I hadn’t planned on posting today, but then there was a news story published Monday by Politico that I felt the obligation to acknowledge at least briefly (for me). It concerns everybody’s favorite COVID-19 minimizing antivax Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who, not coincidentally, was a member of the hydroxychloroquine-pushing grifting group of doctors known as America’s Frontline Doctors. Dr. Ladapo, as you might recall, was appointed to lead Florida’s health department by Gov. Ron DeSantis, in an apparent bid to make Florida the most COVID-friendly state in the union, all in the name of “freedom.” Since then, he’s done everything he could to dismantle whatever was left of Florida’s public health infrastructure. Most notoriously, though his health department made antivax disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines official by publishing a study claiming to have found that the risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccines in men aged 18-39 was so high that young men should forego vaccination against COVID-19, because—or so Dr. Ladapo claimed—vaccination is more dangerous than COVID-19 for younger men. It ultimately turned out that, not only was the study as bad as many of us had suspected when it was released, but that the study had gone through multiple iterations that looked like p-hacking, post hoc alterations in the protocol, and the failure to report certain statistics, all designed to make the vaccine look worse.
At the time, given the anonymity of the authors, whose names were not disclosed, and even the anonymity of whoever was demanding successive changes in the manuscript, as revealed by FOIA requests for all the drafts of the manuscript, I strongly suspected that it was Dr. Ladapo himself behind the revisions, although there were those who suspected that it was Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg. Personally, I had suspected that Dr. Høeg was one of the authors, but it doesn’t really matter. We now know that Dr. Ladapo used his position of authority to force his the department that he heads to lie with statistics.
From Politico:
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo personally altered a state-driven study about Covid-19 vaccines last year to suggest that some doses pose a significantly higher health risk for young men than had been established by the broader medical community, according to a newly obtained document.
Ladapo’s changes, released as part of a public records request, presented the risks of cardiac death to be more severe than previous versions of the study. He later used the final document in October to bolster disputed claims that Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were dangerous to young men.
My reaction? Quelle surprise! (That was sarcasm, obviously.) Of course it was Dr. Ladapo! It had to be him who had pushed for tweaking of the time periods analyzed and then the removal of sensitivity analyses that had assessed whether differences seen in the risk of myocarditis in various groups were likely to be due to vaccination compared to other factors, as well as comparisons between the risk of myocarditis due to the vaccines versus the risk due to COVID-19 itself that showed that the risk of myocarditis was far higher after COVID-19 than after vaccination.
Lying with statistics, indeed, and I’m glad that the Politico story quoted someone willing to say bluntly that it was a lie:
The surgeon general, a well-known Covid-19 vaccine skeptic, faced a backlash from the medical community after he made the assertions, which go against guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. But Ladapo’s statements aligned well with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ stance against mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.
Researchers with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and University of Florida, who viewed Ladapo’s edits on the study and have followed the issue closely, criticized the surgeon general for making the changes. One said it appears Ladapo altered the study out of political — not scientific — concerns.
“I think it’s a lie,” Matt Hitchings, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, said of Ladapo’s assertion that the Covid-19 vaccine causes cardiac death in young men. “To say this — based on what we’ve seen, and how this analysis was made — it’s a lie.”
Also:
Yet the researchers who viewed a copy of the edits said Ladapo removed an important analysis that would have contradicted his recommendation. Daniel Salmon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, called Ladapo’s changes “really troubling.”
“He took out stuff that didn’t support his position,” Salmon said. “That’s really a problem.”
Hitchings chastised the integrity of Ladapo’s study after it was released last fall but is now much more critical.
“What’s clear from the previous analysis, and even more clear from Dr. L’s edits, is that absolutely there was a political motivation behind the final analysis that was produced,” Hitchings said. “Key information was withheld from the public that would have allowed them or other experts to interpret this in context.”
Ladapo’s edits also shed new light on an anonymous internal complaint he faced last year. The complaint, which the Florida Department of Health’s inspector general investigated, accused Ladapo of “scientific fraud” for allegedly manipulating the final draft of the study.
I too think that Dr. Ladapo was lying with statistics. That’s what he was hired by Gov. DeSantis to do: To lie by downplaying the risks of COVID-19 and the efficacy of vaccines while lying about the risks from the vaccines by hugely and dishonestly inflating them.
Moreover Dr. Ladapo basically admitted that he had been the one responsible for the revisions, while making rather implausible excuses:
In a statement to POLITICO, Ladapo said revisions and refinements are a normal part of assessing surveillance data and that he has the appropriate expertise and training to make those decisions.
“To say that I ‘removed an analysis’ for a particular outcome is an implicit denial of the fact that the public has been the recipient of biased data and interpretations since the beginning of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine campaign,” he said. “I have never been afraid of disagreement with peers or media.”
He also said that he determined the study was worthwhile since “the federal government and Big Pharma continue to misrepresent risks associated with these vaccines.”
The DeSantis administration referred questions to Florida’s Department of Health.
Thank you, Dr. Ladapo, for basically admitting that Politico had busted you lying with statistics, and what I (and others) had been saying since October was correct, namely that you had manipulated the study and its statistics for political reasons. Thanks to Gov. Ron DeSantis, the entire state medical and public health apparatus of Florida has become a tool for spreading his COVID-19 minimizing antivax propaganda, with Dr. Ladapo having eagerly signed on to be his willing accomplice in spreading misinformation. It’s a hell of a thing when an actual state public health apparatus publishes something that’s not just wrong, but intentionally misleading and dangerous, such as this study with anonymous authors and its having been revised for clearly political reasons. It initially succeeded in its purpose, to serve as what seems to lay people like scientific justification for antivaccine messaging. Although I hope that the revelation of Dr. Ladapo’s politically-inspired revisions will blunt the usefulness of the study for antivax propaganda purposes, I fear that it likely will not, as this study appears to have faded from public consciousness a mere two days after being reported.
Unfortunately, it is also highly unlikely that Dr. Ladapo will suffer any adverse consequences whatsoever for his scientific fraud, other than to be portrayed as a victim of unjustified “persecution” and criticism for having been a brave maverick doctor bucking the public health establishment. Indeed, he is likely destined for federal office should Republicans win the Presidency in 2024, either as Surgeon General or, even worse given that the Surgeon General doesn’t really have much in the way of real power, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC Director, or FDA Commissioner. I’m not kidding, either. If Republicans win the White House next year, Dr. Ladapo will be considered for high ranking positions overseeing medicine and/or public health.
Finally, I look forward to seeing all the antivaxxers who rant about how the CDC, FDA, and big pharma supposedly “manipulate” science for their own nefarious ends take Dr. Ladapo to task for his blatant manipulation of science for political ends in the service of Gov. DeSantis.
300 replies on “Dr. Joseph Ladapo: Busted lying with statistics about COVID-19 vaccines”
The pattern of US deaths from 2020-2022 indicates the massive increase in deaths was not consistent with either a virus or a vaccine being the sole cause. So pretty much everyone is lying. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2023/4/22/the-new-death-wave-phenomenon-that-no-one-is-talking-about
Must be a coincidence that excess deaths magically started in March 2020 and the waves of excess deaths followed waves of infection. /s
When admitted and excess covid deaths are totaled, US covid deaths are more than the total of all US war dead from 1776 to the present (on the US side).
Why would a virus cause a simultaneous surge of death in countries around the world, right after the WHO declared a pandemic? Did ‘The Virus’ take stealth jets all over, then lay in wait to strike at the right time?
If your claim is that all the death waves, before and after the Cvax was introduced, were due to COVID, then I take it you are acknowledging the Cvax was useless at best. There were more US deaths in 2021, post-vax, than there were in 2020.
Tell me you don’t know what a pandemic is without telling me you don’t know what a pandemic is.😂
Also, you do realize that the vaccine didn’t roll out simultaneously all over the world, right? There was a lot of heterogeneity in when and how rapidly different countries vaccinated their populations. Some did it quickly and immediately, others not so much. 🙄
I mean a real pandemic, as in with more than a handful of people dying. The April death surge in the US resulted in over 135,000 extra deaths. You’re just avoiding the question of why multiple countries around the world had simultaneous death surges in April 2020. That’s long before the vaccines rolled out anywhere.
The paper I linked to is only about US deaths, so no idea what your second point has to do with anything. Someone else wrote about the worldwide death surge in April 2020, pre-vax. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341832637_All-cause_mortality_during_COVID-19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_of_mass_homicide_by_government_response
Denis Rancourt? 😂
Just to add, it would be useful to know whether any of the subsequent death waves in the US also occurred in other countries simultaneously, like the April 2020 one did. Then we could see how it matches up to their vax rate. If the deaths waves are the same but the vax start date and rate is different, that could point to the vax not being involved.
Dissing the author of a paper doesn’t mean the contents are false. If you’re claiming there were no simultaneous death surges in multiple countries in April 2020, show us.
When an author is a blithering conspiracy theorist with a track record of spewing utter nonsense, the odds of his being correct are…not good, to be kind.🙄
LOL, you really know how to find the nutcases Ginny. Rancourt is the only person I know of who has been kicked off Researchgate. I mean this is a guy who believes the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, gender equity and anti-racism policies are in fact covert means to usher in the Great Reset.
The fact that you stoop to quote Rancourt shows that it is not quality arguments you look for, but arguments, no matter how stupid, that support your beliefs.
Please ban this person. My dog is smarter.
COVID deahs happens when here are COVID infections. Did COVID hit same time as US. There were migitation efforts, too:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60380317
I’d like to see the scientific evidence supporting the
But it’s likely to be more argument from incredulity/speculative BS.
You linked to a 10-paragraph post on your crappy Web site, not a “paper,” Gindo.
Y’all are hilarious. You pick out a single point (simultaneous death surges around the world in April 2020), then claim the author is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and therefore it’s reasonable to assume he fabricated all his mortality data. BRILLIANT! 😀
BTW, just to clarify…I trust no one is claiming the CDC’s mortality data (the Death Waves) I wrote about is false. And of course no one has explained the death waves, except with a one-world blanket “COVID!”
@Ginny Stoner Compare number of infections and number of deaths. They tell something.
“ When an author is a blithering conspiracy theorist with a track record of spewing utter nonsense, the odds of his being correct are…not good, to be kind.🙄”. Notice that this does not artist one fact. Just throws ad hominem and moves on. (To the extent the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ is as hominem since the folks who question things are currently winning every aspect of this debate.)
Ginny Moron Stoner
Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water /s
Actually, I was thinking just yesterday how nice it was not to have the clueless VAERS lady dumping all over the comment threads and letting the rest of us actually have a discussion! But that was earlier in the day.
Failure to advance their understanding of the scientific method beyond that taught to preteen kids in school is extremely prevalent among flat Earthers – none of whom actually do science. Like Stoner, they are fond of shouting “pseudoscience” when what they are really doing is shouting that they don’t really understand what they are talking about.
Stoner dismisses the entire field of virology. I’d wager she can’t even give a reasonable description of what a virus is. Like a flerf, she is stupid and ignorant and determined to remain stupid and ignorant.
I’m sorry if this virus doesn’t fit with your predetermined model. Real life rarely does – get over it….
I’m just asking how “real life” is consistent with the virus narrative–a question you couldn’t answer. I have no “predetermined model” because the entire field of virology is bogus.
I love it when non-experts who have demonstrated time and time again that they don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about declare an entire scientific field “bogus” because they don’t like what that science tells them. The combination of hubris and Dunning-Kruger is just incredible. 😂
Ginny – What question didn’t I answer?
Orac said, “I love it when non-experts […] declare an entire scientific field “bogus” because they don’t like what that science tells them. ”
Virology has utterly mangled the scientific method–THAT is the problem–it is NOT good science. But hey, “The Experts” say it’s brilliant, so it must be. We all know “scientific debate” these days is limited to trashing your opponent, and the one with the cleverest wit, or the most letters after their name, wins.
Says someone who has demonstrated more times than I can remember that her understanding of the scientific method is, at best, simplistic to the point of grade school level.🙄
Orac I can see why you don’t like simplicity–it often cuts to the chase like nothing else can. RE the virus question, it’s actually super-simple–the process of virus ‘isolation’, as defined by the industry, objectively does nothing of the kind.
On my site I almost exclusively chart data from the government’s WONDER and VAERS databases, intentionally laying it out so as to be as easily understandable as possible to as many people as possible–so yes, it is super-simple. But instead of saying “thanks for the info” or something along those lines, the twits on this site react by falsely accusing me posting misleading data–shows the moral depths the oligarchy is willing to go to to protect the status quo.
As I frequently say, “simplicity” is not a virtue in epidemiology. Simplicity is how you fail to account for confounders and find correlations that do not, in fact, exist. Simplicity is how antivaxxer tried to claim that appropriate adjustments for confounders were actually a coverup regarding mercury and autism, first at Simpsonwood (RFK Jr.’s first big conspiracy theory) and then for MMR and autism (the CDC whistleblower conspiracy feature showcased in VAXXED). Simplicity is why you fail.
““simplicity” is not a virtue in epidemiology.”
I generally don’t do epidemiology–I collate data, and present it in chart form. It’s an introduction to the data, from which other analyses can proceed. The first step to understanding the data is knowing what data is there. The only reason anyone would object to it is that they don’t like the data.
You are attempting to interpret epidemiological data, and you do it with simplistic presentations. That is why you are nearly always wrong in your interpretation.
“You are attempting to interpret epidemiological data, and you do it with simplistic presentations. That is why you are nearly always wrong in your interpretation.”
Needs a supporting example. “Attempting to interpret” is correct–but I don’t pretend to come up with answers. I don’t overestimate the conclusions that can be drawn from the data–I more often speculate about possibilities, and additional investigations that could be useful. Questions are verboten in vaccine land.
