Still not safe, Still not effective....

You bury the dead, not the truth.

Let's try an example: Someone breaks in to your home in the middle of the night and murders you. Does your family just say: oh well, he's dead now. No biggie. Who wants lunch?

OK. Maybe a bad example as they probably would in your case, but what if is was a normal person?

Or is this the same rational to Defund the Police and the courts, because OH Well... shit happens?

Wait! I know. Fauci gets a Mulligan. AmmIrite? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

"You bury the dead...." Jeezis. At least post the stoopid meme you stole that from, fer chrissake... Even texASS credits his sources..

Y'all are an absolute case study in how to deflect from defending your points by using obtuse analogies and talkin down to yer critics by making simplistic, inaccurate conclusions of their arguments. And all the while, you pretend that you know more than anyone else.

But none o' ya know jack. You just want shit to be more broken than it already is. You take perverse joy in it.

We are gonna have some more fun, I promise you.

.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are both great! I’ve gotten both and now prefer the Pfizer because I believe the side effects and risk of myocarditis are less. Thanks to the vaccines and Pfizer’s Paxlovid, my recent and first brush with the deadly COVID was like a very mild case of the common cold. I bet if I’d been getting boosters every six months instead of every year I might not have even gotten it!

Thank you Pfizer, Moderna, and all the great people including President Trump who worked on Operation Warp Speed! You might just have saved my life!

And who knows, without them and the mRNA vaccines they brought to market in record time I might have been one of those one in a million who died from a clot from taking the sorry ass Astra Zeneca or J&J vaccines. Originally Posted by Tiny

That's because that's essentially what a Coronavirus is.

You bury the dead, not the truth.

Let's try an example: Someone breaks in to your home in the middle of the night and murders you. Does your family just say: oh well, he's dead now. No biggie. Who wants lunch?

OK. Maybe a bad example as they probably would in your case, but what if is was a normal person?

Or is this the same rational to Defund the Police and the courts, because OH Well... shit happens?

Wait! I know. Fauci gets a Mulligan. AmmIrite?

There is no stink'n choice. Punish the guilty so it never happens again. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

What the actual FXXX does this have to do with anything I said?

Years ago, we referred to the 5 D's of d*****ttery. You're ticking all the boxes, matey!

That's because that's essentially what a Coronavirus is. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Don't confuse them with facts. Better to take an experimental drug than catch a cold. They got stampeded like a bunch of girls at a sorority rush week event.

OhMaybe...tell us your educational background, your work experience in medical research, your knowledge in statistical methods, and how many papers you've published in peer-reviewed journals.
. Originally Posted by rooster

Multiple degrees. Theses. TMC. Sure I’m going to provide you with multiple papers, degrees, universities here and abroad to out myself in this venue.

Simple flawed NIH study conclusion to exemplify how biased the government and certain medical research and industry is.

Here is another link which more succinctly describes my viewpoint:
http://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-vacc...051100916.html

You’re not going to get explicit proof unless you had a properly enrolled study with protocols. But the truth of the matter remains that many, many adverse reactions have occurred, reported upon, and will continue to be discovered. Statistically significant? Probably. Can I prove it? No. But it’s clear to me and much more conclusive than just anecdotal.

A conspiracy? In some minor ways, yes. But overall, no. People not letting a crisis go to waste, power grab, and profiteering? Certainly.

You’d be a FOOL to believe otherwise.

That’s mighty big talk.

An opinion piece from a British tabloid is your platform?

Do you often read medical research?

That’s mighty big talk.

An opinion piece from a British tabloid is your platform?

Do you often read medical research? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

what if the brit "tabloids" are telling the truth rather than the american "tabloids" who aren't?

did ya ever consider that?



BAAHHAHAAAAAAA

Multiple degrees. Theses. TMC.... Originally Posted by Michael8219

Yeah, I ain't quite buyin it....

Cuz here's the thang: you misrepresented the data shown in the report. Or at least mischaracterized it. Someone with yer vast "experience"...would hopefully not do that, out of at least some concern to NOT cause misunderstanding among those less skilled in evaluating a report like that. But again, your goal is to help shit break more...so here we are..

So I'll address just one point. Here's your quote:

"Let me make it even simpler: 4% of the babies died in the uterus....

You imply that this was due to the vaccine. The study authors offer no such conclusion. Hmmmm. Maybe...it's because that miscarriage rate is...insignificant? I mean, it sounds really bad right?

But I wonder...and most objective researchers would...if it is maybe...unremarkable? They would at least look into it, making sure they were not victims of some type of unintentional BIAS.

Let's have a look! (did you?)

Why....whattya know?! According to sources as varied as the NIH, the Mayo Clinic, and the March of Dimes, it is estimated that 10-15 percent of pregnancies among the general population in the U.S. end in miscarriage. It is difficult to be more exact, and many fear that it is even higher, as some likely occur before a woman even knows she is pregnant.

And in your "conclusion"...you cite a rate of... 4 percent. (the authors seem to say it was actually 8 percent, but still...I doubt you would compound one error with another!)

