Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking Sports

Why did antivaxxers seize on the Damar Hamlin case?

When Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed from an on-field cardiac arrest most likely due to chest trauma, antivaxxers quickly blamed COVID-19 vaccines. The reason was a particularly nasty preexisting variant of the “died suddenly” myth in which athletes are dropping dead from the vaccine. They aren’t.

The tragic collapse of Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin on Monday night due to a cardiac arrest after a tackle led to a tsunami of conspiracy mongering from antivaxxers falsely insinuating (and outright claiming) that it had to be the COVID-19 vaccines that caused it. A lot of people were surprised by the ghoulishness of it all. They should not have been. False claims that vaccines kill have been a staple of antivax conspiracy narratives going back as long as I can remember, starting with false claims that vaccines are responsible for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and, more recently, that HPV vaccines were causing the deaths of adolescent girls and young women. As I mention every time I discuss the antivax “death after vaccination” narrative, there was even an antivax movie about Gardasil called Sacrificial Virgins…in 2018! The Damar Hamlin tragedy is a “teachable moment” because it has featured so prominently in the news over the last three day, which is why I want to discuss it further, particularly how it feeds into a false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are killing young people, but not just young people, young healthy athletes as well. First, let’s discuss some background again.

Those of us who follow the antivaccine movement were not the least bit surprised when, immediately after COVID-19 vaccines were granted emergency use approval (EUA) by the FDA in December 2020, antivaxxers started claiming that they were claiming that they were responsible for a wave of death and destruction, ignoring the fact that COVID-19 itself was literally responsible for a wave of death and destruction. Although they shouldn’t have been, my colleagues were surprised at how rapidly claims of a “vaccine holocaust” showed up on full display within weeks to a few months after the mass vaccination program began two years ago and by 2021 antivaxxers were in full COVID-19 “vaccines are depopulation” mode. By 2022 the antivax narrative was fear mongering using false claims that vaccines were responsible for a wave of cardiac deaths of young people, which became “died suddenly” narrative, even though the phenomenon of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome (SADS) had been described as early as the 1970s. This claim produced a variant that showcased recently in a conspiracy movie disguised as a documentary entitled Died Suddenly, whose central narrative was the false claim that COVID was so over-the-top that more “reasonable” conspiracy theorists (or at least those who wanted to portray themselves as “more reasonable”) attacked it.

First, an update on Damar Hamlin

What the Damar Hamlin case publicized is a specific variant of the “died suddenly” narrative that I haven’t discussed before; so I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to discuss it now. Before I do that, however, I would be even more remiss if I didn’t note that, fortunately, Damar Hamlin appears to be neurologically intact (always a concern after any cardiac arrest) and recovering:

Damar Hamlin remains in an intensive care unit at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, but there were positive signs for recovery on Thursday.

The 24-year-old second-year NFL player woke up after being sedated, and his first thoughts after waking up were about Monday night’s Buffalo BillsCincinnati Bengals game that was suspended and later canceled by the NFL. Doctors said Thursday that Hamlin was making substantial progress and his neurologic condition and function are intact.

He is now also reported to be off the ventilator and talking.

That’s great. What’s not so great is how rapidly and shamelessly antivaxxers weaponized his collapse, which was most likely due to commotio cordis, a condition in which a blow to the chest—even one that doesn’t necessarily cause any damage to the heart muscle—can if suffered at the wrong time during the cardiac electrical cycle cause life-threatening ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest. Now let’s show how Damar Hamlin’s collapse on national TV happened just as the narrative that young athletes are dropping dead of heart problems due to COVID-19 vaccines, trust providing antivaxxers with an unprecedented propaganda opportunity.

The young athlete “variant” of the “died suddenly” narrative

You might think that his collapse and resuscitation were viewed by millions on live television, and certainly that is a major reason. However, what most people didn’t know at the time is that there was a preexisting “variant” of the “died suddenly” narrative claiming that an unprecedented number of athletes were collapsing and dying due to—you guessed it!—COVID-19 vaccines. Generally, the reasons claimed by antivaxxers involved myocarditis or clots, but after I started Tweeting about the cardiac arrest, I immediately started seeing antivaxxers Tweeting images like this at me:

The term “peer-reviewed” study is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as you will see.

This was a claim amplified by—of course—Tucker Carlson:

Tan your testicles, lately, Tucker?

We’ve seen how Damar Hamlin’s collapse seemed tailor-made to amplify the subtype of the “died suddenly” antivax narrative in which supposedly an “unprecedented” number of young athletes are dropping dead due to COVID-19 vaccination, but where did that claim come from? Let’s take a look.

Peter McCullough amplifies an antivax narrative using numbers from an astroturf antivax website

As I saw my Tweets and my post from Wednesday about Damar Hamlin attract antivax attention, I soon noticed that many of the Tweets and social media posts featured this graph:

Was Damar Hamlin the latest athlete to die of COVID-19 vaccination?
Was Damar Hamlin the latest athlete to die of COVID-19 vaccination? Of course not.

As you can see, this graph comes from a website called Real Science (GoodSciencing.com), whose tagline is “Science needs open discussion anything else is totalitarian.” (I normally say that grammar flames are weak, but I’ll make an exception here to point out the run-on sentence, mainly because it pains me to read it.) A quick perusal of the site shows that, contrary to its name, the website and blog is full of COVID-19 misinformation about vaccines, ivermectin, and masks, as well as science denial about climate change. The specific post featuring the graph above was 1616 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 1114 of Them Dead, Since COVID Injection.

First, I should mention that it’s blog post from anonymous authors, who describe themselves thusly:

We are a small team of investigators, news editors, journalists, and truth seekers, now backed up by others, who are discovering pieces of information that we can investigate. It doesn’t really matter who we are. What really matters is that we care carrying on an investigation and we’re presenting the evidence we’ve found, almost all of it documented in mainstream media publications.

We’re doing this anonymously because we’ve seen people viciously attacked and threatened for doing things like this, so we’re not going to open ourselves or any of our contacts to that. Also, please note, we’re not being paid and we’re not making any money from this – it is costing us time, effort, and money. We’re doing it because there is a concerted effort to block all of this information, but as some smart people used to say, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Orac replies: Sunlight would indeed be the best disinfectant if that sunlight were shone on the identities of the “investigators” behind this blog and website. And before you say that Orac is the same, I will simply point out that, unlike the case for “Good Sciencing” or “Real Science” or whatever BS name these anonymous bloggers prefer, my real name has been one of the worst-kept “secrets” of the blogosphere for at least 15 years and that my real name is easily findable right here on this blog.

I call BS on the expressed fear expressed by these “investigators” of revealing their names. Rather, I suspect that there’s a good reason why they are hiding their identities. More likely than being afraid of professional consequences is the possibility that they are part of a dark money astroturf organization and have no relevant credentials, training, or experience to carry out the analysis they claim to be carrying out. (That much is obvious just from their “analysis.”) More likely, they are political operatives and propaganda specialists, rather than physicians, scientists, public health people, or any relevant specialty. I note that the Whois entry for the website shows that it was registered through Domains by Proxy in order to keep its owners private and anonymous. I note that this website is registered similarly, although the reason for that is because I don’t want to have to provide my home address, don’t have a P.O. Box, and my place of employment probably wouldn’t appreciated it if I were to use my business address to register this site.

It turns out that my suspicion is probably correct. A reader helpfully sent me a link to an investigation by Lead Stories that strongly suggests that my initial impression of “Good Sciencing” was correct, that it is pure astroturf. Hilariously, those behind the website were caught through their use of Gravatars.

First:

If the same Gravatar profile image (with the same MD5 hash) shows up associated with user accounts on multiple sites it is undeniable proof they were created using the same email address. And if one of these accounts has a real name associated with it while the other one is anonymous, it makes for a pretty strong case they are both run by the same named person.

Indeed it is:

One of the first places where Lead Stories discovered the “1d94cab96e42e144bbcaf36675119606” Gravatar ID was also being used was in the user profile of a “Sally Gray” (archived here) on “The Editor’s Blog” of NewsBlaze.com. Other user accounts on that site can be found on this page: https://newsblaze.com/blog/wp-json/wp/v2/users (archived here). The main one appears to be “Alan Gray,” who is identified as follows in the data: “Alan Gray is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of NewsBlaze.” According to Crunchbase, “Sally Ann Gray” is the CFO of NewsBlaze as well as the co-founder (along with Alan Gray).

The same Gravatar ID again appears in the source code of this Folsom Local News article (archived here), attributed to user “admin,” with an author page reported to be at https://folsomlocalnews.com/author/alan. That page now redirects to https://folsomlocalnews.com/author/alan-2 (archived here), where it shows the name “Alan Gray.” In the source code the user is listed with a new Gravatar ID “2550a5dfe960d26581464c92430d5adc” and a Twitter account at https://twitter.com/newstext (archived here). That Twitter account has a bio identifying him as “Alan Gray” and “Editor at NewsBlaze,” located in Australia.

Even though it would at first seem strange for someone in Australia to be writing stories for a local news website of a California town, a lot became clearer after we found a press release titled “NewsBlaze Announces Strategic Business Marketing Partnership with Folsom Local News Media” (archived here).

NewsBlaze? That tracks, as there are examples of the writers there using British spellings and grammar, which led me to suspect that this site originated in the UK or Australia. Summing up the evidence, Lead Stories lists these lines of evidence:

  • Alan Gray is the CEO and editor-in-chief of NewsBlaze.
  • The “admin” user on goodsciencing.com uses an email address from a NewsBlaze-owned domain name.
  • The same email address is used on accounts for several other websites connected to Alan Gray and to NewsBlaze.
  • “Alan Gray” on Telegram and NewsBlaze Australia on Twitter were among the earliest to promote the site.
  • NewsBlaze was communicating with a known anti-vaccine activist on Twitter only weeks before goodsciencing.com went live.

