RFK - Make America Healthy? again?
I believe this guy is going to need his own thread.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/14...
A department spokesperson confirmed Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham had ordered his staff to stop engaging in media campaigns and community health fairs to encourage vaccinations, even as the state has experienced a surge in influenza.
well, duh
“Public health is really united on this issue: For more than a century, vaccines of all kinds have been a cornerstone of improving public health in America,” Avegno told the city council on Thursday. “There’s not scientific debate on this, this is as close as you can get to established fact that vaccinations, particularly mass vaccinations, and community immunity, saves millions and millions of lives.”
My favorite part is:
A. You idiots trust the experts? Imagine!
B. Check out what these experts say. Bad news for you!
At this point, it has to be on purpose.
Spoiler: BJ, no. Nobody looks at the trash you post. Sometimes I do so I can make fun of it, but I doubt anyone else does. You've done nothing to make anyone think you are capable of determining what's worth posting, so no one bothers looking when you do.
I'll stick to my uncompromised experts thanks . You can trust your usual pharmaceutical shill experts. You have been caught out before posting studies with huge conflicts of interest.
Of course you will, and sure I have.
Anyway, good luck with that, chief!
Just for you, BJ, I looked. It took 15 seconds to find the first LOL moment.
Whoever this one rogue clown is, he thinks the only difference between 2020 and 2021 was the vaccine. He has no idea that the pandemic was in full spread for 100% of 2021, but not close to 100% of 2020, and somehow conveniently forgot about the delta variant being twice as transmissible as the previous strains in addition to much more virulent. He also seems to think that the vaccine was instantly in 100% of the world's
I am better than the vast majority of professionals who don't spend their full-time job assessing causality and data sets, even at analyzing data and causal claims about their discipline, because I do that (much) more often than they do and my IQ is higher than most of them anyway.
You say stuff about statistics so wrong normal high school students could teach you things.
Oh my lord the delusion on that guy
Just for you, BJ, I looked. It took 15 seconds to find the first LOL moment.
Whoever this one rogue clown is, he thinks the only difference between 2020 and 2021 was the vaccine. He has no idea that the pandemic was in full spread for 100% of 2021, but not close to 100% of 2020, and somehow conveniently forgot about the delta variant being twice as transmissible as the previous strains in addition to much more virulent. He also seems to think that the vaccine was instantly in 100% of the world's
Lol. Well done for ignoring the main point of the study.
Which is:
"Statistical data confirm that the mortality of the vaccinated part of the population in 2021 was 14.5% higher than the mortality of the unvaccinated part of the population."
The main data needed for the evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination
are the mortality rate of the vaccinated part of the population and
the mortality rate of the unvaccinated part of the population. If
vaccination was successful, the mortality rate of the vaccinated
population should be lower than the mortality rate of the
unvaccinated population. To exclude the statistical Simpson
paradox, the population should be divided into five age groups
[3]. We have done this calculation based on England data, and
we got the result that the mortality of the vaccinated part of the
population is higher by 14.5% than the unvaccinated part of the
population.
Please tell me how Delta caused the vaccinated part of the population to have higher mortality than the unvaccinated.
Try and spin that for me Einstein.
I wait with baited breath.
That's easy. The mortality rate of the vaccinated population was FAR lower than the mortality rate for the unvaccinated population. That has been amply demonstrated on this forum countless times. Your guy has no idea how to parse data (or is doing it dishonestly, as I've already shown he is wont to do).
And yes, it's even true for all-cause mortality which I know you're going to whine about:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
Results:
The study included 4 645 910 individuals (49.8% women) with 132 963 deaths during follow-
up. There was a higher proportion of individuals that were part of a risk group among fully
vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals in all age groups, and a lower
unadjusted rate of death: 51.5 vs 73.6 per 100 000 person years (py) among individuals
aged 18-44 years, 295.1 vs 405.3 per 100 000 py among 45-64 years, and 3620.2 vs 4783.8
per 100 000 py among 65 years or older. The adjusted IRR of death for the same age groups
were 0.42 (95% CI 0.38-0.47), 0.39 (95% CI 0.37-0.41) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.41-0.43),
respectively. The differences in rate of death between vaccination groups were larger among
men and peaked during 2022.
Conclusion:
Vaccinated individuals had a lower rate of all-cause death during 2021-2023 in Norway
COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult
population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort
study
Jesper Dahl 1
, German Tapia2 , Håkon Bøås 1 , Inger Johanne Landsjøåsen Bakken 3 , Hanne
Løvdal Gulseth 2
1. Department of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health,
Oslo, Norway
2. Department of Chronic Diseases, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
3. Division of Health Data and Digitalisation, Norwegian Institute of Public Health,
Trondheim, Norway
The fact that you found someone who is completely unqualified to write a paper full of egregious errors that claims otherwise is completely irrelevant.
