Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[__ Science __ ] Turns out Covid Vaccine was not tested. Phizer lied.
- Thread starter JLB
- Start date
I doubt you even watched that video, and tell me how is your "fact" check evidence but the documentary itself which you are judging and refusing to watch it for yourself and use your own two eyes.
Evidence is evidence whether you approve of it or not, you asked me where I got my sources from since it wasn't from VAERS, I answered your question
Did you even read it?
From the cdc page:
"Counts of deaths from all causes of death, including COVID-19, are presented. As some deaths due to COVID-19 may be assigned to other causes of deaths (for example, if COVID-19 was not diagnosed or not mentioned on the death certificate),... These deaths could represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths, or potentially could be indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., deaths from other causes occurring in the context of health care shortages or overburdened health care systems)."
I don't know what apart of my last post are you responding to once again cherry picking your opponents dialogue and assimilating to what seems counterable in your eyes. Almost like you are enacting a troll-complex.
And your apparently chose to ignore this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-error-overcount-covid-deaths
Also when regarding to the death toll,
What the CDC published shows that 6% of coronavirus deaths were from COVID-19 alone while the other 94% of deaths had underlying factors, and while the percentages are true, it doesn’t mean the 6% is the real COVID-19 death count (which isn't what I'm saying). It means those are the only deaths where patients had no other pre-existing conditions.
“That means the only thing listed on the death certificate is COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 as the cause of death,” said Dr. Peter Bigler, Chief Medical Officer at Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Group. “The other 94% of the time there is another condition listed, which contributed to the patient passing away.”
According to https://www.ocregister.com/2023/02/...th-about-the-overcounting-of-covid-19-deaths/
"CNN medical analyst and Washington Post columnist Dr. Leana Wen was one of the most alarmist COVID “experts” throughout the pandemic, consistently arguing for tightest restrictions on freedom and the nastiest treatment of people who chose not to receive the emergency-use-authorized vaccines. So it was something of a news event when she wrote a recent column titled, “We are overcounting COVID deaths and hospitalizations. That’s a problem.”
That is backed by https://nypost.com/2023/01/14/dr-leana-wen-writes-that-covid-deaths-are-being-overcounted/
"CNN medical analyst and Washington Post columnist Dr. Leana Wen admitted in a column, Friday, that the medical community is “overcounting” the amount of “COVID deaths and hospitalizations.”
Wen, who writes an occasional Washington Post column providing her observations on the pandemic, masking and other COVID-related subjects, cited sources claiming that most “patients diagnosed with COVID are actually in the hospital for some other illness.
She spoke to two Infectious-disease experts, who told her they believed “the number of deaths attributed to COVID is far greater than the actual number of people dying from COVID. Mentioning the first, she wrote, “Robin Dretler, an attending physician at Emory Decatur Hospital and the former president of Georgia’s chapter of Infectious Diseases Society of America, estimates that at his hospital, 90 percent of patients diagnosed with COVID are actually in the hospital for some other illness.”
Wen also said on the washington post
"Since every hospitalized patient gets tested for covid, many are incidentally positive,” he said. A gunshot victim or someone who had a heart attack, for example, could test positive for the virus, but the infection has no bearing on why they sought medical care."
From https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar...nted-and-what-does-this-mean#Official-figures
"Dr. William Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN, agreed that the actual cause of death can be hard to determine. “Deaths are, to a degree, imprecise,” he said to MNT. “A physician must make a judgment of cause of death.”
Whether the man died of COVID-19 or with COVID-19 is open to interpretation. And this is why some dispute the official figures."
From
Dr. Dretler said every hospitalized patient is tested for COVID and may be incidentally positive, and “if these patients die, COVID might get added to their death certificate along with the other diagnoses,” even if COVID played no role at all in the death.
Dr. Shira Doron, another infectious-disease specialist, told Wen that at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, where she worked, some days “the proportion of those hospitalized because of COVID were as low as 10 percent of the total number reported” as COVID-positive patients.