In any case, the above article is just a post from a bunch of anonymous astroturfing COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Where’s the “peer-reviewed” article by Peter McCullough that antivaxxers were citing? Elsewhere, antivax presenter Liz Wheeler was Tweeting:

Later in her thread:

You might recognize the above quote as coming from a 2012 review article that I also cited when\ I first discussed Damar Hamlin’s collapse. However, note the article cited. It’s actually not an article at all, but a letter to the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology entitled Rational harm-benefit assessments by age group are required for continued COVID-19 vaccination, by Panagis Polykretis (whom I have never heard of before) and Peter McCullough, who has been fear mongering about COVID-19 vaccines causing a “holocaust” for nearly two years. Interestingly, Polykretis is a postdoctoral fellow at the Italian Research Council and a structural biologist. Unfortunately, my university doesn’t subscribe to this particular journal, but I did find a response by Polykretis to criticisms of his letter as being misinformation, and guess what he references?

Yep:

Evidence that Damar Hamlin "died suddenly"?
Note that the URL is the same and apparently the anonymous bloggers at “Good Sciencing” or “Real Science” have “updated” the post so now it’s 1616, not 1598, deaths. So if you wonder about and discrepancies between figures in McCullough’s letter to the editor and what is currently on the blog, this is the likely explanation.

Archive.org led me to the very earliest version of this post that has been on Wayback Machine, dated November 9, 2021. It was listed as an “update,” implying that there was an earlier version of the post that was never archived or existed under a different UR. However much earlier than November 9, 2021 this article was posted, at that time there were only 77 athletes listed, with the title of the post being 77 Athletes Suffer Cardiac Arrest, 28 Die, After COVID Shot.

Fortunately, I could glean enough of the text of the original “peer reviewed” letter from news reports and social media to know a couple of things. First, the anonymous blog, not any peer-reviewed source, really was the original source for the figure of 1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since early 2021. Second, the comparison being made was a specious one. Basically, McCullough and Polykretis compare the blog’s highly dubious estimate of “1,598” recent incidents of cardiac arrests in athletes to a 2006 study that found 1,101 reports of sudden cardiac death in athletes over a 38-year period, which is where the oft-cited (by antivaxxers) average of 29 per year comes from.

Right off the bat, we can easily say:

That analysis, however, reviewed literature specifically for reports of sudden cardiac death among athletes under the age of 35. The study also noted that its findings were limited because “SCD in young athletes as reported in the published and studied papers is certainly underestimated.”

Dr. Neel Chokshi, medical director of Penn Medicine’s Sports Cardiology and Fitness Program, said it would be “inaccurate” to make conclusions by comparing the 2006 study and the blog’s figures.

Or, as Dr. Eric Burnett observed, conveniently enough including a screenshot citing a large swath of text from the article so that I can show it to you:

He also noted that there were…differences…between how the authors of the 2006 paper estimated the number of sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) in young athletes and how the anonymous antivax bloggers did it.

As I perused the blog post for the first time, like Dr. Burnett I immediately noticed a lot of questionable entries. Many of these athletes were indeed older than 35 years (some a lot older). For example, just a brief scroll down the list showed that the antivax blog had included:

  • Mike Leach, a 61-year-old football coach who suffered a heart attack in his home (as if 61 year olds never suffered heart attacks in their homes before the vaccine).
  • Antonis Mandalos, a 60-year-old Olympiakos Volos Football (soccer, for my US readers) player for 18 years and then coach, who collapsed due to a cardiac arrest.
  • Tommy Kloza, the 65-year-old “popular owner of a long-standing gym in Rhode Island,” who “died “suddenly” and “unexpectedly” in the gym car park.” (Consistent with Newsblaze being behind “Good Sciencing,” that latter use of the term “car park” strongly suggests that the anonymous antivaxxers who wrote the article are British or Australian, as in the US we would say “parking lot.”)

I could go on and on, but a search for the word “coach” in the list revealed 179 matches. Some entries had the word “coach” or “coaching” more than once, but you get the idea. At least 150 of these people were coaches and no longer athletes, with many of them being much older than 35 and in prime heart attack age. Similarly a search of the word “retired” led to 42 matches, suggesting that dozens of these deaths were in people who had retired. One was a 47-year-old owner and breeder of trotters. Another was a 19-year-old who had gone on a swim on his own in Thousand Island Lake in California, trying to reach one of the islands. He didn’t make it. Again, it’s as if before the vaccines no one had ever overestimated his swimming ability before and died trying to swim too far in a very cold lake. How one relates this to COVID-19 vaccines other than delusional, I don’t know.

One of these deaths was from suicide:

15. 12/08/21, USA  (27), Dead

Cameron Burell, Sprinter died mysteriously, ruled suicide by self-inflicted gunshot to the head. Was he vaxxed and if so, did he know his career was over?  News Story

And right after that one:

16. 19/08/21 Dead
Phil Hernon (55), Bodybuilder died after ‘sudden recent decline,’ possibly dialysis related  News Story

Here’s a hint: If you’re over 50 and on dialysis, your risk of dying in any given time period is way higher than that of a healthy 25-year-old athlete. In any event, I could cite example after example having just scrolled down part of the list. There are athletes and former athletes included on the list who died of suicide, car crashes, drownings, cancer, and even falling off of a cliff! As multiple fact checkers pointed out, this this article is nothing that in any way resembles serious science, and the fact that the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology actually published a letter that actually cited a blog post like this tells me all I need to know about the journal’s editorial standards.

After all:

As for how the group of anonymous antivaxxers behind “Good Sciencing” justifies its list, I can’t resist actually quoting their own blog post with its ever morphing and growing list of the dead, whether they are still athletes or not, no matter how old they are, no matter whether they were healthy or not—dialysis, anyone?—no matter whether their deaths could even remotely plausibly be linked to COVID-19 vaccines or not (e.g., suicides, falls, car crashes, and the like), no matter if we even know the vaccine status of those included on the list or not (in nearly all cases we do not) as they respond to the obvious criticism that the vaccination status of the people on the list is unknown:

In response to their pronouncement, here is a non-exhaustive and continuously growing list of mainly young athletes who had major medical issues in 2021/2022 after receiving one or more COVID vaccines. Initially, many of these were not reported. We know that many people were told not to tell anyone about their adverse reactions and the media was not reporting them. They started happening and ramping up after the first COVID vaccinations. The mainstream media still are not reporting most, but sports news cannot ignore the fact that soccer players and other stars collapse in the middle of a game due to a sudden cardiac arrest. Many of those die – more than 50%.

We also note that many posts in Facebook, Instagram, twitter, forums and news stories are being removed. So now we are receiving some messages saying there is no proof of the event or of vaccination status. That is partly because this information is being hidden.

More people are writing to tell us that in many cases, we didn’t mention a person’s vaccination status. There is a good reason for that. None of the clubs want to reveal this information. None of their sponsors want to reveal it. The players have been told not to reveal it. Most of their relatives will not mention it. None of the media are asking this question. So what should we do? Stop this now? No, we will collect as much information as we can, while it is still available, because eventually, more information will come out, and we will be here to put it together. Will it mean anything? We don’t know. What we do know is that there is a concerted world-wide effort to make this information go away, so that fact alone tells us it must be collected, investigated and saved so other researchers can look at it to see if there are any useful patterns.

Got it? “They” are covering up whether the athletes (and no longer athletes) on the list were vaccinated against COVID-19 or not, just as “they” are covering up whether Damar Hamlin was vaccinated or not. Never mind that sudden cardiac events are a common cause of death:

With about 325,000 adult cases annually, sudden cardiac death is “the largest cause of natural death in the United States,” according to the Cleveland Clinic. The condition is responsible for half of all heart disease deaths, the academic medical center says, and most frequently affects adult men in their mid-30s and 40s.

Nor is this variant of the “died suddenly” narrative a new conspiracy theory. As Dr. Susan Oliver showed in her video deconstructing this claim, the priming of the pump had begun months ago, when Pierre Kory amplified the claim that athletes were “dying suddenly” due to COVID-19 vaccines. Note that the video was first published on June 22, 2022, which is why neither Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest nor Dr. McCullough’s article is mentioned:

Damn. I really should have been on top of this conspiracy theory six months ago.

I’m also going to cite an actual peer-reviewed article that Dr. Oliver cited showing that, according to the FIFA Sudden Death Registry, 617 players with sudden cardiac events were reported from 67 countries, with 142 of them surviving their arrests. This was only for soccer players (or football to the rest of the world), not all athletes.

Unfortunately, Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest was the inciting event for a perfect storm of antivax disinformation, timed perfectly. It happened on national TV during a Monday night NFL football game on the last night of a long holiday season, when a lot of people were off work and watching. It also happened only a couple of weeks after Dr. McCullough had become merely the most recent antivaxxer to have resurrected the conspiracy theory claiming that there had been a huge increase in the number of young athletes dying suddenly since early 2021 when, not at all coincidentally, the mass vaccination against COVID-19 really got underway, his letter to the editor having conveniently (for antivaxxers) been published right before the holiday season. The bottom line is that Damar Hamlin collapsed on January 2, but antivaxxers had been priming the “athletes dying suddenly” conspiracy pump for at least a year before he ever set foot on the field. They were ready, and they took full advantage, starting even before doctors and medics had finished resuscitating him.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

182 replies on “Why did antivaxxers seize on the Damar Hamlin case?”

This makes me wonder if any of those people have heard of HIPPA. Sure, officials of various sorts are hiding information (that it is unlawful to reveal).

Oh, sure they’ve heard of it, when it’s convenient for them to remember it. But actually using it is one of those ‘when I do it, I’m protecting people; when they do it, it’s a conspiracy to cover up the truth’ sorts of things.

I have lots of antivaxx contacts on Facebook, and they’re pushing varying numbers–“Before the COVID vaccine, 2/7/13 elite athletes died in the past 10 years! Since then, 1,377/3,486/Some Other Big Number athletes have died!” (I’m making these numbers up, but so are they–haven’t seen any reliable sources, surprise, surprise.)

I also get a lot of the “There’s no harm in just asking questions!” trope. It becomes rather boring.

Because of this publicity, it filters down to regular people, even those who are happily vaccinated, and comes out as, “have you heard about all these people having heart attacks (sometimes it’s ‘heart problems’) after getting vaccines?

I’ll try to glean a couple sound bites from this to try to set them straight.

So to be clear is it your all’s position that the covid vaccines aren’t linked with heart damage and myocarditis, particularly (but not exclusively) in young men? That would be outside of the mainstream consensus as well.