I hope that helped.
edit: for the future, don't expect anyone to take any papers you post seriously. Every single one of the ones you post has literal grade school level mistakes in them. The ones in this paper are so laughably bad I can't believe even you didn't notice. Do you really think attributing all the difference in mortality between 2020 and 2021 to vaccinations was valid? Really? My guy, just count the months where covid was considered a pandemic in the two years. It's seriously the VERY FIRST BASIC CRITICAL THOUGHT YOU SHOULD HAVE. Do you seriously expect anyone to continue reading a paper with that level of a mistake IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH?
That's easy. The mortality rate of the vaccinated population was FAR lower than the mortality rate for the unvaccinated population. That has been amply demonstrated on this forum countless times. Your guy has no idea how to parse data (or is doing it dishonestly, as I've already shown he is wont to do).
And yes, it's even true for all-cause mortality which I know you're going to whine about:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
Results:
The study included 4 645 91
No. It didn't.
His data was for England. Try again Einstein.
Why hell would I care what country he cherry-picked? Do you think the vaccine behaves differently when it crosses imaginary lines? Tell me you aren't this dumb.
The English stats dept ONS were known to be a lot more accurate and transparent with their data than some other countries. Well, until they realised that the data was looking bad for the vax that is. Then they stopped publishing it.
Hope that helped.
The English stats dept ONS were known to be a lot more accurate and transparent with their data than some other countries. Well, until they realised that the data was looking bad for the vax that is. Then they stopped publishing it.
Hope that helped.
Nope.
It's not even true for UK, and it took 15 seconds to verify.
However, health agency data, standardised for age, challenge this narrative. For example, ONS data show all-cause deaths in England were higher among the unvaccinated than those who had received at least one dose, for every month in its April 2021 to May 2023 dataset
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-ev...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationa...
Stuart McDonald, deputy chair of the Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI), co-authored a commentary
in the Lancet Regional Health Europe about the UK's excess deaths.
Citing a CMI report, it pointed out that excess deaths in England were highest in young (20-44) and middle-aged (45-64) adults.
“That shows you that it is the younger groups that are experiencing the highest level of excess deaths,” McDonald told Reuters in a phone interview. “So, it is the groups that are least vaccinated. The older groups, where vaccine uptake was higher and where boosters have been given more frequently, are experiencing less excess deaths in relative terms.
“There is no robust scientific evidence that gives even a vague suggestion of the vaccines causing more harm than they are preventing. They have unequivocally, based on all that I have seen, caused an enormous harm reduction.”
Nope.
It's not even true for UK, and it took 15 seconds to verify.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-ev...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationa...
Oh, reuters fact check. Lol that settles it then. You can't be that dumb surely.
Hey, df. I linked to the ACTUAL ONS datasets. Learn to read. Or have someone else read it for you, like you usually do. Just try to find someone competent this time. The people you usually get lie to you.
Additionally, it doesn't get much more credible than Reuters. Sorry that sticks in your craw.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH (0.0)
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Failed Fact Checks
They are a certified IFCN Fact-Checker.
Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record. (7/10/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/10/2024)
Ouch.
Run along. You lose, like you always do.
The ONS did change they way they calculated their data at one point also. Probably when they realised it was looking bad. But they were certainly accurate in the early days.
The ONS did change they way they calculated their data at one point also. Probably when they realised it was looking bad. But they were certainly accurate in the early days.
Oh I'm sure they did. Every dataset in the world contradicts your claims, including the ONS one, but you keep clinging to that rope. I'm sure you must be right. You and your unqualified expert that riddled his paper with grade school level errors.
Slight correction. I had another look and the data in the study is from Our World in Data. They seem to have a pretty good reputation for accuracy.
Our World in Data has been cited in academic scientific journals,[43][44][45][46][47] medicine and global health journals,[48][49] and social science journals.[50] The Washington Post, The New York Times,[51] and The Economist[52] have used Our World in Data as a source.
In case anyone was still wondering how outbreaks can happen with such a high statewide vaccination rate.
"A pastor in Texas celebrates as his school has the lowest vaccination rate in Texas."
Mercy Culture Preparatory School has a 14.3% vaccination rate.
Gorgonian wiping the floor with Blowie again. And again. And again.
I always find it hilarious that they think solid medical advice is somehow insulting to us.