From the WHO
New estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) show that the full death toll associated directly or indirectly with the COVID-19 pandemic (described as “excess mortality”) between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 was approximately 14.9 million (range 13.3 million to 16.6 million).
Excess mortality includes deaths associated with COVID-19 directly (due to the disease) or indirectly (due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society). Deaths linked indirectly to COVID-19 are attributable to other health conditions for which people were unable to access prevention and treatment because health systems were overburdened by the pandemic. The estimated number of excess deaths can be influenced also by deaths averted during the pandemic due to lower risks of certain events, like motor-vehicle accidents or occupational injuries." (Hmm motorcycle accidents....)
Also read this source, not too long, it goes against everything you asserted and shows that the numbers were inflated, I would quote it directly but the max count is 10k, and I have other things to say.
CDC Admits COVID Numbers Off by Tens of Thousands?
The recent disclosure confirmed cases and probable deaths by CDC over COVID-19 were totally inflated and wrong.
ehlinelaw.com
What is that supposed to mean?
And I'm still waiting for the explanation of the domains, and flaws with the CDC, FDA, and WHO which I provided sources for to back it up, and the thesis statement of "not everything labelled as a conspiracy is fallacious" which I grounded with 12 "conspiracy" theories which turned out to be accurate. I don't see why you're still dancing around it, you and Free make it appear to me conjuring up fallacious opinions without foundational basis, but the problem is you are simply choosing to avoid the responses that do and give a supremacy-complex, when if it were accurate my hypothesis were unreliable, you would address the fallacies directly and not cherry-picking through what's pondered to be inconsequentially counterable. That's not doing your due diligence.
When I post 93-95% of the time I address everything my "conversationee" and I are discoursing about, I do it by either a number system in which every numeral represents every line indent or paragraph of my conversationee or I use the reply system addressing each indent one by one, so I won't fall into the folly of believing I've found a leak in their pipes when if I scroll down a little longer on their reply, I find that to not be true. And I cannot be accused of not addressing my opponent's hypothesis, thesis, evidence, and conclusions conjunctively and individually. However, what I see from this discourse, even in "White Supremacist Head Explode" there was an extreme lack in individual assessments which enabled you to make astounding claims which the next paragraph I put refutes. Since the topic in White Supremacist was more tied to biblical use of Scripture, I provided as needed however there was a lack of reciprocation. Now it's even more evident in a "not-so-biblical" topic.
I don't see how an individual cognitive functions can conclude of another person's fallacy, ignorance, or lack of knowledge when they haven't even looked at half of what they said and still hold the premise of infallibility. (Which is the benefit/disadvantage to online discourse, you can reply what you want to apply to and ignore what you wish to ignore)
I'll be waiting
Barbarian
Member
As usual, you offer no evidence, but say "watch the video." As expected, no evidence, just more stories. If you'd think I missed it, feel free to show us here.
Yes, I already showed you that. That's why the number dead from the virus has been undercounted. We get that.
Did you even read from the stuff you linked? It's in there.
The standard is "absent the COVID-19 infection, would the patient have lived?" And if the answer is yes, then the infection was fatal. However, your number is wrong...
Although most COVID-19–related deaths continue to have COVID-19 reported as the underlying (primary) cause of death, COVID-19 is increasingly cited on death certificates as a contributing cause of death rather than the underlying cause. This means that another health condition was identified as the underlying cause of death, with COVID-19 identified as contributing to the death.
...
In January 2022, the proportion of deaths with COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death was ~85%. By April 2022, it had declined to 60–70% and stayed at that level through September 2022. This trend was seen among both younger (aged <65 years) and older adults (aged ≥65 years) (Figure 11). During January–September 2022, 80% of COVID-19–related deaths among persons aged <65 years had COVID-19 reported as the underlying cause compared to 92% of COVID-19–related deaths in 2020; among adults aged ≥65 years this proportion decreased from 91% in 2020 to 77% in during January–September 2022 (Table 1).