In this case, vaccines did not cause deah of Damar Hamlin. There re oer heart condiions than myocarditis.

Do you often have trouble understanding what you read?

The contention is that anti-vaxxers attribute everything to vaccines without any evidence at all. Then they sulk like little babies and claim a cover-up when experts disagree

Is it your position that it’s perfectly reasonable to compare data specific to younger athletes with data that include older, retired people associated with competitive sport, as if they were equivalent? Enquiring minds wish to know. One wonders why they have to do things in such a shoddy manner if the figures really show what they say they do.

There is evidence here. A vaccinated athlete of 24 had a cardiac arrest. The so called vaccine he was vaccinated with is linked with heart damage (rare and mostly peaceful myocarditis). That’s evidence. It’s still not conclusive. If not investigated then res ipsa loquitor – a so-called vaccine known to cause heart damage in young men did just that.

And here we see the fallacy known as “post hoc, ergo prompter hoc”. Just because Hamlin was vaccinated and suffered a cardiac event doesn’t mean the two are related. Hamlin was tackled hard. That is what caused the event.

Res ipsa loquitor creates a rebuttable presumption. Jabs cause heart damage in young men, particularly athletes. This young athlete had the jab and has heart damage. Indeed it’s so prevalent that other countries have stopped giving the vax to people under 50. I suppose they are conspiracy theorizing countries.

I love how pro vaxxers like to spout fancy Latin to gaslight folks into believing that any negative reaction to a vaccine is coincidence.

“psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality”. In response to every reaction so far (including myocarditis which has been observed) respond post hoc ergo propter hoc – an assertion that concluding causality instead of coincidence is a failure of thinking. But also the folks here are so biased that they use this to shift the burden of proof to the vaccine skeptic. Because the trials are somehow infallible – because that’s the case with all other drug trials so far right?

You are speculating using confirmation bias that the cause was the tackle. You stand on no firmer ground than an antivaxxer concluding it was the shots.

Silly antivaxxer. It’s not an “assumption.” It’s a reasonable conclusion based on what was observed and what we know about commotio cordis. The “assumption” being made is not by vaccine advocates. It’s the antivax assumption that it must be the vaccines. Sure, they engage in JAQing off and make it sound as though they’re just bringing up possibilities, but their stance of being objective is belied by how they react when it’s pointed out how incredibly unlikely they are to be correct.

That’s not what antivaxxers are saying. You clearly haven’t been paying attention. I can even quote you an antivaxxer saying it’s “100% scientifically impossible” that it was commotio cordis and it had to be the vaccine.

I love how pro vaxxers like to spout fancy Latin to gaslight folks into believing that any negative reaction to a vaccine is coincidence.

That was a solid effort toward a Billy Madison reply, but the term is not “fancy Latin,” it’s a 19th-century coinage. Go pester the homeopaths.

There can more than one cause.

I’ve noticed recently that you have developed a penchant for horking up nonsensical quips. That talent might command high compensation from a fortune cookie firm. Think of it as a niche endeavor; you can’t fail at everything.

Res ipsa loquitor [sic ] creates a rebuttable presumption.

This isn’t a tort, shithead.

I was going to let this slide, but as your resident torts professor I cannot. This is a very bad misuse of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa allows an inference of negligence – and causation – when there are surrounding circumstances that suggest such an inference. For example, if a barrel falls out of a warehouse – or if a decomposing human toe is found in human tobacco (two classic cases) – there are reasonable grounds to assume it happened because someone was negligent. One of the requirements is that the circumstances suggest negligence. You can’t just say “I slipped and fell so someone was negligent,” for example, because people do often slip and fall without anyone being negligent. You need something in the situation to support the claim.

That’s not the case here. It’s not that there are grounds to think the vaccine had anything to do with the issue, and you can point to them and ask us to infer it from the circumstances; in fact, you don’t even know he’s vaccinated, and you don’t have any circumstantial evidence to implicate the vaccine. You just want to imagine it’s the vaccine. Res ipsa doesn’t get you there. This young man was not diagnosed with myocarditis, and you just don’t have anything linking this.

As to latin terms – you brought in Res ipsa Loquitur….

And no country stopped giving COVID-19 vaccines to young people. Some recommend Pfizer over Moderna; some are not recommending boosters. But those countries still recommend vaccinating, and in fact, most young people in, say, Sweden and Denmark had their COVID-19 vaccines initial series.

A vaccinated of 24 had a cardiac arrest after suffering a severe blow to his chest. There is a known link between that and a type of cardiac arrest. Assigning the cause to anything else without evidence is unwarranted.

Really john, you continue to assume the result you want to have rather than doing the hard work to gather support for it. With your level of “thinking” someone could say this:

” With nobody investigating whether a witch stuck a voodoo likeness of him with a pin it’s entirely possible that caused it.”

I’m starting to think you really don’t know how stupid you come off with the crap you spew.

You see the difference with voodoo and the jabs is that the jabs are linked to heart damage.

You see the difference with voodoo and the jabs is that the jabs are linked to heart damage.

The difference between your comments and reality is that you begin by assuming what you want instead of considering facts. Your “science” is as imaginary as voodoo.

The so called vaccine he was vaccinated with

Do tell which one. Include the lot number while you’re at it.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but it is clear that there is an association between vaccines and myocarditis. But what is also clear is that it is not as common as you want people to believe.
Do you still stand behind this ‘study’, and would you cite it again as confirmation of you bias?

Who here do you claim are making that claim? Will your reply be lacking in relevant details, as seems to be your wont?

“We are a small team of investigators, news editors, journalists, and truth seekers (snerk)…It doesn’t really matter who we are.”*

Anonymous “truth seekers”, anonymous informants…anonymous blatherers we’re supposed to trust without having any idea who they are and what axes they have to grind. Sure.

The idea that these folks would sacrifice everything if their identities were known is laughable. Hell, the deviant, excuse me defiant ones who’ve gone on the record like Robert Malone, Joe Mercola, Alex Berenson and Steve Kirsch are big successes on the denialist circuit, raking in big wads of dough (millions a year in some cases) just from subscriptions to their Substack platforms.

*just imagine the screams of anguish from this crowd if they were presented statistics by anonymous federal sources and unknown public health experts.

IKR? It’s not those spreading misinformation, like whoever is behind the “Good Sciencing”/”Real Science” website who are facing harassment, threats, and even reasonable fear that some nut job might actually come to their home or office and physically attack them. It’s us. It’s those of us trying to do our part to counter the tsunami of disinformation. It’s also truly risible to think that they fear for their careers and, well, everything if their true identities were to be revealed. I mean, if people like Vinay Prasad, John Ioannidis, etc., etc. haven’t suffered professionally, what do they think they will?

More likely, there’s a good reason why they are hiding their identities. More likely, they are part of a dark money astroturf organization and have no relevant credentials, training, ore experience to carry out the analysis they claim to carry out. (That much is obvious just from the “analysis.”) More likely, they are political operatives or propaganda specialists rather than physicians, scientists, public health people, or any relevant specialty.

Isn’t it their love of creating pessimism porn?

What’s this called?

More likely, there’s a good reason why they are hiding their identities. More likely, they are part of a dark money astroturf organization and have no relevant credentials, training, ore experience to carry out the analysis they claim to carry out. (That much is obvious just from the “analysis.”) More likely, they are political operatives or propaganda specialists rather than physicians, scientists, public health people, or any relevant specialty.

I know you don’t hide your identity… but the rest was a little out of character.

Astroturfing? Propaganda specialists? Political operatives? Dark money?

Conspiracy theorist? Are you?

Serious question?
Are any of us pure of Bias?
How do we disown ourselves from any and all bias? Both disconfirming and confirming…

Lately, I’ve seen lot of talk about confirmation bias, but very importantly,

one has to recognize the analogue…disconfirmation bias

Unfortunately they both result in non-productive results of progress.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 » 6 , Vol. 71, No. 1.5-24 Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association. Inc. 0022-3514/96/53.00

When evaluating an argument, can one assess its strength in- dependently of one’s prior belief in the conclusion? A good deal of evidence indicates the answer is an emphatic no.

(e.g., Batson,1975; Chapman & Chapman, 1959; Darley & Gross, 1983; Geller & Pitz, 1968; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Sherif & Hovland,
1961).

This phenomenon, which we refer to as the prior belief effect, has important implications. Given two people, or groups, with opposing beliefs about a social, political, or scientific issue, the degree to which they will view relevant evidence as strong will differ. This difference, in turn, may result in a failure of the opposing parties to converge on any kind of meaningful agreement, and, under some circumstances, they may become more extreme in their beliefs.

Oldie but a goodie.

I’m not even sure this is an ‘effect’ – what meaning would ‘prior belief’ have if it was not a component of my thought? And I’m very glad it is, I personally don’t want to spend my life constantly going back to first principles: I don’t want to constantly have to consider various ‘theories’ as potentially true just because they are possibly true in some sense, even though the evidence is very much against them.

Without this ‘prior’ effect going to the toilet would be a major intellectual achievement which would have to be repeated every time. I know you’re talking about the ability to release yourself from your ‘prior’ in more intellectual discussions, but actually that’s equivalent to saying ‘Am I able to think irrationally about this’.

Your point about divergence of conclusions in the face of the same evidence is really on point for people like johnlabarge though.

In his case his prior for vaccines causing heart issues is clearly very high. He combines with a high prior for ‘being lied to’ – for this topic at least. The result is that if someone presents evidence that the vaccines might cause some issues this is believed, but if you present the opposite the belief becomes ‘I’m being lied to’, usually followed by an a explanation along the lines that the researcher is a shill/government controlled or whatever. In each case the priors are reinforced and the beliefs become stronger. In the case of ‘being lied to’ this also appears to become more generalized – which is why I think people go from being skeptical about one thing one day to being a full on bought into all conspiracy theories wacko the next!

Unfortunately part of the problem is that the evidence is almost always second hand – i.e. we are told that X, not directly perceive X, and this is much easier to doubt, or find reasons to doubt. For johnlabarage to escape from his belief trap would require him doing all the necessary work and learning to actually do the tests himself.

Alternatively he can find something more constructive to do with his life for the next decade or so at which point it will be apparent that the vaccine induced zombie apocalypse hasn’t happened and he was therefore wrong.