I'll just leave that there.

But HERE my biggest complaint about why your "analysis" is bullshit. You think that the authors of this study can somehow post "wrong" conclusions and get away with it. That no one would notice or refute them. Not likely. They would be crucified by their peers! Yet you...somehow...are the only "qualified" researcher out there realizing that these horrible mistakes were made, and we were all misled.

YOU attempted to mislead everyone who read your post.

You called the authors "paid hacks" with absolutely no justification.

You lied. And you support liars.

And if you are trained and experienced in the way you say you are, you are the worst type of liar of all. You use your skills to mislead the ignorant, and to further the confusion and division.

You intentionally break shit more. Inexcusable.

(I'm gonna love the points I get for this one more than any other!)

.

what if the brit "tabloids" are telling the truth rather than the american "tabloids" who aren't?

did ya ever consider that?



BAAHHAHAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Did you ever consider that this ain't "Men in Black?"

Supermarket tabloids pretty much track worldwide.

Conspiracies do too.

...Years ago, we referred to the 5 D's of d*****ttery. You're ticking all the boxes, matey! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There I would have to deffer to your prowess from obtaining multiple DOTY awards throughout the years. Though it's kind hard to keep exact count, as sometimes you were referred to as Aunt Peg or some such, as I recall. Well... also, except for those 2 years you were in O' Canada maybe, as I don't follow their boards.

You posted "Out of respect for the millions who died and their families and loved ones,", otherwise known as survivors and if I recall correctly, a meme about Expired Horses perhaps?

We want justice for those survivors as well as avoiding more casualties in the future from government overreach, lies and censorship. That is also part of this here OP - IMMHO.

Unfortunately, the process requires turning on the lights to see how bad the cockroach infestation really is before disinfecting it with bleach and sunlight - which as you may recall, is highly effective at vanquishing the covid germ if, and only if, they remain on a surface to their maximum time limit of some like 17 seconds.

That's not actually part of the OP. It's just your tired spin.

Aunt Peg? Nah, that's someone else. And no, it's not part of this discussion.

Your deflection, denial, disinformation, etc.... are.

Shirley there are more antiscience tabloids, blogs and botsites you can quote... and will.

LOLLING, eh!

That's not actually part of the OP. It's just your tired spin.

Aunt Peg? Nah, that's someone else. And no, it's not part of this discussion.

Your deflection, denial, disinformation, etc.... are.

Shirley there are more antiscience tabloids, blogs and botsites you can quote... and will.

LOLLING, eh! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

C'mon now, matey! Take a small amount of solace from the "major award" he gives you below! (I had to FIFH...)

There I would have to deffer to your prowess from obtaining multiple DATY awards throughout the years.... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

(I'm still jealous o' that kewl AF Guy Fawkes avatar though...tain't nuthin like reimagining a "would-be religious extremist and terrorist as a populist hero"..)

.

That’s mighty big talk.

An opinion piece from a British tabloid is your platform?

Do you often read medical research? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I have a paid subscription to the Independent. It's kind of like a British version of USA today, only it's more serious. It leans left but not as much as, say, the Guardian or the New York times. The article was pretty representative of what was in the paper.

I read the paper in question, and the researchers on the other hand are biased IMHO. They quote an infection fatality ratio (IFR) published by Ioannidis from October 2020, being 0.23%, as gospel. While the IFR now is a lot lower than 0.23%, at the time it was a lot higher than Ioannidis' estimate. I believe esteemed contributor Waco Kid was using 0.5% at the time, while Adav8s28 and Bill Gates were around 1.0% to 1.2%. The real number in the USA in 2020 was probably in that range. The writers also dwell on the IFR of people under 70 (.05%) while ignoring double digit IFR's for the aged. They also place way too much emphasis on vaccines as a possible reason for the excess deaths not accounted for by COVID infections without much more than anecdotal evidence. Others like Paglino et al blame factors like "health care interruptions, socioeconomic disruptions", and most importantly, undercounting COVID deaths. The researchers don't even look at the number of deaths attributable to COVID, the disease, in their analysis.

I think I can debunk their work. Will be back after I've looked at some of their data.

Edited to add references

Here’s the paper in question:

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/cont...00282.full.pdf

Paglino et al:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2313661121

"You bury the dead...." Jeezis. At least post the stoopid meme you stole that from, fer chrissake... But none o' ya know jack. You just want shit to be more broken than it already is.. Originally Posted by rooster

The full citation was actually meant to be" "You bury the dead, not the truth and punish the perpetrators". But it felt klunky, so I cut it down to 3:05, as it seemed more likely to be something the lead character of movies, such as High Plains Drifter or Pale Rider or even Unforgiven might say.

BTW: It's 100% genuine WYID made and approved, though the tip of adding it to a meme is spot on. Thx, I'll look in to it.

While I'm sure you comprendo the phrase GTFO, as I suspect you've likely heard that from providers on these here boards and others many times, you do seem unfamiliar with SOT. Your lucky day! I am here to help.