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
www.cdc.gov
Since CDC themselves found the error and corrected it, the current data is not subject to it. In the context of And notice that the CDC found the error and published it, to make sure their numbers were accurate. This kind of thing increases one's confident in the CDC. But compare that to these problems...
Latest COVID-19 Surge in U.S. is Drastically Undercounted
This rise in convenient rapid tests means that possibly hundreds of thousands of cases are going unreported to health departments.Mississippi Coroners Can’t Get Coronavirus Test Kits for the Dead
Coroners in four South Mississippi counties say they have tried but failed to acquire COVID-19 test kits from the state.Mississippi Coroners Can’t Get Coronavirus Test Kits for the Dead
Coroners in four South Mississippi counties say they have tried but failed to acquire COVID-19 test kits from the state. One of those coroners believes he might have handled four coronavirus cases that have not been counted for as deaths caused by the virus.
www.govtech.com
True number of Covid deaths in the US probably undercounted, experts say
Many of the deaths aren’t counted in the official Covid tally because they happen months after infections, expert says
True number of Covid deaths in the US probably undercounted, experts say
Many of the deaths aren’t counted in the official Covid tally because they happen months after infections, expert says
www.theguardian.com
Best estimate is about 35% undercount of cases. We don't know how many, only that there is a large number of them.
You're telling us that CDC found an error in the reporting system that apparently added 76,000 cases to the 106,000,000 reported cases, (an error rate about 1 in 1400) and they let people know about it, and then fixed it. OK. But that would only increase our confidence in the number that CDC is publishing. I don't think you gave this much thought.
This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The excess deaths (number of people who died from any cause, above the number we'd ordinarily see in that time) is a very rough measure of pandemic deaths. What this says, is that the number of expected deaths would be lower than normal because of pandemic restrictions that lower deaths from (for example) motor vehicle travel. Again, it indicates more COVID-19 deaths because fewer people will be dying from (for example) motorcycle accidents than normal, which would lower excess deaths. I think you'd do better if you thought about some of this instead of just throwing it up on the forum.
Again, instead of just throwing up stuff you read, I suggest you think about it carefully first. Could save a lot of embarrassment for you. The "Gish Gallop" technique is very vulnerable as a logical argument. And yes, I'm picking the low-hanging fruit in your errors first. But if you want to move something I didn't debunk , forward, put it in a single post, and we'll take a look.
More later...
Barbarian
Member
Do you even read them?
Much of the stuff you threw up on your posts actually undermines your position. Like that CDC counting error they found. announced to the public, and corrected. Things like that increase one's confidence in accuracy. You never realized that, until I pointed it out.
Barbarian
Member
I'm not sure that you think you're infallible. But I do think you'd be more effective if you thought carefully about what you post, and focus on one thing at a time so you don't get confused in what you present. And definitely think carefully about what you put up, so that it doesn't undermine your own arguments.
Barbarian
Member
And if you weren't aware...
Gish Gallop
The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2] It is similar to another debating method called spreading, in which one person speaks extremely fast in an attempt to cause their opponent to fail to respond to all the arguments that have been raised.
en.wikipedia.org
It's not a very effective technique on a message board, because people can deal with the claims at leisure, and debunk the most obvious woofers first.
Gish Gallop
The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2] It is similar to another debating method called spreading, in which one person speaks extremely fast in an attempt to cause their opponent to fail to respond to all the arguments that have been raised.
Gish gallop - Wikipedia
It's not a very effective technique on a message board, because people can deal with the claims at leisure, and debunk the most obvious woofers first.
Quite a lot, especially when it's about politics or theology (aren't those the two topics to avoid at the dinner table?). Certain things matter more to some people than others because truth matters, of course. People behave based on what they believe to be true and that behaviour can have social consequences. This became very apparent with the pandemic and things such as masking/not masking, vaccinating/not vaccinating, or whether or not the pandemic was a huge conspiracy to depopulate the earth. As long as the debate is civil and respectful, it is good.