Someone please correct me if I’m hopelessly confused, but this is the publication timeline as I understand it is

A. Polykretis, “Role of the Antigen Presentation Process in the Immunization Mechanism of the Genetic Vaccines against COVID‐19 and the Need for Biodistribution Evaluations”;

B. Gül & Öztürk, “Immune Response against Viral Infections and Nucleic Acid–based Vaccines” [I thought I had found it, but I took the road less traveled and can’t maybe-find it again];

C. Polykretis & McCullough, “Rational Harm–Benefit Assessments by Age Group Are Required for Continued COVID‐19 Vaccination” [PDF already linked].

^ Please pretend that the “this is”/”it is” bit was put there in the spirit of sporting both a belt and suspenders.

Yes, that is correct.

Polykretis wrote the initial letter to the editor back in March 22’

Gül & Öztürk responded (to Poly’s) letter to the editor, with a letter published in October 22’

https://focusfm.gr/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/3133.Scand-J-Immunol-2022-G-l-Immune-response-against-viral-infections-and-nucleic-acid%E2%80%90based-vaccines.pdf

Then the response letter back from Polykretis, which included McCullough in Dec 22’

Just a back and forth. I would expect a response from Gül & Öztürk about early March 🙂

It is an interesting conversation.
I tend to agree with Orac that I wouldn’t use a website that is unsubstantiated as a citation…. But anyways, there are some other citations in all three letters that were interesting reads.

I like this part:

The author uses the term ‘traditional vaccine’ in a confusing way by stating that the traditional vaccines do not induce human cells to produce viral proteins. Traditional vaccines include both live and non-live vaccines,2 and subcutaneous inoculation of smallpox (variola) virus was the oldest known procedure for the prevention of more se- vere disease for centuries. Variolation was replaced by the inoculation of cowpox (vaccinia) virus as a safer method, which later led to use of ‘vaccination’ as a general term for the immunization procedure aiming different diseases. These methods used viruses collected from patients or animals, which resulted in development of an ‘attenuated’ and usually localized form of the disease by intra- cellular production of viral proteins to induce an immune response; therefore, both methods were more traditional than the inactivated and toxoid vaccines.3,4

We also consider the term ‘genetic vaccine’, used by the author for nucleic acid-based mRNA and DNA vaccines and viral vector-based vaccines, misleading. The efficiency of all live (original or attenuated) viral vaccines requires that their DNA or mRNA sequences are translated in the infected human cells by the target cell’s protein synthe- sis machinery. They thus induce an immune response in the same way as viral infections themselves. If using a microbial genetic code for inducing protein synthesis in our cells will be enough to name these vaccines as ‘genetic vaccines’, we may need to re-classify all viral infections as ‘genetic diseases’ due to their shared mechanisms of inducing an immune response.

I’m going to remember that whenever I see antivaxxers saying that “traditional vaccines” never induced the production of viral proteins.

This part of the argument would be less of a joke if the anti-(genetic-) vaxers were lining up to get the traditional (COVID-19) vaccines…
Is their is a back-market for “traditional vaccines” in the countries administering the mRNA vaccines?

starting with false claims that vaccines are responsible for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and, more recently, that HPV vaccines were causing the deaths of adolescent girls and young women

And vaccines were causing shaken baby syndrome.

No depth is too low for an anti-vaxxer to go.

It would be so incredibly awesome if Hamlin gave a press conference and state unequivocally that his cardiac arrest had nothing whatever to do with being vaccinated.

Why did anti-vaxxers seize onto this case?
Isn’t it their love of creating pessimism porn? **

Amongst those I survey, it seems that any situation that could result in serious consequences is immediately expanded upon, predicting the worst possible outcomes, no matter how unlikely they are.
A few examples:
–the war in Ukraine will include nuclear weapons
–eating a non-vegan GMO diet will result in cancer, diabetes and CVD
–vaccinating people will lead to death, serious illness or autism
–mandating vaccines/ PH measures will lead to communism or fascism
–measures combatting AGW will cause the collapse of society and mass starvation
–attending university will create socialists and snowflakes

Obviously, writers/ broadcasters/ Substack gurus need headlines to entice their enraptured thralls and they compete with each other for followers: fearmongering is an easy way to boost numbers. Followers were already primed for this because of the nearly three years’ long battle with Covid and a recent trend amongst anti-vaxxers has been the “apparent” sudden deaths of young athletes after vaccination. Then, this happens during a televised game. It almost seems like some of the worst alties are disappointed that Damar now seems to be recovering. I hate these charlatans and attention whores.

** a term created by a New York magazine writer during the financial crisis of 2009.

The basis for that is that the team medic performed CPR for 10 minutes. “Your brain can’t survive without oxygen for 10 minutes!” sayeth Kirsch. Well yes, that’s why he needed CPR.

Mike Adams specializes in panic porn – example, the “‘grocery police state’ with guards, rationing and riots”, coming soon to a Kroger supermarket near you.

I personally am prepared to fight to the death for my rotisserie chicken.

Unfortunately the US anti-vaccine movement is primed and ready to pump crap loads of disinformation to minimize the death and disability from vaccine preventable illnesses while simultaneously massively inflating the very small number of real adverse events from vaccination. Meanwhile, I feel like we’re standing here with super soakers wearing swimming goggles. Their success doing this throughout the pandemic is worrisome for all vaccine preventable disease outbreaks in the future.

@ Dr Chris:

I wonder is providing actual numbers of specific adverse events for each type of vaccine ( thrombocytopaenia/ myocarditis etc) will help immunise the vaccine hesitant against anti-vax misinformation? I KNOW that true anti-vaxxers will believe nothing but the hesitant might wake up when they learn that these events are vanishingly small. I don’t include figures because there are so many variations listed BUT when rates are measured in per 100 000
or per million that ALONE should be informative. Also these events weren’t discovered immediately in research but only after huge numbers of people were vaccinated.

Many people are absolutely terrified of being in a plane crash when the odds of that are minute ( 1 in 10 million or so?). People also think they might win a lottery when the odds are many millions against them. Of course, the seriousness of the outcomes and amount of investment are factors ( people actually study this believe it or not).

Did you hear how the FDA fast tracked Biogen’s Alzheimer medication?

The story is on par with the fast tracked Covid vaccine, just as corrupt and just as ridiculous – and deadly like Covid vax. Biogen’s small trial involved one death that they disregarded with FDA’s assent.

Supposedly this medication only reduces certain mental scores by 20%, costs 26,000 a dose, and is based on Biogen’s history of peddling failed Alzheimer medications based on decade-old fraudulent “scientific research” and “evidence based medicine” based on fake evidence.

The press, paid by biogen via advertising, could not care less about all this and prints adulatory reports.

Yeah they are so honest…

Question for other readers: if you trust the FDA, what does it tell me about you?

I used the word “supposedly” as a shorthand for “if we are to trust Biogen’s own study about Biogen’s own drug”.

I used the word “supposedly” as a shorthand for “if we are to trust Biogen’s own study about Biogen’s own drug”.

Doesn’t matter what you say — “supposedly” always gives the level of support for your assertions.

Take a look at that Biogen story. It is utterly scandalous.

Once you do confirm that, ask yourself, is the Covid vaccine different?

The answer is yes, Covid vaccine is different. Biogen’s drug is given to Alzheimer patients who are on the path to dying.

Covid vaccine is given to kids and young people.

Other than that, both are scandals and I hope that very many people will be punished in accordance with the gravity of their wrongdoings.

Other than that, both are scandals

there, right there, is one of the many pieces of bullshit you push that has no [as in zero] support.

and I hope that very many people will be punished in accordance with the gravity of their wrongdoings.

I too hope people like you get your punishment, although I’m not sure what would be appropriate for your type continuing to push dangerous lies about covid vaccines

@Igor Chudov There aare clinical trials for both Biogen an Pfizer product. In Pfizer case,there were more deaths in placebo group (one of them because of myocarditis.) Remember this.

@ Igor Chudov,

Economic impact influences FDA decision making. Therefore, the FDA is vulnerable to internal/external financial systems.

A most grievous example is the continued commercial use of natural rubber latex (Hevea Brasiliensis) in infant products. The FDA’s response in the review article titled “Natural Rubber Latex Precautions for Children,” is an example of decision making influenced by economic impact.

https://www.jscimedcentral.com/public/assets/articles/pediatrics-10-1281.pdf

So the FDA has ignored a vanity publication in a predatory journal written by two people with no expertise in the matter?

Who would have thought that?

So, the FDA has ignored a vanity paper in a predatory journal written by two amateurs?

Who would have thought that?

Chris Preston writes,

“So, the FDA has ignored a vanity paper in a predatory journal written by two amateurs?”

MJD says,

Congratulations, the highest content of respectful insolence in a short sentence:

1) FDA has ignored;
2) vanity paper;
3) predatory journal; and
4) two amateurs.

Adding more respectful insolence the comment was duplicated.

@ Chris Preston,

Thank goodness your comment(s) didn’t receive “Like” responses.

@ Orac,

Is Chris Preston’s comment a classical example of gaslighting?

This line of shit will drive all but the most saintly Psychedelians who hear it up the wall, across the ceiling, and down the other side. It’s an insult, and such blatant self-deception it’s almost unbearable to listen to it.

The spiritual four-flusher visiting a Psychedelian community should avoid saying things like “the vibrations around here are terrible” or “I’m a witch, you know” or, “oh sure, I talk to trees all the time myself,” but of all the comments likely to enrage his hosts, “I can do anything you can do but I don’t need LSD to do it,” or words to that effect, are provocation in a class by itself.

It’s like saying, “the law can’t touch me, baby” while drunk and disorderly in a Chicago police station at 3 a.m. It’s an insult to the honor of the group, and something has to be done about it. Haines let the director have it in his coffee one morning, and he went bounding and sprinting all over the woods and fields for about four hours, bellowing like a moose. When it was over, he admitted he had been afraid of it all along and didn’t understand anything about it. He then packed up his staff and stuff and left. We never saw the documentary, if there ever was one.

I’m still waiting, Doucheniak.

Pretty sure the concern is the unprecedented increase in deaths in young people.

if that were actually a thing people would be concerned

It’s not a thing, it’s just another of your blatant lies

People are VERY concerned about sudden deaths. You are not. But the people are already worrying.

