Masks update.

[VaporTrail]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

At this point I consume more conservative news thanks to this board. That being said, comparing whatever bias you think I'm consuming to those thinking masks make you unable to breathe, the group that didn't think covid was real, I'm sorry... No way 

I'll entertain any argument with legitimate sourcing to back it up. With most of the posts here that isn't happening. I dig through the trail of sources and don't find a solid foundation. 

You posted a reddit article a few months ago about Parkland, took it at face value, and expected everyone else to do the same. Thanks to their voting system, the discussion on that site is actually worse than 4chan. Go make a throwaway account and try posting, say, a pro-life opinion - hell it doesn't even have to be political, just go make a post about not liking Half Life or Halo and see what happens. Sorry, but that place is as bad of an echo chamber as exists on either side of the political spectrum - the people who post there just like to pretend that there is some sort of difference between themselves and the people on boomer email chains.

Quote

It wasn't "if that data is true" it was "if you believe that data is true, and...". I was framing the point I was going to make. I'm not questioning the CDCs data. You're calling it an "appeal to authority" fallacy but the "authority" is the exact place you're sourcing data from on top of additional legitimate medical groups, including pediatricians. My ask was why a group dedicated to the health of children would recommend something that's detrimental to the health of children. Again, I wasn't saying the CDC data was wrong. 

I presented raw data. I pulled data from the CDC since that is an organization that you have repeatedly championed as doing the right thing and having done all the research necessary to prove that the vaccines aren't harmful. In my professional opinion, their conclusions and position statements aren't lining up with the data. As for your ask, I'd say that's a damn good question.

[MLD Woody]

On 12/8/2021 at 9:09 PM, VaporTrail said:

You posted a reddit article a few months ago about Parkland, took it at face value, and expected everyone else to do the same. Thanks to their voting system, the discussion on that site is actually worse than 4chan. Go make a throwaway account and try posting, say, a pro-life opinion - hell it doesn't even have to be political, just go make a post about not liking Half Life or Halo and see what happens. Sorry, but that place is as bad of an echo chamber as exists on either side of the political spectrum - the people who post there just like to pretend that there is some sort of difference between themselves and the people on boomer email chains.

I presented raw data. I pulled data from the CDC since that is an organization that you have repeatedly championed as doing the right thing and having done all the research necessary to prove that the vaccines aren't harmful. In my professional opinion, their conclusions and position statements aren't lining up with the data. As for your ask, I'd say that's a damn good question.

 

I honestly don't even remember what I posted. I think it was something where the story was independently verified outside of Reddit. Oh, it might have been some nutjob Q stuff where someone was denying the shooting happened. Wasn't it actually the parent of someone from the school? Something like that. Either way, 1) I linked that not for the discussion on the site but for the story itself and 2) I don't frequent reddit, I just came across that story somewhere else and wanted to read the post myself. Reddit is literally designed to be communities of shared interests, of course it is an echo chamber. But, again, I wasn't posting it to show the conversation happening below the OP. Though I still can't believe you do regularly frequent 4chan and are here trying to paint it in a more positive light. Not sure I'll ever get on board with that one. 

I know what you did. I know you presented that data. And, again, I never questioned the validity of the data. Again, you're saying I'm using an "appeal to authority" fallacy but you're using that same authority to source your data. You can't have it both ways. I realize you have more expertise here than me, but I'm sure you realize you have less than those that study these disease for their careers. If you're going to make the case that the CDC knows these vaccines are dangerous for kids then you have to provide a reason for why they're still recommending them (or, even more specifically, pediatrician groups that focus on children). And I know you're not unhinged enough to suggest some ridiculous conspiracy theory.

 

I'd need to try to dig into this a lot more than I have. I would need to try and research topics that I am not as well versed in. There would be a lot of work involved, and frankly, I just don't have the time. Call it an "appeal to authority" all you want, but I'm choosing to trust the experts. 

[Vambo]

45 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

 

I honestly don't even remember what I posted. I think it was something where the story was independently verified outside of Reddit. Oh, it might have been some nutjob Q stuff where someone was denying the shooting happened. Wasn't it actually the parent of someone from the school? Something like that. Either way, 1) I linked that not for the discussion on the site but for the story itself and 2) I don't frequent reddit, I just came across that story somewhere else and wanted to read the post myself. Reddit is literally designed to be communities of shared interests, of course it is an echo chamber. But, again, I wasn't posting it to show the conversation happening below the OP. Though I still can't believe you do regularly frequent 4chan and are here trying to paint it in a more positive light. Not sure I'll ever get on board with that one. 

