Mason Malmuth's Thoughts on COVID vaccines (Warning: O/t thread)
Since the Haxton thread was so conveniently locked, and this was the last comment, I just wanted to draw attention to i
Theres endless respected published long term peer reviewed studies proving covid vaccines reduced mortality and hospitalizations
People love nattering on about their beloved "peer review" studies as if that vaunted status doesn't systematically exclude maverick voices such as Mason's by design. Beg the question much?
Mason is excluded from conducting a study and having it peer reviewed? How? Was there an executive order preventing this?
I don't think you understand science, understand the word maverick or even understand what it means to beg the question. Perhaps you might want to educate yourself a bit more.
The vaccines worked so well, that we had record numbers of cases and deaths directly following the vaccine being made publicly available.
You had less deaths in the initial months of covid than 30-60 days after the vaccine was made publicly available. How does that suggest that it saved so many lives?It can't be overstated that the covid caYour argument confuses timing with causation.
Saying “deaths rose after vaccines became available, therefore vaccines didn’t work” is like saying:
“The fire department arrived and the building was still burning 30 minutes later, therefore the fire department caused the fire.”
Vaccines were rolled out while COVID was already spreading globally, during major waves, new variants, winter seasonality, overwhelmed hospitals, and uneven uptake. They were not a magic pause button for a pandemic already in motion.
Also, testing affects case counts heavily. Fair.
But testing does not magically create ICU overload, excess mortality, or dead bodies. Death data is not just a “testing initiative.”
The serious argument was never “vaccines stop every infection forever.”
The serious argument was:
they reduce severe disease and death, especially in older and high-risk people.
And that is exactly what the data showed.
You can criticize lockdowns, school closures, pharma profits, bad communication, mandates, and political hysteria. Plenty of that criticism is valid.
But jumping from that to “the vaccines were useless” is not objective introspection. It is just reverse tribalism with a spreadsheet.
The vaccines worked so well, that we had record numbers of cases and deaths directly following the vaccine being made publicly available. ...
Instead of constantly arguing about things you don't comprehend, try experimenting with this popular zombie outbreak simulator. (Sorry. I couldn't find a covid victim sim, but, victims are victims.)
You'll soon understand why what you think is proof of vaccines not working is actually unavoidable until they start working.
Why are so many jabbed up sheep parading around? They must be giving out more Big Mac's if you take the 27th booster.
Pure bloods don't need to cope or look for reinforcement.
People love nattering on about their beloved "peer review" studies as if that vaunted status doesn't systematically exclude maverick voices such as Mason's by design. Beg the question much?
And there you have it, everyone. The peer review process isn’t the scientific gold standard you’ve all been brainwashed into believing.
It’s not at all the rigorous standard that has helped to usher in an age of profound scientific and technological progress.
No, it’s actually a group-think enforcement tool designed to silence the brilliant scientific pontifications of guys who write books about how to run a poker room. (And, one suspects, of guys who make exhausted, how-many-times-must-I-explain-it-to-you-nattering-nimrods? posts on Internet poker forums.)
When will you sheeple wake up? Stop listening to these mediots and con men who fashion themselves as experts. The truth isn’t out there masquerading in the scientific journals of your oppressors. It’s in the preachings of visionaries like Mason Malmuth.
It’s in the red pill.
Mason is excluded from conducting a study and having it peer reviewed? How? Was there an executive order preventing this?
I don't think you understand science, understand the word maverick or even understand what it means to beg the question. Perhaps you might want to educate yourself a bit more.
You think if Mason compiles the vaccine material he has been reading about into a literature review and sends it to JAMA that it isn't getting an immediate desk rejection? No way a peer review panel would even be composed for him, much less an executive order. The editor would just pitch it in the trash. Nor would they ever consider letting Mason on a peer review panel - they invariably require an educational and professional grounding in medicine or the sciences to serve in that capacity. You can Yahoo search "myocarditis stroke" until you are blue in the face and those gatekeepers won't bat an eyelash. Any independent thinker who hasn't wasted his life demonstrating grounded knowledge has any chance of breaking through that line. And of course anyone who has died of vaccines has no voice at all!
You are absolutely right Trolly!
Man I hate it when they try to silence people with a different opinion.
I feel bad for him.
Thats just wrong on so many levels!
Nor would they ever consider letting Mason on a peer review panel - they invariably require an educational and professional grounding in medicine or the sciences to serve in that capacity.
Those bastards
Its almost like they are looking for actual peers for a peer review panel, the audacity!!!
Its like I have a couple of guys coaching me to become a better poker player.
Theres Linus, Prodigy and of course my urologist who read a poker article once.
