Goddess

OK. ☺️

Oh, I see. Well, I know what it means when it's included in this type of data set (vaxxed, unvaxxed and unknown) and you've always got something to say on this topic, so I assumed you did too.

I also went through a lot of the paradoxes with you before and discussed confounders like the dry tinder effect, and you rejected them all, so I'm not really interested in arguing this again with you. Just the argument that we should expect to see MORE deaths and hospitalizations after mass vaccination is.....I'm not going to dignify it by arguing it further. It's outlandish.

A large chunk of what is not identified? Ya, I remember us having this conversation before. You believe that that once a significant portion of the population is vaccinated against something, the reasonable view is that there will be MORE of them in hospital or dead. I've argued with you ad nauseum on this. That's not how vaccination is supposed to work. It's the whole point of them. You don't get to claim the vaccines are so effective that they reduced hospitalization and death and also argue that when they don't, it's proof they're working. I can't be the only one here that sees the absurdity of your statement: "When a significant portion of the population is vaccinated, more of them will be hospitalized." Well, I would say hospitalization is an outcome. And a death would be severe. So I'm not sure how you're claiming it's void of that data. What severity or outcome are you looking for? This is a data set. It's what researchers use as a basis for further study. Such as your other questions, which is basically you criticizing a data set for not answering the questions that a study would. Are you looking for how severe the symptoms were that required hospitalization? You need to know details of each hospitalization? Fever, seizure, neuropathy? The data set shows number of deaths for each group - vaccinated, unvaccinated, partly vaccinated and unknown. What is the further information you need on deaths? I think you're mixing up a data set and a study. Asking for study information to be in a data set is a pretty lame way of criticizing the data set.

The irony hurts my head every time one of these dolts brings up how they were "following the science". Because every time I've pointed out the Simpson's paradoxes in data sets and stats, the propellers on their beanie caps stop working.

You're an excellent googler. A definition is a good start. Now learn to recognize it in study data sets. And statistics.

I'm more aware of it than you are of the Simpson's paradox in data manipulation.

Well, you're in luck. The rates of infection for both those diseases fell off a cliff decades before the corresponding vaccines were invented. Like 90%. I showed you above. Measles went around periodically when I was growing up. I got both kinds, Red & German, so did a lot of other kids I knew from school and the neighborhood. None of us went blind. Not saying it didn't ever happen. But perspective got thrown completely out the window during covid. And it's time we brought it back.

Every province stopped reporting the unvaxxed/vaxxed hospitalization/death rates around that same time, when the numbers started going the wrong way for the narrative. Here was Manitoba's last published data. This was happening all over the world, so pretty much every country stopped publishing the data around mid-2022. Two weeks from now, expect another chorus of "But the shots prevent infection, hospitalization & death." 🤪

I can *kind of* forgive the overreaction at the beginning (although we had some information and data that it was not nearly as lethal as the models suggested) but I cannot forgive the continued overreaction and the propaganda campaign that followed. Years of it. Mandates, restrictions, the vilification of those who didn't want to participate in the experiment, the blacklisting, smearing and cancelling of dissenting scientific voices from people previously at the top of their fields in favor of junior scientists who were more easily manipulated ($$$), the economic devastation, destroying people's careers, what was done to children.....CHILDREN, for gawd's sake.

Normally vaccines go through a vast amount of testing before being marketed to the public. The covid vaccines were not because....it was an emergency. Apparently. Covid jabs never went through carcinogenicity testing. Whether they cause cancer or not. Following the rollout, oncologists all over the world started reporting increases in all kinds of cancer, in younger & younger populations, with very aggressive and quick mortality cancers. The CDC wasn't releasing new cancer data so no one could really tell from data if this was really happening. But there were signs. Besides oncologists reporting increases, sales of cancer drugs were also going through the roof. I've posted the studies here before that detail the possible mechanisms for how the jabs promote cancer. Recall all the studies about how the jabs disable the body's p53, enabling unhindered tumor growth and SV40 contamination (the reason polio vaccines were removed from the market fora time.) The CDC has finally released the data. And ya. Cancer is skyrocketing. Overall cancers in those under 50 JUMPED 6.4% from 2021 to 2023. BRAIN TUMORS: +19.5% COLON/RECTAL CANCER: +19.4% SMALL INTESTINE CANCER: +15.5% OVARIAN CANCER: +12.8% STOMACH CANCER: +7.3% BREAST CANCER: +3.6%

