Vaccine

dad4 said:
The Danish mask study was fine, it just didn’t say what you think it said.

It was a solid demonstration of what a surgical mask can and cannot do to protect the wearer. You want to take that result and use it to draw conclusions about the ability of masks to reduce transmission. The study does not support that conclusion, but there you are making it anyway.

This is a recurring theme on this thread. Grace finds an interesting paper, and blatantly misrepresents the findings. Same as the Bangladesh study. And several before that.

You’re treating the research, and the researchers, as nothing more than tokens to be counted on my side versus your side. Contents of the paper? Who cares. The important question is whose side they are on.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the Danish study not saying what Grace thinks. Your case hyping contradicts the ability of mask to reduce transmission.
 
Grace T. said:
You are deflecting again. Like always you choose to ignore those studies thar cut against you (Texas), distinguish those in the middle (Bangladesh, danish) and embrace those that support your priors (cdc)

you miss the recurring theme: it’s that the science research and policies you support are always those from whoever is in charge even when they are in the minority. And your answer is always the same: obey shut up and stop complaining.
Click to expand...
It's hilarious to see him accuse you of doing or thinking the same as he does in his post.
 
watfly said:
Thank you for proving my point. Your gaslighting by saying don't take the data at face value. I encourage you to read the Appeals Court ruling, while some of it is specific to OSHA, it really lays out clearly why mandates are fatally flawed.
Click to expand...
Hey bro, if you mandate your employee to jab or lose job, is the employer now reliable for this employee 24/7 365 dayz out of the year?
 
Last edited:
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Don't worry Wallace. Your blender has some special features.
Click to expand...
You just made my green light in my brain go on. You just nailed me to a t and its helping me understand me more. Footy gave me the name "crush" and it also turn my green light on. I will talk to my wife, ds and dd and ask them what features I have. Im open to suggestions on here from Grace T or any of the fellas. I want to be humble so I would like that to be a special feature as well as mercy and "crush" their egoes. Wallace is no more. That was the warrior spirit in me. My wife said Im here to heal from the hell of all the wars. Lots of wars if you turn your head out of the bubble you live in.
 
dad4 said:
Distinguishing? You mean I read the study, think about the methods used and the results obtained, and try to understand what it does and does not demonstrate.

Of course. That’s what you’re supposed to do. Studies are best when they are tools for understanding, not cudgels to be used against political opponents.

If you think “the Texas study” is helpful towards building understanding, post a link.

On the other hand, if it’s just your favorite rhetorical cudgel, don’t bother. I can read it and tell you what it really means, but you’ll just find some other study to misinterpret.
Click to expand...
I did. You chose to ignore it several times I pointed you to it

you:” I don’t like it when you read the parts of the study I don’t like or point out conclusions I don’t like to see. You misinterpret things when you go against my interpretation”.
 
Lets dump all the articles a d listen to what Bobby has to say. WHO still has a job and WHO is making a killing off this scam with a plan? WHO is losing his job and wealth becase of the scam? The only time Mr. Fence Sitter gets his ass off the fence is when he losses his ability to earn a living and lose all his rights becuse 500 plus assholes are billionaires. Bye bye middle class.

rumble.com

Bobby Kennedy Jr Speaks Truth

Subscribe to il Presidento's rumble channel here: https://rumble.com/c/ilDonaldoTrumpo Join our Amazing Patrioto Familia at http://www.ildonaldo.com We have fun during the day with funny postos, video
rumble.com rumble.com
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
"Team virus". Just a game. I want a T-shirt.

Real quick. Since you like trotting out these cohort studies and throwing them on one side of the scales or another. I think its cool you like browsing around. You should try popping the hood on some of these studies and start poking around. You might find it more fun. Like that Nature article you posted a bit ago. Nice piece of work. It's not saying what you attributed to it, but it's really a remarkable finding about the the flexibility of our amazing immune systems. But what I thought I'd ask is this. So, in the CDC overview of the set of extant cohort studies I posted in response to "looking at the data" one topline was what's below. What do you think it means? It's really a restatement of data you've posted previously, and it has a direct bearing on why the findings of these cohort studies bounce around in a way that let's you play with the whole "team natural immunity" vs. "team vaccine immunity" silliness.


"Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown".
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s one of my weakness I’ll cope to. I’m processing a wide range of info on a variety of topics with very limited time. So unfortunately I don’t have the time to deep dive except for a few key ones like the Bangladesh study. My read and type count btw is very very high…back in high school the woman who tested me said it was the highest she’s seen but it does mean I sometimes miss gems and the footnotes in law school were a pain

there’s a new one out of Denmark that you might like. Can’t post it now since I’m remote (soccer). But it’s very clear the boosted do better than the two than the one than the none until you throw in the naturally immune. The naturally immune outperform the no vax and one vax, naturally immune +1 vax outperform the vax 1 and vax 2. And it’s not even close in any of the three metrics of cases, hospital or death. It’s in danish and haven’t found a translation yet so tough read.
 
Grace T. said:
Yeah that’s one of my weakness I’ll cope to. I’m processing a wide range of info on a variety of topics with very limited time. So unfortunately I don’t have the time to deep dive except for a few key ones like the Bangladesh study. My read and type count btw is very very high…back in high school the woman who tested me said it was the highest she’s seen but it does mean I sometimes miss gems and the footnotes in law school were a pain

there’s a new one out of Denmark that you might like. Can’t post it now since I’m remote (soccer). But it’s very clear the boosted do better than the two than the one than the none until you throw in the naturally immune. The naturally immune outperform the no vax and one vax, naturally immune +1 vax outperform the vax 1 and vax 2. And it’s not even close in any of the three metrics of cases, hospital or death. It’s in danish and haven’t found a translation yet so tough read.
Click to expand...

IMO flitting around from one cohort study to another without trying to understand what's driving the underlying variability in the results is chasing your tail. So I'll persist. The question was "what does the fact that we don't know what constitutes a protective Ab titer at an individual level" mean for the spate of cohort studies that are being done (comparatively cheap compared to randomized sampling, can be done by single labs). You've posted data showing that irrespective of how an individual's immune system is primed to CoV-2 there can be a 1000X variation in antibody titers at a comparable time post priming. What determines that variation and what does it mean for the kinetics with which an infection primed vs vaxx primed person becomes susceptible to reinfection? CDC says we don't know. If we don't know, it can't be taken into account in drawing up what we think are comparable cohorts. How do you think that might affect the outcome of such studies?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
IMO flitting around from one cohort study to another without trying to understand what's driving the underlying variability in the results is chasing your tail. So I'll persist. The question was "what does the fact that we don't know what constitutes a protective Ab titer at an individual level" mean for the spate of cohort studies that are being done (comparatively cheap compared to randomized sampling, can be done by single labs). You've posted data showing that irrespective of how an individual's immune system is primed to CoV-2 there can be a 1000X variation in antibody titers at a comparable time post priming. What determines that variation and what does it mean for the kinetics with which an infection primed vs vaxx primed person becomes susceptible to reinfection? CDC says we don't know. If we don't know, it can't be taken into account in drawing up what we think are comparable cohorts. How do you think that might affect the outcome of such studies?
Click to expand...
I want to know something Evil Goalie. This ia from Special Feature, "Inquire." How come most of all the adverse reaction to jabs and deaths from jab came from bad batches that were sent to 13 States. Have you heard about this on CNN or Fox or MSNBS?
 