Is "goldendiapers" an honorific to what your personal idol, the Orange Assclown, wears every day You might want to look deep inside yourself about that last line. I suspect there are a LOT of things where that applies in your life.
Care to discuss Poker, Poker Tournaments, heck even patent law you have some basis for the consideration of your opinion with a higher degree of re
If I was proffering advice on how to lose weight, you can probably ignore me. But I have a serious technical background in this area. I'm not a expert, but I am probably closer to being an expert than most who have posted in this thread. Most importantly, as a former scientist and patent lawyer, I know how to do scientific research, and how to judge the likely accuracy of a scientific publication. What is your technical background that is relevant here? Plus, regardless of my background, I am talking from the point of view of well-research and peer-reviewed scientific articles. Not conspiracy theories from some quack health guru with zero scientific training on his youtube video.
Why are so many jabbed up sheep parading around? They must be giving out more Big Mac's if you take the 27th booster.
Pure bloods don't need to cope or look for reinforcement.
This absolute alpha badass over here totally slays pussy. I’ve never been more certain of anything in my life
You think if Mason compiles the vaccine material he has been reading about into a literature review and sends it to JAMA that it isn't getting an immediate desk rejection No way a peer review panel would even be composed for him, much less an executive order. The editor would just pitch it in the trash. Nor would they ever consider letting Mason on a peer review panel - they
While what you're saying is true, I did in 1978 present and give a paper at The American Statistical Association Convention. So, at least at one time, I was probably a little more capable than you might think.
While what you're saying is true, I did in 1978 present and give a paper at The American Statistical Association Convention. So, at least at one time, I was probably a little more capable than you might think.
I don't know how you knew it was my birthday, but thanks!
Remember guys the virus could spread if you attended church or wanted to go on a hike outside or if you wanted to go to the beach, but the virus respected black lives matters protests. Couldn't attend church the government would imprison you but if you wanted to burn down a Wendys that was copacetic.
LOL it is hilarious that it is usually possible to tell a lot about a person by
My source of information is my memory, I lived it. The government shut down beaches, parks, going to church, they filled skate parks with sand so kids couldn't go outside and skate. Yet they didn't shut down any BLM protest. I knew I couldn't go to the beach, I knew I couldn't go to the park or to church or the skate park and I knew cops weren't shutting down BLM riots.
Did you not know those things happened? Because if you did then we have similar sources of information. If not then you must have been living under a rock.
What I think you likely meant was not to insult my "sources of information" but rather my stance on the issue. You were for shutting down churches and burning down Wendy's while I was against it. I think that's what you really aim to insult, not my "sources of information". But it's hard at this point to hold that stance because it's obviously foolish now so instead you try to attack my "sources of information".
Also the vaccine had higher risk for younger populations and less reward. It should not have been universally recommended.
That is demonstrably incorrect to anyone who has even the slightest inkling of how science works.There was definitely a lower reward for younger population to take the vaccine. No doubt. However there was also much lower risk for younger populations to take
How ignorant of you, perhaps you should just stop talking because responding with anything other than "I was wrong" is going to make you look like a buffoon. You're probably still on the "it's 100% effective" and "if you get it you can't pass it on" train, that's how behind you are on things. The science is coming around to prove there was a reason so many people were skeptical.
The FDA literally has a warning label on the vaccine about it being riskier for younger males.
Someone call the wambulance, Chip couldn’t go to church lol
... The FDA literally has a warning label on the vaccine about it being riskier for younger males.
"Based on analyses of commercial health insurance claims data from inpatient and outpatient settings, the estimated unadjusted incidence of myocarditis and/or pericarditis during the period 1 through 7 days following administration of the 2023-2024 Formula of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was ... approximately 27 cases per million doses in males 12 through 24 years of age."
Does that mean a 0.0027% chance? Isn't that like picking a specific Ace of Spades out of a shoe containing 700 decks of shuffled cards? Or spinning a roulette wheel and getting black 15 times in a row?
Scary.
I'm not taking a side in this argument, however for those with strong opinions on either side, I pose the following questions:
1. Do you know the difference between absolute and relative risk?
2. When you are referring to published studies, have you looked at the actual underlying numbers (not the words or summaries) and know if they are referring to absolute or relative?
3. In those studies, do you know what particular groups were studied, for how long, and the number of specific events that occurred for each (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) group?
This might be a better way to approach the debate.