What “analyses” do you think having a chart will enable?
@Ginny Stoner If somebody does not know anything says that virology is wrong, it must be wrong ? No so.
So you have a better way to isolate virus ? What that would be ? You do not undersand VAERS data no al all.
Yeah, Ginny clearly doesn’t understand basic virology.
@Ginny Stoner Answers are verboten in antivax land. You do not even notice that all your questions as been answered. No to mention that you have a secret method to isolate viruses.
How can all these people be dying if we are not vaccinating them yet? /s
To quote from one source
In particular note that there is no mention of the actual number of deaths. Although if no one is dying, scientists wouldn’t go to the trouble of gathering samples from lots of people and sequencing them to figure out what is making them sick.
To quote a little bit from David Quammen’s book
Point 1 – There is no claim of viral death waves being so unusual. None but you.
Point 2 – No stealth needed – people transmit on regular planes, trains, buses, dates, raccoon dogs, and perhaps minks. Standard stuff that you reject with no meaningful evidence. You know that.
Point 3. We will have to interview the COVID now won’t we, to understand why it did the things it did right? Tucker C has some free time – get that virus miked up on his new channel.
Point 4. Who the are you to provide advice in any form? You got a credential or are you one them freedom lovers who think speech is free and therefore definitively correct?
Point 5. You have shown that you are unbelievable and not really that entertaining.
I’m not a professional in the medical sciences but I smell BS when there is BS.
Responding only because you’re are wrong by evidence and wrong morally because you promote the death of more rather than less. So clearly obvious.
Point 1 — The data speaks for itself–as you can see in my comparison of deaths in 2019 to 2020-2022. 2018 data is similar to 2019–before that, I don’t think there’s any weekly or daily mortality data with which to identify a “surge”. However, based on the consistency of the monthly numbers, there most likely have been no similar death surges for at least 2 decades.
2-“Stealth” because while “The Virus” was traveling around, it wasn’t killing anyone. That was the point being made. I guess it laid in wait, so as to strike at the same time everywhere? Clever little buggers. I wonder if they communicate telepathically?
3-Blah blah about Tucks Medicated Pads or something–irrelevant.
4-I’ve never provided advice–I make a point of it. I believe in Gandalf’s wisdom that “Advice is a very dangerous thing to give.”
5-More baseless personal insults you can’t back up but you just gotta say ’em anyway because it pleasures you.
Finally, the only important point you made: “Responding only because you’re are wrong by evidence”–to which I invite you to clarify WHAT I’m wrong about, and PROVE IT, because I don’t think you even know what you’re attacking me for, you’re just making stuff up to attack with.
Strictly speaking, the data never truly speak for themselves, because the very acts of collecting and presenting data involve numerous choices, large and small, by the people presenting the data.
@Ginny Stoner Do you know people travel a lot ? They will spread virus to other countries.
Cumulative cases by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory
Virus did not strike at same time.
Do you know about flu season ? There are Death Waves during them, though nobody is interested:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
Aarno no, there are no Death Waves in the typical flu season, as I already showed in my most recent paper, which you obviously never bothered to read, as usual.
And she wonders why nobody takes her seriously.
There are weekly flu deaths
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
There are deah waves (flu season).
Here’s a nice graphic from US News and World Report.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/weekly-flu-cases-deaths-hospitalizations
The early outbreak in 2009 was the H1N1 pandemic.
Also note what happened about the 13th week of 2020.
Either way the vaccine didn’t fix it, so it’s risk/benefit calculation is negative.
Do you know number of COVID deaths ? This tells you something about risk of disease. Compare risk of vaccination.
No body knows because the counting was screwed up from the beginning.
@johnlabarge:
How was the counting “screwed up”?
@Frost: you’ve probably heard them all: “counting every death of someone with heart disease or cancer with a positive PCR as a covid death” (the “died with covid, not from covid” trope), the “put on ventilators too early and the ventilators killed them” trope, the “PCR tests were mistaking other viruses for SARS-CoV-2” trope, not sure if I remember the others, but those were the main ones I remember from back in the day. They’ve surely all been debunked here and/or on SBM, but entrenched right wing conspiracy theorists keep insisting that these were always true and have even been proven but the MSM lies on Pfizer’s and Moderna’s behalf.
The current standard is that “COVID19 deaths” don’t require any kind of testing or confirmation–they can be “presumed.” Why not, since the tests are invalid anyway. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
“COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.”
Obviously this leaves virtually unlimited room to finagle the numbers–that’s the problem.
@Ginny Stoner Presumed means that COVID is suspected. If this means inflating, all doctors are participating the plot.
Aarno Syvänen The hospitals were financially incentivized to to so. That’s why there are hospice folks so classified and car accidents etc. if we drive up that number it helps justify more quackzines.
@john labarge Entirely different thing. This is about doctoers writing death certificates.
I’m sure everyone is waiting with bated breath for you to follow up this one with, y’know, evidence.
Oh, great, Gindo has dropped by with some thread spam.
Gotta get those hate-readers that come here to go to her blog and give her clicks. Mommy needs a new fix.
Your blog is stupid and you should be ashamed.
You’re still not a scientist.
Are you a nun or something? I can almost see you wagging your finger at me. 😀
Being stupid is not same hing as being sinful
There is some data for your website:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
It is actual vaxxed/unvaxxed study, no need to speak general excess deaths.
Off the immediate topic, but very much about antivax:
First off, I’m going to more-or-less out myself, not that it matters — I’m a professor at Dartmouth College, in a physical science. And I just returned from poking my nose into an anti-vax love in at the Hanover Inn, attended by maybe 200 people, and organized by the “Concerned Alumni of Dartmouth”. RFK Jr will be the featured speaker. I didn’t stay because I could feel the bile rising, and figured it would be better not to get into a fistfight, plus I want to join the group bike ride later this afternoon.
I’m still kind of shaking. Ugh. These people did so much harm, and spout so much B.S., even though they seem to be well-meaning.
The head of immunology at the med school said he was intending to attend with some reinforcements, but I wasn’t going to sit through a whole set of panelists. And I sure wasn’t going to be hanging on RFK Jr’s every word. The road beckons.
Careful, Prof–your indoctrination is showing. An obvious symptom is your inability to engage in civil, rational debate about what is supposed to be an issue of science. The intensity of your emotion is telling.
You claim it’s because your pro-vax position is morally superior–because you’re right, of course–but what if you are wrong? There is one factual answer the question of whether any vaccine is safe and effective and saves lives, and you are emotionally unable to objectively entertain the idea that your deeply indoctrinated faith in vaccination is wrong. You said as much yourself.
Ginny (just in the comments to this post):
“An obvious symptom is your inability to engage in civil, rational debate about what is supposed to be an issue of science.”
” I have no “predetermined model” because the entire field of virology is bogus.”
Orac assessment of Rancourt is applies to Ginny as well:: “When an author is a blithering conspiracy theorist with a track record of spewing utter nonsense, the odds of his being correct are…not good, to be kind.”
You won’t try to explain the Death Waves because you can’t–not because nothing I say warrants a civil response. You’re not fooling anyone who actually reads it.
Anyone that’s been following this blog for any length of time knows that this has been explained patiently to Ginny multiple times in the past. But rather than try to understand what is being explained to her (which would require admitting to herself that her blog is an utterly fraudulent project and that she doesn’t understand statistics or epidemiology), her stock responses are to either put her hands over her ears, stomp her feet and chant “I’m not listening!” or to accuse whoever is doing the explaining of being a “pharma shill”.
Her usual response is to decamp for a few weeks and then return with the same old arguments in different coloured dress hoping nobody will notice.
No matter how patiently things are explained to Ginny, all that matters is whether it reinforces her existing position. This is how she ends up citing complete conspiracy nutbaggers like Denis Rancourt and takes umbrage when we laugh at her for doing so.
Reflection is not a behaviour that Ginny knows.
Chris Preston WTH are you talking about? What is it you think is being “patiently explained” to me that I just don’t understand?
Pretty much everything.
Reality. You don’t understand shit about reality.
I congratulate you Ginny. Science can only proceed when things are given pithy, evocative names: cutting through the terminology with which these pseudo scientists like to cloak their discussions and simplifiying, as you say, the task of explaining complex phenomena to lay persons – or indeed nullifying the whole tedium of rational explanation and proceeding straight to the correct emotional reaction.
As soon as I saw that we were talking about Death Waves,a forgotten memory from a childhood long,long ago (and mainly in black and white) came to mind and I realised I knew the answer!
The Death Waves are a consequence of Ming the Merciless firing his Death Ray.
I have now, as requested, provided you with an explanation of your Death Waves, but I expect no thanks – the work is its own reward.
Jools, I see you found an opportunity, in the midst of 100s of thousands of deaths, to make a joke about it. At least it wasn’t you or yours, right? Way more creepy than funny.
Compare death waves with infection waves. That explains a lot.
@Ginny Stoner Like this one: if you analyse VAERS data you must account expected deaths. Interesting thing is excess deaths.
Long, long ago in the comments on a blog post far, far away, I explained to you Ginny with links to the data that excess deaths were following waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Actually, it wasn’t that long ago, merely earlier this year and it was on this blog. However, you learned nothing from the explanation, because it did not suit the narrative you wanted, so here we are with you reprising the same old nonsense, only this time calling them “Death Waves”.
To understand why people are rude to you, you should first reflect on you own behaviour. Joel calls you an idiot, but I think he is wrong. You are perfidious, as you have amply demonstrated.
Chris Preston just STFU with your smug little lectures. You have enough to “reflect on” regarding your own behavior to keep you busy for years.
Save it for the barren wasteland of your own site, Gindo.
It’s like getting into debates with flat-earthers. The shape of the earth is a subject on which I actually DO have deep field expertise.
I recently came up with an analogy — people trying to convince me that the earth is flat, or of whatever ludicrous astronomical theory, is like people trying to convince a master machinist that lathes don’t work — you only think they do because Big Machine Tool has you hoodwinked.
What if yuu yourself are wrong ? Did eradication of smaallpox save lives ? Answer is obvious.
Robert Kennedy Jr always lies. so I understand that someone cannot stand him.
” An obvious symptom is your inability to engage in civil, rational debate about what is supposed to be an issue of science.”
When are you going to get an education in science, then? Because it’s clear to everyone that you’re just a dense anti-vax troll that has no clue what she’s doing when it comes to actual science.
“inability to engage in civil, rational debate about what is supposed to be an issue of science”
Why would you engage in scientific debate about an issue of science, when you aren’t a scientist who studied the field in question and the people you are debating aren’t scientists at all?
You could have a pub argument though.
Why engage in civil debate? Because it is NOT necessary to be “a scientist” to understand the principles of science. Because knowledge can be acquired in many ways, with or without formal degrees. In fact, did you know that anyone can take any MIT course for free online?
You may have no faith in your ability to apply reason and logic to any situation, but others don’t have the same limitations. Will they make mistakes? I’m sure they will–but then, people with lots of letters after their names do that, too.
For certain values of ‘take’ and ‘all’, that is.
What have you enrolled in, Gindo? It would be disappointing if this were a red herring.
You cannot have sound reason and logic unless you have knowledge or applicable experience.
Since I know where my knowledge is lacking, I also know where my logic and reason may be faulty. Doesn’t stop me making assumptions but I’m always aware that I might be wrong in those situations.
Your problem is that you don’t.
But you have not acquired nay scientific knowledge. Reading an antivax book is not enough.
I don’t think I can remember a better example of Dunning-Kruger. Or of a lack of self awareness…
I wonder how much of these principles of science she really understands? Her writings show no signs of actually trying to follow them.
Scientific claims are based on testing explanations against observations of the natural world and rejecting the ones that fail the test. Scientific explanations are evaluated using evidence from the natural world.
But she relies almost exclusively on evidence she can glean from VAERS reports using the WONDER system and then analyzes them in ways they are explicitly not valid for.
It is true that the reports are filed and make claims, but the details of those claims are not vetted for accuracy.
And she is not even interested in the details of those claims. I once challenged her to look at the cause of death in a few VAERS reports and she declined because she wasn’t interested in those. She only wanted a number to count and tout.
As I have found a significant fraction are actually deaths from Covid-19 and many are deaths from other pre-existing conditions. But she doesn’t care.
And she never gives a considered response to serious critique of her clams.
But she is prone to this characteristic.
And (naturally) not a single example of my alleged failings to be found in your arrogant BS screed designed purely to put me down. Too bad we don’t have any genius examples of your work to compare to.
∗blink∗
@Ginny Stoner Have you published your Principles of Virus Isolation ?
I’d read that paper!😂
@ palindrom:
You’re a brave soul to attend.
Quite a while ago, I drummed up nerve to attend a well-known woo-meister’s book event nearby; surprisingly, the loon had many admiring fans – over 100- who hung upon his every word and applauded everything he said loudly. He trotted around the venue making randy asides about his “endurance”. Taking questions about diet, inflammation and illnesses from his thralls, he then waltzed over to me asking if I had any questions to which I replied, ” Not about health”, coldly, at which point he withdrew to a friendlier locale. I actually wanted to ask him about his “doctorate”.
Just showing up is an accomplishment for sceptics.
Yep. This was the last time I braved such an event. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2018/08/03/jeff-noble-kerry-bentivolio-host-antivax/
Your self-restraint was admirable!
… (thump thump) … Is this thing on? [A comment disappeared, will repeat if this shows.]
Thanks for the info. WordPress commenting is tricky. I saw yours in the list below but they disappeared when I tried to read them. So I posted my little comment and yours showed up!