Since this is a soccer froum, what are you guys hearing about playing D1 soccer without the jab nexr year? Religous exemptions allowed? Who makes decisons about this stuff? Schools? State? Both? What about a private college? Asking for a pal, thanks for any truth you can bring us because as a parent I want to know what is being pushed on my dd in order to have entry. I mean, she doez love the game but at what risk? Are all your kids already jabed? When should a kid bring up the injection in tbeir arm in order to play? Dad? Golden Gate, you can share too bro. Anyone, pleSe help, thanks
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
IMO flitting around from one cohort study to another without trying to understand what's driving the underlying variability in the results is chasing your tail. So I'll persist. The question was "what does the fact that we don't know what constitutes a protective Ab titer at an individual level" mean for the spate of cohort studies that are being done (comparatively cheap compared to randomized sampling, can be done by single labs). You've posted data showing that irrespective of how an individual's immune system is primed to CoV-2 there can be a 1000X variation in antibody titers at a comparable time post priming. What determines that variation and what does it mean for the kinetics with which an infection primed vs vaxx primed person becomes susceptible to reinfection? CDC says we don't know. If we don't know, it can't be taken into account in drawing up what we think are comparable cohorts. How do you think that might affect the outcome of such studies?
Click to expand...
That’s the difference between pure science and policy. I don’t care about pure science anymore than I care about pure mathematics. That’s what the experts are actually good for. The new danish study does seem to show on a general population basis there is a significant derivation. That is enough for the basis of policy, which takes into account factors other than the pure science, and shouldn’t (as seems to be the case now) prioritize pharma profits.
 
crush said:
Since this is a soccer froum, what are you guys hearing about playing D1 soccer without the jab nexr year? Religous exemptions allowed? Who makes decisons about this stuff? Schools? State? Both? What about a private college? Asking for a pal, thanks for any truth you can bring us because as a parent I want to know what is being pushed on my dd in order to have entry. I mean, she doez love the game but at what risk? Are all your kids already jabed? When should a kid bring up the injection in tbeir arm in order to play? Dad? Golden Gate, you can share too bro. Anyone, pleSe help, thanks
Click to expand...

For this season wrapping up my understanding was that in the end it was really dictated on a school by school basis, although NCAA made a set of recommendations to its leagues. I'd think that if a school dictated students have to be vaxxed card this year and the CDC is still recommending that next year that would be their policy again. But if a school wasn't requiring a student vaxx this past fall and testing was enought to satisfy league requirements they probably won't be asking for it next year. So how they handled things this past fall is likely a good guide.
 
Grace T. said:
That’s the difference between pure science and policy. I don’t care about pure science anymore than I care about pure mathematics. That’s what the experts are actually good for. The new danish study does seem to show on a general population basis there is a significant derivation. That is enough for the basis of policy, which takes into account factors other than the pure science, and shouldn’t (as seems to be the case now) prioritize pharma profits.
Click to expand...

Pure science, pure mathematics, pooh. If you want to play with the output you don't get to away from the process and claim to be looking at the data. So we keep going. If individual variation within the cohorts was greater than any intrinsic difference in protection arising from modes of immune system priming it would bin in unpredictable ways between the cohorts. You would see a lot of variation in the studies because you would not be evaluating what you thought you were. So the CDC looked at extant cohort studies in a comprehensive way and that's what they walked away with. So when you say the Texas study, the Danish study, etc I'm thinking there goes Grace chasing noise. In a cohort study, the significance you are talking about is only relevant to the group of people comprising the cohort. Whether it has predictive value outside the cohort is what you need to be looking for.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Pure science, pure mathematics, pooh. If you want to play with the output you don't get to away from the process and claim to be looking at the data. So we keep going. If individual variation within the cohorts was greater than any intrinsic difference in protection arising from modes of immune system priming it would bin in unpredictable ways between the cohorts. You would see a lot of variation in the studies because you would not be evaluating what you thought you were. So the CDC looked at extant cohort studies in a comprehensive way and that's what they walked away with. So when you say the Texas study, the Danish study, etc I'm thinking there goes Grace chasing noise. In a cohort study, the significance you are talking about is only relevant to the group of people comprising the cohort. Whether it has predictive value outside the cohort is what you need to be looking for.
Click to expand...
It’s a fair point but one of the reasons dad and I have been grasping at straws has been because of the censorship going on in the scientific community. Remember the danish mask study was pulled from publication (twice!) before they found a publisher because the publishers are afraid to go against the party line. You see the same thing in reluctance for longest time for the scientific community to look at ivermectin or even today the vaccine side effects. You gotta admit that self censorship is not cool from a scientific point of view. Otherwise by now we really would have better data about masks and instead what we have is the garbage propaganda the cdc keeps putting out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top