All major news programs are discussing sudden deaths now, with the “health experts” stating unconvincingly that it is “anything but the vaccines”. Guess what it does to the public?

According to the latest (second, there was another one) Rasmussen report, 48% of respondents are concerned about Covid vaccine injuries.

28% of people know SOMEONE who died from Covid vaccines. More Democrats (33%) than Republicans (26%) know someone who died from the vaccine. This is totally understandable: Democrats are more vaccinated and have more Democrats in their social circle.

The problem is that sudden deaths do not stop a few weeks after vaccination. For example, three Massachusetts state police officers suddenly died last week. They were vaccinated.

The person who is not concerned is YOU — and you should start worrying.

Also, think of what will happen if mass panic about “OMG I might die from the Covid vaccine I was mandated to receive” takes off.

Such a panic may become a catalyst for broad social change.

According to the latest (second, there was another one) Rasmussen report, 48% of respondents are concerned about Covid vaccine injuries.

no link from you, of course, but given that the last rasmussen survey you linked to was completely worthless [obvious to people who understand such things] I can’t help but wonder if this one is as bad. Since you push it the answer is most likely yes.

I would appreciate it if your could limit your omissions. As every child is taught – Lying by omission is still lying.
If you cite a source, please do you best to correctly: “Twenty-eight percent (28%) of adults say they personally know someone whose death they think may have been caused by side effects of COVID-19 vaccines”. See the difference?

Many people are worried about the rise in mortality of the last 3 years, in spite of what you want to believe about those who don’t share you beliefs.
But not all of us leap to the same conclusions, based on suspicions data, that you do. But that doesn’t mean that we are not concerned – we just think that the reason for concern is different from the one you do.

As a person who claims to be a critical thinker, I wonder what your take is on this dubious data set from GoodSciencing? Or don’t you critique data that confirms you beliefs?

It’s also amusing to me (sort of) that they keep adding cases to Goodsciencing.com They’re up by 40 since I wrote the post last week.

You are not.

No, I am not worried about the “sudden deaths” you, ginny, and others keep bleating about. I’m not worried because

a) There’s no evidence of such
b) There’s no data suggesting such a thing

If people were dropping dead as you and the other dishonest clowns assert there would be evidence: families crying out in such large numbers that they couldn’t be ignored (unless, like your fellow science denier and conspiracy lover john, you assert that everyone in science, technology, and associated areas, is involved in a conspiracy to keep things quiet].

Instead, all you have is another crappy rasmussen “poll”, based on 4 questions, all of them essentially asking whether, in their opinion, X, Y, or Z occurred. No evidence, no requirement for verification. In other words, it’s a glimpse in to the fear [or lack of fear, for some] of people, but nothing that would ever be considered legitimate proof of anything.

The question is still why you keep repeating this bullshit — what do people like you get from being a serial liars?

Great example of gaslighting for Orac’s new article. You are trying to convince people they are crazy if they think more people than usual are dying, when in fact the CDC’s official numbers say a lot more people than usual are dying.

You are also trying to convince people that “sudden” death somehow matters more than “regular old” death. Why does it make the slightest difference what the speed of death was in mortality data?

@Ginny Stoner Orac is actually fact checking, which is the opposite of gaslighting

@Igor Chhudov You should post a link about increasing mortality aon young people. Or did you just make it up ?

People aren’t concerned if they don’t know about it–which many people don’t. Or, if they dismiss the CDC’s death data as “lies” because they’re naive, or because it’s their job, and that’s the only way to counter the data they can come up with. If the CDC’s data is lies, don’t try to blame the messenger.

We are in the very beginning of a massive die-off. These sudden deaths are only the beginning of a wave of illness and death.

In Massachusetts, three state police officers died suddenly in just ONE week. (Mass. has vaccine mandate for the police)

In NSW, Australia, 1,779 persons were hospitalized with Covid as of last week. Of those, ZERO of hospitalized were unvaccinated. Please explain this to me.

Source: NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report – two weeks ending 31 December 2022

It is time for Covid-vaccinated people to start worrying instead of trying to hide this problem. Chances are, if this problem is acknowledged, then some solutions could possibly be invented to stop the excess deaths among you.

Another ignorant (Igorant?) posting by an antivax obituary ghoul.

“In Massachusetts, three state police officers died suddenly in just ONE week. (Mass. has vaccine mandate for the police)”

Two of those three police officers worked for municipal departments (Stoughton and Brockton); the third was employed by the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department. So, none were state police and thus not covered by the state police Covid-19 vaccination mandate. You have no idea what their vaccination status was.

Further, two of those officers were middle-aged (42 and 48 years old), and there’s no info on any pre-existing conditions or suspected cause of death. The other was 25 – his cause of death is attributed to a brain aneurysm.

The last thing their families need is to be dragged into a conspiracy promulgated by antivaxers, who should be ashamed of themselves.

In NSW, Australia, 1,779 persons were hospitalized with Covid as of last week. Of those, ZERO of hospitalized were unvaccinated. Please explain this to me.

LOL.

The vaccination status of 364 (20%) of those people was not reported. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf
As 97.1% of people in NSW aged over 16 have at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination, it should come as no surprise that most of those hospitalised are vaccinated.

You should have also looked at deaths. In the 2 weeks to December 31 2022 there were 95 deaths from COVID-19, 6 were unvaccinated. The week before 9 of 75 deaths were in unvaccinated people. The week before that it was 6 of 56 and the week before that 3 of 35. In the last 5 weeks 9% of deaths have been in 3% of people. That seems a little high.

Because most people are now vaccinated with at least one shot, and because the Dumb F***s who aren’t vaccinated have died off.
Learn to read for comprehension.

I am really sorry that you have not learned how to read and comprehend. Sadly, there is nothing I can do about that. It is a problem only you can fix.

Vaccination status of som people is not known, there could be unvaccinate among hem.

We are in the very beginning of a massive die-off. These sudden deaths are only the beginning of a wave of illness and death.

Your capitulation is duly noted.

“We are in the very beginning of a massive die-off.”

Tell you what, in a year’s time, if the population hasn’t crashed, will you come back and tell us you were full of shit?

He’ll either allege a massive coverup of deaths, point to bogus statistics on a deranged antivax website, or have some new and shiny invention to use as a distraction.

Man, I know! I was just walking down the street; and, like, TWENTY kids just fell over dead right in front of me!! We’re doomed!

To paraphrase Captain Kirk in The Trouble With Tribbles, it is not the deaths that I take lightly. It is you I take lightly.

Think of it this way. It’s not deaths that are the joke. It’s your analysis of the mortality data that is the joke.

I just wrote up a summary of the CDC’s mortality data by age group–I didn’t do any analyses. So I have no idea what you think the problem is. Give an example or something.

Wanna talk about TRUE excess deaths?

“A team of Yale researchers has found that Republican voters in two U.S. states had more excess deaths than Democratic voters after vaccines for COVID-19 became widely available to counter the disease. The discrepancy didn’t exist prior to the vaccines.”

https://www.nber.org/papers/w30512

You know what? That’s a godd*mn shame. I actually think we need a variety of opinions to function as a strong society.

Jackasses like you are RESPONSIBLE for this. Instead of helping us all get through this mess, you carry water for conniving politicians who spread whatever bs suits them in the moment.

I’m curious why you doubt a persons profession. Do you think that using ‘purportedly’ makes it less Ad hominem?

It is interesting that anyone who does with Covid died of Covid but that for anyone that has an issue after the vax it is presumed not from the vax even if there are similar issues to which the vax was linked. Definitely not confirmation bias.

No worse than assuming any issue IS caused by the vaccine.

The law wants evidence to convict a murderer. You, on the other hand, are happy enough that the suspect was in the general area and that he looks a bit of a wrong’un.

Burden of proof for who?

Hey guys, we’ve just found another method for dating the age of the Earth. Before we go ahead and publish our findings, let’s run it past Ken Ham, his opinion has always been knowledgeable and balanced.

Now that this (Orac’s) post has aged and comments have wandered, I’ll make my remarks on my first impression, formed before even reading any words.

Good gawds! That is one horrible, ugly graph! Any reviewer with any scientific savvy whatever would take one look at it and tell the author(s) to redo it so it doesn’t look like the work of some “designer” or some grade 8 student trying to look clever. 3D graphs have their utility, but not for this sort of “data.”

That is one horrible, ugly graph! Any reviewer with any scientific savvy whatever would take one look at it and tell the author(s) to redo it so it doesn’t look like the work of some “designer” or some grade 8 student trying to look clever.

Yes, but then look at how the resident cranks who post here about the dangers of vaccines treat “data” — you can’t expect even minimal knowledge of correct procedures from them.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Pretty sure the concern is the unprecedented increase in deaths in young people. People are looking for answers, and wondering why the CDC isn’t talking about it. No question the CDC’s data confirms this masssive increase in deaths.”

There is an excellent article that shows just how wrong you are. I won’t bother cutting and pasting sections. I know you would ignore; however, for others with open minds: Alex Kasprak (2022 Dec 20). Did CDC Confirm That Thousands ‘Died Suddenly’ as a Result of COVID Vaccines? An anti-vaccine article is a case study in specious arguments. http://www.snopes.com

See also: Reuters Fact Check (2022 Mar 25). Fact Check-No evidence that people aged 25-44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality due to COVID vaccine rollout.

And actually there is a registry for sudden deaths in the young, actually established late 2013. “”This registry will collect comprehensive, population-based information on sudden unexpected death in youths up to age 24 in the United States. It is a critical first step toward figuring out how to best prevent these tragedies. . . The Sudden Death in the Young Registry is jointly funded by the NHLBI, the NINDS, and the CDC” NIH (2013 Oct 24). NIH and CDC launch registry for sudden death in the young.

Check out webpage: The Sudden Death In The Young (SDY) Case Registry

So, Ginny Stoner, as usual, you display a combination of intellectual dishonesty and stupidity. I would not expect less of you.

Dear Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

A LOT MORE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE DYING–that’s the point of the paper you you ignored. THAT’S TRUE ACCORDING TO THE CDC’S OWN DATA.

