Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "“Fact-Check” Of Joe Rogan Is A GIANT FAIL" video.

  1. It's a cult.
    7
  2.  rs_  Yes. I accept that VAERS reports are unaudited. Incidents may also be underreported, as they have been in the past. Not only doctors report, and in any case, what is the basis for a doctor's "clarification" (in this politically-charged) climate (see, e.g., Mattias Desmet for more information)? And the head of the CDC does not have the numbers. Therefore we do not know, either. What you said about person years makes no sense. Vaccine-induced myocarditis generally appears quickly, infection-induced can take weeks. We know this. If you don't make the distinction, you don't capture the facts. Moreover, the vaccine is very incomplete. Obviously this requires multivariate analysis. That's not speculation. My source is logic. (And the fact that I'm an attorney who worked extensively on the Daubert rule in the federal system. I know about taking a hard look at time lines.) I find it funny that you ask me for my "source," as if you've caught me flat-footed or something, when the head of the CDC just admitted before the Senate that she does not have the numbers. That was under oath.
    4
  3. How does someone who checks his facts in real time need a fact checker?
    4
  4.  rs_  Your first point about VAERS is simply factually incorrect. VAERS has always been plagued by underreporting, and this fact has been demonstrated; whether VAERS has persisted in having this issue during COVID remains to be determined, but we have no evidence to presume the reporting is suddenly comprehensive. The head of the CDC just admitted before the Senate that she does not have the numbers of severe adverse events from the vaccine at her disposal. She testified under oath, thus had to concede she does not have that number. A vaccine can reduce the risk of myocarditis from COVID but not eliminate it, while at the same time creating a risk of myocarditis from the vaccine itself, especially where multiple shots are administered. So you can't simply substitute the lower risk for the higher. By comparing the one to three weeks following one injection with the longer time frame we look at to determine all of the ill effects of COVID, including myocarditis, whenever it may be contracted, we obscure this fact. IOW, it would not be additive if this vaccine eliminated (essentially) all risk of COVID, and hence of myocarditis from COVID as well, but it doesn't. It wears off pretty fast, too. And then comes the booster.
    3
  5.  @TheAbabab77  Whoosh. In any case, "children" in context means anyone under 18, who therefore needs parental consent. The myocarditis risk appears to be highest in older teenaged males and young adult males. This group is often forced to keep boosting to go to college. We will be ashamed of this one day, I swear. I HOPE.
    3
  6.  @TheAbabab77  Hospitals are inundated because we have been reducing beds and staffing for years and years. You're being taught to hate on "the unvaccinated." Myocarditis is hardly the only serious adverse event. It is the most flagrant, because it is a known risk imposed on young men for no benefit to themselves in almost all cases. The very idea nauseates me.
    3
  7.  rs_  Kimbo's post wasn't well said at all. This person is exhausted from having to justify what is becoming more and more clearly unjustifiable. You are two are going to have to explain to me why anyone should be forced, or coerced in any way, to undergo a medical intervention when the head of the CDC just admitted before the Senate and under oath that she does not have the numbers of severe adverse events from that intervention. She does not deny that deaths have occurred. She could not state how many. Does she know how many young men can no longer do what they used to do, before the shot? Now the COVID death count of 836,000 has been credibly questioned. I have to say that surprises me. I'm not judging anything. I'm waiting to hear more.
    3
  8. Absolutely brilliant. These days, when I encounter a LOGICAL argument, I exhale. We can never take it for granted.
    2
  9.  rs_  Just to be clear -- no one is being stupid here. Could a self-reporting system be inundated with false reports from anti-vaxxer activists? Of course. The point is, it has not been audited. We do not have the in vivo numbers. I'm not all right with that. It is not acceptable by any stretch. There have been credible reports of people with severe side effects being dismissed and sent home from the hospital without treatment. I know this for certain because lawsuits against doctors (not the manufacturers) for malpractice have already been filed, and I've seen the verified complaints. They still have to prove up their case, but legal filings are not rumors.
    2
  10.  @TheAbabab77  I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-vaxx." Do you mean opposition to prudent vaccination, or to universal mandates? The global community of doctors don't have to have an agenda of harm to make grave mistakes. (Here's an example: the Soviets banned lobotomies a full generation before Americans did. Ponder that.) If you have been looking up the websites of the ministries of health of other countries, you would see they don't all take the same approach as the US does. I have yet to hear one credible doctor state that people over 50 and some other categories among those younger should not be vaccinated. As for people under 18, I don't see why they should accept an unknown risk for no appreciable benefit to themselves. Don't you see that the universal-vaccination proponents are constantly shifting THEIR position? Of course you are exhausted. You will be asked to offer yet another new argument for what cannot be justified very soon. If universal vaccination were necessary, for our well being, and if vaccination were able to end the pandemic, you would see very different conduct: patents would be lifted. Information would be shared freely, not stifled or shouted down. We would know more about Sputnik V and the Chinese vaccines and the Cuban ones. We would have rapid analysis of adverse events. We would have a spirit of sharing. I mean, you know how people sober up and pull together in an emergency? Right. Not happening.
    2
  11.  rs_  Mathematical models are based on logic, and then tested against the actual data. When you have confounding variables in the actual, real-world data, you have to use some form of multivariate analysis. "Multivariate analysis" is the general term for a number of statistical techniques for dealing with multiple variables. Are you trying to suggest/insinuate it's only one? And it isn't only used to make predictions. It's used to analyze data, i.e., what happened. It cannot guarantee the future will be conformable to the past. Don't pretend you don't know about the studies of VAERS conducted prior to the pandemic that indicated underreporting of adverse events by a factor of ten. I don't pretend they apply now, as COVID has undoubtedly altered the picture.
    2
  12.  rs_ I don't disagree about anti-vaccine sentiment. I always start by taking a positive view of vaccination, and go from there. Limiting information or failing to provide it feeds anti-vaccine sentiment, coercion feeds anti-vaccine sentiment. Censorship, even more so. (YouTube will delete posts with live links because they are hard to monitor for TOS violations . . . sorry to hear it affected your post. If you can tell me the title of the publication, I'll find it.) You are incorrect about clinical trials being the sole source of data bearing on this issue. Sometimes it is not even ethical to conduct such a trial. (I know you know that.) Recent in vivo example: a rheumatoid arthritis drug that was approved nearly a decade ago just got a black box warning that it causes serious heart issues and should not be a first line treatment. This happens all the time. How does a doctor decide whether to prescribe such a drug? He looks at the clinical response in his patient when prescribing safer alternatives. If that is clearly inadequate, he will consider cofactors in the cases where the "black box" drug was used and had serious side effects, if that information has been analyzed and shows a pattern. Among other things. (Notice, also, how this involves an individual assessment?) I know how predictions are made. I was simply pointing out that no correlation standing alone can ever prove causation. Predictions based on research having a 95% confidence level for its result turn out to be wrong -- and not rarely, either -- and sometimes those with a lower confidence level turn out to be right. Sometimes it's the best we've got. Sometimes we need to demand better. I see more and more dissent from the current paradigm. It's obvious why. How many contradictions do we have to accept before breakfast?
    2
  13.  rs_  Well, this is regrettable. Key words for a real study, censored. Hard to believe, isn't it? :/ (One more unacceptable thing we accept?) Have a good weekend.
    2
  14.  rs_ Wait. Where did I say you can run a multivariate analysis "on the number of cases?" We were talking about distinguishing the relative contribution of two (or more) independent variables to an outcome (the dependent variable)! Bad faith, bro. Bad faith. 😁
    1