I know what you did. I know you presented that data. And, again, I never questioned the validity of the data. Again, you're saying I'm using an "appeal to authority" fallacy but you're using that same authority to source your data. You can't have it both ways. I realize you have more expertise here than me, but I'm sure you realize you have less than those that study these disease for their careers. If you're going to make the case that the CDC knows these vaccines are dangerous for kids then you have to provide a reason for why they're still recommending them (or, even more specifically, pediatrician groups that focus on children). And I know you're not unhinged enough to suggest some ridiculous conspiracy theory.

 

I'd need to try to dig into this a lot more than I have. I would need to try and research topics that I am not as well versed in. There would be a lot of work involved, and frankly, I just don't have the time. Call it an "appeal to authority" all you want, but I'm choosing to trust the experts. 

Thanks for trusting me!

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

 

[calfoxwc]

23 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

d need to try to dig into this a lot more than I have. I would need to try and research topics that I am not as well versed in. There would be a lot of work involved, and frankly, I just don't have the time.

[VaporTrail]

On 12/9/2021 at 11:55 PM, MLD Woody said:

And, again, I never questioned the validity of the data. Again, you're saying I'm using an "appeal to authority" fallacy but you're using that same authority to source your data. You can't have it both ways. I realize you have more expertise here than me, but I'm sure you realize you have less than those that study these disease for their careers. If you're going to make the case that the CDC knows these vaccines are dangerous for kids then you have to provide a reason for why they're still recommending them (or, even more specifically, pediatrician groups that focus on children). And I know you're not unhinged enough to suggest some ridiculous conspiracy theory.

The burden of proof for their assertions falls on me? What kind of logic is that? If anyone wants to make an assertion, they have to provide evidence, as I did. 

Quote

Call it an "appeal to authority" all you want, but I'm choosing to trust the experts. 

When one expert (me), posts data that contradicts the advice that other experts (CDC, AAP) are recommending, you simply choose to trust them because of who they are and not any specific data they've presented. You have demonstrated the problem of the "trust the science" crowd. Science isn't something to be "trusted," it's something to be understood. I call it an appeal to authority because that's exactly what you've done.

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, VaporTrail said:

The burden of proof for their assertions falls on me? What kind of logic is that? If anyone wants to make an assertion, they have to provide evidence, as I did. 

When one expert (me), posts data that contradicts the advice that other experts (CDC, AAP) are recommending, you simply choose to trust them because of who they are and not any specific data they've presented. You have demonstrated the problem of the "trust the science" crowd. Science isn't something to be "trusted," it's something to be understood. I call it an appeal to authority because that's exactly what you've done.

Ok Vapor, what are you doing right now to study this disease? I understand you have a medical degree but what is your expertise? I'm honestly curious. And I don't need to hear the "you don't 'trust' science, you test it / understand it / whatever it" line. I get it. This isn't blind faith in one person saying one thing. This is the recommendation from many experts in many groups. 

And you're asserting that the CDC / AAP KNOWS that this vaccine is dangerous for children but they're STILL recommending they take it. In my view that is a pretty heavy assertion. I'm just trying to get your dots connected for me. Considering what you're proposing I don't think that's too much to ask at all.

 

Aren't people more at risk of getting myocarditis if they have COVID anyway? Compared to getting it from the vaccine

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm?s_cid=mm7035e5_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM64772&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR Early Release - Vol. 70%2C August 31%2C 2021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM64772

And every article I'm reading seems to show that of the few kids that did get any inflammation after the vaccine most were treated and recovered quickly. 

[Westside Steve]

On 12/12/2021 at 10:39 PM, MLD Woody said:

Ok Vapor, what are you doing right now to study this disease? I understand you have a medical degree but what is your expertise? I'm honestly curious. And I don't need to hear the "you don't 'trust' science, you test it / understand it / whatever it" line. I get it. This isn't blind faith in one person saying one thing. This is the recommendation from many experts in many groups. 

And you're asserting that the CDC / AAP KNOWS that this vaccine is dangerous for children but they're STILL recommending they take it. In my view that is a pretty heavy assertion. I'm just trying to get your dots connected for me. Considering what you're proposing I don't think that's too much to ask at all.

 

Aren't people more at risk of getting myocarditis if they have COVID anyway? Compared to getting it from the vaccine

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm?s_cid=mm7035e5_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM64772&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR Early Release - Vol. 70%2C August 31%2C 2021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM64772

And every article I'm reading seems to show that of the few kids that did get any inflammation after the vaccine most were treated and recovered quickly. 

Even though as you know I'm pro-vaccine the CDC did just recently issue a statement saying they thought higher institution of some nerve syndrome occurring in people who had been vaccinated. So yes they would knowingly tell people to take something  that could cause severe damage. I would hope those instances are rare.