You think it’s about whether the deaths were “sudden” or slow? What?!

I never claimed the deaths were sudden, nor did I even claim they were caused by vaccines, I just raised the obvious possibility. So stick that in your Snopes and Fact Check–they do the same thing all the time, claim people said things they didn’t say, so they can ‘debunk’ it.

My comment and my paper only covers deaths in general by age group–sudden or slow, I didn’t distinguish between them.

As far as “stupidity”–I never call people stupid. It’s a rude insult, not an indication that the person who spouts it is any smarter. Besides, we are all stupid–just about different things.

@ Ginny Stoner

The bottom line is you find data that confirms your rigid unscientific bias and do not investigate further. We know, for instance, that since the pandemic, suicides have increased, traffic fatalities have increased, and people with other diseases have increased, especially during the high point of the pandemic since hospitals were overflowing with covid patients and couldn’t take others.

And finally, we know that over one million of the excess deaths was because of covid.

So, you are some combination of intellectually dishonest and stupid. Stupid because your rigid bias against vaccines contradicts all we know about immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, and the history of vaccine-preventable deaths.

So, yep, YOU ARE STUPID ON STEROIDS

It is utterly ridiculous that you cannot simply acknowledge the CDC’s mortality data in my paper. I didn’t create the data, I’m just summarizing and sharing it with people.

If you bothered to do the same, guess what–your charts would look just like mine (except not as cool). It’s hard to take you seriously, when you just deny reality and consider it a sound argument.

I looked at your deranged write up. I have no idea what you did with those data. You also seem to be implying that 5G has something to do with it…so there’s that.

For the sane still tuned in:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

The REAL number is 198,081.

“ The largest percentage increases were seen among adults aged 25–44 years and among Hispanic or Latino persons.”

You left the Latino part off-guess it didn’t fit your narrative.

“Two thirds of excess deaths during the analysis period (66.2%; 198,081) were attributed to COVID-19 and the remaining third to other causes”

Most due to COVID. Not 5G. Not vaccines. You implied the excess deaths were all unexplained.

“These disproportionate increases among certain racial and ethnic groups are consistent with noted disparities in COVID-19 mortality”

Precisely what I saw in clinic/ER/ICU. Why? Multi factorial. Latinos are more likely to have diabetes, for example.

“The age distribution of COVID-19 deaths shifted toward younger age groups from May through August (9); however, these disproportionate increases might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death.”

You know what we see all the time in clinical settings? Increasing deaths in this age group associated with drug abuse, anxiety, and depression. COVID made all of that MUCH WORSE-that we know for certain.

I’m also seeing more and more people under 40 with cirrhosis and pancreatitis. Probably related to the above. Probably also related to the ever-worsening obesity and diabetes crisis we are experiencing. People who used to die in their 60s when they got metabolic syndrome in their 40s are starting to die in their 40s when they get it in their 20s. Is it super-common? Not yet. But it could easily explain a few thousand of those deaths.

Much more likely than 5G.

Medicalyeti if you have any arguments about my calculations or how I’ve presented the data or anything, you’re free to make them, but “the CDC doesn’t say that!” is not an argument, it’s blind trust.

I’ll say one thing for MJD — at least he’s not tediously begging for clicks to his own site.

@ Ginny Stoner

You might not have specifically said deaths sudden, etc and you didn’t specifically say caused by vaccines; but your entire website and your many comments almost always blame vaccines, so just because you don’t specifically in one comment claim vaccines, it is obvious what your underlying position is.

And I’ll ask for the umpteenth time: Have you ever taken a course in immunology or even read one undergraduate textbook?

Sorry you are unable to distinguish opinion from fact. I use extensive notes with the source of facts–all the mortality data comes with a citation. If the statement contains no citation, it is probably an opinion. Hope this helps.

@ Ginny Stoner

And you missed that “a lot more young people are dying” is a gross exaggeration. I gave references.

“A lot more young people are dying” is not a “gross exaggeration,” it’s an understatement. If 163,000 extra people under 45 dead doesn’t count as “a lot” in your world, what does?

Let’s break this one down. I’m guessing you got that 163,000 number from somewhere other than Uranus. My guess? Some unhinged website. It’s also possible you glommed onto it from this article in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/10/global-covid-19-death-toll-may-be-three-times-higher-than-official-figures

Hilariously, that number is right in the range that was originally estimated (For the UK.)

If you go to the actual source study:
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext#seccestitle150

You immediately realize the the places with the highest excess mortality are also the poorest places. Here is a map from that study:

Your “Thesis” seems to be this is due to vaccines. Which is odd. Since the vaccine uptake is precisely INVERSE to excess mortality:

Medicalgenius, I mean MedicalYeti, the data comes from the CDC Wonder database. You know–that place where the CDC tracks mortality in the US. Got better data? Let’s see it.

Just checked. That number is NOWHERE to be found. You are sad.

Also, refute my obvious observation that excess deaths are greater than 20% in places with little to no vaccine and like 2% here. “Genius.”

Grow up.

Medicalyeti I strongly suggest you click on that link I provided before you shove your foot in your mouth any deeper. You can do the same searches in CDC WONDER if you’re still confused, using the citations and search criteria I provided.

I sure hope you don’t have any patients you’re lying to about this, telling them there are no excess deaths, when obviously there are. Now you’ve been made aware.

Ooooooooooh…what’s gonna happen to me if I don’t tell patients about your fabulous revelations, Ginny? Nuremberg? Come get me. I’ll be waiting. Dealing with the aftermath of lies from cranks like yourself.

Just like Dr Joel said-you’re impervious to reason. You should be a goddamn case study. I really do hope you get help.

This isn’t about my revelations, MedicalMonster, it’s about the CDC’s data. I laid it out clearly and objectively on my page, so everyone who wants to understand it can, and no one who sees it can claim they didn’t know.

All that will “happen to you” is you will either acknowledge the unprecedented escalation of deaths in the last couple years (whatever the reason(s) for it) and stop misleading people about it–or you won’t.

An anti-vaccine article is a case study in specious arguments.

“Specious” might be too charitable.

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “Did you hear how the FDA fast tracked Biogen’s Alzheimer medication? The story is on par with the fast tracked Covid vaccine, just as corrupt and just as ridiculous – and deadly like Covid vax. Biogen’s small trial involved one death that they disregarded with FDA’s assent.”

Despite Orac, myself and others explaining that the two mRNA covid vaccines followed FDA requirements; e.g., animal studies, Phases 1, 2, 3 clinical trials with between 30,000 and 40,000 participants, you still lie about it being fast tracked. The only thing they did was give it Emergency Usage Authorization based on the aforementioned because we were in the middle of a deadly pandemic. EUA requires same as normal approval, except normal approval takes months of deliberations, feedback from other groups and organizations, etc. And since EUA Moderna and Pfizer have continued follow-up for now two years with their volunteers AND we have data from health authorities in many other nations. You can go to the FDA website page on, for instance, Moderna vaccine and scroll down for ALL the documents/studies/data they based their decision on; but I know you won’t.

As for Biogen’s Alzheimer medication, not my area of specialty or interest; but I will give an analogy. Imagine two people convicted of crimes. The first a rape/murder based on DNA (prosecutor and defense present when collected and sent to respective labs), 12-point match fingerprints, knife found on perpetrator with victims DNA and his fingerprints, and CTV caught him running from scene of crimes. Jury found him guilty. Now imagine second man convicted of crime based on really circumstantial evidence and proved innocent after several years in prison. So, using your approach, given the second case, you would ignore ALL the overwhelming evidence against the first and lobby for his release. The little I know about the Biogen medication is it is extremely expensive and, at best, has a slight delaying effect on progress of Alzheimer’s. So, it has a slightly positive effect. So, many insurances won’t reimburse for it.

In any case, just another example of your rabid, intellectually dishonest, antivax bias, lumping two completely different drugs, based on enormously different collected studies/data, etc/

YOU REALLY ARE ONE SICK INDIVIDUAL.

1) Biogen’s drug does not stop or prevent Alzheimer’s. Covid vaccine does not stop or prevent Covid. Both claim to “reduce symptoms”.

2) Biogen’s drug is extremely expensive at $26 per dose. Covid vaccine by Pfizer costs TWO BILLION DOLLARS per pound of mRNA nanoparticles. (yes I calculated it)

3) Biogen was previously caught for promoting bogus Alzheimer drugs. Pfizer was fined billions for fraud.

The “pfizer trial” lasted only 97 days per average participant – and more people died in the vaccinated arm (21) than in the placebo arm (17).

I used google charts, not excel.

It is a simple calculation.

Each dose has 30 ug of nanoparticles. Pfizer plans to sell each dose for $130, if I recall correctly. Works out to $4,333,333 per gram, or $1,967,000,000 per pound, which I rounded to TWO BILLION DOLLARS.

Pfizer will make 10,000% on this if it finds willing takers of this vaccine.

If my insurance company would cover these pfizer injections, I will be indirectly subsidizing those taking them.

A nice deal for Pfizer!

@ Igor Chudov

You continue to equate profit with whether something is effective or not. Everything sells for profit. When I go into a grocery store I can purchase potato chips, candy, and soft drinks or I can purchase fruit, vegetables, whole grain bread. Both sell for a profit. One can challenge how much profit; but doesn’t change whether something works or not.

Despite your ignorant bias, even $130 to prevent a serious infection is not too much. However, I do agree they could sell it for much less and still make a very good profit.

Once more, profit doesn’t say whether something is beneficial or not! ! !

By the way, what is the profit margin on, say, coca cola or potato chips???

You continue to equate profit with whether something is effective or not.

At this point, he’s down to weight.

1) Again his one. If something is not 100% effective, it must be 0% effective, A MBA does understand %s ?
2) Of course vaccination is more than nanoparticles, and price by dose 9s oreimportant here.

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “People are VERY concerned about sudden deaths. You are not. But the people are already worrying.”

See my comment above on sudden deaths. As for people worrying, social media, some mass media, etc. can cause fear, even if completely invalid. After all, there is the old saying: “If it bleeds, it leads”. If mass media regularly reported safety and effectiveness data, people would still rely on social networks and antivax blogs. I remind you there are a lot of people who believe in QAnon, who believe in racism, antisemitism, 2020 election was stolen, etc. Doesn’t mean any one of them have even minimum validity.

