Trump (Or any Subject) Derangement Syndrome

[estradling75]

Part of the of the problem we have with these types of discussions is that we Human in general are bad at math. (I do not mean individuals. I know there are some really good at math individuals, but I am talking as a group generally)

So lets walk through a completely made up example.  A contagion spreads across the world.  This contagion does nothing to 97% of the population.  That sounds like nothing to be alarmed about even if you hear that the remaining 3% will have a long protracted illness in which 1/3 will recover eventually 1/3 will be left with permanent disability and the last 1/3 will end up dead. 

When we see that 97% of the time nothing we say and think we do not need to worry about it... Until we see what that 3% looks like.  If you have a Ward with 200 active members that means 6 people you know will become very sick and have a protracted illness and of those 6... 2 will end up dead and 2 will be left permanently disabled.  When they are people you know it doesn't feel like the odds were that good after all, in-spite of the fact that is exactly what those odds mean.

Of course those numbers are of one ward. but in reality that 97% is of the whole world so the numbers aren't going to be evenly spread out.  You could have one ward of 200 where no one gets sick and they would think that any precautions were completely worthless because it is not as bad as everyone was making it out to be. But a different ward of 200 has 12 that get sick and they think it is so much worse then people are saying it is.

Both groups are being bad at math and are wrong kinda but it is completely understandable why they feel and think the way they do based on their experience.  And honestly having a legitimately differently experience and opinion isn't a problem.  We run into problem when someone tries to force the others to agree with them as if having someone disagree with you is some how personally offensive. 

 

 

[Ironhold]

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I believe you.  You didn't describe your symptoms or duration, so I don't know if it just made you sick and sore for a few days, or if you have like heart problems to this day or something.   A "lifetime of wondering" if you "essentially poisoned" yourself begs the question - are you qualified to know what you're worried about?

You and I have some disagreements here, but I'm also quite ticked off about Biden's pre-emptive pardoning of Faucci and others.  

 

IRL, I have an arrythmia, and I've also got the high blood pressure common to my dad's side of the family. My average *resting* systolic is about 125, a good 10 points higher than my cardiologist wants it, and when under extreme stress I can spike as high as 173. If it spikes anywhere near that high (say, starting around 150 or so) I'll actually feel the changes in my body well before I get to any sort of measuring device. 

Each time I had the shot I felt that same feeling, such that the manual labor I was asked to do around the house in the wake of the shot made me "redline" and functionally left me laid up for about 2 - 3 days... after which I had residual effects like swelling in my hands. 

This was 2021. 

In 2022, about a year after the vaccines, I faced an extreme-stress situation matched only by a severe medical episode I had in 1992. This situation effectively blew my heart out, to the point that my legs swelled so badly people were fearing I had edema. Cue me wondering how much of what happened was stress, how much was my pre-existing cardiovascular issues, and whether the vaccine had anything to do with it. 

I was starting to finally get sorted in August of 2024 when an extreme burst of IRL drama collided with dangerously high external temperatures to trigger a rather hardcore round of chest pains that, in hindsight, might have actually been a minor heart attack. That set me right back to square one with my legs and several other conditions that manifest in August 2022. 

Once again, cue me wondering what was stress, what was my pre-existing conditions, and what role the vaccine might have played. 

I did, indeed, have a strong feeling I shouldn't take the vaccines, but my hand was forced and now I'm going to spend the rest of my days wondering. 

[NeuroTypical]

Chronic health struggles with no clear answer as to why or what's in store, are never fun.  Sorry to hear that @Ironhold.

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Decent attempt at interpreting what dr. McCullough is saying, but that's not what he means. When he says "the largest autopsy studies published to date", he's talking about this: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38221509/

There he is, listed as co-author just like he claimed.    This thing is not the "largest autopsy study published".  They're talking about a tiny fraction of deaths. 

This study is titled Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis.

It says "We performed a systematic review of all published autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis through 3 July 2023."

No, it's not a study of, as you claimed, "all the autopsies that they could get their hands on"

It's a study of all the autopsies for people who died of a certain type of heart issue, when people were wondering if that heart issue had been caused by the covid vaccine. 

How many autopsies?  It's right there in the abstract: 26.  Only twenty six bodies in this study.  And 76% of those is ~20 people.   Out of 984 million covid shots administered in the US, maybe 20 ended up dying of myocarditis.  It's the tiniest of fractions of overall deaths in that time period. There's a way to categorize those numbers: They are statistically insignificant.  

