Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Player dying the field in Cincinnati
Comments
-
Point to me a real investigation. I'll wait. 2000 Mules was already taken so you will need an alternative. Don't hurt yourself.MelloDawg said:
Agreed. Good thing there was one of those, though I get that “a real investigation” means “provide me the confirmation bias I need.”WestlinnDuck said:
Like looking into election fraud, some people don't want to ask and don't want to know. Statistical anomalies can be just that. They can also direct an intellectually curious person into further investigation. When the first party strongly resists that investigation, that is further evidence that there should be an investigation - a real investigation.pawz said:
Great questions. Were any asked of the CV jab trials?whatshouldicareabout said:
Is it peer reviewed? It's listed as "letter to editor".EsophagealFeces said:
Don't bring medical studies and peer reviewed papers into this. The libs don't deal in facts, only emotions.Dude61 said:
Letter uses absolute values instead of rates. How many athletes were in sports in 1966-2004 versus 2020-2022?
What was the source of statistics for those years? Are they comparable in how they were taken? How reliable are those statistics? Where is the data for 2005-2019?
What types of sports had the highest rate of cardiac injury? What about race?
No need to answer.
The fact that Pfizer asked a federal judge to withhold answers for 75 years says it all.
In this case, the author Dr Peter McCullough, is the top cardiologist in the country. With over 600 peer-reviewed, published papers on his resume he is head and shoulders above the field. I think it's fair to say he's earned a bit of discretion if those questions aren't perfectly addressed (but likely are given his track record).
I really hope this helps. -
I’ve never understood why vax believers become so defensive when confronted with the fact that many of the things their overlords told them about COVID and what needed to be done in the name of science turned out to be BS.
Denial?
Embarrassment?
Stupidity?
Herd mentality?
Pride?
Virtue?
Blissful ignorance?
All of the above. -
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Seem like words to live by if you were an intellectually curious person who wanted honest answers. That leaves out every dem and dem voter. When your life goal is to have people sh*t in your mouth, then you are all set.46XiJCAB said:I’ve never understood why vax believers become so defensive when confronted with the fact that many of the things their overlords told them about COVID and what needed to be done in the name of science turned out to be BS.
Denial?
Embarrassment?
Stupidity?
Herd mentality?
Pride?
Virtue?
Blissful ignorance?
All of the above. -
They should've been asked and accounted for in the trials. And if people have questions or concerns, then they need to be addressed.pawz said:
Great questions. Were any asked of the CV jab trials?whatshouldicareabout said:
Is it peer reviewed? It's listed as "letter to editor".EsophagealFeces said:
Don't bring medical studies and peer reviewed papers into this. The libs don't deal in facts, only emotions.Dude61 said:
Letter uses absolute values instead of rates. How many athletes were in sports in 1966-2004 versus 2020-2022?
What was the source of statistics for those years? Are they comparable in how they were taken? How reliable are those statistics? Where is the data for 2005-2019?
What types of sports had the highest rate of cardiac injury? What about race?
No need to answer.
The fact that Pfizer asked a federal judge to withhold answers for 75 years says it all.
In this case, the author Dr Peter McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country. With over 600 peer-reviewed, published papers on his resume he is head and shoulders above the field. I think it's fair to say he's earned a bit of discretion if those questions aren't perfectly addressed (but likely are given his track record).
I really hope this helps.
I don't like that Pfizer wants to withhold answers either, but it's how pharma operates and it leads to distrust of medicine in the population.
I don't care if McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country, these are basic questions in epidemiology and biostatistics. How do you do a cohort analysis when the two source populations are different? -
You should care. The chicom crud was less deadly to school age Americans than the flu, you could just look at the published CDC stats to get that. That was the epidemiology. The biostatics on the mRNA vaxxes were not developed and when they were the were suppressed. I'm not a cardiologist, but I can tell you giving the vaxx to a 5 year old is medical malpractice.whatshouldicareabout said:
They should've been asked and accounted for in the trials. Sure, but they weren't for some reason. And they are being asked now, with no answers. And if people have questions or concerns, then they need to be addressed.pawz said:
Great questions. Were any asked of the CV jab trials?whatshouldicareabout said:
Is it peer reviewed? It's listed as "letter to editor".EsophagealFeces said:
Don't bring medical studies and peer reviewed papers into this. The libs don't deal in facts, only emotions.Dude61 said:
Letter uses absolute values instead of rates. How many athletes were in sports in 1966-2004 versus 2020-2022?
What was the source of statistics for those years? Are they comparable in how they were taken? How reliable are those statistics? Where is the data for 2005-2019?
What types of sports had the highest rate of cardiac injury? What about race?
No need to answer.
The fact that Pfizer asked a federal judge to withhold answers for 75 years says it all.
