Understandable. But it isn't the doctors and researchers that are the problem here, it is administrators who fear litigation IMO. This shouldn't have happened, and it is a shame.
Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread
- Thread starter FresnoGator
- Start date
Would it not be just as easy to end up in litigation for not allowing treatment with a drug that has already been prescribed by a government entity? The VA?
Seems to me like we could create a waiver situation sort of like absolving drug companies for side effects of a “vaccine”
Theoretically, it should. I just wouldn't doubt that fear of litigation for administering IVM played into the decision.
Not disagreeing. Just find it absurd and why I said America is broken. Not the only reason, but a great example if it. There are examples of this in nearly all career fields I would imagine.
Also makes me wonder if peer pressure/politics isn’t at least part of it.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/how-many-double-jabbed-people-are-dying-from-covid-151218361.html
Wow... more vaccinated deaths than unvaccinated deaths.
Wow... more vaccinated deaths than unvaccinated deaths.
"However, the higher number of fully vaccinated people dying does not mean that the vaccine is not working, but instead reflects the large majority of people in England who have now been jabbed."
See, @Uniformed_ReRe? The brits understand how math works.
I mean Dr Birx admitted April of last year that hospitals made money off every patient they admitted as being with covid.
Genie was out of the bottle at that point.
So between February and August were saying there’s only been 1500 Covid deaths in England?
hmmmm
Good question but the early death rate was .003% when the whole clusterfvkk was an unknown. This really has never been a smallpox. Of course in 2020, we were attributing deaths to Covid for everyone with Covid even if it was not the cause of death.
First paragraph of the article:
"More than 1,000 fully vaccinated people in England have died from the Delta variant between 1 February and 29 August, according to the latest data from Public Health England."
Variants of a virus typically spread more easily, but are less severe than the original virus.
Gosh, that's interesting. So from 1 Feb o 29th August according to your Yahoo article, there have been approx 1,500 COVID deaths in England. Yes, according to John's Hopkins, slightly more reputable medical reference than Yahoo, there have been 2,484 deaths from COVID in England in the last 28 days. Also, Delta variant has been the dominate variant in England for more than 4 months now.
Hmmmm, I think something doesn't add up with the actual statistics.
In an attempt to clarify, I referenced the WHO numbers which are practically identical to John's Hopkins numbers. That said, I'm sure a Yahoo article is a more accurate medical source.
Regardless, in the US, death from Unvaccinated vs Vaccinated is at a ratio of greater than 9:1, and Delta is our predominate Coronavirus just like it is in England.
And referencing attributing COVID as the cause of death in patients, I assume y'all were just fine with NY went back and changed the cause of death on thousands of NH patients from other causes back to COVID last month? I was, because when someone has COVID and dies from respiratory issues, it is due to COVID nearly every time.
Florida, US
Cases in 28 days: 583,466
Deaths in 28 days: 6,629
Total cases: 3,352,451
Total deaths: 46,324
Source, John's Hopkins Website
COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center
Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)
coronavirus.jhu.edu
Last edited:
Are those numbers for covid or the delta variant? Once again, you give numbers with no context and can't fathom why you aren't taken seriously.Florida, US
Cases in 28 days: 583,466
Deaths in 28 days: 6,629
Total cases: 3,352,451
Total deaths: 46,324
Source, John's Hopkins Website
COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center
Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)
Weird that twitter is allowing this fakenews story about ivermectin to just permeate. No account suspensions, nothing
@kalimgoodman
@kalimgoodman
Had to go to the VA today. Memorial Hermann (the hospital that denied the 74yr old veteran Ivermectin)is just down the road. There was a small protest outside with several news media outlets.
Right so another words Vanderbilts information showing a clear benefit to vaccination is accurate even when you try an excuse it away through bullshit.
By 'bullshit' you mean transparency?
We have no idea what the data is showing because we have no idea who is making up the data.
Note again the first tweet: He asked if Vandy could give us data on how many of the 'unvaccinated' had underlying health issues. And for an age breakdown of the 'unvaccinated'.
Vandy say nope, the 'data' we gave is all you're getting.
For all we know, all of their 'unvaccinated' are over the age of 85 with cancer and heart disease.
This is why you are transparent if you want people to trust you. If you are trying to pull a fast one, you give incomplete data and try to lead people toward a particular conclusion.
I think we would all like more transparency where possible. But the takeaway here is that COVID related outcomes for vaccinated people are superior to that of unvaccinated by a significant margin. You would agree with that statement, right?
I would because clearly that statement is statistically correct
Overwhelmingly so. If I had that kind of statistical certitude for any other investment or bet, I'd jump all over it.