I think many of my comments here seem to disappear into some sort of limbo for a while. I made one about 3 weeks ago with three links and I’m not sure it ever got out of moderation.
This seems to be getting a fare amount of coverage from the YouTube bloggers.
Here is Rebecca Watson’s take on the Politico investigation.
I always figured that Ladapo was responsible for the changes, but I didn’t know how directly he might have been involved.
He didn’t try to get this published in a scientific journal but it still counts as fraud IMHO.
https://youtu.be/bajcXNHRfp0
And Susan Oliver:
@ Ginny Stoner
There are good statistics that, besides deaths from the virus, higher death rates from suicides, drunken driving, people with other disease who couldn’t be seen at hospitals because they were overwhelmed with COVID cases and under stringent guidelines for infectious diseases, and other reasons. It’s been awhile since you posted comments on this blog; but other idiots have taken your place, so welcome back.
There are no “good statistics” and more and more people are starting to realize it, thanks to nonsense like this comment, that can’t back up their bogus sales pitches
There is a vaxxed/unvaxxed study about non COVID deaths. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
Check non COVID deaths among vaccinated
@ Ginny Stoner
And I guess you are unaware of the huge increase during the pandemic of drug overdoses due to opioids.
If you claim to have figured out all the reasons for the massive number of excess deaths in 2020-2022, then write something up and hold yourself accountable for your claims, instead of shooting ideas from the hip, half of which are nonsense, and trying to make them sound like ‘knowledge.’
Besides, nothing you said explains the unprecedented Death Waves–an entirely new pattern of deaths never recorded before.
Third time, there is an vaxxed/unvaxxed study of non COVID deatths:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
Wanna comment it ?
I wrote about it a few months ago. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/12/26/all-cause-deaths-in-england-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated
@Ginny Stoner And you did not answer me, three months ago:
a) UK has vaccination registry
b) Deaths are based on death certificates.
Wanna comment this ?
Florida – a safe space for scientific fraud. It used to be that Florida was famous for its uneducated stupid and dishonest people, but now it’s becoming famous for its educated stupid and dishonest people.
If the American Board of internal Medicine had a f***ing spine, they could sit up, open their closed eyes and strip Ladapo of his board certification in internal medicine.
But ABIM is run by cowards and profiteers.
My thoughts exactly. Any doctor who deliberately spreads lies about highly important public health interventions and thus betrays his medical oath as well as his scientific education should face a disciplinary board at the very least.
Unfortunately, Republicans appear to think that their goal of gaining Full Control over the US trumps (pun intended) not just the law, but also basic ethics and even human decency. I am absolutely appalled at the ease with which many Republicans have adopted the former president’s modus operandi of spreading lies as a matter of routine when the truth isn’t to their liking or doesn’t serve their purpose.
Here in the UK they appear to be dealing with this issue.
Doctor lose MTPS suspension appeal – Adil v GMC
Apr 9, 2023 General Medical Council (GMC)
https://fitnesstopractisenews.co.uk/doctor-lose-mtps-suspension-appeal-adil-v-gmc/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=doctor-lose-mtps-suspension-appeal-adil-v-gmc
ACIP has published several safety analyses of COVID19 vaccines based on VAERS data–without even once mentioning the unprecedented volume of VAERS reports compared to other vaccines. This information is being intentionally concealed, along with details about the statistical analyses allegedly being used to detect safety signals. I wrote about it in the second half of this paper: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/9/15/the-bayesian-covid19-vaccine-coverup
A lot of doctors are unknowingly spreading lies about vaccine safety that originate at the CDC. I’ll bet only a tiny percentage of doctors are even vaguely aware of this issue.
“Bayesian voodoo”? I laughed out loud when I read that. You clearly do not understand the pros and cons of Bayesian analysis—or frequentist analysis.
Wow, that’s a brilliant analysis of what I wrote. According to the standards of this blog, that is, where trash talk is considered brilliant.
I imagine she holds same opinion about robust methods. Every area of statistics seems like voodoo to people who maintain intentional ignorance on the topic.
@Ginny Stoner
My response, against my better judgment – as you appear determined follow up every single response in this thread with your antivaccine fallacies, without ever entertaining the thought that you may be (and almost certainly are) wrong. (And please note how carefully I avoid using words such as ‘incorrigibly stupid’.)
EVERY new vaccine is accompanied by a surge in both antivaccine misinformation and adverse event reports with VAERS and its local counterparts around the world.
One point in case is the HPV vaccine, initially recommended for girls around the age of 13.
In EVERY country where the HPV vaccine was introduced in the late 2000’s, reports of adverse events shot up ten- or even twentyfold in some cases. Also, an endless stream of antivaccine lies and misinformation was spread across the Internet, with HPV vaccination deemed the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), premature ovarian failure (POF) and other fertility disorders, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), several other heart problems, autoimmune disorders, pancreatitis and lots of other conditions. And just like now, there were incompetent doctors and scientists fanning the flames, such as Danish researcher Louise Brinth, who conducted a laughably bad ‘study’ by asking vaccinated girls suffering from one or more suspected side effects to contact her for further investigation – resulting in what is best described as a hodgepodge of selection bias, expectation bias and lots of other biases. And oh, one pharmaceutical sales representative called the introduction of the HPV vaccine “The biggest scandal in medical history”.
As it turned out, the HPV vaccine was completely safe, and ironically, this was determined in large part because so many girls had been put off by all this antivaccine nonsense: here in the Netherlands, about 50% of girls got the vaccine, and the other 50% refused it. So a large (N=70,000) study was carried out, comparing the health of both groups, including pre-vaccination health of the vaccinated group. The outcome was that there were no differences between the two groups AT ALL.
Over the course of several years, the HPV antivaccine nonsense petered out, adverse event reports returned to normal numbers, and the HPV vaccine uptake rose to its current level of about 80%. And oh, cervical cancer numbers are showing a very significant decline already compared to just a decade ago.
By the same token, adverse event reports for Covid vaccines are expected to drop again in the next few years, and ongoing research will consistently fail to find any positive(*) causal relationship between Covid vaccines and mortality or morbidity.
Your antivaccine and conspiracy-laden ‘papers’ lack all scientific rigour, and are best described as a dung beetle feast. If you insist on writing fiction, I suggest choosing an area where making things up is actually appreciated – SciFi / fantasy seems appropriate.
*: There is of course the already established negative causal relationship, with Covid vaccines preventing death and sickness in all age groups.
I understand where you’re coming from–your reliance on name-calling gives away the depth of your indoctrination.
BTW, are you aware there was a dramatic reversal of the birth rate after 2007–from rising to falling–which has continued to present? Are you satisfied this was purely coincidence, following the introduction of the HPV vaccine for girls in 2006? https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2023/2/2/us-births-2007-through-2021
Hmm. Could it be that something happened in 2007? Like financial lenders lending recklessly to borrowers who couldn’t repay, leading to a financial crisis known as the subprime crisis? And that this had knock on effects like a financial meltdown causing thousands of people to lose their jobs and jobhunters to have greater difficulty in finding jobs? And that this would lead people to stop having children until they managed to regain financial stability? or to not risk having children in case they lost their jobs? Or that we have seen several financial crises since?
Naah…
US birth rate is here:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate
It recovered, even though HPV vaccine is still in use.
US birth rate DIDN’T recover Aarno, as my paper clearly showed (based on CDC data)–as of now it is way below the birth rate in the 1990s. I know you love vaccines–apparently enough to brazenly lie to defend them.
@Ginny Stoner
US birth rates started to decline within two years from 13-year-old girls receiving the HPV vaccine for the very first time.
This already means that the HPV vaccine can’t have anything to do with this decline – unless you want to argue that girls age 13-16 are responsible for the majority of children born, AND that a very large proportion of these girls became infertile without anyone noticing.
And oh, when you look at OTHER western countries where the HPV vaccine was introduced (e.g. Germany), you will find no such decline in birth rates.
And oh, numerous studies in numerous countries ALL found no link between HPV vaccines and health problems, including fertility.
So you can stop your nonsense.
Richard Raskar said, “US birth rates started to decline within two years from 13-year-old girls receiving the HPV vaccine for the very first time…” You use this to support your claim that the vaccines therefore couldn’t have been responsible for the decline in birth rate.
The HPV vaccines were given to women of all ages–they were also added to CDC schedule for teen girls in 2006. So your argument fails in that regard.
Further, even if you could say for certain that the HPV vaccines were not the sole cause of the decline in birth rate, doesn’t mean they didn’t contribute to the decline.
@Ginny Stoner OK my bad. Birth rate decline went up 2007 and recovered. It is now less than before 2007
@Ginny Stoner Actually change of birth rate decline went down at 2007. Interesting is it not ? Decline itself has been long term trend, though during COVID birth rate actually increased
Put down the Harveys Bristol Cream, Gindo.
@Ginny Stoner
Please get this into your extremely thick head: there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that ANY vaccine causes ANY serious health problem. And no, HPV vaccines do NOT cause any health problems either.
All you do is point at a particular phenomenon (birth rates declining – after peaking, increased numbers of VAERS reports etcetera), and then immediately jump to the conclusion ‘VaccineDidIt!’, without providing any actual evidence. In effect, you are spreading lies.
So please remove your Web site from the internet, as it does not provide truthful information.
Richard Rasker WTH are you talking about? You falsely accused me of drawing unwarranted conclusions–and in support of your false claim, you ‘quote’ something I never said. That’s called a blatant lie, in case you aren’t familiar with the concept. Looks like you’re yet another libelous prick.
Ginny, you know as much about defamation law as you do about vaccines, and not in the way that you apparently think.
Just what do you imagine this has to do with the comments you are nominally replying to?
I don’t even think that is specifically true. The CDC has published several studies done using VAERS data (after authenticating the reports with actual medical records). But those are posted on the MMWR. They may reference ACIP meetings and decisions. But AFAIK, the ACIP itself has not published any such reports.
Typical of someone’s fuzzy thinking.
Searching for them did turn up some Successes of the CDC monitoring systems
All of which Ginny repeatedly ignores.
WTH are you talking about, squirrel? I don’t ignore any of that on my site. But you know that already, you figured it out when you couldn’t find any examples to back your BS insult.
After looking again at the shit-stain of lunacy that she posts on her site [and some of the comments of the loons who apparently support her: what a hellhole that is] it’s clear to me that her “argument style” is to throw out tons of class C mental fertilizer and hope something sticks.
There’s a lot of problems in that particular science nut case.
You are welcome to prove me wrong, Ginny.
What is the best article on your blog that primarily discusses a study using one of those more robust surveillance systems?
Please restate the block that I quoted in your own words.
Prove WHAT wrong, Squirrel? You never identified a single example of me allegedly ignoring something important–I already reminded you of that, but still, nothing. Now you want me to ‘prove you wrong.’ LOL–what a joke.
BTW, I understand that Squirrelelite is unfortunately intellectually incapable of objectively evaluating the merits of any scientific claim that conflicts with its deeply held beliefs about vaccination. This cognitive limitation interferes with Squirrel’s ability to make sound decisions and render sound advice to others. Prove me wrong.
@Ginny StonerThird thing you have wrong is that you ignore mandatory reporting. It certainly raises nummbers of VAERS reports,
Something is not voodoo just because you do not know it. Wikipedia explains Bayesian interference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Read and learn. There is even a picture for you!
You have been told multiple times that there is now mandatory reporting SAEs, which increase number of reports. Wanna comment ?
At least they acted against McCoullough, although I don’t know if his board certifications have actually been removed.
“Careful, Prof–your indoctrination is showing.” – Ginny Stoner
Speaking of indoctrination, Ginny turns out to have an interesting “spirit animal”, none other than the late Eustace Mullins, white supremacist and virulent anti-Semite. From one of Ginny’s posts on Facebook:
“Eustace Mullins was a pioneer in exposing who really rules the world.”
More on Eustace Mullins: http://adl.org/resources/news/eustace-mullins-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theorist-dies-age-86
Maybe it’s just coincidence that Ginny shares a last name with the notorious racist, convicted Bethel Baptist Church bomber and anti-Semite, J.B. Stoner.
*Mullins, unsurprisingly, was also an antivaxer and author of the book “Murder By Injection”.
@ Dangerous Bacon
My favorite “Kosher” pork. Didn’t know about Ginny’s white supremacy and anti-semitism; but doesn’t surprise me.
She is more dangerous than Igor Chudov and johnlabarge because her website is extremely well-done. Her papers display charts, etc. that are well-done and could influence people who don’t bother to double check that one can create charts/tables that are quite impressive, even if constructed from invalid data. Just as those viewing a debate, at least some, influenced more by presentation than actual facts.
She is a NUT case.
Joel, PhD, MPH is correct ( as usual) :
a well-done website complete with professional looking charts lends an air of legitimacy/ authenticity to even the wildest alt med BS artistry.
I’ve noticed lately that alties I survey have set up studios for their broadcasts that mimic television news studios ( Del, Mike esp) and spend fortunes on websites and personally created social media since they have been tossed off of the standard ones.
A common message amongst these guys is about “going off the grid” ( Null) or “de-centralisation” ( Mikey) which means not accepting standard media or governmental sources or even buying popular products and services including banks, stocks/ mutuals, foods, fashion, entertainment.
They imagine themselves as replacements for necessities: grow your own food, take supplements, live far away from cities, homeschool kids,
don’t watch television or films
UNLESS of course, it’s sanctioned by the chief gurus.
Mike is inaugurating Brighteon University which will show documentary films and instructional videos
and Gary offers a classroom on the air since universities are only for woke folk.
CHD has frequent hour long talk show-like videos and messages from RFK jr as well as films.
Same to you, libelous prick 2. The charts on my site lend “an air of legitimacy/ authenticity” to the site because they ARE legitimate, and show authentic data from official US government sources provided by the CDC and FDA–which are all thoroughly referenced in everything I write.
That removes any possible defense based on ignorance you might pretend to, if by some quirk in the universe you are held accountable in some way for your destructive lies. Or maybe it’s real ignorance, since you are obviously neither paid nor required nor motivated by ethics to read anything you criticize.
Authentic data misinterpreted and misrepresented, yes.🙄
WHAT INVALID DATA?! There is no invalid data, misleading data, deceptive data, or anything of the like on my site, you libelous prick. Just another one of your lies that you can’t back up–your integrity when it comes to anything vax is zip.
What do you imagine the libel to be, dissembling banshee?
A case of lying by omission.
YOU ARE A LIAR, and not by omission. You didn’t even try to support your false and defamatory claim of “lying by omission” with any examples or actual facts. Yet another libelous prick.
@Ginny Stoner For starters, you do not account expected deaths. You should report excess deaths reported to VAERS, age adjusted.
Aarno please provide the CDC’s analysis of VAERS reports that includes its computation of expected and excess deaths. HINT: There is none.
Do you want that age-adjusted, Gindo? :joy:
@Ginny Stoner Google Scholar search “VAERS expected deaths” returns 3980 hits.
From CDC:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344985/
“Reported causes of death in LTCF residents after COVID-19 vaccination are consistent with expected all-cause mortality in this population.”
I have to admit, I laughed out loud at the desperation dripping from your post. Poor Bacon–always at a loss for reason, never at a loss for words. When you can’t find anything better, you attack people I’ve said nice things about. Do you research the personal views of upper management at your local Golden Corral before you pork out there, too?
One notices that you never answer anything, just repeat the claim. This indeed causes desperation
You’re the one who is notorious for repeating comments over and over and then not acknowledging my responses (odds are you will ignore this one as usual). I don’t think you even read my responses at all, you’re just here to waste my time and muddy the waters.
JFC. Buy a mirror, Gindo.
@Ginny Stoner I actually answer you. You should answer my answer. That is conversation, you know. And repeating original claim is not an answer. Try to prove my answer wrong,
So, Ginny takes inspiration from a white supremacist and anti-Semitic loon. I should not be surprised. If you’re an anti-vaxxer, that’s the sort of repulsive people you hang out with. Just look at RFK Jr., already sucking up to Trump, Bannon, Stone and Flynn. Now he’s praising the loathsome Tucker Carlson for his “breathtakingly courageous” stance on COVID vaccine, and claiming Big Pharma ordered his firing from Fox News.
https://www.wonkette.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-tucker-carlson-firingrobert-f-kennedy-jr-tucker-carlson-firing
Disgusting.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “There are no “good statistics” and more and more people are starting to realize it, thanks to nonsense like this comment, that can’t back up their bogus sales pitches.”
We went through a long exchange of comments where I supplied numerous papers, etc.; but you ignored everything. You base your position on VAERS, which Orac has written about and I explained. VAERS is a list of suspects and any serious suspect, that is, serious reported adverse event, is investigated by the CDC. I also explained that there is a much more valid database, The Vaccine Safety Datalink, which you ignored. Since you base your entire webpage of VAERS, it is you who cannot “back up your bogus sales pitches.”
I may decide to put together a list of papers that discuss increases in following during pandemic:
Suicides
Homicides
Traffic Deaths
Drug Overdoses
Deaths, such as cancer, because health care system overwhelmed by COVID patients
But, I’m sure it would NOT affect you. You want to believe vaccines responsible, despite having zero knowledge of how the immune system works and ignoring an exponential number of studies that show vaccinated have had much much lower rates of hospitalization and deaths.
For those interested, my long exchange with Ginny Stoner is at: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/01/24/elon-musk-amplifies-dubious-claims-of-spasms-and-seizures-after-covid-19-vaccines/
And here is just one comment from then:
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
January 25, 2023 at 11:22 am
@ Ginny Stoner
From one paper: “Though excess deaths during the pandemic were primarily due to COVID-19, they also resulted from other causes. For example, actual deaths due to strokes during the pandemic were 7 percent higher than expected, and actual deaths from diabetes were 16 percent higher. Deaths due to external causes were particularly elevated relative to their expected levels, with a 16 percent increase in accident fatalities, a 29 percent increase in fatal drug overdoses, and a 27 percent increase in homicides”. National Bureau of Economic Research (2022 Mar). Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Here is another: “From April 2020 through at least the end of 2021, Americans died from non-Covid causes at an average annual rate 97,000 in excess of previous trends. Hypertension and heart disease deaths combined were elevated 32,000. Diabetes or obesity, drug-induced causes, and alcohol-induced causes were each elevated 12,000 to 15,000 above previous (upward) trends. Drug deaths especially followed an alarming trend, only to significantly exceed it during the pandemic to reach 108,000 for calendar year 2021. Homicide and motor-vehicle fatalities combined were elevated almost 10,000. Various other causes combined to add 18,000. While Covid deaths overwhelmingly afflict senior citizens, absolute numbers of non-Covid excess deaths are similar for each of the 18-44, 45-64, and over-65 age groups.” Casey B. Mulligan & Robert D. Arnott (2022 Jun). Non-Covid Excess Deaths, 2020-21: Collateral Damage of Policy Choices? National Bureau for Economic Research
And on Respectful Insolence’s sister blog:
“For the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that excess deaths between the weeks ending March 7, 2020 and March 5, 2022 totaled 1,105,736, 15 percent more than the 958,864 official death toll from COVID-19 over that period.
That translates to 146,872 excess deaths not officially attributed to COVID-19 during that period. What are the causes of those unaccounted for excess deaths? Some of them are likely uncounted COVID deaths. Especially early on in the pandemic, death certificates often missed the role of COVID in some deaths. Overworked coroners often took families at their word when reporting the cause of death of a family member at home. By one estimate, COVID-19 deaths were underestimated by about 20% in the US.” Steven Novella (2022 Jul 20). Excess in Non-COVIDs: What are the true causes of the excess non-COVID deaths during the pandemic. Science-Based Medicine.
He then goes on to quote from the previous articles above.
I have more papers; but to sum it up:
Many with cancer, heart disease and other illnesses died because hospitals were overflowing with COVID patients and, treatment was delayed.
Drug deaths; e.g., opioids, alcohol, homicides, motor vehicle deaths increased significantly during the pandemic
You write: “What does my understanding of immunology, or of how vaccines work, or my anti-vax views, have to do with the CDC’s mortality data?”
Everything! First, you ignore the overwhelming data from around the world that those vaccinated had lower hospitalizations and deaths. Second, you ignore that vaccines don’t provide 100% protection. Third, you ignore data that those who got both the vaccines and the boosters had the lowest rates of hospitalizations and deaths. Fourth, you ignore that those vaccinated who were hospitalized and died were almost all very old and/or with severe comorbidities; yet, even data on these groups showed lower hospitalizations and deaths for those vaccinated.
Finally, data shows that the current hospitalizations and deaths are higher where percent of population unvaccinated and/or under vaccinated and/or where population ignores using masks, physical distancing, etc. Mass outbreaks in specific churches, packed with parishioners who were unvaccinated and not wearing masks, etc.
But more importantly, even if one could NOT account for every single excess death, you then assume could be vaccine and that is where your IMMENSE IGNORANCE of immunology plays the major role, besides your rigid unscientific bias against vaccines.
I suggest, for a start getting a copy and read: Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Works (6th or 7th Edition)” I realize you won’t because you believe you are right without any understanding of immunology, so why waste your “valuable” time reading an immunology book, especially if you consciously or unconsciously worry it may end up with you having to admit you have been wrong and all the effort you put into your website was a waste of time.
And watch the new documentary: Virulent: The Vaccine Wars. Available to stream until January 28 for only $15. You will learn just how you fit in with all the other ignorant unscientific antivax idiots. You can access it at:
https://watch.showandtell.film/watch/virulentdocumentary
And Orac, myself and others have over and over explained why the increase in VAERS means little. There actually was a huge increase during 2008-9 H1N1; but with increases in antivax websites, with people reading idiots like you, there were more people assuming anything and everything they experienced after getting vaccines were caused by vaccine, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. And some indication that antivaxxers simply posted anonymously such claims, even if they had not experienced any adverse event after vaccinations or, more likely, even if they had NOT received a vaccine.
YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF
Reading Ginny’s comments, or responding to it, is a terrible waste of time.
But well, at least your comments are fact-based and one can learn a lot from them, so thanks for doing us the service.
Neither Joel nor you has explained why huge numbers of deaths occurred in WAVES for the first time in history. No one has, Smug One.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “Neither Joel nor you has explained why huge numbers of deaths occurred in WAVES for the first time in history. No one has, Smug One.”
Ever heard of the 1918 flu pandemic. Well, IDIOT, it came in THREE WAVES. And I’m sure if I get out my books on history of epidemics/pandemics, I can find more; but one is enough to show what an IDIOT you are.
There was a time when the idea of “three waves” was almost considered as a standard feature of these disease outbreaks. But since we’ve had 2 or 3 surges each year since the outbreak that has mostly been discarded.
i read a paper about a significant outbreak of flu in1920(?) which may have been a fourth wave of that same pandemic.
“There was a time when the idea of “three waves” was almost considered as a standard feature of these disease outbreaks.”
Where is this data? The CDC doesn’t appear to have any weekly data prior to 2018–only monthly or yearly. I don’t think it would be possible to identify a “death wave” without either weekly or daily mortality data. Where is it?
Here is one source about how the 2020 wave affected Alaska.
Some other sources show the epidemic as lasting from 1918-1920.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/dena-history-pandemic.htm
There are now mandatory reporting of SAEs. You have never answered to this
Aarno, not only have I addressed ‘mandatory’ reporting in previous posts here in response to your many requests, I’ve addressed it multiple times, and even more times, I’ve ignored your incessant repeated claims that I haven’t addressed it. STOP! STOP! STOP! Please note this issue is addressed on my website in Note 9 at this link, and I’ll quote it below. https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk/#notes
“The CDC tells us the FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean all or even most vaccine deaths are reported, because:
“First, the only deaths most vaccine providers will know about are the rare few that occur during the 15-30 minute monitoring period after the shot.
“Second, there is no penalty for not reporting.
“Third, medical providers don’t receive any compensation for the time required to make VAERS reports.
“Fourth, there are no indications of improvement in the rate of VAERS reporting, while there are indications it’s as low as ever—such as this law firm letter written on behalf of a Physician Assistant at a regional New York hospital.”
Have you considered taking your own advice rather than bitching and shrieking?
@Ginny Stoner And I have answered that, too
1) If only deaths occurred after 15-30 minutes are reported, why VAERS have reports after that:
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/A4A76F9A-9B29-4CF9-B987-F9097A3F4CB7
Reports after 60 days!
Of course, patient will go to doctor after vaccination, and he will report VAERS
2) Reporting a legal requirement, still
3) Call this a regulatory tax. A regula profession must accep Probably there is an assistant doing this for a medical provider,
4) A letter from a law firm is hardly a slam dunk evidence. But perhaps more reports after COVID vaccines is ?
Now answer this.
You haven’t explained the unprecedented “death wave” pattern of deaths. It’s never happened before–but all the things you mentioned–suicides, homicides, overdoses, etc.–have all happened before.
What about infection ? Compare COVID cases with COVID deaths.
Flu season is a well known phenomenon, do you know that?,
Shrieking this over and over doesn’t make it true, Gindo.
Joel,
Here in the UK new medicinal products are subject to “Black Triangle” status which means that they are subject to heightened ADR reporting. In reality this means that every single event reported by a patient to a doctor, chemist, nurse etc etc has to be reported on a yellow card to the MHRA who carry out post marketing surveillance and collate the information. The Black Triangle status remains in place until such times as the safety of the product has been established to the satisfaction of the licensing committee (usually around 2yrs but it can be much longer). At that time reporting is relaxed and subsequently only requires serious ADR’s to be submitted. It follows that (due to the initial Black Triangle status) a significant number of ADR’s will be reported immediately following the launch of a product, none of which evidences causation. It follows that the rate of ADR’s would probably lessen with the down graded status after 2 yrs.
Do you have this system in America or anything similar?
@ Wendy
Doctors are required by law to submit reports to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Reporting System) of any health problems occurring within a set amount of time after a vaccine. The CDC then investigates any “serious adverse events”. In most cases, vaccine not found to be cause; but in some cases, yes and the CDC website lists such serious adverse events; but also explains how rare they are.
And there is NO time limit; e.g., two years. As long as a vaccine is being used, doctors must report.
As for other medical products I would have to do some research how adverse events reported; but I know they are.
And, of course, the important point is that for every rare adverse event, vaccines prevent or, at least reduce the severity of a disease for an exponentially larger number of people.
I see Ginny was Jonesing for an attention fix, and recognizing her agony and desperation, a number of RI regulars exhibited extraordinary compassion in providing her relief. You guys are so sweet! I can’t bring myself to go there, so I guess I’m just an asshole. Mea culpa…
Yes, there’s good reason not to provide oxygen.
The bike ride I went on (instead of drowning in bile at the RFK Jr event) was great, by the way — there’s nothing like keeping up with people who are a little faster than you are. Mean heart rate of about 130 for almost two hours, at age 70!
Excellent! I’m envious, I’ll be 70 in December, and my last time out with the bike I couldn’t make 1 hour of mildly graded terrain w/o getting off and walking.
Who do you think you’re fooling? You won’t address me because you don’t have the wit or wisdom to match me. But your hypocrisy shines through, because you still wanted attention enough to comment about me anyway.
OK, Ginny. I’ll address you for once, but I won’t make it a habit.
Hypocrisy? No. I am indeed here for the attention, and make no bones about it. I need an outlet because I’m old, and pathetically socially isolated. All my close relatives have died, and almost all my old friends have drifted away. I was a college professor until my (mental) health crashed ~ 2010, and I miss the classroom discussions and interactions with colleagues terribly. Why I come here I can’t really explain. I think it’s mainly that I kinda agree with Orac and the regulars in many ways, but in some ways I don’t, which is what I usually write the most about. Orac used to insult me all the time, and I think I still annoy him to some extent. But I like that tension, bringing in a completely different perspective (arts and humanities) from the science folk, finding stuff to actually make arguments about (which keeps my mind from atrophying completely) but where the difference isn’t so great as to descend into the polarization and acrimony that exists elsewhere. Anyway, after I post what I take to be a substantive comment, I’ll check back to see if it got any attention – if anyone made a reply. And quite often, there’s nothing, and I feel sad at that.
Of course, I realize you feel insulted by the notion you are coming here for attention to yourself, rather than attention to the ‘facts’ you believe you have uncovered, and the conclusions you have drawn from them. I shall note, however, that the purpose of my comment was not to single you out for ridicule, but to satirize the whole dynamic between you and the commenters who typically reply to you. it’s meant as a perspective shift that prods some critical re-thinking, rather than landing in some definitive conclusion – because, well, it’s a joke – and goring everybody’s ox is part of that.
There’s a serious take underneath the kidding. Is there not truth in the idea that the people who reply to you are showing you a type of kindness in making those replies, regardless of how unkind the language in those replies may be? Is it not possible that my non-engagement reflects a lack of generosity?
Well, not to totally disregard that question, but one reason I don’t respond to your comments is that I’m not a scientist, and don’t have the knowledge base to counter the specific points you make about vaccines, COVID, yadda, yadda, yadda as do Joel, DB, squirrelelite, et. al. Now, from time to time, you write something so silly on the facts or so devoid of logic that even I can spot the flaws. But, it would be hypocritical for me to come off all superior by trying to rub your nose in those things.
See, I don’t know much science beyond some basic principles of methodology, but what I do know is communication theory, rhetorical strategy, discourse analysis, language philosophy… stuff like that. By training, I look at utterances in a kind of “meta” way. Which is to say, I don’t so much ask “what is Ginny saying in her comment”, as “what is Ginny doing by the act of making the comment.” And I honestly think that what you are doing has virtually nothing to do with what you’re saying. I don’t know if that’s conscious trolling on your part, or completely obscure to your conscious mind, but I’m not going to pretend that I think what you’re saying is worth a response in kind, because i don’t. Which doesn’t leave me much to say about you or too you, so mostly I’m quiet.
Why, you may ask, is what you’re doing not worth a response in kind? Because your repeated references to “civil, rational debate” come off as gaslighting, which is to say they project a kind of absurd alternate reality. Like I said, I’m an ex-academic, and specifically a communication theory guy. If there’s one thing I know, it’s what actual participation in civil, rational debate looks like. And, whether you’re aware of it or not, you’re not doing that; you’re doing the Monty Python argument clinic sketch instead.
+++++
P.S.
Sorry, but I did have to laugh at the idea I lack the wit to match you. I shan’t elaborate any farther than to note that anyone slagging DB for “porking out at Golden Corral” after being tweaked for citing an anti-semite is not showing serious ‘wit’ chops in any sense of the word and the boast just digs the hole deeper. (The nun crack with the emoji was better. though… B-??).
Though it’s not my primary area of expertise, I did teach graphic design and specifically webpage design a couple times, so since the issue of your site design has come up, it’s seems I should offer a ‘professional’ opinion. I’d give the layout and typography an A, but knock down the overall grade to B+ for some of graphics being awkward, and the charts, though pretty, being too obscure and overwhelming to get a Tufte-esque approval. And as other folks have noted before, you really do need a different head shot for the About page. If there’s intention behind the atypical facial expression, it ain’t working. try for better lighting, separation from the wall behind (a bit of overhead/back light) and less distracting competition from the background…
“Is there not truth in the idea that the people who reply to you are showing you a type of kindness in making those replies…?”
Is that your sense of humor? No, “kindness” does not involve degradation, insults, attempts to blackwash my character, and especially it doesn’t involve false and defamatory accusations that my data is misleading and even intended to deceive.
Like you, I’m older–old enough to remember the days when people debating any issue would never talk to others the way some of the regulars do on this blog. Heck, it would never even happen today in person, at a conference, for example–I doubt you’d ever see some nitwit with a bunch of letters after his name screaming “IDIOT!”, especially at an older woman. I guess people are less “kind” in person.
We have much different opinions on this matter. Using “Pale Spring Morning” (#B0BB96) as a background for prose distracts from readability at best and is an invitation to motion sickness at worst.
Sans versus serif is a matter of taste, but whatever this is (the top of the page is Flamenco) is too dense for the line width, and the excess leading doesn’t help. The tittles are so high that it looks like they might escape orbit.
I suppose it’s a blessing that this distracts from Ginny’s prose stylings.
@ Narad
Well, I do respect your opinion here, so I’ll try to explain the one I offered. First, I’ll guess the notorious variability in web rendering between different devices, screens, OSes, clients, etc. figures here. The other day I looked at Ginny’s link with Firefox on a 15″ MacBook Pro. Just now I looked again with Firefox on an iPhone 8, and see most of what you mentioned: especially the line width, leading, and ‘floating’ titles. All those things looked much better on the MBP. Maybe similar variability figures in the bg color as well (?) as it’s a fine line for me between kinda olive shades that work, and ones that look like puke.
I was just taking an overall visual impression. And I thought Ginny’s choices were both ‘clean’ and ‘personal’, which strike me as how she wants to represent herself. That there’s a font and a background color you don’t see on other sites, I thought shows some individuality and works as ‘branding’. The font adds just a touch of artiness vs. a more generic sans serif, and it’s not too heavy. More restrained than I’d expect, maybe? On the MBP the leading was just enough extra to add a bit of lightness as well. For a non-neutral bg, given the serious subject matter, you’d want something on the cool side, but not very far…
Perhaps I was struck by the fact these choices were neither what I would have expected nor what I would gave done. When I have made pages for the web, I’ve either gone very anonymous Roger Black Robin Williams generic or more ‘weird’ for humor or avant-garde-ish purposes.
FWIW, my opinion on Ginny’s artwork would differ from the compliments offered elsewhere in the thread, but any kind of ‘take’ I might make wouldn’t be simple one way or another, and I’m not up for plumbing the depths involved at the moment.
I’m also using a 15″ MBP, but one from 2009. I don’t use the phone for pretty much any content-bearing reading.
I used the eyedropper from a Firefox build for Snow Leopard; I’d be surprised if straightforward color specifications were discrepant between basically competent displays.
Fair enough, although I think design has less to do with the way she represents herself than the way that she presents herself.
It’s ultimately unimportant, not least because I don’t expect to be burning out my optic nerve with repeat visits.
My typographical experience derives from time spent as a manuscript editor who also followed proofs through whites. It was mainly L[a]TeX (MJD buffer) and fixing bad automated breaks, aside from one time when my boss sent out a broadcast message about having changed a proper script typeface to Knuth’s abysmal calligraphic design.
I sent my reply (which also threw in Michael Spivak’s scathing opinion) before I found out that the boss was very proud of this change, and that launched an ultimately futile visit through the specimen books.
I suppose that I’ve fallen into the Yum-or-Ick ideation that I’ve criticized before, although with some rationalization. At the end of the day, I simply find the design to supervene (in the AI sense) upon the attempted content.
Thanks for your reply. I’m not all that sure about the adequacy of mine here, but I didn’t want to leave it hanging.
sadmar, I wonder if you ever comment over on Wonkette? You might enjoy the community there; many of the regulars have had, or are having, mental health struggles, and the commentariate is very supportive. The site and comments are also often hilariously funny.
Your ‘nym rings a bell, and I obvoiusly know I’ve seen you here, but I also have a sense that you may have shown up over there from time to time. In any case, I have enjoyed your work here.
I have not participated at Wonkette, but it sounds worth checking out. Thanks. I’ve appreciated some of Anne Marie Cox’s commentary, though I know she’s long gone from there.
‘sadmar’ is a nym I created just for RI and SBM at a point where I had more reasons for anonymity, based on scrambling letters from an old in-joke I had with a college-years buddy. I have used it since on a couple other sites, most notably and currently in WaPo comment threads. I may also have used it in my brief and now long past forays into Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
Thanks for the thumbs up, and back atcha.
“But I like that tension, bringing in a completely different perspective (arts and humanities) from the science folk, finding stuff to actually make arguments about”
We all have our hobby horses and comment for our own reasons.
Ginny needs an award! Perhaps that would help satisfy her craving for attention.
I don’t remember if I mentioned it previously, but right now a number of YouTubers who debunk flat Earthers are organizing this year’s Top Left award. This is for the flerf who is at the peak of the curve – that first point of inflection (top left) of a plot of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ginny would be a real contender for a Top Left award around these parts. She could proudly include Winner RITLA ’23 on each of the “papers” she publishes on her website.
short video about this scandal
Florida man fabricated data
Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “You haven’t explained the unprecedented “death wave” pattern of deaths. It’s never happened before–but all the things you mentioned–suicides, homicides, overdoses, etc.–have all happened before.”
So, now you accept that the excess deaths during current pandemic were NOT from vaccines; but all the things you admit have happened before. And I already gave one example of “death wave” pattern of deaths; that is, the 1918 flu pandemic which came in three waves. Well, here are a few more:
Multiple waves of plague swept across Eurasia between the 1330s and 1360s in Lydia McMullan et al. (2020 Apr 29). How humans have reacted to pandemics through history – a visual guide. The Guardian.
Ankur Mutreja et al. (2011 Aug 24). Evidence for multiple waves of global transmission within the seventh cholera pandemic. Nature. ; 477(7365): 462–465.
And there were multiple waves of cholera during the 19th Century.
Anna Mummert et al (2013 Apr 23). A Perspective on Multiple Waves of Influenza Pandemics. PLOS One
Giacomo Cacciapaglia et al. (2021 Mar 23). Multiwave pandemic dynamics explained: how to tame the next wave of infectious diseases. http://www.nature.com Scientific Reports
It took me about five minute search in Google to find the above.
YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF
Over and over and over again, you act as if any opinion you spew is just as valuable as actual data and evidence. I blame your mother.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “Over and over and over again, you act as if any opinion you spew is just as valuable as actual data and evidence. I blame your mother.”
Wow! Talk about the defense mechanism of projection. Except for your continuous absolutely stupid use of VAERS, I gave articles that gave numbers, nope not daily or weekly; but valid data and you just keep giving your ignorant devoid of science stupid opinion.
And “blaming my mother.” Actually, my mother encouraged me to read, my parents gave me an weekly allowance for doing various chores; e.g., mowing the lawn, which allowed me to go to a movie and buy one book per week. I bought history books, biographies, and science books, starting at a very young age. And my parents always attended PTA meetings, read to me, so did my grandparents, etc.
So, yep, to some extend I blame my parents and grandparents for encouraging me to read and learn. And if I gave an opinion based on some book or article I read, they asked how I was certain it was right and encouraged me to try to find books/article with other points of view.
YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF
But I am interested in seeing any actual numbers if you have them in some kind of written document, as to weekly death numbers during the Spanish Flu or any other pandemic. Currently the CDC only has weekly numbers (necessary to identify a surge or wave of deaths) for 2018 forward. So by all means bring on the data for those other pandemics you claim killed in waves.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “Who do you think you’re fooling? You won’t address me because you don’t have the wit or wisdom to match me. But your hypocrisy shines through, because you still wanted attention enough to comment about me anyway.”
You are absolutely right that no one has the wit or wisdom to match you because just about everyone from Orac on have a level of wit and wisdom that is so far above an IDIOT like you that, of course, they aren’t a match for you, if match means equal.
You live in a fantasy world basically ignoring anything and everything that people post in comments that show just how wrong and STUPID you are.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “Neither Joel nor you has explained why huge numbers of deaths occurred in WAVES for the first time in history. No one has, Smug One.”
Your comment displays your typical absolute certainty. However, it really makes me wonder just how stupid, delusional, and illiterate you are. I had American history in high school and again as undergraduate. Both courses discussed the 1918 flu pandemic. Even some newspaper articles during the current pandemic mentioned the 1918 flu pandemic. And if you ever read any books or articles about infectious diseases, etc. you would have come across 1918 flu pandemic. In addition typical of you making an absolute certainty statement and not even bothering to do a Google search. As I mentioned above, it took me all of five minutes to find pandemic waves for flu, plague, and cholera and I’m sure if I devoted more time I would find more.
So, just one example of how stupid and delusional you are, that is, making absolute certain statements without any knowledge of history, immunology, etc and not even bothering to double check using, for instance, Google, before posting.
JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF
Where is this historical mortality data you keep mentioning? Link me–I’m interested. Even today, the CDC only has weekly mortality data going back to 2018. I doubt you could identify “death waves” only with monthly or yearly data, but if that’s all you have, link it.
Why weekly data is needed to prove Death Waves ?Plague ones ar recorded by historians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague#History
Well…I think the case of Ladapo is a goid example of how real mischief differs from unfounded conspiracy theories. The mischief makers tend to let the cat out of the bag quickly and insist it was just catching mice rather than scratching up the furniture. Almost nobody admits to being a villain.
Number Wang asked (rhetorically?): “Why would you engage in scientific debate about an issue of science, when you aren’t a scientist who studied the field in question”, and Ginny replied, “Because it is NOT necessary to be ‘a scientist to understand the principles of science. Because knowledge can be acquired in many ways, with or without formal degrees.”
Score one rhetorical point for Ginny. A common feature of discourse celebrating science are claims of “anyone can do it’, that unlike other scholarly fields that offer arcane knowledge embodied in the unique gifts of geniuses (philosophy, literary criticism) science is an open egalitarian system thanks to the universality of the scientific method. Now, that may well be bullsh!t, and one may indeed some formal advanced study and professional expertise in a scientific field to have anything worthwhile to say about it – (I’d observe that the language used in science journals is often opaque to non-professionals) – but that’s not the PR version. To give the flacks for science their due, that claim may be overstated, but it’s not totally wrong, either. (Let us not forget that the origins of science-as-we-now–know-it were in societies composed of amateurs, and it was many decades before the fields became professionalized.)
The thing is, this whole ‘Ginny’s not qualified to debate this’ take misidentifies the problem she presents. Her lack of qualifications and experience have nothing to do with her obstinance, that ‘talking to a brick wall’ experience. You can get that from people who do have advanced degrees and hold apparently relevant professional posts. OTOH, (have any of y’all taught undergrads?), when you have dialog with ‘normal’ people who lack qualifications and experience, they listen to what you say, and adjust. That is, they learn. They may still disagree or be unconvinced, but they actually engage. When that doesn’t happen (which is, alas a lot out in the world in general on all kinds of things, not just science), we’re on the terrain of psychological mechanisms, ego defences, denial, projection displacement… knowledge of self maybe, but not knowledge of the field. If that knowledge matters at all, it just comes down to knowing just enough to put on an elaborated display of contrariness, instead of just flipping the bird, but that’s pretty much all it is behind the mask.
@ Sadmar
Good explanation. As I’ve suggested to Ginny several times, she should read, for instance, the basics of immunology; e.g., an excellent inexpensive short book: Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Work”. A few hours reading and she would understand the basics of how vaccines work. As you point out, one doesn’t have to have taken courses or have a degree in some subjects; but can learn the basics on ones own, something Ginny clearly hasn’t done and refuses to do. And my calling her stupid is NOT whatever level of innate intelligence she has; but her close-mindedness, refusal to even consider she could be wrong. In addition, her psyche indicates delusions of expertise. Oh well. But as I pointed out, her website is extremely well-done, artistic graphs/tables, etc. and it is unnerving that anyone who visits it could be influenced, not bothering to double-check. One can construct graphs/tables, etc. well-done but with bogus data.
My memory isn’t as good as it once was; but I remember a book by ??? who hadn’t even attended college that became a classic. If it comes to me I will post it. I own the book; but have over 3,500, so lost among them. Read it over 50 years ago.
Ginny is good at art. Maybe she should stick to that. Ginny is entertaining at least in anything else. I just wonder, is anybody who contributes here have any qualifications in psychology and/or psychiatry?. I am not qualified but think she is delusional or simply crackers. Keep it up Ginn babe, I like a laugh.
Yes, I have a masters in social and personality psychology, which qualifies me to diagnose you as another libelous prick.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “I have a masters in social and personality psychology, which qualifies me to diagnose you as another libelous prick.”
First, anyone who actually understands psychology knows one can’t make a diagnosis based on a few comments on a blog. Second, “libelous prick” isn’t included as term/diagnosis in any psychology book. So, once again you bring up irrelevant facts about yourself, just proving what a stupidly dishonest ignorant lowlife you are.
By the way, in Sweden PhDs are purely research programs and Diplomas in Clinical Psychology are totally separate except for a few overlapping courses. I have both, including one year supervised internship at psychiatric clinic at Gothenburg’s major hospital, Sahlgrenska, so way outrank you; but I abstain from making any professional diagnoses of you; but just as a human being I see you as extremely disturbed. There is a difference; but you are too stupid to understand.
Oh, no! You mean I’ve made 3 diagnoses of libelous prickitude here, and I wasn’t actually qualified to do that? Is this going to threaten my license to diagnose libelous pricks, or metaphorically slap them around with words? I hope not because there’s a heckuva lot of them all over the interwebs.
And I love you too, ginny babe. Seriously I do like your art, you are good at that. Anything else you are shit at and you don’t listen, you ignore and you repeat yourself, you frustrate everyone. I too do NOT have any qualifications medical wise, but I can see the patterns clearly that Covid came in waves, people died, lots of them. Then another wave came, people died, again lots of them. Then came the vaccines, then another wave, people died BUT not so many EXCEPT those not vaccinated. Some of those need not have died but did due the charlatans spewing nonsense so that they made the wrong decision about the vaccine. People like Ladapo, RFK etc al are despicable, their lies kill. You are very much like them, you are looking for anything that conforms to your pre determined bias, you are interested in the truth, your ego must be fed. People on here have bent over backwards to correct you, you are impossible, a lost cause. You are a piece of shit.
Did I say you were good at art?
“Goldwater rule”
I have qualifications but don’t think that we should diagnose anyone we don’t know or observe closely ( or who doesn’t ask us to dx them).
It’s important to differentiate delusion from just plain poor thinking. Delusion would imply that the person has little choice, such as a seriously mentally ill person who experiences breaks with reality. Sometimes people just have bad ideas that are persistent and serve some function such as enhancing self-esteem, braggadocio or making them acceptable to others.
People without degrees can learn science ( as sadmar notes) BUT usually, they need to consult standard texts or take courses relevant to their area of interest. More technical areas such as what Orac deals with may require background study ( notice that he often supplies the prerequisites or links in his posts). Many alt med/ anti-vaxxers instead DO NOT consult experts/ consensus even for the basics or take courses BUT know better to start and dispute more learned people. My question to them might be, ” Can you tell me if what you believe is currently taught at an accredited university?” No one answers.
Plus, alties frequently dismiss Wikipedia, medical, educational, media or governmental sources as being wrong, outdated or compromised financially. Thus, it’s them against the world. Psychologists who study personality have found that anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theory believers are more likely to have narcissistic and/ or paranoid qualities as well as NOT accepting hierarchies of expertise on particular issues. Thus a simple anti-vax parent’s ideas trump all epidemiologists, physicians and psychologists about the link between vaccines and autism. Alt med followers prescribe extreme, odd diets and supplements.
We see lots of that around RI.
“Plus, alties frequently dismiss Wikipedia, medical, educational, media or governmental sources as being wrong, outdated or compromised financially. Thus, it’s them against the world.”
Wikipedia has a well-known bias against quackery, so quacks and their followers feel compelled to dismiss it. There is also a tendency among the less critically-thinking impaired to scoff at Wikipedia cites, no matter how well-written they are (and such exist).* It’s much easier to go “Wikipedia? Har har har!” than it is to address quality references detailed in numerous of its articles.
*there _are_ a lot of less than impeccable Wikipedia articles, but these tend to be in non-science areas.
@ sadmar:
Agreed.
I have to add that your input is much appreciated and invaluable. I especially enjoyed your suggestions to palindrom about countering RFK jr’s stans ( those cranks and wankers).
The loons I survey hire IT people to broadcast their BS and manage social media ( even when they get kicked off it and need to create their own!). Big money goes into communications and ‘being seen’ as well as lawsuits and attempts at legislating their fantasies. Alties hire writers and advert pros to finetune their despicable messages to appeal to the vulnerable- I venture it’s especially for women.
I’m glad you’re on “our side”.
@ Sadmar
Just remembered name of accomplished author who didn’t have even a high school education and spent years as a vagabond and worked as a longshoreman, Eric Hoffer. His most influential and well-read book was “The True Believer.”
It is weird as actually my memory is quite good; but when I tried to remember things, sometimes can’t; but then awhile later when doing something else, pops up. I guess as one ages, loses freeways to memory; but retains slower city streets. LOL
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “Where is this historical mortality data you keep mentioning? Link me–I’m interested. Even today, the CDC only has weekly mortality data going back to 2018. I doubt you could identify “death waves” only with monthly or yearly data, but if that’s all you have, link it.”
Go to Exhibit 1: Deaths, registration states, 1918–19 gives monthly stats for influenza and pneumonia and we, not you, understand that most deaths from 1918 flu pandemic were from secondary opportunistic bacterial pneumonias. And notice the Exhibit gives Sources: 1918 Mortality Statistics with link.
E. Thomas Ewing (2021 Apr 1). Measuring Mortality In The Pandemics Of 1918–19 And 2020–21. Health Affairs.
Explain why one can’t identify “death waves” with only monthly data? If one has higher rates in months at certain time of year, then lower rates, then rates rise for a month or more, how can that not be valuable data?
GINNY, you just keep grasping at extremely stupid straws. First, you claimed absolutely no other time in history waves of an infectious disease occurred, so I gave articles on, so, then you changed from “waves”, clear increases over some period of time, then decreases, then increases, to having to be weekly data.
And you bring up my mother? Quite a while ago Orac suggested I restrain from using certain descriptors of you, though I know they were and continue to be valid and objective. YOU ARE A FRIGGIN MORONIC ASSHOLE.
I looked around for the data you mentioned, didn’t see it, but really if it is only monthly, it is not going to be able to identify “surges” for the reasons below, although it might be useful.
The paper I posted showed why you can’t identify surges with monthly data–you can’t really see the Bell Curve pattern, because the surge could occur over multiple or partial months, and months are slightly different lengths. Deaths gradually increase in winter and gradually decrease in summer–that’s been a consistent pattern for at least 2 decades. Using monthly data, this forms a scalloped pattern of ups and downs. Viewed weekly, there is just a slow gradual decline and increase–no dramatic ups and downs–except in a surge. Compare 2019 in the first chart (weekly) and the 2nd chart (monthly). https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2023/4/22/the-new-death-wave-phenomenon-that-no-one-is-talking-about
See how I did that all without calling you a “MORON” or (shudder) an “ASSHOLE”? Is this some kind of disability for you, like Turret’s or something? Or are you just really, really, incredibly rude, with no sense of ordinary decorum? Or do you get off by getting people to reply to your legit questions, while ignoring the fact you called them horrendous names?
—
It’s really just breathtaking sometimes.
Is “Turret’s” where you get stuck manning a 50 cal on a tank for life? I thought you had done clinical psychology degree?
People like you give yourselves away to anyone with even basic credentials and never realize you’re doing it.
Obviously,coarser data is more jumpy, Change per week is less than change month.
You cannot say that there is a new per week pattern, if you do not have old per week data, as obviously.
Ginny Stoner: “When you can’t find anything better, you attack people I’ve said nice things about.”
Care to explain why you’re compelled to say “nice things” on Facebook about Eustace Mulline, a notorious white supremacist, anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, while linking to a video that rails at the “judeocracy” for being behind society’s problems? Do you think that helps convince people to believe in your antivaccine ravings?
Still waiting for your take on J.B. Stoner, with whom you share (coincidentally, no doubt) a last name? Is ol’ Jesse still regarded as the Stoner paterfamilias?
Want you to meet the family, known as The Stoner Boys
That’s Grand Pappy Jesse, the head of the Klan,
He blows up black churches, but he’s gentle as a lamb.
Eustace Mullins, that is.
Wow–you really are incapable of fashioning a logical argument based on the evidence I presented, aren’t you? Or else you’re too lazy to read anything. Your desperate attempts to blackwash me by association are pathetic.
I suppose you keep a notebook of all the personal views of your mail carrier, your local Whataburger management, your grocer, etc., so you can decide who to patronize. Then you name yourself after unclean meat, like some sick Jew joke.
Liking a antisemitic nut does not improe your credibility,and reveals your thought patterns. So it is quite relevant.
YOU are demanding credibility. The Whataburger guy might have SS lightning bolts tattooed onto his head and I wouldn’t care less as long as he handed me my green chile double. You are betraying parts of your psyche that are potentially very worrisome keeping company with an anti-Semite. Again, don’t you have some “psychology degree?”
“green chile double”
Sounds nice but I’m slightly worried about something as nonspecific as ‘American cheese’. Or is that a case of “a Kraft cheese slice by any other name would taste as good”?.
No, I’m NOT demanding credibility–I’m demanding accountability from the creatures who have repeatedly falsely claimed here that I’ve presented false or misleading data. My credibility re that data is self-evident to anyone who critically examines it.
Hilariously, Ms. Stoner is not actually wrong about this. Her credibility re: data is self-evident to anyone with scientific training in the relevant areas, just not in the way she thinks it is.😂
I believe YOU believe your data are sound.
That has nothing to do with credibility. You ARE demanding credibility. You want to be taken as seriously as an MD PhD with decades of research experience (For starters.) YOU have ZERO relevant education, training; or, critically, EXPERIENCE.
Here’s a free lesson: “scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim”
MedicalYeti, the idea of you treating medical patients is truly terrifying.
Yawn. I’m sure you think the same thing about me. Guess what? I don’t care! And, I’m sure, neither does MedicalYeti. Nor should we.
Remember though, Ginny spends “dozens of hours” concocting her Potemkin village idiot “research” for a website no sane human bothers with.
She could start a second career in architecture, ladling dung onto straw huts and marketing them as “bespoke tiny homes”.
Well…I have had a 98%+ patient satisfaction rating for many years Ginny. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yeti said, “I have had a 98%+ patient satisfaction rating for many years…”
All they see is the mask. They don’t see the real you, with all your biases and blindnesses and ignorances unmasked, safely hidden behind your screen name.
The asshurt is strong with this one. She’s mad she can’t call my employer and get me “fired.” Got news for ya Ginny-they’d tell you to go fuck yourself. You can’t get on Google and put bs reviews about me, harass my family, etc. SAD. SICK. SOUL.
Medical Yeti I forgot to respond to your latest false and defamatory allegations–that I would, if I could, “get on Google and put bs reviews about me, harass my family, etc. SAD SICK SOUL.”
First, I have never and would never “harass” anyone or their family–in fact, if either of us has approached “harassment” of the other here, it is you, with your BS attempts to blackwash my character. Second, I have never and would never write a BS review about anyone or any doctor–in fact, I have given several a pass when I shouldn’t have. That’s common, BTW, so don’t get too comfortable.
PS Yeti: I said your patients only see that mask–that means you don’t talk to your patients the way you’ve talked to me here–you feign respect for their questions and concerns. My guess is, the deeper they probe vaccination, the more your mask slips. It angers you that someone who is not a doctor could question your deep faith in vaccination, so when you’re anonymous online, you just let that pent-up anger rip.
@ Ginny Stoner
So, in your reply to Dangerous Bacon you write: “I suppose you keep a notebook of all the personal views of . . .”
So, you admit your personal views include White Supremacy and Anti-Semitism and you are too STUPID to understand that such SICK views undermine any credibility on your part. And you end with “like some sick Jew joke.”
So, not only do you base your antivax position on VAERS, which, yep, the CDC does list its data; but also explains its limitations; but you admit you hold views that decent open-minded humans consider disgusting.
And by the way, many police departments keep records of number of suspects interrogated. Courts keep records of case found guilty and innocent, etc. So, do you believe that if police interrogate a number of suspects that ALL are guilty? As I’ve written over and over, CDC investigates all VAERS reports on serious adverse events and has found most NOT caused by vaccine; but a few were and it lists them on its website.
So, you disgusting White supremacists, Anti-Semite, science denier, antivaxxer, thank you for admitting your personal views.
You know NOTHING about my views–you’re just making up whatever BS you think will make me look bad. Just STOP.
You’ve actually made your views quite clear in this comments section. You are antivax to the core.
That’s true. I stand corrected in that regard.
For a little extra frosting on the rancid Ginny Stoner Cake, she’s a Lunar Landing Hoax promoter, who also thinks Covid-19 represents “genocide”.*
Given all these offensive and bizarre beliefs, in addition to the many times her antivax ravings have been refuted here, and it’s amazing she still thinks she has a shred of credibility left.
*more Facebook stylings.
Wow. She’s never met a conspiracy theory she didn’t like. It would not surprise me if she thinks the Jewish bankers are alien lizard people who founded the Illuminati and Freemasons to depopulate the world, but people in remote corners of the world who have never had a vaccine, taken a non-herbal medicine, been exposed to a chemtrail, eaten a GMO, or believed in the germ theory of disease have been thwarting Their ™ efforts. And surely the alien lizard people know the earth is flat, since they’re the only ones who have ever been off it.
Right: psychologists have found that if you believe in one CT, you’re more likely to believe in others.
I actually took a quick look at her website, especially the articles about the “death wave” of April 2020 ( primarily those of 9 & 12 April) which occurred in NY/ NJ. She offers several explanations, crossing them out and highlighting #5 “..environmental toxins.. electromagnetic radiation, or a chemical spill or intentional release..” Somewhere else she speculates that there might have been an accident involving ” fluoride” or possibly ” .. a poison dumped over NY, some of it drifted in the wind to NJ…”
But it wasn’t vaccines or a virus.
Did chemicals “drift in the wind” from Italy to airports around NY or from Asia into California too? Cities have lots of WiFi so OBVIOUSLY…
Other hints of CTs about school shootings.
I knew I missed a few conspiracy theories in there. The attribution of the first wave of covid to EMR (which I left out) and/or poisoning (possibly from fluoride, which I also left out) fits her depopulation-agenda beliefs and germ theory denialism that she’s admitted to on this thread. I also left out faked school shootings, but you found that; there seems to not be an antivaxer here who doesn’t believe in WEF conspiracy theories (surely that’s the Jewish bankers almost admitting who they are, right?); 9/11 Trutherism (which I stopped believing after watching Zeitgeist part 2 with its Jewish banker conspiracy theories); global warming as a hoax (at least 1 antivaxer here believes that, and it was my covid-antivax sister’s first conspiracy theory I knew about); the Mayan calendar and cosmic catastrophes; and I don’t know of she’s heard of the ones about Tesla inventing perpetual motion machines that the Jewish bankers confiscated, the favorite of that conspiracy nut I debated in a bar once.
“Somewhere else she speculates that there might have been an accident involving ” fluoride” or possibly ” .. a poison dumped over NY, some of it drifted in the wind to NJ…””
It should be mentioned how unlikely it is that an airborne “poison” dumped over New York would drift to New Jersey. As New Yorkers know from sad experience, prevailing winds habitually carry industrial and other effluents from northern New Jersey to New York.
Ginny can’t even get wind direction right.
“…she’s a Lunar Landing Hoax promoter…”
I did not know that! How could I have missed it?
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse…
You seem to be perfectly capyof making yourself look bad all by yourself…
Capable…
@Ginny
I’m sorry you didn’t find my joke funny – it probably wasn’t. However, it was also clearly not joking about Covid in any way – it was taking the piss out you for posting that no-one had explained your ‘Death Waves’ which I found comically absurd in the context of this blog – if not universally.
I note somewhere you were talking about ‘Bayesian Voodoo’. In other circumstances I may have had something to say about that but I can’t take you seriously enough to be bothered.
However, in your post you lift a quote from ‘author Roy Goldman’ to set the scene for characterizing Bayesian analysis as ‘malleable’. Personally I’ve never heard of the guy, but you do, correctly of course, provide a link as reference, so I followed it expecting to find some level of crank at the other end.
As it happens, Mr Goldman is an author but more importantly was a top actuary. His paper is called ‘Bayes’ Gift’ and in it he describes some of the many very useful and important (and practical – he’s an actuary!) applications of Bayesian Analysis that frequentists could not do. Quite a few of them medical;
He concludes
“Over the last 150 years actuaries have been inventing or adapting the latest techniques to make better judgments based on the data at hand. We should be proud of the role actuaries have played in promoting the use of Bayesian thinking. Let us continue to stay on the cutting edge in order to better serve all our stakeholders.”
No ‘voodoo’ or ‘malleability’ concerns here – maybe you should have read the whole thing before cherry picking a paragraph to support a point of view that he most emphatically doesn’t hold.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “You know NOTHING about my views–you’re just making up whatever BS you think will make me look bad. Just STOP.”
When Dangerous Bacon commented on your other positions; e.g., White Supremacist, Anti-Semite, you didn’t even try to deny them, just wrote: “I suppose you keep a notebook of all the personal views of . . . So, basically admitting they are your personal views; but not what you posted, at least on this website. And Dangerous Bacon supported his comments.
Do you know who Tucker Carlson is? As a commentator on Fox News he supported Trump; but his e-mails revealed his contempt for Trump. Courts have convicted people who publicly made certain claims; but e-mails or other more private info proved their criminal dishonest activities. NOPE, IDIOT, as Orac wrote above about your antivax position, my posts and others just make clear what your views are and what type of despicable stupid excuse for a human being you are.
And for the umpteenth time, your website is based on VAERS, a database of suspects that the CDC investigates and has found a minuscule number caused by vaccines and explains these HONESTLY on its website. You refuse to accept this, just proof of your ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY, based on your total ignorance of how our immune systems work and your dishonest failure to attempt to learn and also to Google international studies on vaccines; both criticisms and showing their successes.
KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOUR SELF YOU DESPICABLE IDIOT
Well, went and lurked on her Facebook feed. She’s a serial contrarian. Deny this, deny that, moon landings, Appolo 13, climate change, you name it. But mostly puts up tons of crappie anti vax vomit. Well Ginny babe YOU ARE A COMPLETE UTTER KOOKBABLER NUTTER. Your sick twisted mind is the kind of thing that has killed people, people like those featured on sorry anti vaxxer dot com, who believed this crap, got covid and died, and its all there in their own words. For that you should suck shit and crawl back under the rock you slithered out of.
Trigger…….1, 2 , 3.
<
blockquote>Well, went and lurked on her Facebook feed.<\blockquote>
Did you wash yourself afterwards?
I have seen Ginny’s work numerous times both here and elsewhere. Early on it was obvious she was a conspiracy theorists and not just about vaccines. She used to, perhaps still does, have an alter ego named NWO Reporter. This told me all I really needed to know about her. The new world order conspiracy has deep anti-semitic roots. There is no surprise that Ginny writes nice things about anti-semites.
Note that she also keeps company with Jon Rappoport at her “satire” site with that name.
I also just noticed that she has a Youtube channel – she was advocating for cervical cancer six years ago.
@ Vicintheshed:
Yes. Anti-vaxxers/ alt med folk spread misinformation that is harmful to the unwary. Of course, most contrarians who comment here don’t have thousands of followers but their BS is passed around and reinforces existing crap creating a network of stupidity: a dangerous alternative reality which is highly attractive to certain personalities and simultaneously disparages realistic science on the net.
I survey several anti-vax/ alt med luminaries who do have thousands of followers who hang upon their every mendacious word. They masquerade as scientists, experts, freedom advocates, women’s rights advocates, protectors of minorities, defenders of families and the environment who misled their enthralled followers to do things that are harmful such as not getting vaccinated or following PH measures during a pandemic, eschewing SB care for serious illness and mental illness and disregarding SB dietary guidelines.
Usually, the perpetrators benefit financially and through the admiration and ego enhancements their followers dispense. Most of these people had little or no real background in their areas of faux expertise ( I leave out physicians who should know better and who are quite another story).
Followers experience ego boosts from adopting their mentors’ views and lording it over less enlightened souls as we frequently observe here.
Some of those I survey boast of a million followers while others fudge their numbers ( as they do with data) to appear much more popular than they are.
@ Vicintheshed
Yep, right on. If Ginny, John LaBarge, Igor Chudov, etc didn’t have various followers, I could care less; but their absolute ignorance of immunology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases and current stats on deaths from COVID clearly showing areas with lowest vaccinations have highest deaths, they are dangerous, not as a few individuals; but as a potentially growing number of antivaxxers. And studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of antivaxxers also either outright reject science in general because they rely on their own insane individual intuition or just don’t understand science.
However, Ginny is in a league of her own with positions/beliefs that are both horrendous and far to the right. And, compared with many, her artistic skills on her webpage can have an influence on people who lack critical thinking skills; e.g., mainly Republicans.
We have had four pandemics in 20 years, 2002 SARS, 2008/9 H1N1, 2014 MERS, and now COVID. And most experts believe that given current world situation; e.g., lots of migrants, dense populations, moving into tropical jungles, etc means evermore pandemics at closer intervals and odds are one could be far more transmissible and deadly and this nation will NOT be prepared for it and some areas will be totally vulnerable with deaths in the MILLIONS. Most likes an influenza strain; e.g., H7N9, H5N1, second likely another corona virus.
The reality is, if you were that good at winning debates, you wouldn’t have to rely heavily on ridicule and derision. When the facts aren’t on your side (as they never are with vaccination), personal attacks are the most persuasive tool you have. They shouldn’t persuade from the standpoint of reason and logic, but of course they do, as you well know, because we’re human.
I rarely sink to that level, even when attacks are flung at me heavily and repeatedly by creatures like you. I don’t have to, because when it comes to vaccination, the facts are overwhelmingly on my side. Besides, I can come up with a lot wittier insults than screaming “MORON” and “IDIOT” like a spoiled 10-year-old.
I bet you only comment on pro-vax/pro-pharma blogs like this one, where you’ll have a built-in cheering section, and can get away with ignoring the hardest questions, which happens frequently here.
Ginny: “I rarely sink to that level (of personal attacks)”
Could’ve fooled us. In addition to Ginny’s various nastinesses in this thread (like referring to opponents as “pricks”), she’s elsewhere described our esteemed host as a “Cointel Whore” and “a secret agent in the Rothschild global intelligence community”.
That kind of foaming at the mouth won’ t get you a promotion in the Tone Police.
“the Rothschild global intelligence community”
Now with Space Lasers!
Why am I not surprised Ginny approvingly cites and white nationalist and anti-Semite, and herself uses anti-Semitic language?
Ugh. Should be “cites a white supremacist”.
My kingdom for an edit button.
Ginny, if there’s one thing that you should really bang into your cranium, it’s that nobody is “debating” you, and correctly so, not least because you’re totally incapable of the task.
I do not see you debating. Repeating things is not debating
Or there is just plain lying… https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1648748890789920769?s=46
That’s a cute non sequitur, LaBilge. But really, Senger? A Georgia tax lawyer is your go-to?
Are you saying he doctored the video of the CDC director? What’s your contention?
That your choice of
informationattempts to “score points” is severely colored by your choice of ponds to skim.After all, you yourself added exactly nothing in this case, which is simply an attempt to revivify a trope that was already stupid when it first saw the light of day.
So the video is legit then, but it’s a trope how? She asserted without evidence that the vaccines prevent transmission and then walked it back because ‘science has evolved’? Seems like it’s the latter that’s the trope to me.
The antivax feeding frenzy over preventing transmission is a fantastically stupid trope, so I can see why you like it. But go ahead if you’d like to describe what a prospective study would look like. I’ll wait.
That’s because you apparently don’t understand what the word means.
Reuters has a fact check:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-walensky-clips-idUSL1N2PX1IZ
Delta variant appeared between the clips, so protection against transmission was reduced.
Reuters huh? Who’s on their board?
A two-word search query was too much effort? Here, nitwit.
Could you comment the actual claim ? Why it is wrong ?
LaBilge can’t be bothered to clean up the mess left from his throwing crap at the wall.
The Reuter’s article is blatantly deceptive–it says “The Delta Variant” is responsible for Walensky’s about face re the COVID19 vaccines allegedly preventing transmission of disease. That’s complete BS, because there was NEVER any evidence of any kind that the vaccines prevented transmission of disease–they were never even tested for that before they were released on the public. Pfizer has acknowledged this. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/11/16/is-flu-contagious
Since preventing the transmission of disease is the only legit justification for coercing or forcing vaccination, there are naturally a lot of people who would really like this nugget of evil intent to disappear.
@Ginny Stoner There were follow up studies about preventing transmission
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174352100520X
Adjusted VE were high for infection (93%), hospitalization (93%) and death (91%).
Clinical trial could not estimate transmission,because there were too few COVID cases.
This is the part where you come up with a vaccine that was, Gindo.
It seems my hopes were dashed ☹
Anyway, I always tried to exemplify in myself the behavior I expected from others. By and large, I think it worked. So let’s see what example someone sets.
Side note: I had given two suggestions/challenges of what she could do to “prove me wrong”. So far she has ignored both of them.
On April 28, she got a response from Joel which allowed her to say
I can’t imagine making a feature film about having a dinner conversation with this person.
I’m impressed with the amount of time you spent on me–trying to degrade me further, I suppose. I like how you omitted all the insults I’ve endured from creatures on this blog like you–makes me look so much worse–like I just pulled something like “sick Jew joke” out of the air, for example, instead of it being in response to false allegations of ‘antisemitism’.
If only you’d spend that much time objectively considering the real things I write on my blog, you might learn something, instead of patting yourself on the back for your imagined talent for degrading others.
It seems you missed the point of my little intro.
Whatever.
As it happens, the first of those little quotes was from the comment at the very top of this comments thread. You do like to put your best foot forward.
What you choose to respond to and what you choose NOT to respond to gives insight into your thinking.
For instance, I made a statement about something I recalled reading about the 1918 influenza pandemic. My recollection of reading that is just as valid a bit of data as many of the VAERS reports you continually analyze. But you asked for data to back it up. I did a quick search and found an article on the 100th anniversary of one part of that outbreak. You did not respond to that.
Also there is a quiet message in where I posted this last comment and how I phrased it.
I made two suggestions for you. You have not responded to either of them.
You asked for “genius examples” of my work, but didn’t respond when I linked to a couple.
I remember at least one time when I “objectively considered” what you wrote on your blog. It was difficult to find the exact sources you linked to, partly because you showed a graphic instead of quoting the text and did not provide a source link. But my judgment was that the source did not support your claim. IIRC, you did not reply to that. Or if you did reply, there were not enough specifics to merit a reconsideration.
I think “the amount of time you spent on me” is quite sufficient for this particular blog post.
Linking to your previous comments on someone else’s blog constitutes “genius examples” of your ‘work’? LOL. And yet you don’t even bother to read my blog posts–which are generally the result of dozens of hours of research and writing. I’m beginning to understand your ‘thinking’ better. Has anyone ever told you that you remind them of the Church Lady on SNL? You just ooze smug self-righteousness.
I’ve read some of your blog posts. If you took dozens of hours to produce one of them you really ought to find a better use of your time, because you just aren’t very good at this.🙄
Actually, when I made my comment on 4/29 at 1:03 am, there was an implied promise. I suggest you read it again for content.
After you respond to those suggestions, you are welcome to continue the discussion by providing a peer-reviewed study that you believe contradicts my deeply held beliefs.
I am continually trying to learn and back when I actually did some hands-on research, I was even surprised by my own data. But I don’t pretend to be a scientific researcher. And the last time I checked, the biggest piece of “research” I ever did was classified and locked in a safe to protect the information.
I await your reply.
Wow, Squirrelelite, you are incredibly full of yourself. I have dozens of articles on my website that I’ve spent hundreds of hours researching and writing, but you expect me to craft a special article just about YOU. Why? So you can prove to me how bright you are?
I’d suggest that instead of making demands of me in order to validate yourself, you instead pick an appropriate article of mine to critically refute with evidence (not insults), thereby demonstrating your ability to engage in objective logic and reason.
Wrt Ginny,
Somehow, I missed her comment of May 3 / 3:57 pm
She stated
Things are so much easier when people who choose to reply (it is their option after all) just make a direct answer to a comment. After enough rounds of diversion with nitpicking questions and side assertions, it can be difficult to keep track of exactly what is being talked about. So let’s do a little review.
To be honest, I did refer to her as the “clueless VAERS lady.” That’s because all of her analyses that she keeps asking us to read on her blog and the claims she makes here seem to be based on doing statistical analysis of bulk VAERS data. And as most of us are well aware:
In other words, those data are not a valid basis for statistical analysis.
So I inserted a quote that said
And she replied
And I asked
I also used a common teaching technique when I asked
But she replied
Actually I referred to myself, not a thing. But in any case, I was asking for an answer to that first question, which she ignored.
Later I did a little retrospective of some of her comments and she replied
And I noted
And after a couple side comments she stated
So, I referred to the VSD as one of the more robust surveillance systems.
I asked her to pick an article on her blog that was based on one of those, not just on VAERS.
And instead of that, she has asked me to dig through her blog and try to find one or pick some other article to refute. I’m not interested in “refuting” analyses that are not based on statistically valid data.
So I continue to await a direct response to my question.
In the absence of that, my future replies will be a bit more terse.
….
In conclusion, I will second a comment by Narad.
Squirrelelite, I don’t know where you got the idea that you are in charge of the conversation. Telling me to do this or address that to suit your debate strategy won’t work, even if you say it with “please.”
Just present the evidence you think is important to the point you want to make. If you’re at a loss at to where to look for an article on my blog, I’ve posted a couple already in this comment section. Draft a response to one of them if you want to impress, instead of trying to direct the dialogue.
PS Squirrelelite: you listed a bunch of characteristics of VAERS that you claim I ignore on my blog. I don’t ignore them. There are numerous disclaimers on my site in text, notes and graphics, about relevant limitation of VAERS data.
Kindly specify what specifically on my blog you think is misleading about VAERS, so I can address your concerns.
I tend to write to satisfy my internal quality standards.
i hope what i write helps to inform others.
That is why, when I put the extra work into it and dig into the literature, I use a certain style where I link to the source and try to give a “money quote” so the reader doesn’t have to plow through to see what I am getting at or if the source supports it.
I leave it to others to judge those results.
But I dug into the blogs from earlier this year for a couple examples where I think I did well.
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/01/25/economist-mark-skidmore-publishes-antivax-propaganda-disguised-as-a-survey/#comment-472086
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/02/27/brownstone-flack-gabrielle-bauer-admits-that-gbd-was-wrong/#comment-472961
Your contributions are always informative and – possibly- instructive to Orac’s contrarians – NOT that they’d ever admit it.
We all have different styles which hopefully will affect different portions of the audience- sceptic, on-the-fence and doubters.
Thanks, Denise. I always appreciate your comments as well.
I try to keep the lurkers in mind when I write my comments, especially when the discussion gets to a certain point.
I find it nice that my ‘nym occasionally gets mentioned in passing as one of the better commenters.
One antivax troll even gave me a positive comment on another blog!
But I mainly write to satisfy my internal drive. Thoughts bubble up and I want to articulate and save them and perhaps share them as well.
And over the years I have developed a small group of fellow commenters that I have never met IRL, but think it would be fun to do so.
@ Ginny Stoner
You write: “When the facts aren’t on your side (as they never are with vaccination), personal attacks are the most persuasive tool you have. ”
You really are stupidly dishonest. Orac, myself, and multiple others have clearly explained, even given links, to numerous studies showing the benefits of vaccines and as I’ve pointed out over and over, you don’t even understand the most elementary basics of immunology. So, yep, when you continue to ignore the aforementioned, calling you a MORON, is a legitimate description of what you are. And focusing on “personal attacks” while NOT addressing any of the scientific arguments we have made is just proof of your inability to understand and deal with science.
You defend you unscientific antivax bias by referring to your own papers, so you are right because you are right. Circular reasoning. Orac, myself, and others link to papers, valid websites, etc which is what people who understand science do. Science is based on objective evidence, evidence that multiple researches can understand.
And, of course, your entire website is built on VAERS and you ignore everything that Orac, myself, and others have done to explain VAERS limitations.
KEEP MAKING FOOL OF YOURSELF.
It’s so cute that you think this blog is a good place to get an objective education about vaccines. LOL. But for sure I’d recommend it to anyone who’s simply seeking reinforcement of their deeply held belief that vaccines are “safe and effective and save lives.” You can’t even explain basic facts such as why deaths from measles declined 98% before the vaccine even existed. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2019/3/11/lies-damn-lies-and-truncated-graphs
LOL. That old antivax trope substituting deaths for case numbers to imply a vaccine doesn’t work? Funny, but I wrote about that chestnut over 13 years ago. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2010/03/29/the-intellectual-dishonesty-of-the-vacci/
So you’re claiming the vaccine prevented mild cases of measles. So what? That means they lost out on potential protection from certain cancers in adulthood, in exchange for avoiding a bit of temporary itching and discomfort. Because you know that if deaths were down 98%, then serious measles cases were also down 98%.
Nope. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2019/11/05/immune-amnesia-measles/
There were 400-500 deaths annually from measles just in the U.S. shortly before the vaccine came into use, with many thousands more serious cases and long-term injuries.
Doesn’t sound so “mild”.
“Before the introduction of the measles vaccine, over two million deaths occurred annually.”
As Orac said: “As an example of the impact on humoral immunity, one study of 77 unvaccinated children found that 11 to 73 percent of the measured array of antibodies to other pathogens was lost following natural measles infection [39]. In another report, genetic sequencing of B cells harvested from patients before and after measles virus infection suggested incomplete restoration of the naive B cell pool; depletion of B memory cells was also identified”
“SSPE is a fatal, progressive degenerative disease of the central nervous system that usually occurs 7 to 10 years after natural measles virus infection”
“The incidence of SSPE increases when vaccination rates fall”
(Note this is independent of any protection from a natural case)
“Ocular complications of measles include keratitis (a common cause of blindness) and corneal ulceration”
“Cardiac complications of measles include myocarditis and pericarditis.”
I thought you were the people all up in arms about myocarditis from the covid vaccine?
“About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability. For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.”
Why are you so in love with disabling kids or killing them and telling them it’s nothing but a little rash?
BTW, what the hell “cancer” does a case supposedly protect someone from?
MedicalYeti, if you aren’t even aware of the research showing that childhood febrile diseases decrease the risk of certain cancers in adulthood, then you don’t know enough about vaccination to be promoting it.
@Ginny Stoner You did not cite anything.of course. Perhaps you mean this:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70617-5_12
“Occasional so-called spontaneous tumor regressions have occurred during natural measles infections, but common tumors do not express SLAM, the wild-type MV receptor, and are therefore not susceptible to the virus.”
But:
“Serendipitously, attenuated vaccine strains of measles virus have adapted to use CD46, a regulator of complement activation that is expressed in higher abundance on human tumor cells than on their nontransformed counterparts.For this reason, attenuated measles viruses are potent and selective oncolytic agents showing impressive antitumor activity in mouse xenograft models”
It is measles vaccine that has powerful antitumor activity, at least in mouse models.
@ johnlabarge
You write: “Or there is just plain lying… https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1648748890789920769?s=46”
So, as usual, you base your position on what one person writes on Facebook or Twitter, etc and assume they are right because they say what you choose to believe. One can find on Facebook, Twitter, various websites such nutcases as those who believe QAnon, etc.
And you ignore anyone and everyone who posts comments that tear your comments to shreds, showing your ignorance of immunology, science, etc
KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.
No. I’m basing it on the CDC lying about the vaccine’s ability to stop transmission. That’s just a convenient to play clip. There are others.
You, of course, could cite CDC saying tha,
[…] are more dangerous than COVID comes to mind. Surprise! The paper went through multiple iterations personally overseen by Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo and clearly designed to make the vaccines look worse than the disease.) They shouldn’t have […]
This will be interesting: https://nypost.com/2023/04/30/texas-ag-ken-paxtons-covid-vaccine-investigation-could-stick-it-to-big-pharma-execs/
Paxton’s frivolous “investigation” will cost Texas taxpayers and help raise the price of vaccines and drugs.
But he’ll get attention, which should come in handy during a future run for higher office.
Perhaps Paxton could find elusive Jordon Walker
Just as an add-on, Susan Oliver has another excellent video up now debunking some more of John Campbell’s misinformation.
https://youtu.be/fvbY0nS4ymw
Steve Kirsch has sunk to many depths as an antivaxer and super-spreader of Covid misinformation. His latest effort may not be the deepest plunge but it’s in the running.
He’s proudly unveiled an open letter (e-mail actually) to the widow of Grant Wahl, whose death was caused by an aortic aneurysm (falsely attributed to Covid vaccination by antivaxers). He wants her to answer his (Just Asking) questions – in the spirit of open dialogue, doncha know.
Harrassing a grieving widow is reminiscent of the classy antivaxers who’ve taken to social media to attack the parents of children who died of preventable infectious diseases.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/health/anti-vax-harassment-eprise/index.html
So what has destroyed these people’s brain centers for empathy and decency?
5G? GMOs? Emanations from vinyl tile flooring? Or an inborn set of genetic mutations? At the very least, they should volunteer for MRIs to look for telltale patterns. Better yet, donate their brains for postmortem studies to resolve the question.