In this case, the author Dr Peter McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country. With over 600 peer-reviewed, published papers on his resume he is head and shoulders above the field. I think it's fair to say he's earned a bit of discretion if those questions aren't perfectly addressed (but likely are given his track record).
I really hope this helps.
I don't like that Pfizer wants to withhold answers either, but it's how pharma operates and it leads to distrust of medicine in the population. Yes, it does. Questions like why was the entire US medical bureaucracy sucking Pfizer and Fow Chee's dick and actively, along with the entire US MSM and social media suppressing legitimate questions. It isn't how it should operate but as long as dems and dem voters want it to be this way it will.
I don't care if McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country, these are basic questions in epidemiology and biostatistics. How do you do a cohort analysis when the two source populations are different?
Then toss in the active suppression of viable therapeutics which carried no risk and preventives and replace it with put on a worthless mask and when you get sick, take a Tylenol and wait for your assigned ventilator if you were a high risk person was also evil. I don't get how Americans can be so sanguine about how the US helped fund chicom gain of function research on bat viruses in a substandard Wuhan bio lab and then when it was released to the world population the majority response was to follow incompetent US medical bureaucrats like sheep and then after it all done just tell me that's the way it is.
-
Remember when Cheney said the most patriotic thing we could do after 9/11 was buy stock?PurpleThrobber said:I'm trying to figure out how donating to this dude's toy drive somehow helps his condition.
Similar "just do something" need being filled here, but far more benevolent.
I'm good with it. And when he wakes up - fingers crossed - it'll make him happy, I'm sure.
Nothing wrong with that. -
Been following this stuff closely since 2020. Recent studies are showing Covid-related Myocarditis is much rarer than previously thought and presented in the media.LawDawg1 said:As stated in another post.... how does the argument ignore the fact COVID19 has shown to also increase heart inflammation and myocarditis? Unless you can establish that an athlete (1) had the Vaxx and (2) never had COVID19, these studies or data points are meaningless. Was it the vaxx? Was it prior exposure to COVID? Was it something else? I hate the pro and anti-vaxxers.... but these arguments lack logic.
Not conclusive, but trending away from Covid19 as a major cause of Myocarditis in young people. -
In theory, wouldn't a cardiologist be a better source of understanding and identifying side effects that effect the heart than an epidemiologist?whatshouldicareabout said:
They should've been asked and accounted for in the trials. And if people have questions or concerns, then they need to be addressed.pawz said:
Great questions. Were any asked of the CV jab trials?whatshouldicareabout said:
Is it peer reviewed? It's listed as "letter to editor".EsophagealFeces said:
Don't bring medical studies and peer reviewed papers into this. The libs don't deal in facts, only emotions.Dude61 said:
Letter uses absolute values instead of rates. How many athletes were in sports in 1966-2004 versus 2020-2022?
What was the source of statistics for those years? Are they comparable in how they were taken? How reliable are those statistics? Where is the data for 2005-2019?
What types of sports had the highest rate of cardiac injury? What about race?
No need to answer.
The fact that Pfizer asked a federal judge to withhold answers for 75 years says it all.
In this case, the author Dr Peter McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country. With over 600 peer-reviewed, published papers on his resume he is head and shoulders above the field. I think it's fair to say he's earned a bit of discretion if those questions aren't perfectly addressed (but likely are given his track record).
I really hope this helps.
I don't like that Pfizer wants to withhold answers either, but it's how pharma operates and it leads to distrust of medicine in the population.
I don't care if McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country, these are basic questions in epidemiology and biostatistics. How do you do a cohort analysis when the two source populations are different?
-
About 2 years ago, as I recall, I posted the spreadsheets showing King County cases and deaths. When I realized only 3 people in my Zip Code had died of Covid during a 9 month period, and 2 were in their 80s, I began to question the panic, the masks, the fear, and the absurdity of the county's Covid response.Bob_C said:From your King County overlords. Regardless if this is vaccine related or not, pushing it on young people was fucking stupid. In theory, unlimited risk with no reward.
It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
Was a 1% death rate - if you caught the Vid (.03 overall) ever worth what our government put us through? And how effective was our collective response?
-
The chicom crud or the mRNA vaxxes? Seems pretty clear that the vaxxes are a much higher risk to young people than the Wuhan flu.TurdBomber said:
Been following this stuff closely since 2020. Recent studies are showing Covid-related Myocarditis is much rarer than previously thought and presented in the media.LawDawg1 said:As stated in another post.... how does the argument ignore the fact COVID19 has shown to also increase heart inflammation and myocarditis? Unless you can establish that an athlete (1) had the Vaxx and (2) never had COVID19, these studies or data points are meaningless. Was it the vaxx? Was it prior exposure to COVID? Was it something else? I hate the pro and anti-vaxxers.... but these arguments lack logic.
Not conclusive, but trending away from Covid19 as a major cause of Myocarditis in young people.