"Based on analyses of commercial health insurance claims data from inpatient and outpatient settings, the estimated unadjusted incidence of myocarditis and/or pericarditis during the period 1 through 7 days following administration of the 2023-2024 Formula of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was ... approximately 27 cases per million doses in males 12 through 24 years of age."Does that m
If Jim had taken the position the risk is low, that would be hard for me to argue against. Saying it's equally risky across all age groups is factually incorrect and easily disproven.
I read the actual numbers and knew some pedant would bring it up, thanks. I'll point out these are recorded cases in the first week. So yes the odds were 27 in a million you would have a serious heart ailment as a 12-24 year old male in the first week. That is scary actually, because what the numbers don't show is unrecorded cases, cases not severe enough to require hospitalization, and cases that presented after the 7 day period. And risking a heart problem as a healthy young male is scary. I can't find any information regarding the rates at which a covid infection caused myocarditis in the same cohort but from what I'm reading it seems the risk of myocarditis was higher in the very young and very old from an actual infection (please correct me if I'm wrong). That's what this should be compared against. Perhaps healthier immune systems would beat covid in vivo before it replicated to the point to cause such harm. That would be my guess. If you were a young male with limited exposure to the virus (ie not a healthcare professional) you probably shouldn't have gotten the jab. Injecting a bunch of spike protein all at once when you wouldn't get that much spike protein from a real life infection as a healthy young male is stupid. That previous sentence is my opinion. The vaccine being riskier for young males and offering less reward, that's a fact!
I'm an atheist and don't attend church, but do you really feel this wasn't a big deal? How about people dying alone without any family being allowed to see them, also not a big deal?
Even though I don't attend church, I have what's called sympathy. And I have a strong belief in our constitution and our bill of rights and I don't like when our government tramples on our rights. Maybe you should try getting the boot out of your throat though if you disagree? Or try moving to a country that doesn't recognize it's citizens rights if you prefer. How about China? Was it no big deal when they welded people into their homes?
Just because you thought it was the right move at the time doesn't mean you have to keep defending it. Making fun of someone complaining about government trampling on citizens rights makes you what? I'm just curious what I should call a type of person who does that? Boot licker is the first thing that comes to mind.
My source of information is my memory, I lived it. The government shut down beaches, parks, going to church, they filled skate parks with sand so kids couldn't go outside and skate. Yet they didn't shut down any BLM protest. I knew I couldn't go to the beach, I knew I couldn't go to the park or to church or the skate park and I knew cops weren't shutting down BLM riots.Did y
This must go hard AF if you're stupid.
Why? Why does this not "go hard AF" for you?
I'm going to just throw out my thoughts on what you mean. Everyone who agrees with my point of view is stupid and my post is cogent and well written so it's easier to just insult those with my point of view rather than refute or debate the substance of my post. That's what I think you meant right?
No, it isn't. Especially when the vaccine first came out, when the versions of Covid out there were much deadlier than the versions typically infecting people today. Again, this isn't fact, it is still your opinion. And I believe this opinion is wrong.
Why? Why does this not "go hard AF" for you?
I'm going to just throw out my thoughts on what you mean. Everyone who agrees with my point of view is stupid and my post is cogent and well written so it's easier to just insult those with my point of view rather than refute or debate the substance of my post. That's what I think you meant right?
For example, stupid **** like saying anyone who didn't stamp their feet about not being able to go to Chili's for 3 weeks supports "burning down Wendy's." Or not understandng the difference in entering orders closing government facilities and "shutting down riots." Totally! Also, man I couldn't go to the beach and yet drug dealers got to keep dealing meth, such a rip!
I can't believe people still have 3 pages worth of things to talk about wrt this topic, in a poker forum no less.
Seems like the biggest contributing factor covid had on society is that it got people's priorities all out of whack.
Between the start of the pandemic and the end of the public health emergency, the U.S. recorded well over 1.2 million excess deaths compared to historical baselines. people who make sure the truth prevails priorities are fully "in whack". Greg Raymer is a national treasure.
If you don't understand what it takes to prove something, to test something, to demonstrate something is safe, to know what the margin of error is and what that means, then scammers pushing conspiracies for personal fame look just as well informed and knowledgeable to you as actual researchers.
Then you wind up with smart people (some of whom were mathematicians in the 70s) who watch conservative tv news-entertainment and then announce on a poker forum that they have heard that a lot of people think the covid vaccine killed people and didn't stop the disease.
Between the start of the pandemic and the end of the public health emergency, the U.S. recorded well over 1.2 million excess deaths compared to historical baselines. people who make sure the truth prevails priorities are fully "in whack". Greg Raymer is a national treasure.
Stop it Limon! You are the real national treasure! You are the holy fool of poker! We'd be in exactly the same place we are now without you, but less entertained.