Nurse Blows The Lid Off The Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated Narrative
Nurse Blows The Lid Off The Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated Narrative See more here: https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/nurse-blows-the-lid-off-the-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-narrative-i-have-seen-nothing-
rumble.com
Not credible. I'd ignore this. Inflammatory headline language (disinformation), and ignores the thousands of frontline doctors and nurses who say otherwise.Nurse Blows The Lid Off The Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated Narrative
Nurse Blows The Lid Off The Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated Narrative See more here: https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/nurse-blows-the-lid-off-the-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-narrative-i-have-seen-nothing-
With the data as presented? Well of course, you'd have to agree with that.
It's the 'as presented' part that raises concern among fair-minded people.
This reminds me of the endless polls during 2020 that showed that Hiden had 20-30 point leads over Trump. They just didn't 'feel' right.
Sure enough, dig into the fine print and the methodology, and you would often find that respondents self-identified as democrats were oversampled. Basically the polls were oversampling dems to get the results they wanted for their poll.
It feels like that's happening here, especially around how they are classifying 'unvaccinated' versus 'vaccinated'. As others pointed out, why not break down the data further to help us understand what we are looking at?
What is the age of the covid patients?
Any underlying health issues?
How many have received one shot?
Two shots?
No shots?
We have no idea, and Vandy isn't going to tell us.
So if your main takeaway from that is 'the shots work', then carry on.
My main takeaway is that this is incomplete data, and the source is intentionally not providing the proper context around that data.
LMAO! That's saying the stock market keeps going up, so keep investing in stocks. Any will do.
No, it's not like that at all.
If this was really being caused by the 'unvaccinated' then they would be giving us the data and not lumping the majority of the population into the 'unvaccinated' category.Nurse Blows The Lid Off The Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated Narrative
Nurse Blows The Lid Off The Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated Narrative See more here: https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/nurse-blows-the-lid-off-the-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-narrative-i-have-seen-nothing-
This is starting to move from not teling the whole story to outright gaslighting. Surprised that intelligent people are falling for it.
Sure it is. You guys are claiming the vandy data shows shots work.
The vandy data intentionally stripped out context in order to give that impression.
Same thing with the stock market. The market as a whole, and over time has always gone up. So invest in stocks, any will do.
That also lacks context. Because obviously not all stocks. sectors perform the same. So you can't just say invest in any stocks and you will make money, just like you can't look at the vandy data and say 'oh that proves getting the shot is better than not getting it.
Yes, more information is always nice.
A lack of data is not the same thing as intentionality. There may be more context around the data, and IF they are withholding that and it is pertinent, then that is definitely wrong. But automatically assuming something nefarious is in play is not always the wise approach IMO.
I disagree. The Vandy data is a continuation of the overall data from multiple sources that the probabilistic outcome of being vaccinated vs unvaccinated is strongly in favor of the vaccinated. It is one more data point in support of that conclusion. Pointing out the flaws in that data set does not render the data useless.
And you're the sheep from Animal Farm. The pigs change the rules every day, the other animals scratch their heads and begin to ask 'Saaaay....wasn't this list different yesterday?" and the sheep rush in to immediately start bleating about how the pigs are always right, trust the pigs, and they continue until the crowd disperses.
Ghost is basically a character from the Crucible. If he lived in the 17th century he would have had countless “witches” burned at the stake with his diabolical recriminations.
Vandy has the data that is being asked for. They are just flatly stating they aren't going to share it.
That raises concerns for fair-minded people. You see it as another reason to shake your pom poms. We get it.
No offense, but this is how people get hoodwinked.
When you discover that a source of information is intentionally giving you incomplete or misleading information, then you should stop listening to that source.
Go look at the two tweets again. Vandy was asked to provide data and context that we KNOW they have. Someone asked for the ages of the patients, and a complete picture of any underlying health issues.
Vandy has this data. They stated they aren't going to share it.
Once I discover that someone is manipulating data and its findings, I stop listening to that source.
It is in this case. People are asking for additional context to data that Vandy has.
Vandy is stating they have provided all the context they plan on.
That makes it intentional.
I'm not offended at all. And yes, people can be hornswoggled by intentional or negligent reporting of data. I did look at the tweets, but I think you and I consume information through a different lens. Absent of any evidence of wrongdoing or malicious intent to deceive, I withhold judgment, and that is what I am doing here with Vandy. You are attributing their tweets to some nefarious intent. Could it be nefarious? Sure. But there could be a lot of other reasons as well. I give them the benefit of the doubt until proof exists that I shouldn't.
It's a tweet. I think some sense of proportionality is in order. Let's see how it plays out before accusing.
Similar threads