And as usual, you pretend it doesn't exist, because you know if you actually look at the evidence I presented you're whole foundation for your thesis would collapse, to avoid that humility you skim read your opponents messages and address what you want to. Not doing your due diligence.
If it's so apparent, why don't you quote it exactly instead of beating around the bush, apparently you read nothing I said, just spouting countless straw man fallacies.
My thesis is backed by the CDC themselves.
Finally you stopped dancing around the CDC's error. My whole thesis of the CDC admitting to the error of the numbers was all I was referring to, I never said because of that they are untrustworthy as there are far better arguments for that. I was simply pointing to errors they made which also supported my thesis of human fallacy, which was directed from my original statement of why we must put so much faith in humans without the discernment of Christ. I listed other reasons you have yet to address about CDC failures along with the FDA and WHO.
Oh I did actually, you thought I brought up that evidence to make another argument that doesn't exist
. And "I don't think" isn't a very sturdy foundation to make any hypothesis . Did you give your statements much thought? Or just decided to hope I don't notice your consecutive straw man fallacies?You seem to be gushing out randomness instead of addressing the quote, probably read it again so you get an understanding:
"Excess mortality includes deaths associated with COVID-19 directly (due to the disease) or indirectly (due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society). Deaths linked indirectly to COVID-19 are attributable to other health conditions for which people were unable to access prevention and treatment because health systems were overburdened by the pandemic. The estimated number of excess deaths can be influenced also by deaths averted during the pandemic due to lower risks of certain events, like motor-vehicle accidents or occupational injuries."
Evidence?
Just as I suspected, but even with the low hanging fruit you still cherry pick what you want, take it out of context and develop a straw man that would defeat that argument if it had existed. I guess you finally decided to admit it to save you on some embarrassment (as I couldn't care less even if it was "embarrassing"). Although as I said and will keep repeating, if I'm in such deep error, why do you still persist in not addressing 50% of my "errors".
True, I'm not infallible nor ever said I was or even asserted, you know this discourse started with me asking a few questions, then since apparently some do not like to be questioned it turned into a 4 day long thread.
There is a class called MRWC meaning Math Reasoning with Connection, in that you look at concepts you were taught in the graded stages of academic education (like the Pythagorean Theorem, Trigonometric Identities, Algebraic Formula's, Systematic Equations, Imaginary Numbers, Special Right Triangles, etc) and think about them differently. In grades K-12 you've been taught these work, but in MRWC, you ask why do they work? Who created those concepts? What about the creator of the concept and the concept itself makes it valid for us to use? Are their any cases the concept doesn't work? If the concept has exceptions to it's usability, how is it still valid amidst...?
At & from the beginning that's all I've been asking, why does the vaccine work? How can we have so much confidence in it? How can we trust the creators of the vaccine and the ones advertising it's usabilities despite the fact they are the same ones profiting from it's use? Does the vaccine have any fallibilities? And a Christian touch on it, knowing what we know about the deception, crookedness, wickedness, and falleness of this world, how can we trust what it says? (Not just with vaccines, but that's the current topic). I of course had a much longer version of this but that was the short version of it.
Noted! You most likely wouldn't say I was doing so if you acknowledged your straw man fallacies, which you combine with bulverism and makes your stance look very non-precise. From the outside looking in and from someone who holds your views, it would seem as if you provided suitable counterarguments to my central points (which would have to be assumed as anti-vax). However, if the person used unbias discretion, they would see I am neither pro or anti vax, but pro-information, and then realizing your angle is from an pro-vax refuting an anti-vax which doesn't exist, then seeing my real position and the broader context of how and why I use my sources, they can see your aiming at a target that doesn't exist, and calling that nonexistent target fallacious and erroneous.
And they can see when I attempt to reel in the conversation to my real concern, you divert the topic back to the pro vs anti-vax stance and again, hitting a target that doesn't exist.
The whole conversation between me you and Free has basically been like this.