It is short for Stay On Topic. It's kinda a big deal around these here parts pahd'na. I think it is technically Rule #6, but that doesn't mean it is less important than others.

To understand it, let me define another word to assist you in your journey on down the trail, with a little help from the good folk at American Heritage:

relevant /rĕl′ə-vənt/ adjective

1. Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.
2. Meaningful or purposeful in current society or culture.

I would also add a #3. Not a You thing

Before you hit the Save/Send button on a post, you should ask yourself if it is relevant to the conversation at hand, i.e. the OP. That is the acid test. Sure, there is some "murkiness" or "fuzziness" involved. But by and large, if you are at least in the ball park you should be fine. Perhaps it's best to compare two samples:

#1: A post containing the below is in the realm of the current OP, as it illustrates the shifting narrative around obfuscating the truth, but may still require a few additional words describing why it is may be helpful.


#2 Your present post does not pass the relevancy sniff test and no amount of descriptive commentary changes that fact. It comes off as an unrelated screed from someone that may have peaked emotionally in 7th grade and intellectually in 5th - IMMHO.

In regards to your "dance party" invitation - uhhmmm, sure maybe, but you should know that I prefer to dance on the razor's edge and am into slam-dancing in a mosh pit - just not in the given OP which is mainly concerned with exposing the government overreach, lies and censorship from ever happening again, resulting in tyranny and death. Well... that plus justice for the surviving family members of existing pain and death sufferers. Leastwise, that's my read on the OP.


P.S While NOT part of this OP, as it relates to another post of yours, in some thread: Does my spiffy, new Avatar seem custom made for this OP thread or what?!?


Anonymously Yours,

WYID

"You bury the dead...." Jeezis.

. Originally Posted by rooster

The full citation was actually meant to be" "You bury the dead, not the truth and punish the perpetrators"....

...you do seem unfamiliar with SOT. Your lucky day! I am here to help.....
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Here is where I get bounced for a few months. This post.
I was told I was only 3 points away. I'm burnin 'em on you, with gleeful pleasure.

How to begin my response??

Hmmm. I mean...that was some impressive wordage you posted at me. I don't want to sleight the magnanimous attitude you have exhibited in helping me understand the folly of my ways and useful terms like "SOT." I am grateful that you were able to take precious time from the numerous important conferences, negotiations, tribal meetings, etc. that consume most of your impressive professional life.

But I gotta start somewhere.

So lets go with....

You are easily the most pompous, arrogant fuck I have encountered in my many years on this forum.

OH-MY-EVERLOVIN-FUCKING-CHRIST!

Calling you condescending and overbearing doesn't even BEGIN to cut it.

You could almost pull it off..if....and a big.."IF"...ya fucking had the slightest idea when to stop! Holy shit..

But you don't. You pile on and on and on....and it gets more unbearable as you do.

Look...as I said in another critique of one o' you clowns in this sub-forum, it takes one to know one. I fully acknowledge that I exhibit many of these same behaviors.

But you....YOU....whew. Just fucking whew.

The endless...(fucking ENDLESS!)...references, citations, definitions, stupid graphics....wow. You have no limits, no idea how tiresome you become.

The use of phrases like "It comes off as an unrelated screed from someone that may have peaked emotionally in 7th grade and intellectually in 5th - IMMHO."

NO ONE FUCKING USES THE WORD "SCREED" IN 2024, YOU PRETENTIOUS FUCK!

Your above post is literally a primer on the use of the trite, cheap bullshit that cucks like you imagine impresses people and confers you legitimacy. Clueless. Truly, you are.

You believe that you will wear me down, humble me, maybe even make me grateful for the wisdom and insight that you deign to defer.

Eat me.

NOW..before I finish my Kamikaze run here...I gotta "SOT" a little. Just a little. You wouldn't want it any other way, right "pahd'na"? (Faak...I can only imagine how many wedgies you got from the football team)

My mutherfukking TOPIC was...on topic. "IMHO."

Maybe not the first sentence or two, makin fun o' yer lame-ass Guy Fawkes bullshit. That was just an intentional insult!

But for the rest of it, I was offering my critique of the simplistic and ridiculous analogies you offered in YOUR post. Dude, I mean...really...it wasn't very good. It just wasn't.

But I have found out that the people like you that I have been callin out and fuckin with the past few days can rarely counter my posts with anything meaningful. Often, they don't respond at all, prolly hoping my post will not get much notice (most don't, I'll bet). And when they do....well, yer technique is a bit more elaborate than most. But it's still just overhyped, deflecting bullshit. Not all that much better than the idjits that post "If you say so!" when it comes right down to it.

You probably get the last word here. I have been wrong in my predictions so far, but a mid-length ban is no doubt imminent. So ya don't even have to make it very good!

I close with this, in scorn: I cannot imagine that you have any kind of meaningful personal life whatsoever. I think it is quite likely that every person who knows you thinks you to be ridiculous and tiresome. And boring.

.