On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > * > Statically we are looking at 1/100 of vaccine recipients. That a lot > of people sick and then dead.* *BULLSHIT! *And it is people just like you spreading this sort of quack medical advice that is killing people, thousands and thousands of people every fucking day. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> uty Such a nice little proggie puppet! > > Delightfully cheering. > > It looks great for DeSantis. If people oppose him, it won't be for have a > grand jury look at the malpractices of the Dem party funder$. > > Back to the science article, and we are talking about 2 things. > Statically we are looking at 1/100 of vaccine recipients. That a lot of > people sick and then dead. Secondly, these are young people. who went along > and then died. No pre-screening, just Dem insistence and coercion about > taking the drug. People, including families of those who may have been > killed, will likely seek retribution. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] < > [email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Dec 20, 2022 2:51 am > Subject: Re: Fwd: Death, science, and politics > > > > On 12/19/2022 11:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > The language is Hindi I believe. > > > That's all you've got say about your Champion. > > There are others looking at the vaccines more carefully than you and John. > Advocacy journalism follows: > > https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-study-covid-vaccine-blood-clot-elderly-et/ > Core report: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014931 > > > Typical bad medical statistics. They set a threshold for significance of > 1% false positive, but then applied it to 14 different "outcomes". If > there's a 1% chance of error that's 99% chance of no error...on each test. > So the probability of finding at least one false positive is 0.99^14=0.869 > or 13%. > > And what is the only "outcome" they identified as significant: Pulmonary > embolism in in the inpatient setting. In other words vaccinated persons > who were also inpatients had a significantly higher risk of PE. Don't > suppose it could have anything to do with lying prone a lot, or being in a > hospital with other sick people. > > > Counter argument- > DeSantis' anti-vax grand jury petition suggests that a rise in > cardiac-related mortality in young people might be caused by vaccines. Of > course, if you actually look at the study, you'll see—shockingly—that the > rise predates vaccination. Because it's mostly due to COVID itself. > > I am willing to find out whether it (the vax) does or does not present a > danger to a minority of the public. > > Define "danger". One in chance in a thousand? ten thousand? hundred > thousand? > > > Bhattacharya is a prof at Stanford and that is one thing neither you nor I > are. > > And I know statistics which neither you nor he do. > > > For the democrat practice of character assassination (which work great for > your team members but not ours) there is Professor Makary, at Johns > Hopkins, who sides with Bhattacharya. > > > Oh well, now I'm really impressed there's some other guy who's taken > sides. Too bad nobody has an argument or data. > > > @JohnsHopkins <https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkins> > professor, > @theNAMedicine <https://twitter.com/theNAMedicine> > member, > @harvardchansph <https://twitter.com/harvardchansph> > alum, author of 2 NYT bestselling books. Honest debate is healthy, I can > be persuaded > > > "Lancet study of Covid+ and - teens found “poor well-being, fatigue & > Long COVID were broadly similar” but loneliness increased steadily. Take > home message—Long-covid is not the mass disabling complication that has > permanently damaged a generation of children, social isolation is." > All I want is to find out so as to save lives. > > > If that were true you'd be advocating that all the unvaccinated Trumpkins > get vaccinations. > > It would seem that practicing public health should be adjustable to > discoveries in medical science. > Seems sensible at first blush. Unless there are underlying financial or > obsessive-compulsive disorders happening? > Or, more directly to your flavor of your discussions: (Get Ready..) > If ya want Trump back, this is how ya get More Trump!!! (Laughter placed > here) :" Bwah ha hah hah hah...." > Meanwhile,in a home in Florida-DeSantis Saves, Jesus too? Moses Invests, > & Elvis Surfs > Meaning, if you wish to hurt DeSantis and now you may be on Don's side in > this, you won't hurt his chances by focusing on his grand jury move. He'd > have to look weak against Newsome of Cal. The only thing Newsome has > going for him is that he has been far, more, active, than Joe-Kamala on > Renewable energy. How significant in 24 will this be, we have way of > knowing now. As one dem pollster said back on November 10th, if DeSantis > can beat Trump in the primaries, there is no one on the Democratic side > that can beat him. > > And they're saying De Sanctimonious has no chance against The Stable > Genius. > > Why do you bother to type this made up shit? > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/810555212.683349.1671554347844%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/810555212.683349.1671554347844%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tp%2BD6dfhEAGxyRQKDEOBPz%3D4uZPwbbwvEhGyeaSD3oA%40mail.gmail.com.