Free makes thesis with supporting evidence backing the claim of the validity of the vaccine and those who are advertising it
I question what makes the supporting evidence valid with logical and spiritual concerns
You and Free go assume I am approaching from an anti-vax position and use evidence to attack that position (that never existed) which inerrant diverts the subject and holds me to a position that demeans me questioning the vaccine
Then you fellow gentlemen continue forward slamming down the questioning as invalid and not factually based instead of just answering the question
I then provide reasons why I believe I have the right to question things
Then you dismiss it as fallacious and zero evidence based and hearsay, and when I bring up my personal experiences you deem them as lies, but consider your personal experiences as truth and deem that corporations who have no knowledge of you, care for you, concern for you, and who are profiting heavily from you have your best interests in mind.
Then I decide to play by your game and deliver evidence to back up my valid position to questions things
As you apparently did not expect me to go that route you begin the tactic of only addressing 30-50% of my evidence and claiming I still don't have evidence when the sentence below the part you cherry-picked proves otherwise.
Free then witholds from discourse and both of you go for a lower tier abusive ad hominem attacking my age and make a fallacious claim that I'm ignorantly erroneous (remember I started out asking questions), and also claim that I think I know more than those with education
I show that human education is always rooted in the fallen state of man, and use biblical principles along the way which are never referenced by the opposing party.
The merry-go round of me providing evidence and you deeming it "ignorantly based" starts, and since it seems my persistence threatened your position of superiority, you make reaching claims of gish galloping and my lack of knowledge and need to not embarrass myself instead of answering my claims and stop basing your entire foundation on straw man fallacies (which you hope I wouldn't notice)
And we are here.
I put them in a single post already twice, in which you've only address two of my 11+ evidences to my thesis statement at best. Like I said, if I'm such in a invalid position why are you so hesitant and beating around the bush to address all of my claims precisely? If I'm so erroneous why are you dancing around my posts at an increasing rate? If you were right and I were wrong, it should be easy to address everything I said and knock it out of the park, unless not all of it you can in a clear conscience deem invalid but since you don't want to admit that, you continue the troll-complex, hoping to annoy you're opponent into submission.
Am I the only one seeing that (I mean you've even admitted to not addressing to all of my arguments on purpose and the ones you address you call "low hanging fruit" which means your going for the weakest parts of it, the top of the pyramid instead of going straight for the foundation)?
Barbarian
Member
Which one? So far, as you see, you've debunked several of your own claims by not reading your links carefully. Pick one and we'll see. What do you have?
Barbarian
Member
Well, let's take a look at that... the first time, I showed you this:
You're telling us that CDC found an error in the reporting system that apparently added 76,000 cases to the 106,000,000 reported cases, (an error rate about 1 in 1400) and they let people know about it, and then fixed it. OK. But that would only increase our confidence in the number that CDC is publishing. I don't think you gave this much thought.
If you start Gish Galloping again, you'll just let me cherry-pick the most egregious of your errors. Stick to one thing at a time, and we'll dispose of them in order. Your choice.
Barbarian
Member
You toss out a mass of accusatons, it just makes it easier for your opponent. As I pointed out, this technique doesn't work very well on message boards. Few people even try it, these days. Find what you think is the best argument for your belief and do a good job of providing data for those.
You'll do much better. Right now, you're tossing up things that are really easy to debunk.
Than debunk them instead of dancing around them
You look for yourself, I'm not repeating myself for the umpteenth time just so you can ignore 80% again. And your supremacy-complex tactics don't work on me, anyone can see that the less of my posts your addressing evidently the low-hanging fruit isn't hanging so low after all
You know which ones and you know which ones you've refused to address, all can see your highly unstable foundation is starting to peak, which is why your cowering down into less and less commentary. It's quite evident
. Anyone who actually reads peoples post instead of doing a cop out move of skimming over and commiting bulverism/straw manning their opponent can see my adequate standing. We all learned in elementary that another person can't do their homework for you