Response to Scott Alexander

 "vaccine denialism"


Hmm, let's think about this:

1: If the shots were actual vaccines, there would be no mask mandates for people who are vaccinated.  But there are

2: What are the effects of these "vaccines"?

A: You can still die from Covid

B: You can still end up in the ICU / Hospital because of Covid

C: You can still be sick but not hospitalized because of Covid

D: You can be asymptomatic for Covid, but still give it to other people


Looks like the main thing the "vaccines" are good for is providing hosts where the Covid virus can mutate to make versions that do better against people who've had the "vaccine".


3: I've seen a couple of charts comparing Covid vaccination rate for a US State to current Covid infection rates.  None of those charts have provided a solid "more vaccinations == less cases" line.  Do you have a graph that does?


4: The CDC has been utterly dishonest in its promotion of the Covid shots.  See the KY study.

If fact, let's consider that study.  What's the data they claimed to have:

A: List of every positive Covid test in KY

B: List of every Covid shot given in KY

C: Method to connect people in 1st group with people in the second group


Now, let's all put on our scientist hats, and ask ourselves: What can I do with this data?

How about: 

Compare infection rates of people who haven't had Covid, but have had the shot, to those who've had Covid, and not had the shot?


What is the one test they do not admit having done?  Why, that one.

Despite having a press release who's headline states they were looking at protection from having been infected vs protection from having had the shot.


So, what are the numbers of people involved?

Well, as of May 1 there were > 1.4 million people in KY who'd been "fully vaccinated".  There were > 600 thousand who'd had Covid.


How many people did they look at?

738

246 people who were "repeat infection", i.e. "case patients", and 492 not infected who they looked at, and called "controls"


Why yes, that's right.  They had 600,000+ people to compare against, and they decided to only look at 492 of them


Or, rather, the results they reported only looked at 492 of them.


Anyone out there really believe they didn't try a 1 to 20, or 1 to 200 comparison, not just the 1 to 2 they reported?


Anyone there have access to the data behind this "study", so that someone who's not utterly dishonest can look at it?


I got the shot back in April, because I thought the science behind it was great, and I was looking forward to kissing the masks, the lockdowns, teh social distancing, and all that other BS goodbye.


I'm now disappointed that the mRNA vaccine technology is apparently not yet ready for prime time, and that the people currently pushing the shots are, to use your example, the aliens telling us to get brain implants.


Given the blatant dishonesty coming out of the CDC, I don't see how any other position can be considered rational.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stealing the 2020 Presidential election

 1: No honest vote counter blocks poll watchers from doing their job. 2: It is a generally accepted rule in international elections monitoring that "blocked poll watchers" == "fraudulent election outcome."  See: Uganda, Jan 2021. 3: I know that Detroit, Philly, Atlanta, are are on clear public record as having blocked Trump campaign poll watchers.  Those right there are enough to flip the election 4: Therefore any claim that "of course the election was honest and fair, and anyone who claims otherwise is a nut" is a statement utterly lacking in principle or value, and to make that claim is to self identify as a nut. 5: http://wkow.com/2020/11/13/concerns-over-indefinitely-confined-voting-law-as-thousands-use-the-option-due-to-covid-19/ In 2016 there were ~60k "indefinitely confined" absentee voters in WI (IC voters can vote absentee without providing State issued photo ID.  All others have to provide it, and thus prove they're actual real peop
Read more

Why Cuomo belongs in jail

 I posted this over here , in response to the post  and this argument: If Cuomo broke positive law by retaliating against women who had lodged complaints about his behavior, then those retaliation-related allegations (if true) could supply a good basis for impeachment. The COVID19 allegations are entirely different. If Cuomo chose poorly (as we now understand it) in sending elderly patients with COVID19 into nursing homes, but did so acting on the information before him and for disinterested ends (i.e., in the narrow sense of not taking any bribes), then that is a reason for voters (if they so choose) to boot him out of office, but not for the legislature to impeach. Otherwise, you are converting impeachment into an ongoing legislative vote of no confidence. As my comment still hasn't escaped moderation, I'm posting it here: "If Cuomo chose poorly (as we now understand it) in sending elderly patients with COVID19 into nursing homes, but did so acting on the information bef
Read more

CDC justification for new masking rules is total trash

 Thank you Instapundit The CDC's study says In July 2021, following multiple large public events in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3–17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of specimens from 133 patients. Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not. So, let's lay some groundwork (thank you Twitchy ): Town population less than 3,000 County population about 220,000 40,000 people show up for "Bear Week", a week of gay celebration for people, many of who just spent the week before "Pride partying" in NYC One of the more popular bars "resembles a kind of dank dungeon where sweat drips from the ceiling and mold reaches up the walls" A large number of the people there are going for the sex.  Note: gay men having se
Read more