5 Filters

From America's Frontline Doctors: If this doesn't snap you out of your cognitive dissonance, what will?

Renegades vs NWO
#101

Fair point - apols. I thought that you did pretty much view the mainstream position on covid as total bollocks! Happy to be wrong about that.

I should change my post to something like this, then

Such posters have clearly decided their position in advance here. They distrust data that might disprove their position, and cherry pick data that strengthens it.

Such posters would still not be pursuing the truth of a situation as much as trying to firm up their existing predetermined beliefs about the situation.

It’s a shame this happens so frequently.

Cheers

#102

“I feel like I’ve looked pretty carefully at the points you raised and have given you several reasons as to why I think they are not so convincing.”
You’ve given no reasons since I raised them. I don’t see any evidence of this care; though you obviously went looking back for some adhom instead.
You didn’t respond when, in response to your question of where the deaths could be hiding, I pointed out a rise of 3000 excess deaths after the vaccination rollout. And while dismissing anyone who questions covid deaths, you haven’t responded to the ONS revelations of the 70,000 excess mostly non-covid deaths at home and the admission there were only 90,000 excess deaths.
So you aren’t entitled to assert I was wrong everywhere you can think of, and demand ‘acknowledgement’. That and your escalating adhom and sarcasm is not the way to have a ‘for real’ discussion about numerical matters, or anything else - on this board anyway.

#103

A year ago my elderly aunt discovered a pea-size growth in her armpit. She couldn’t see a doctor, because of the covid, innit!!

One year later that growth is now the size of a golf ball and has been diagnosed as cancer.

My aunt has never been able to see a doctor face to face (you have to take a photo of your problem and e-mail it to them). Anyhows, I could go on and on with this, and you’ll all know what I’m saying.

The absolute psychosis at the moment is very prevalent in threads like this.

4 Likes
#104

Hi ED

Hmmm. Did I not say that yes there are a couple of weeks that go up and a couple that go down?. Did I not say that this is exactly why we are looking for patterns in the correlations and not just simple raw numbers or averages? Did I not actually agree that the deaths could be in the few thousand, but not in the 10s of thousands?

Were these not responses to that very point?

Again. Did I not say that we are specifically looking at covid deaths that have covid as the cause of death on the certificate? Didn’t I say that a rise in excess deaths somewhere doesn’t mean that we need to subtract covid deaths as a result? I then went on to say that the subject of deaths at home seems like we’re moving beyond the scope of the question of deaths due to vaccination, and the we should stick to the main point in order to try and understand it before expanding into other mortality questions. A point I stick with, incidentally. The causes for deaths at home are many and we are looking for evidence of a specific cause. The deaths at home question doesn’t help us identify vaccine deaths any more than deaths in hospitals or care homes would.

In any case, I most definitely did respond to both of those points. And to the many many others you raised.

One of us is acknowledging the points of the other and responding to them. I’ve even publicly admitted the times I was wrong.

I’m still waiting for you to do the same. You were clearly wrong on the points I showed above. I even showed you the actual equation that you were wrong about on one of the points. So far you’ve not acknowledged a single mistake or really considered any of the points I’ve made - just shifted the goalposts every time I answered one of your points ending up in the strange position of saying that somehow if we can’t spot 300 deaths per week there might well be 10s of thousands of vaccine deaths after all - a very bizarre position to end up trying to defend.

I’ll leave it there ED. It could have been a good numerical investigation. We might even have learned something collectively. What a shame.

I apologise for the sarcasm. I really do. I got frustrated with your continued evasions, goal post shifting, your refusal to hear what I was saying and your refusal to correct your mistakes. Still. I’ll do better in the future.

So in that spirit, as I said above, I’ll take on board your thoughts about time based patterns and I have a few other ideas for analysis that might shed more light on this question.

Perhaps we’ll have a better result another time.

I’ll leave any final thoughts to you if you want to add anything, and I’ll apologise again for my occasionally sarcastic tone.

Cheers
PP

#105

Whether I do or not is irrelevant to the point I was making. We’ve already established that the stats cannot be entirely trusted, but equally, it’s not difficult to see how stats that confirm the doubters’ position could be seen as damage limitation and therefore cautiously ‘accepted’. Compounding this, I suspect, is the old adage of ‘follow the money’ which would allow for the apparent paradoxical position; some stats might be perceived as being or indeed be, more ‘honourable’ than others and this is completely understandable given the depth of censorship we are seeing. If you are trumpeting some stats and burying others, well…

I don’t know so couldn’t say, although I suspect we all fall foul of confirmation bias now and then.