WSS 

[Westside Steve]

[DieHardBrownsFan]

On 12/12/2021 at 11:13 PM, Westside Steve said:

Even though as you know I'm pro-vaccine the CDC did just recently issue a statement saying they thought higher instances of some nerve syndrome were showing in people who had been vaccinated. So yes they would knowingly tell people to take the vaccine  that could cause severe danger. I would hope those instances are rare.

WSS 

Your phone really messed this one up.

 

[Westside Steve]

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Your phone really messed this one up.

 

fixed 

[BaconHound]

On 12/4/2021 at 7:22 AM, Westside Steve said:

But if it's so deadly and widespread why do some of the guys get all snotty when I suggest that they should be much more stringent about the practice? For instance we know that it gets into the lungs and the eyes. So what I suggest everyone also wear a face shield and change the double layer mask often during the day sanitize their hands every time they touch anything they get pissed off at me? Or even stay home and get your s*** delivered? Because it's basically a symbol.

WSS

 

I believe you know the answer to those questions, if you’re being honest.

[Westside Steve]

7 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

I believe you know the answer to those questions, if you’re being honest.

I certainly do. People want to make a political statement but don't want to inconvenience themselves because they really don't care that much.

Very similar to global warming. They're like the b**** they don't like to sacrifice.

The list goes on

WSS 

[VaporTrail]

On 12/12/2021 at 10:39 PM, MLD Woody said:

Ok Vapor, what are you doing right now to study this disease? I understand you have a medical degree but what is your expertise? I'm honestly curious. And I don't need to hear the "you don't 'trust' science, you test it / understand it / whatever it" line. I get it. This isn't blind faith in one person saying one thing. This is the recommendation from many experts in many groups. 

And you're asserting that the CDC / AAP KNOWS that this vaccine is dangerous for children but they're STILL recommending they take it. In my view that is a pretty heavy assertion. I'm just trying to get your dots connected for me. Considering what you're proposing I don't think that's too much to ask at all.

 

Aren't people more at risk of getting myocarditis if they have COVID anyway? Compared to getting it from the vaccine

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm?s_cid=mm7035e5_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM64772&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR Early Release - Vol. 70%2C August 31%2C 2021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM64772

And every article I'm reading seems to show that of the few kids that did get any inflammation after the vaccine most were treated and recovered quickly. 

Yooo. I'm back. I will say I'm putting together a proposal for a study on outcomes of COVID patients in my field, but nothing more because of dox. Nothing pro-vax or anti-vax, just a retrospective study in this patient population. 

As for the recommendation from many experts - there were plenty of medical experts who on the record asserted (without evidence) that there was no way that this could have been a leaked bioweapon, however, with Trump out of the picture, that's been backpedaled on and is now an approved theory to hold.

I will admit now that there are new studies that suggest the vaccine has lower rates of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated covid population. However, that comes with two caveats - first, the authors of these studies disclosed conflicts of interest with Moderna/Pfizer/BioNTech/J&J. Second, it's still really early in the research process. 

If the findings of those studies are reproducible in experiments run by independent researchers, I'll give them a lot more credence. However, when there is documented evidence of these companies publishing bogus trial data to cover up unethical experimental testing on Nigerians in the last 15 years (Source: Medicine sans Frontiers - https://www.msf.org/statement-pfizer-promoted-misleading-and-false-accusations-msfs-involvement-unethical-drug-trials), then I personally think it's unwise to give them the benefit of the doubt. The data in the studies does look good, but if it's shit data in, then it's shit data out. I'll wait for some independent studies before letting big pharma dictate that everyone needs the jab. 

Secondly, as powerful as these research studies are, it is still very early on in the research process for this virus. I'd consider all of the data we have so far preliminary. To give you an example - there was a trial that came out 10 years ago which suggested that a certain anti-depressant also improved recovery of motor function from stroke. This was a big deal in my field, and lots of people started giving this drug to stroke patients. Subsequent studies over the next 10 years showed that this effect was not reproducible. These were both RCTs, which are more powerful studies than these COVID ones, which tend to be retrospective cohort studies. The data on COVID will get better with time, but personally I don't think the data they have is strong enough to align with their recommendations. The biggest flaw with the retrospective data, and it's one that can't really be controlled for, is that there is no way to truly count asymptomatic infections, and by not counting them, you are increasing the rate of whatever COVID side effect by x amount - which will be a topic of debate for the next 10 years. Anecdotally, I also really question the specificity and sensitivity of our gold standard COVID testing especially with this last wave. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]