Mathematically, this cannot be the study to which he is referring.  Of 26 bodies, you cannot get 73.9% unless you have a "partial person".

I'm going to look further to see what study he was talking about. If it turns out to be this study you linked to, then I guess I was wrong.  But as of now, the math is simply impossible.  So, something doesn't fit.

[Carborendum]

Yup, that was the wrong study.  Here is the one that Dr. McCullough was referring to:

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/a-systematic-review-of-autopsy-findings-in-deaths-after-covid-19-vaccination/

TPTB retracted it.  The reasoning behind it was a bunch of political/medical double speak for "we're trying to cover our backsides."

Highlights:

Quote

Results: We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one organ-restricted autopsy case (heart). The mean age of death was 70.4 years. The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination, of which the primary causes of death include sudden cardiac death (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

Conclusions: The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings. 

McCullough felt he had to speak up beacause no one was disseminating his findings.  They tried to shut him up.

At this point it is just a question of "who are you going to trust?" 

I found it very telling that the opposition witnesses in the hearing didn't actually refute anything McCullough said.  The simply appealed to all the good that vaccines are doing.  And that this revelation is "encouraging vaccine skepticism."

No, we are skeptical about a single vaccine that was rushed to the public without proper vetting.  The fact that they didn't do their jobs in verifying the safety of the product made many people skeptical of all vaccines.  If they did more vetting, any reasonable person would have been perfectly fine with it.

Edited yesterday at 01:09 PM by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here is the one that Dr. McCullough was referring to:

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/a-systematic-review-of-autopsy-findings-in-deaths-after-covid-19-vaccination/

Fair enough.   Looking through this new link, an awful lot of my overall points remain valid.  

This report is also not the "largest autopsy study published".  It's a study of "all published autopsy and organ-restricted autopsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination" through May '23.  

How many autopsies?  It's right there: 325.  Only a few hundred bodies in this study.  And 76% of those is ~250 people.   Out of well over 800 million covid shots administered in the US, studies find maybe 250 who maybe ended up maybe dying from the vaccine.  It's the tiniest of fractions of overall deaths in that time period. There's a way to categorize those numbers: They are statistically insignificant.  

That's like one in 3 million odds.  You are endlessly more likely to die of a dog attack, or a bee sting, or a hot surface, or a pointy thing, than you are of a covid shot. Again, driving a car is far, far, far more likely to kill you than taking 3 covid boosters a year, every year, until the day you die.   

Context.   Perspective.  There's nothing to see here.  There's zero cause for melodrama or headlines about people dying of the covid shot.

If, perhaps, there's still a third lurking study out there with some sort of smoking gun, please show it to me.  Because so far, it's two studies up, two studies down.

 

Quote

At this point it is just a question of "who are you going to trust?" 

I don't trust people, I evaluate claims and data. I'm not a professional or an expert, but I do have a modicum of common sense and my favorite college class was statistics, because it taught me how to spot stupid when I see it.   Claims that we should be worried about the covid shot killing people, pointing to either of these studies as evidence, are not worthy.  They're obviously false on their face.

Again, I'm with ya on covering up and suppressing data that went against the chosen narrative.  I'm with ya on endless bad policies and panic that got caused by the government spreading lies.  I have a list of people and organizations who should be held accountable, maybe even criminally accountable, for things like wrecking an entire generation of kids' emotional health and education levels.  Companies fired employees who refused to get the shot, based on lies and falsehoods and suppressed data.  Suicides and alcoholism and domestic violence increased because of policies enacted based on lies and falsehoods and data. 

But covid shots killing people in sufficient numbers to warrant caution from the average person?  None of the testimony, none of the videos, none of the links to studies warrant such a notion.   The deeper people ask me to look, the less basis for such a notion shows up.

 

Quote

No, we are skeptical about a single vaccine that was rushed to the public without proper vetting.   The fact that they didn't do their jobs in verifying the safety of the product made many people skeptical of all vaccines.  If they did more vetting, any reasonable person would have been perfectly fine with it.

At this point, I challenge you to demonstrate that you have a working knowledge of what "proper vetting" looks like, or what "verifying safety" of a new vaccine looks like, or even if you know what someone "doing their job" looks like when evaluating a new vaccine.  Or perhaps at the very least, maybe you could interact with what I've said in this thread about my participation in the Moderna phase III trial?  My interest is fading here, but if you'd like to take a shot at how my experience and the info I've conveyed somehow is evidence of a lack of "proper vetting" or "verifying safety" or "doing their job" improperly, I'll read it. 

Edited 22 hours ago by NeuroTypical