You write: “We are in the very beginning of a massive die-off. These sudden deaths are only the beginning of a wave of illness and death.”

You have basically said the same thing for some time. THERE IS NO MASSIVE DIE-OFF; BUT IF WE HAD NOT HAD THE VACCINE, THEN, INSTEAD OF ONE MILLION DEATHS, PROBABLY TWO OR EVEN THREE MILLION DEATHS.

KEEP DISPLAYING YOUR DELUSIONAL STUPIDITY.

@ johnlabarge

You write: “So to be clear is it your all’s position that the covid vaccines aren’t linked with heart damage and myocarditis, particularly (but not exclusively) in young men? That would be outside of the mainstream consensus as well.”

Yep, rare number of especially young men developed heart damage and myocarditis after covid vaccines, one in particular that was taken off market.

CDC: “n rare cases, people have experienced serious health events after COVID-19 vaccination. Any health problem that happens after vaccination is considered an adverse event. An adverse event can be caused by the vaccine or can be caused by a coincidental event not related to the vaccine, such as an unrelated fever, that happened following vaccination. To date, the systems in place to monitor the safety of these vaccines have found four serious types of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, with evidence that suggests, although rare, a link to certain types of COVID-19 vaccinations that were administered. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. CDC. Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines.

Much much higher risk of myocarditis from actual COVID-19 infection. Tegan K. Boehmer, PhD et al. (2021 Sep 3). Association Between COVID-19 and Myocarditis Using Hospital-Based Administrative Data — United States, March 2020–January 2021. MMWR; 70(35);1228–1232

What you in your immense ignorance refuse to understand is the world isn’t black and white. No medical treatment nor vaccine is 100% effective and 100% safe; however, the risk, including myocarditis, from actual COVID-19 is exponentially higher than risk from vaccine, which protects far more.

@ jonhlabarge

You write: “It is interesting that anyone who does with Covid died of Covid but that for anyone that has an issue after the vax it is presumed not from the vax even if there are similar issues to which the vax was linked. Definitely not confirmation bias.”

Bull Shit. Every report of a serious adverse event to VAERS in investigated, including obtaining medical records when possible. No presumption not from the vax. Only in your SICK MIND.

Imagine, for instance, someone who has had several heart attacks, in really bad shape, is scheduled for bypass surgery. Imagine also in middle of bad flu season, so doctors make sure patient gets flu vaccine; but dies a couple of days before surgery. In your mind, it would be the vaccine; but given the patient’s history, highly unlikely as they were a walking time bomb for another heart attack and if they had not received the vaccine, good chance in major flu pandemic they would be infected with flu after surgery and would die. Something you can’t even imagine.

As I’ve pointed out over and over, not just you but other antivaxxer, you have given absolutely no indication you understand immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, history and present status of vaccine-preventable diseases; but you just mouth off.

YOU ARE JUST ONE MORE FOOL POSTING YOUR STUPIDITIES.

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “Biogen’s drug does not stop or prevent Alzheimer’s. Covid vaccine does not stop or prevent Covid. Both claim to “reduce symptoms”.

Nope, “Biogen’s drug does not stop or prevent Alzheimer’s.” And it doesn’t claim to; but it does have data that it slows the progression of Alzheimers. So, you continue with your dishonest comments. A simple question which I know you won’t answer. If you or a loved one developed an incurable cancer giving six months to live and a treatment existed that could add almost guaranteed one more month and possibly two months would you take it or advice your loved one to take it? Maybe the added time would allow someone to attend a loved ones graduation or marriage or birth of a child or . . .

You write: “Covid vaccine by Pfizer costs TWO BILLION DOLLARS per pound of mRNA nanoparticles. (yes I calculated it)”

Nano means one billionth, so each particle costs $2. But it isn’t nanoparticles of mRNA, it is nanoparticles of the lipids surrounding the mRNA that transport it into the cell. Lipids, you moron, are simply fats. And only a few are used for each dose of Pfizer vaccine. Do you know how many lipid nanoparticles are in your body? It is estimated that average human has 30 trillion cells making up their body and each cell contains a mass of nanoparticles of lipid. For instance, every single cell in your body is surrounded with lipids, often in combination with other chemicals; e.g. phosphorus., that is, a phospholipid membrane. You just don’t get anything right.

You write: “The “pfizer trial” lasted only 97 days per average participant – and more people died in the vaccinated arm (21) than in the placebo arm (17).”

Please give complete reference where you found 21 died in vaccinated arm and 17 in placebo arm????

First, Orac, myself and others have over and over pointed out that the risk for serious adverse reactions to a vaccine develop in less than 45 days, so the trial which made sure each and every participants was followed up for at least 60 days was based on solid science.

“A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo. . .Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo.”

Fernando P. Polack, M.D. et al. (2020 Dec 31). Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine; 383(27).

I suggest you look up stats on deaths in US and you will find that the number of deaths in the trial tracked how many one would find in the general population at any given time. And the trial found overwhelming evidence the vaccine prevented cases of covid and cases of severe covid, though not 100%.

See also:

Reuters Staff (2020 Dec 10). Fact check/ Clarifying claims around Pfizer vaccine deaths and side effects | Reuters.

Dean Miller (2021 Dec 6). Fact Check: Pfizer Did NOT Under-Report Deaths In Clinical Trial Of COVID-19 Vaccine — Numbers Change As New Data Accumulate. Lead Stories.

And as I’ve written in numerous comments, we now have follow-up data for over two years, not only in US; but around the world.

Joel, it is not correct to say that 2 billion dollars worth of nanoparticles in a pound of them means that each nanoparticle is $2. “nano” simply means small to the scale of nanometers.

Regarding 17 deaths in placebo arm and 21 deaths in vaccine arm, showing 23% excess mortality in the vaccinated. The reference to it is here:

SOURCE: FDA report https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download

Page 23: From Dose 1 through the March 13, 2021 data cutoff date, there were a total of 38 deaths, 21 in the COMIRNATY group and 17 in the placebo group. None of the deaths were considered related to vaccination.

Among these “unrelated” deaths was Pfizer Study Subject C4591001 1162 11621327.

This was a very nice 60 year old retired man who lived alone and died a day or two after vaccination. His absence was reported to police which conducted a wellness check on Day 4. That someone cared to call police for a wellness check means that it was a nice guy, and that someone was probably his adult child, most likely daughter.

The death was NOT autopsied or investigated by Pfizer at all and reported as “unrelated” for no reason whatsoever. I refuse to believe that dying suddenly a day after his covid vaccine was unrelated.

Pfizer lied about everything, including Pfizer Study Subject C4591001 1162 11621327, and the health authorities allowed this scam to happen.

23% excess mortality among the vaccinated may give us a clue as to why most mRNA vaccinated countries experience excess mortality in excess of reported Covid deaths. It is not just events that happen a week or two after vaccination.

Regarding Biogen and Alzheimers: three of my grandparents died of dementia: one grandpa at 77, and two grandmas in their 90s. I loved each of them equally. I do not believe that prolonging their dementia via expensive drugs that slow it down by 20%, would bring any value to them or their loved ones. I also believe that Biogen death was overlooked.

Among these “unrelated” deaths was Pfizer Study Subject C4591001 1162 11621327.

So, you’re relying on information that you’ve already claimed is fake? Fantastic.

Igor Chudov knows no biology. Igor Chudov writes nonsense. Igor Chudov simply makes stuff up.

Igor Chudov’s fabrication:

This was a very nice 60 year old retired man who lived alone and died a day or two after vaccination. His absence was reported to police which conducted a wellness check on Day 4. That someone cared to call police for a wellness check means that it was a nice guy, and that someone was probably his adult child, most likely daughter.

The death was NOT autopsied or investigated by Pfizer at all and reported as “unrelated” for no reason whatsoever. I refuse to believe that dying suddenly a day after his covid vaccine was unrelated.

What was actually reported in the Pfizer document:

Subject C4591001 1162 11621327, a 60-year-old white male with a pertinent medical history of obesity (since 2010), traumatic brain injury (in 2011, recovered), depression (since 2011), and hip replacement (in 2015), received Dose 1 on 10 Sep 2020. The subject died of arteriosclerosis on 13 Sep 2020, 3 days after receiving Dose 1.Concomitant medications reported within 2 weeks prior to the onset of arteriosclerosis included venlafaxine hydrochloride (from 2015) and aripiprazole (from 2011), both
for depression.
The study site received a police report indicating that the police visited the subject’s home to perform a welfare check on 13 Sep 2020 (Day 4) and found him dead. It was reported that the subject’s body was cold and had visible lividity. According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.
In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial
procedures, but rather it was related to suspected underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.

Clearly Chudov’s “very nice old man” claim just pathetic.There is absolutely no reason to believe his fabrication about a daughter. There isn’t even any evidence he was retired. It may well have been his employer who asked police to check on him – but of course that too is pure speculation. There is no evidence that no autopsy was done, and in fact compelling reason to believe that an autopsy was done (standard practices, etc. and “According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease”). The only thing we actually know is that at the time the document was prepared the formal findings were not available.
Chudov turns “day 4” into “next day.” The person’s death MAY have occurred the day after vaccination, but that information is not available.

Igor Chudov makes things up. Igor Chudov writes nonsense.

CORRECTION! The report says that the man died 3 days after receiving the vaccine. How that was determined is not reported.

The subject died … 3 days after receiving Dose 1.

The wellness check was on Day 4 if I recall correctly, but the person was dead before that, since a wellness check was called for, so he was not responding to phone calls for some time before the wellness check.

The coroner had no idea that the study subject was Covid vaccinated with a novel trial vaccine and just reported arteriosclerosis. Pfizer refused to look.

Look at the dates closely. He got the vaccine on the 10th. That was a Thursday.

He was found dead on the 13th. He already was cold and had lividity and was reported for a welfare check so was missing some good time prior. So he died on the 11th or 12th. A day or two after the vaccine.

September 13, 2020 was a SUNDAY. It was not a welfare check from his employer.

A great guy died from his COVID vaccine and his death was disregarded.

