "expert".
This is a good time to point to the larger problem for us on the board - we have disagreeing experts who have technical expertise that we ourselves lack (if we had the expertise we could assess the matter ourselves).
It seems we have to choose - how are we supposed to choose between them?
Legit question for anyone who wants to have a go.
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 1:20 pm to Night Vision
The sticking point isn’t whether the guy has credentials - Tony Fauci has credentials and no one here trusts him - it’s whether you can multiply “reported after vaccination” events as if they were confirmed causes.
If that step doesn’t work, the estimate doesn’t either.
If that step doesn’t work, the estimate doesn’t either.
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 1:17 pm to Night Vision
I think the key question here is whether those 2,000 reports are confirmed to be caused by the vaccine, or just events that happened after vaccination.
The underreporting multipliers are usually about confirmed side effects - not raw reports - so that seems like a pretty important distinction.
The underreporting multipliers are usually about confirmed side effects - not raw reports - so that seems like a pretty important distinction.
re: Former Pfizer exec estimates up to 60,000 deaths from COVID shot in Germany
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 1:13 pm to Night Vision
Credentials aren’t really the issue - plenty of qualified people have made bad estimates on this stuff. What’s the actual basis for the 60,000 number? Is it excess mortality, reporting system data, or something else?
quote:
Guess she hasn't been in the news lately and needs some attention
Yeah, it seems like theater, but what's the script?
re: Vance goes off on people attacking Erika Kirk
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/15/26 at 11:20 am to BillyBobfan24_7
Yeah, it's "everyone grieves differently" + the way Charlie would want her to grieve would likely to be to grind content. For all we know, he may have had it in his advanced directives for her to do pyrotechnics in the event he became a martyr. :lol:
re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/14/26 at 7:26 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
The dance must be danced, sir.......over and over and over again.
Respect. I'm fond of the Camus line "We must imagine Sisyphus happy." :lol:
I think you should ask him. He has told it before and I think it might be instructive for others as well.
Yeah, that’s fair. Setting tone aside, the comparability issue still seems like the crux.
If the same issue would matter in either direction, it’s probably a real issue.
He can be blunt, but he does tend to focus on the underlying mechanisms. I think our friend would find it worth engaging him on that rather than the labels.
He knows a lot of immunology. You'll find it in his post history.
re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/14/26 at 6:01 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
How do you usually think about that - do those kinds of flaws matter regardless of which way the results go?
I think the instinct to want cleaner studies is right. At the same time, I’ve noticed that when the underlying groups differ a lot, the question becomes less "which analysis is right" and more "what are all the analyses picking up on that isn’t actually vaccination."
A lot of this seems driven by people trying to make sense of conflicting claims and not wanting to get it wrong. I wish more of the discussion focused on what actually makes a comparison reliable vs. misleading, because that’s where these things usually fall apart.
re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.
Posted by TigerDoc on 4/14/26 at 4:17 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
I'd like to see the info/study as it was presented to whomever is funding/doing this "documentary" and compare it to the study that was submitted to Henry Ford. Not the word of the researchers, but the actual data presented in both instances. That would tell the full story.
I like that instinct. In practice, the fastest way to sanity-check these is a few questions - were the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups comparable to start with, was follow-up similar, and were outcomes defined the same way? If any of those are off, different "analyses" of the same data can point in totally different directions.
Popular
19