My posts are mainly informational or discussion. Yours.....not so much.

Did it? This is the data for Ontario, mid-2022. When you add the Full Vaccinated and Partially Vaccinated together, it looks even worse for your claim. Ontario data has been used in quite a few studies. I don't blame you for repeating the claim, it was pumped through the media like a mantra, but the data doesn't support it.

We talk every morning. ☺️

I'm not pushing a position. I don't have an agenda. I don't make money from either position. My post above was simply information, for which I provided reasoning, data and a study you can read for yourself. Do with it whatever you like. ☺️ Against government and doctor advice??? Are you an anti-vaxxer?

I stopped engaging you when you stopped being honest about the data. Look, I "get" that you're a big vaccine guy - get all of them, as often as you can, no need to take the individual into account. So.....go do that. You must be on what.....15th or 16th booster now? Oooooo. Mean. 😢 The parents of the children who died or were vaccine injured likely considered their children very significant. And there's far more of them than you know.

Well, I don't come here to blow off steam from emotional trauma, so......nope.

Does that also apply to all the people who post they've had all the jabs and they're just fine, so therefore no one has died or been injured from them? You don't seem to have a problem with that. Every time I see that, I think "I drive drunk all the time and I've never killed anyone." 🤪

I'm having a great morning, thanks! ☺️ Tai Chi, had a cup of coffee with a herd of deer, the grandbabies called.....so far, so good.

He says he uses this forum to blow off emotional steam by insulting people he doesn't know IRL. He's a very prolific insult poster, so I sense he carries an extreme amount of emotional trauma he needs to work out. Go easy on him. Maybe he beats his wife less by coming here and taking it out on us.

Morning Tai Chi. ☺️ Did someone change your diaper yet?

I posted charts here several times of the various childhood diseases and their rates of infection & death through the decades. Every chart was the same - the numbers dropped off a cliff long before vaccines were invented for any of them. Greatly improved sanitation, higher living standards, better nutrition and improvements in & access to medical care - all accounted for the vast majority of disease decline. Vaccines took care of the last few percentages of cases and deaths. I don't discount their value, especially in certain vulnerable populations, but their success is a myth, greatly overstated. I'll let you speculate as to why ($$$$$$$). The Guyer et al. (2000) report in *Pediatrics* ("Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century") analyzes U.S. vital statistics from 1900–1998. Key finding on infectious diseases: nearly 90% of the decline in child mortality from major infectious diseases (including measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, etc.) occurred before 1940—when few antibiotics or vaccines existed. Infectious diseases fell from 61.6% of child deaths in 1900 to just 2% by 1998, driven by broader public health gains like sanitation, nutrition, and hygiene. The paper notes the later role of vaccines/antibiotics in further drops but emphasizes the pre-1940 timing for most mortality reduction. Here's the paper if you want to have a look at it: Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics I await your criticisms of Dr. Guyer, whom I'm sure you've never heard of before but will quickly Google up something that will say he's a total quack. ☺️

** wink ** OK.

I'm also flattered by your attention to everything I do and say. ☺️ Like the 12-yr-old, you get up every morning and search out my posts and leave some kind of non-rebuttal comment on everything. You follow me around like a puppy dog. So cute! 🐕

🤣 I'm very flattered that I am the first thing you think of when you wake up every single morning. Also impressed you were able to locate and read 14 of my posts in less than 2 minutes.