2 Likes
#106

hi @Jamie , to deal with bias the courts have detailed rules on admissibility of evidence and comparing differing witness statements - one of these is “conflict of interest” .

With all the raw data coming from official sources or commercial sources, are there any sources without such conflicts?

There seems to be no data on risk benefit analysis of vaccination of different age groups coming from State or commercial sources and no detailed investigation of “suspected” harm suffered from vaccination despite several national systems set up to record the data. ( Although Norway did such an investigation and then abruptly cancelled the vaxx programme!)

cheers

2 Likes
#107

Yes, this is true of vaccination in general if you consider that until recently no studies of the long term health outcomes of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated have been done and even then, when finally done, they were independent. Those studies were unequivocal; by just about every health metric you can think of, the health outcomes for the unvaccinated were far, far better than the vaccinated.

2 Likes
#108

“Hmmm. Did I not say that yes there are a couple of weeks that go up and a couple that go down?. Did I not say that this is exactly why we are looking for patterns in the correlations and not just simple raw numbers or averages? Did I not actually agree that the deaths could be in the few thousand, but not in the 10s of thousands?”

I’m not sure if I clocked that was meant as an answer to my question, as it isn’t really.
My question arose as you had said:

“More vaccinations → fewer deaths”
"Is an undeniable trend. The more we vaccinated the lower the deaths went… "
"This is not a complex discussion. The data could hardly be plainer… It’s one of the simplest modelling problems I’ve ever looked at.”

The deaths per week rising by 3000 over a period flatly contradicts these statements.
In response, I was expecting you to refer to the graph, mention some numbers.

But ‘there are a couple of weeks that go up and a couple that go down’

isn’t addressing the question, it’s evasion worthy of a cabinet minister.

And “That’s why we look at correlations” is also evasive - when you have just said it was plain and undeniable and that there were fewer deaths!

Correlations need well defined input and result data - not a wave of the hand at whatever months you think best support your wishes.

“Again. Did I not say that we are specifically looking at covid deaths that have covid as the cause of death on the certificate? Didn’t I say that a rise in excess deaths somewhere doesn’t mean that we need to subtract covid deaths as a result? I then went on to say that the subject of deaths at home seems like we’re moving beyond the scope of the question of deaths due to vaccination, and the we should stick to the main point in order to try and understand it before expanding into other mortality questions.”

Lol, you might have meant all that; but actually you put it more succinctly - you simply said it was a red herring!
That missed the point, that that many deaths could be concealed. (So they couldn’t have been red :slightly_smiling_face:)
If you can be unfazed at the emergence of 70,000 unconsidered deaths - while arguing there can’t be 10,000 other deaths - we’re going to be swapping words forever.

Has the first forum rule been rescinded?

“So far you’ve not acknowledged a single mistake or really considered any of the points I’ve made - just shifted the goalposts every time I answered one of your points ending up in the strange position of saying that somehow if we can’t spot 300 deaths per week there might well be 10s of thousands of vaccine deaths after all - a very bizarre position to end up trying to defend.”

30-odd weeks times 300, you know…? Ten thousand. Could be higher if more than 300 deaths are concealed.
So I didn’t ‘end up’ there, one follows the other, nothing ‘strange’ or ‘bizarre’ about it - just another adhom swipe.

I guess it’s possible for both sides to think the other is moving goalposts - but it’s unusual for one to claim so many personal hot air points, while claiming to want to discuss analytically.

This was a good example:

" Remember your comment that vaccine deaths should stay the same every week? You were wrong. I explained that. Did you ever acknowledge that? Still waiting…"

Neatly omitting that you had told me to suppose - just as an example, you assured me - that vaccinations were 100% fatal!
Actually I think most of your claims bend the context just a little :slightly_frowning_face:

And what’s with all the violin stuff? It can’t really be a numerical investigation of vaccine deaths AT-ALL, without considering the other effects on deaths (“red herrings”, lol) which are clearly bigger.

Sorry PP, I didn’t think that was what this forum was about.

1 Like