Lots of people work on Sunday, so the possibility of an employer calling is not eliminated. In any case, it is utterly useless and irrelevant to speculate where or not he was “nice” or “great” and who asked for the wellness check. You are just trying to score points for your nonsense by the way in which you represent the person. Pathetic and very contrary to any reasonable approach to objectively evaluating evidence.

“Cold” without an actual temperature isn’t particularly helpful. Livor mortis begins within a few tens of minutes of death and stops increasing after about 12 hours.

Once again Igor Chudov demonstrates he knows nothing, makes things up and writes nonsense.

A great guy died from his COVID vaccine

Of course there is no evidence at all that the vaccine killed him igor: you’re just spouting another one of your bullshit fact-free notions.

I’ll point out again that it’s despicable of you to attempt to pretend you care about anything other than your reputation as a rebel, and massively despicable to spout fact free “theories” about the death of someone. Leveraging a tragedy for your personal gain marks you as a horrible person, yet you do it time after time.

Igor, you need to up your story writing game, let me show you how it’s done.

There was this guy, not terribly well liked and had a reputation for being ornery as hell. He had a lot of health problems that he was on medication for, some of them pretty serious.

He also had a sizable nest egg set aside. No one sees him for a few days and his daughter finally calls the police to do a wellness check. Shock and awe, this unhealthy man is dead. The assumption is that he died of one of his health problems, but no one thinks to check if it was due to an overdose of one of his meds or if he’d been poisoned – which is kind of suspect given that his daughter stood to gain financially from his death.

And that’s how you make up a story – there’s way more emotional investment that way because you turn it into a mystery that people will want to solve one way or another. Some will take the daughter’s side – she was innocent and distraught by his death, some will take the side of the dead old man believing that there’s justice to be done.

@ Igor Chudov

Stupid and dishonest as usual. Do you understand post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because something precedes something else doesn’t mean it caused it; but in your sick sick mind any death that follows a vaccine is caused by the vaccine, even if the person had severe atherosclerosis and previous heart attacks. You are one sick sob.

@Aarno Syvänen

“Interesting mortality statistics:
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/49/excess-mortality-in-november-lower-than-in-october
Excess mortality peaks follow number of COVID cases, as usual.”

Aarno, excess mortality has been continuously high in The Netherlands, it just shows some fluctuation. Last month we had an amazing 20%.
And it isn’t following COVID cases at all.

Here is some interesting information from Pieter Omtzigt, a member of parliament, you might want to open the link and have a look.
This is what Omtzigt was twittering recently (see: https://twitter.com/PieterOmtzigt/status/1607717378455998469?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1607717378455998469%7Ctwgr%5E11729c75549791f910513bcd4afe4356484134c6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninefornews.nl%2Fomtzigt-trekt-aan-de-bel-hierom-is-het-oversterfte-onderzoek-onmogelijk%2F):

“het oversterfte onderzoek door onafhankelijke onderzoekers met data van @statistiekcbs en @rivm is onmogelijk. Reden: de data van gevaccineerden die zijn overleden, worden uit de dataset gehaald (zie onder)”
Translated: “the excess mortality study by independent researchers with data from @statistiekcbs and @rivm is impossible. Reason: the data of vaccinated people who have died are taken from the dataset (see below in the attached text, it is in Dutch).”
Isn’t this like if we do research into traffic victims, the victims of car accidents are extracted from the dataset?

Our good old CBS in Den Haag (The Hage); I visited this rather huge office several times in the past and met some professional employees there. But I’m not so sure about its integrity nowadays.
The CBS receives the so-called vaccination file from the RIVM. It turns out that a number of categories are not included in this file.

Aarno, how would you describe this obfuscation of data?
Something like the fraud you expect from a banana republic?

Oh, dear, someone apparently got lonesome in his previous haunt and is so desperate for attention that he basically posted the same thing twice here.

@Aarno Syvänen

“Interesting mortality statistics:
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/49/excess-mortality-in-november-lower-than-in-october
Excess mortality peaks follow number of COVID cases, as usual.”

Aarno, excess mortality has been continuously high in The Netherlands, it just shows some fluctuation. Last month we had an amazing 20%.
And it isn’t following COVID cases at all.

Here is some interesting information from Pieter Omtzigt, a member of parliament, you might want to open the link and have a look.
This is what Omtzigt was twittering recently (see: https://twitter.com/PieterOmtzigt/status/1607717378455998469?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1607717378455998469%7Ctwgr%5E11729c75549791f910513bcd4afe4356484134c6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninefornews.nl%2Fomtzigt-trekt-aan-de-bel-hierom-is-het-oversterfte-onderzoek-onmogelijk%2F):

“het oversterfte onderzoek door onafhankelijke onderzoekers met data van @statistiekcbs en @rivm is onmogelijk. Reden: de data van gevaccineerden die zijn overleden, worden uit de dataset gehaald (zie onder)”
Translated: “the excess mortality study by independent researchers with data from @statistiekcbs and @rivm is impossible. Reason: the data of vaccinated people who have died are taken from the dataset (see below in the attached text, it is in Dutch so use some translation software).”
Isn’t this like if we do research into traffic victims, the victims of car accidents are extracted from the dataset?

Our good old CBS in Den Haag (The Hage); I visited this rather huge office several times in the past and met some professional employees there. But I’m not so sure about its integrity nowadays.
The CBS receives the so-called vaccination file from the RIVM. It turns out that a number of categories are not included in this file.

Aarno, how would you describe this obfuscation of data?

@Narad

“Oh, dear, someone apparently got lonesome in his previous haunt and is so desperate for attention that he basically posted the same thing twice here.”

Just drunk.

@Aarno

“Netherlands has other respitatory viruses in circulation
https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/netherlands-experiencing-multiple-respiratory-viruses-now-also-flu-epidemic
CBS just do not think that every death is caused by vaccines”

True and these other viruses will be partly responsible for the 20% excess mortality.
Nevertheless you suggested a decrease in excess mortality, I just reminded you this isn’t the case at all.
Independently from these other viruses, excess mortality has been disturbingly high here.
If our CBS would not be aware that deaths are caused by the vaccines, then for what reason the data of vaccinated people who have died are taken from the dataset? Can you think of a reason other then to cover up (the many) deaths due to the vaccines?

Would you like to do the maths to show these figures? Don’t forget to include the hidden covid deaths (mentioned in another of your comments as three to five times the official figures). I wonder how much of the excess is accounted for by actual covid deaths being five times the official reports…..

@NumberWang

“Would you like to do the maths to show these figures? Don’t forget to include the hidden covid deaths (mentioned in another of your comments as three to five times the official figures). I wonder how much of the excess is accounted for by actual covid deaths being five times the official reports…..”

Yes. The 20% was a prognose from Dela. Now that we have the final data, Dela says that the “number of reports of death in December is 25 percent higher than normal around this time of year.”
This is what the figures from Statistics Netherlands show: 15,819 people died in the last four weeks of the year. That is more than 3100 more than was to be expected according to the estimates, an excess mortality of more than 24.5 percent (3100 / (15,819 – 3100)).

The hidden covid deaths don’t / hardly play a role anymore. And you know this for a fact.

You might also wanna take a look here: https://maurice.nl/2022/11/12/het-effect-van-de-vergeten-ondersterfte/ (use a simple translator and you’re fine to read the text).
About Maurice de Hond: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_de_Hond.

Nice detail in the comments where a certain ‘Poekieman’ says (translated): “The only information that would indicate Real and even more irrefutable vaxxination damage/death is splitting by vaxxination status. I suspect that rivm or another corrupt club has those figures, but is terrified / forbidden to make them public.”
Yup, so true.
A certain ‘JGM vd Zanden’ responds (translated): “I fear this too. A shame that this is not being taken up energetically, despite various motions in the House of Representatives.”
Yup, so true again.
Then a certain ‘Ronald’ says (translated): “You can bet that those figures are known. And you can also count on the fact that it was shouted from the rooftops by the media if the excess mortality had occurred even just over 50% among the unvaccinated.”
Yup, so true again.

If there are as many hidden covid deaths as you say, then take any week. Multiply the number of covid deaths in that week by the factors you claim. Now compare this new number with the number of excess deaths that week.

Some figures reported in UK papers would work out as more of your covid deaths than the actual excess number. Negative death. You should be saving some of those excess deaths for vaccines. Instead, secret covid deaths would explain all of them.

@NumberWang

“If there are as many hidden covid deaths as you say, then take any week. Multiply the number of covid deaths in that week by the factors you claim. Now compare this new number with the number of excess deaths that week.
Some figures reported in UK papers would work out as more of your covid deaths than the actual excess number. Negative death. You should be saving some of those excess deaths for vaccines. Instead, secret covid deaths would explain all of them.”

There must indeed have been many hidden covid deaths than the official number: the more or less precise bottom up count under about 10 mln people worldwide (perhaps with a somewhat higher average age but on the other hand with a somewhat healthier lifestyle) makes this clear to me (if I remember correctly by mid 2021 it should have been somewhat more than 30 mln deaths based on the ratio of deaths in the 10 mln group). But note that this is history (we are talking mid 2021) when excess mortality was, and apparently could directly be (?) attributed to covid deaths here in the west and secondly I don’t know which countries were responsible for the undercounting. Perhaps China, India, Russia, but perhaps also western countries, I cannot say.
Excess deaths is a phenomenon that attracted attention from march of last year and the question is for what reason(s) excess deaths go up while the counted covid deaths goes down; we don’t have another way of recording / counting since. And excess deaths is rising, while the current variants are less lethal. All in all it just makes no sense, at least not to me.
Btw, did you open the link I sent you? What is your opinion?

A question about an investigation on vaccine safety in a part of said group: 60,000 healthy people, age range 20 – 55 were followed for some time after the first round of vaccination. Outcome: no deaths, 4 injured. So 1 in 15,000, hard fact.
We know that the amount of deaths and injuries increase by age. Based on average death and injury stratification, what would be your cautious conclusion on vaccine safety?

So…

You’re NOT going to compare the excess deaths with the ‘real’ number of covid deaths (as per you’re theory).

I started shutting down every political, antivax, or religious comment after either of the two posts about Dr. Harriet Hall. Don’t like it? I don’t care. I wasn’t going to allow her memorial posts to turn into shitshows, thanks to antivaxxers.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: