Self-mod Censorship wall of shame (e_o_l_e_o)

[nutildah]

Avoiding serious challenges (like a published study by the U.S. military showing, with statically relevance, that flu vax contributes to coronavirus infection) by deleting with the self-moderation power is hardly 'serious discussion.'  Just as clearly it is censorship.

That's not what the study concludes. The study concludes this:

Examining 6120 people with respiratory viruses other than influenza and pan-negative results who submitted a respiratory specimen for laboratory testing to the DoDGRS team, those who received an influenza vaccine had a decreased risk of having other respiratory pathogens identified compared to the unvaccinated group.

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Further research is necessary to help character virus interference and validate or refute the validity of the test-negative design for influenza vaccine effectiveness.

You're taking one component of the study results and running away with it to come to conclusions which buttress your pre-existing beliefs. That's why oeleo considered your reply to be "not serious discussion."

[tvbcof]

Avoiding serious challenges (like a published study by the U.S. military showing, with statically relevance, that flu vax contributes to coronavirus infection) by deleting with the self-moderation power is hardly 'serious discussion.'  Just as clearly it is censorship.

That's not what the study concludes. The study concludes this:

Examining 6120 people with respiratory viruses other than influenza and pan-negative results who submitted a respiratory specimen for laboratory testing to the DoDGRS team, those who received an influenza vaccine had a decreased risk of having other respiratory pathogens identified compared to the unvaccinated group.

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Further research is necessary to help character virus interference and validate or refute the validity of the test-negative design for influenza vaccine effectiveness.

You're taking one component of the study results and running away with it to come to conclusions which buttress your pre-existing beliefs. That's why oeleo considered your reply to be "not serious discussion."

Even you should be able to see that the paragraphs above are a dance around the finding that the flu vaccine was associated with a higher rate of coronavirus infection.  They did this by leaving the finding out of the paragraph and talking about other things like how great the flu vax is (as required.)

And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'.  After researching these things for a while, 'further research necessary' usually translates to 'do a study designed to not find this pesky association.'

It should be noted that at the time of the data, nobody (except possibly a few people within the biowarfare development groups) had heard of SARS-cov-II' so 'coronavirus' indicated just a minor cold.  Even if people were more susceptible to it because of the flu vaccine, the 'benefits outweighed the costs'.  They allude to this principle time and time again, and especially in the paragraph that you cherry-picked.

Fast-forward to early 2020 with practically the whole world in lockdown because of a 'killer coronavirus.'  You have to be pretty dense to think that the cost-benefit hasn't changed.

For completeness in this post [emphasis mine]:

Conclusions

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.

[nutildah]

You're missing the entire point of the study's findings, completely steamrolling over its words so you can continue pressing the same belief you had before you ever heard of the coronavirus. That's what makes you a conspiratard.

For completeness in this post [emphasis mine]:

Conclusions

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.

"Associated with" does NOT mean "contributes to." You badly want to mean it the same thing because then you don't have to learn anything or adjust your rigid belief system.

This is a pointless discussion. Obviously you'll never give an inch here in terms of attempting to be reasonable, so I'm out.

[tvbcof]

You're missing the entire point of the study's findings, completely steamrolling over its words so you can continue pressing the same belief you had before you ever heard of the coronavirus. That's what makes you a conspiratard.

For completeness in this post [emphasis mine]:

Conclusions

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.

"Associated with" does NOT mean "contributes to." You badly want to mean it the same thing because then you don't have to learn anything or adjust your rigid belief system.

Well, it obviously doesn't mean 'protection' as evidenced by the context.  So what does it mean, Mr. 'Former Medical Specialist'?

This is a pointless discussion. Obviously you'll never give an inch here in terms of attempting to be reasonable, so I'm out.

Most people don't want to tangle with me twice.  (self-identified Doctor) Oileo sure as hell didn't!

Here's a tip for you to use going forward:  Try to be right.  It makes life a lot easier.

Now poor put-upon Dr(?) Oileo is boo-hoo about people not using 'his' space 'appropriately' and has locked his thread.

Perhaps he does not have time to waste deleting trash left by idiots whose ignorance is exceeded only by their rudeness?

Real doctors are busy.  Especially now.  And in that context, your peremptory demand that he spend time dealing with your narcissistic tantrum is peculiarly repulsive.  You are seriously criticizing a doctor for locking a thread to prevent trolling during a time of, um, a shortage of doctors pretty much everywhere!?  WTF?

I never even bothered to look at the quack's posting history until now.  Jesus Lorda Mercy!  Spends all day hyping some 'privacy' coin mixer and 'helping' people make 'secure wallets.'

One thing they guy ain't is a 'busy doctor' at least if you mean busy practicing medicine.  Maybe we found cypherdoc after all?  He used to spend all day on bitcointalk while supposedly doing eye surgery.

There is no way I would trust a 'privacy mixer' product pumped by someone of his ilk.

Another bitch move on your part.

FYI, Dr. o_e_l_e_o also has high technical competence in Bitcoin privacy matters.

I didn't bother to evaluate they guy's technical competence on comp-sci issues because I am simply interested in other things at the moment, so I won't shit-talk it.  I will say that they guy seems shady as hell as far as I am concerned.

I can't help but notice that you (a sock puppet of his?  Part of the same intel group nest?) are pumping the same 'coin mixer' out of the 'goodness of your heart' alone.  Hmmmm...

[o_e_l_e_o]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my own rule by replying again here, for two reasons. Firstly, in among all the made up nonsense and childish insults you have actually presented something that approaches evidence (although it is not evidence of what you think it is, as we will discuss below), and secondly, although they are more than capable of doing so, it feels a little like I'm leaving nutildah and nullius to fight my battles for me.

A couple of points to clear up first before we examine this paper.

I care not about your thoughts or feelings regarding my medical qualifications or occupation. You can believe what you like about me - it matters to me not at all. Given my aforementioned propensity for privacy, I'm not about to dox myself by uploading a copy of my graduation certificate or medical license to satisfy the whims of some conspiracy nut.

Further, even if this study showed what you think it does (it doesn't), I would likely still have deleted it from my thread because vaccination is entirely is off-topic, as would be my reply below. I can only assume you didn't read my opening post because otherwise you would have realized that and wouldn't have posted so much nonsense in my thread.


Now, on to the paper. You have done what the vast majority of quacks do when "examining" scientific literature - start with a preconceived notion, search for a quotable sentence or paragraph which supposedly supports that notion, and not actually read the paper from which the quote has come from.

First of all, some limitations of the study:

People with both influenza and non-influenza positive specimens were excluded from the analysis. In other words, anyone who had both flu and coronavirus was excluded, whereas anyone who didn't have the flu but did have coronavirus was included. The latter group is predominantly comprised of individuals who were vaccinated, skewing the results against this group.

Individuals who gave multiple specimens were excluded from the analysis. This is essentially the same error that we just discussed. Unvaccinated individuals who had both flu and coronavirus were excluded from the analysis, while vaccinated individuals who did not have flu but did have coronavirus were included, again skewing the results further.

As we have all seen over the last few weeks, not all coronaviruses are the same. The behavior of one cannot be generalized to the behavior of them all.

Next, the results.

Additionally, the laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination.

Emphasis mine. The laboratory data. This includes individuals who were colonized with coronavirus or metapneumovirus, but were not infected or unwell. Colonization with a wide variety of viruses and bacteria is both exceedingly widespread and entirely normal.

The minute differences among the vaccine effectiveness of all three control groups does not support the virus interference concept.

No virus interference.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted models did not show significant evidence of virus interference

No virus interference.

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination

No virus interference.

So, to summarize:
Absolutely no evidence of virus interference.
Skewed data by removing a bunch of non-vaccinated individuals who had coronavirus.
Even then, coronavirus colonization (and not necessarily infection) was associated with (but not caused by) vaccination.

And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'.  After researching these things for a while, 'further research necessary' usually translates to 'do a study designed to not find this pesky association.'

This is one of my favorite quotes ever, because it perfectly sums up the disconnect between actual science and pseudoscience quacks.

Science - let's do further research and see if we can contradict our findings, because only then can we absolutely sure of our findings.
Pseudoscience - we've found a single quote which backs up our pre-conceived notions, let's not only stop looking but ignore everything to the contrary.

[BADecker]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my own rule by replying again here, for two reasons. Firstly, in among all the made up nonsense and childish insults you have actually presented something that approaches evidence (although it is not evidence of what you think it is, as we will discuss below), and secondly, although they are more than capable of doing so, it feels a little like I'm leaving nutildah and nullius to fight my battles for me.

A couple of points to clear up first before we examine this paper.

I care not about your thoughts or feelings regarding my medical qualifications or occupation. You can believe what you like about me - it matters to me not at all. Given my aforementioned propensity for privacy, I'm not about to dox myself by uploading a copy of my graduation certificate or medical license to satisfy the whims of some conspiracy nut.

Further, even if this study showed what you think it does (it doesn't), I would likely still have deleted it from my thread because vaccination is entirely is off-topic, as would be my reply below. I can only assume you didn't read my opening post because otherwise you would have realized that and wouldn't have posted so much nonsense in my thread.


Now, on to the paper. You have done what the vast majority of quacks do when "examining" scientific literature - start with a preconceived notion, search for a quotable sentence or paragraph which supposedly supports that notion, and not actually read the paper from which the quote has come from.

First of all, some limitations of the study:

People with both influenza and non-influenza positive specimens were excluded from the analysis. In other words, anyone who had both flu and coronavirus was excluded, whereas anyone who didn't have the flu but did have coronavirus was included. The latter group is predominantly comprised of individuals who were vaccinated, skewing the results against this group.

Individuals who gave multiple specimens were excluded from the analysis. This is essentially the same error that we just discussed. Unvaccinated individuals who had both flu and coronavirus were excluded from the analysis, while vaccinated individuals who did not have flu but did have coronavirus were included, again skewing the results further.

As we have all seen over the last few weeks, not all coronaviruses are the same. The behavior of one cannot be generalized to the behavior of them all.

Next, the results.

Additionally, the laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination.

Emphasis mine. The laboratory data. This includes individuals who were colonized with coronavirus or metapneumovirus, but were not infected or unwell. Colonization with a wide variety of viruses and bacteria is both exceedingly widespread and entirely normal.

The minute differences among the vaccine effectiveness of all three control groups does not support the virus interference concept.

No virus interference.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted models did not show significant evidence of virus interference

No virus interference.

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination

No virus interference.

So, to summarize:
Absolutely no evidence of virus interference.
Skewed data by removing a bunch of non-vaccinated individuals who had coronavirus.
Even then, coronavirus colonization (and not necessarily infection) was associated with (but not caused by) vaccination.

And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'.  After researching these things for a while, 'further research necessary' usually translates to 'do a study designed to not find this pesky association.'

This is one of my favorite quotes ever, because it perfectly sums up the disconnect between actual science and pseudoscience quacks.

Science - let's do further research and see if we can contradict our findings, because only then can we absolutely sure of our findings.
Pseudoscience - we've found a single quote which backs up our pre-conceived notions, let's not only stop looking but ignore everything to the contrary.

The point isn't what the studies say. The point is who funded them, and, if appropriate, who funded the funders.

Did you catch that?

[tvbcof]

...
I care not about your thoughts or feelings regarding my medical qualifications or occupation. You can believe what you like about me - it matters to me not at all. Given my aforementioned propensity for privacy, I'm not about to dox myself by uploading a copy of my graduation certificate or medical license to satisfy the whims of some conspiracy nut.

Might I suggest that if you are going to keep your credentials secret you do the same for your vocation?  Why don't you just let your content speak for itself?

I actually don't know the precise details of the ethical rules governing medical doctors.  They are significantly more strict and formalized then most professions, no?  I hardly ever see anonymous people running around on random message boards claiming to be medical doctor who are not scammers.  In fact I don't know that I ever have.  What is the policy of the bodies governing licenced medical doctors here?

Now, on to the paper. You have done what the vast majority of quacks do when "examining" scientific literature - start with a preconceived notion, search for a quotable sentence or paragraph which supposedly supports that notion, and not actually read the paper from which the quote has come from.

First of all, some limitations of the study:

People with both influenza and non-influenza positive specimens were excluded from the analysis. In other words, anyone who had both flu and coronavirus was excluded, whereas anyone who didn't have the flu but did have coronavirus was included. The latter group is predominantly comprised of individuals who were vaccinated, skewing the results against this group.

Individuals who gave multiple specimens were excluded from the analysis. This is essentially the same error that we just discussed. Unvaccinated individuals who had both flu and coronavirus were excluded from the analysis, while vaccinated individuals who did not have flu but did have coronavirus were included, again skewing the results further.

I'm not going to defend the study.  It seemed a bit shoddy to me, and also a bit desperate to conclude that flu vax was the bomb (as they almost always are.)

I read it again fairly carefully and I saw no specific mention of 'coronavirus' being treated any differently in sample selection than any of the other non-influenza viruses.  Nor did the n-values for coronavirus or metapneumovirus seem out of range for the other non-influenza infections examined.  Frankly the above sounds a little like something you wishfully pulled out of your a...oh ya...be polite.  Anyway, maybe you could point me to where coronaviruse was identified as being specially (and invalidly) treated in sample selction or analysis?

As we have all seen over the last few weeks, not all coronaviruses are the same. The behavior of one cannot be generalized to the behavior of them all.

SARS-cov-2 is (supposed to be) super deadly it seems extra important to take all steps to mitigate it.

Lest it be forgotten, my interest in this study was in the unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd.  The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people?  One (of many) things is that they get the flu vaccine at a much higher rate.  I never said anything remotely like 'it has to be the flu vaccine'.  I mearly took interest in a study which showed some interesting things about the relationship between the flu vaccine, coronavirus, and other non-influenza viruses.  It was the violent reaction to any questions here, and the censorship, which raised my eyebrows.

Next, the results.

Additionally, the laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination.

Emphasis mine. The laboratory data. This includes individuals who were colonized with coronavirus or metapneumovirus, but were not infected or unwell. Colonization with a wide variety of viruses and bacteria is both exceedingly widespread and entirely normal.

Seems like you are at best saying that the study sucked due to invalid sample selection (which I would tend to agree with for other reasons.)  I would say that you need to squint pretty hard at the words "the laboratory data" to even make that assertion.

And again, please show me where in the study it singles out coronavirus and metapneumonavirus for special and invalid treatement.  If it's in one of the footnotes (which I did not study in detail) where you find your case, which one?

The minute differences among the vaccine effectiveness of all three control groups does not support the virus interference concept.

No virus interference.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted models did not show significant evidence of virus interference

No virus interference.

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination

No virus interference.

Those 'no virus interference' statements seem from my read to be only valid when 'averaged' across the entire pan set.  Specific differences between coronavirus and most of the rest seem to have been observed and noted.

So, to summarize:
Absolutely no evidence of virus interference.
Skewed data by removing a bunch of non-vaccinated individuals who had coronavirus.
Even then, coronavirus colonization (and not necessarily infection) was associated with (but not caused by) vaccination.

You have a different definition of 'absolutely no' than I do.  But surely you'll be happy to have further research on the fairly important topic.  I'll keep my eyes open for you.

And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'.  After researching these things for a while, 'further research necessary' usually translates to 'do a study designed to not find this pesky association.'

This is one of my favorite quotes ever, because it perfectly sums up the disconnect between actual science and pseudoscience quacks.

Science - let's do further research and see if we can contradict our findings, because only then can we absolutely sure of our findings.
Pseudoscience - we've found a single quote which backs up our pre-conceived notions, let's not only stop looking but ignore everything to the contrary.

Glad you got a kick out of it, but I mentioned it because almost all of the funded research is done by those who desperately want vaccines for all (or more accurately, the funding that goes along with this result.)  They are, in my observation, very prone to scientific fraud of various types.  That's why I am so skeptical of most of these studies.

[o_e_l_e_o]

What is the policy of the bodies governing licenced medical doctors here?

There is no jurisdiction in the world I am aware of which legislates against a physician identifying himself or herself as a physician, online or otherwise.

I'm not going to defend the study.  It seemed a bit shoddy to me

Then why did you bring it up?

I read it again fairly carefully and I saw no specific mention of 'coronavirus' being treated any differently in sample selection than any of the other non-influenza viruses.

I never said it was. I think their entire analysis (of all the viruses mentioned) is fundamentally flawed by excluding all non-vaccinated participants who developed more than one infection.

SARS-cov-2 is (supposed to be) super deadly it seems extra important to take all steps to mitigate it.

It seems we have found some common ground.

Lest it be forgotten, my interest in this study was in the unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd.  The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people?  One (of many) things is that they get the flu vaccine at a much higher rate.

The season influenza vaccine is also given to all children under 5 in many jurisdictions around the world, and yet we are seeing very few infections and (as far as I am aware) no deaths in this age group.

[tvbcof]

What is the policy of the bodies governing licenced medical doctors here?

There is no jurisdiction in the world I am aware of which legislates against a physician identifying himself or herself as a physician, online or otherwise.

The question is whether a licensed doctor can operate anonymously on-line using licensure as a claim to authority and without a disclaimer about the applicability of the advice given.  One would think that most medical associations would frown on their members doing so, but I guess I am wrong about that, eh? 

I'm not going to defend the study.  It seemed a bit shoddy to me

Then why did you bring it up?

Because in spite of bending over backward to 'conclude' that everyone should take their flu shots, they apperently found it impractical to hide the _significant_ data showing that the vaccine has an unusual interaction with coronavirus specifically.  Again, that was back when 'coronavirus' was nothing more than a sniffle so it WAS a rational conclusion from the data they presented that everyone should get their flu vax.  Things change.

I read it again fairly carefully and I saw no specific mention of 'coronavirus' being treated any differently in sample selection than any of the other non-influenza viruses.

I never said it was. I think their entire analysis (of all the viruses mentioned) is fundamentally flawed by excluding all non-vaccinated participants who developed more than one infection.

Actually that's about all you said.  As such, I asked you where in the study did you get the idea that the study was flawed specific to coronavirus.  Apparently you didn't.  Apparently it sounded like a good way to bolster a pre-concieved idea (e.g., that all vaccines are always good for everybody and everything.)  It would have worked better if there was a specific defect in the paper which you could point to upon which your critique could rest.

In case you missed it, it's the _differential_ between coronavirus and the myriad of other non-influenza viruses which is important when trying to gauge the cost-benefit of taking the flu vaccine when SARS-cov-2 coronavirus is about.  If there are no identifiable sample selection defects which impact coronavirus specifically then this differential would seem to exist as a valid concern irrespective or what other flaws the study might contain.

SARS-cov-2 is (supposed to be) super deadly it seems extra important to take all steps to mitigate it.

It seems we have found some common ground.

Lest it be forgotten, my interest in this study was in the unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd.  The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people?  One (of many) things is that they get the flu vaccine at a much higher rate.

The season influenza vaccine is also given to all children under 5 in many jurisdictions around the world, and yet we are seeing very few infections and (as far as I am aware) no deaths in this age group.

One of the critiques I had of this study (or I should say, reasons to perform follow-up studies) was that the sample group was associated with active duty military personal.  This group has a ton of problems one of them being that they are handy to experiment on (as happened to me when I was in.)  One very interesting little tid-bit I took from the study was this:

...  The same study did find a significant association between parainfluenza and influenza vaccination, but the association was in opposite directions when comparing children and adults. ...

The differences between an immune system when it is in 'training stage' vs. 'trained stage' is generally of interest to me.  Anyway, I do agree with the idea that 'more study is needed'.  Hopefully some entities who are not reliant on corp/gov for funding will pick up the ball here though they have only a tiny fraction of the funding of their counterparts.

[franky1]

unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd.  The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people?

common sense its not like corona picks a person based on age
common sense its that the older a person is the less healthy they are going to be naturally

for instance heart issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50
for instance diabetes issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50
for instance COPD issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50

even just ware and tear of 40years of working from 20-60 puts a strain on the body of 60+

i know you will say not every 50+ person is unfit. but in the same instance not everyone over 50 is dying. only 15% of over 80 are

corona will hit everyone
90% will just have the sniffles(wont get reported/tested)
over 9% maybe more severe(will get reported/tested)
under 1% will die/need intensive care and resuscitation

again its not that corona is specifically targetting certain people. everyone will get it
as for the pattern between having severe symptoms vs patients who had other vaccinations previous years
this again is not targetting of people who had a vaccine.. but vaccine given to vulnerable people as standard

so its the commonality of a vulnerable health underlying condition. not specifically a age target and not a vaccine target
again third time
old people are naturally and normally have more preexisting conditions do to normal and natural ware and tear




you also previously talked about corona vs ibuprofen(NSAID)

corona does not burn/inflame the lungs itself. its actually your bodies natural reaction to spotting a virus that then inflames the lungs to try destroying the virus. yep inflammation is your bodies immune system doing what it should.
however taking ibuprofen suppresses and reduces your bodies natural inflaming ability, which then triggers your body to do more extreme things. such as trying to flood your lungs with more moisture then usual hoping you exhale the moisture along with exhaling the virus (washing your lungs clean)

again corona is not targetting ibuprofen users. its actually corona targetting everyone but those who take ibuprofen are not getting the normal inflammatory system to do its job.

with this there should not be a blanket policy to just stop taking ibuprofen without doctors advice. because the initial reason for taking ibuprofen might be to treat something elsewhere in the body thats more severe due to a pre existing condition. and weighing up the risk of what corona can do. vs what not having NSAIDS would do. it needs to weigh up the pros or cons.

what has been said is if you dont usually needs ibuprofen for any other condition. then its advisable not to take it purely as a corona treatment. as the pros and cons are not so good for this scenario.. and instead take paracetamol as that wont mess with your inflammatory system

i hope you can start to want to do real research from the point of view of human health. and NOT due to some conspiracy theory you want to push

[tvbcof]

unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd.  The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people?

common sense its not like corona picks a person based on age
common sense its that the older a person is the less healthy they are going to be naturally

for instance heart issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50
for instance diabetes issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50
for instance COPD issues are not a 'norm' for a 18yo but is a known expected thing for those over 50

even just ware and tear of 40years of working from 20-60 puts a strain on the body of 60+

i know you will say not every 50+ person is unfit. but in the same instance not everyone over 50 is dying. only 15% of over 80 are

corona will hit everyone
90% will just have the sniffles(wont get reported/tested)
over 9% maybe more severe(will get reported/tested)
under 1% will die/need intensive care and resuscitation

again its not that corona is specifically targetting certain people. everyone will get it
as for the pattern between having severe symptoms vs patients who had other vaccinations previous years
this again is not targetting of people who had a vaccine.. but vaccine given to vulnerable people as standard

so its the commonality of a vulnerable health underlying condition. not specifically a age target and not a vaccine target
again third time
old people are naturally and normally have more preexisting conditions do to normal and natural ware and tear

A plausible (if completely obvious) general idea for sure, but how does it match up with the actual observations of SARS-cov-II infections relative to other infections which debilitate via similar biological mechanisms?  I mean, most of these pulmonary centric infections kill in a pretty similar way.

An outlier was the 1918 (non-)Spanish flu which was noted to impact the younger crowd in an atypical manner.

When Lord Kelvin said

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

I don't think that by 'express in numbers' he mean pull some number out of your ass and type them onto a keyboard.  That is clearly what you did since there remains a great deal of error margin with the denominator in the mortality rate equation.  Not to mention the strain tracking which is likely important given the differences noted geographical region.

...
i hope you can start to want to do real research from the point of view of human health. and NOT due to some conspiracy theory you want to push

You might step back and ask yourself: "Gee, why am I having such visceral 'triggered' response to any idea which is outside of a particular yet poorly defined mainstream-approved norm???"

When I did this years ago I was able to expand the hypotheses which I was able to entertain greatly and as a consequence vastly improve my (already natively high) analytical abilities.  That has payed dividends in a myriad of ways.

Now it must be said that I have never really been able to satisfactory answer the question as posed in spite of putting a lot of energy into it.  I was able to develop a ton of hypotheses about it but nothing really rises to the fore.  I strongly suspect it is a thorny multi-variate problem.

[franky1]

the reason for, what you call 'getting triggered' is simple
many people on this forum in many topics form 'ideas' and 'hypothesis' and make 'ICO prospectuses' but initial they word it as fact/sustainable project. helpful info. but then later go back and say that they are not doing harm, its only an idea/hypothesis

they lack actually doing real research to back up their info. instead they just search quotes that sound like it supports their idea. but dont actually critically think if their ideda is fact or fiction.

its like flatearthers. instead of actually experimenting and realising the earth is curved. they just google any quote that suggests its flat. and then use them niave quotes or mis represent the quote to entangle it into the fiction of their idea

..
as for putting numbers to it. and answering why covid19 is more serious than 2002's sars.. the answer is simple R0
2002s sars only had a transmission rate of near 1
this means in a 14 day period with all the people you come into contact with your probably only going to pass it onto 1 person
with the 2019 varient its more like 3

now if you know anything about pyramid scams and odds and ratios' and multiplication (all math/numbers games) you would know simple stuff like
fortnight: 1      2        3        4        5        6
2002:     1.3   1.7     2.2     2.9     3.7     4.8
2019       2.6  6.8    17.6   45.7   118.8 308.9

(simple note: the 6th fortnight 4.8/308 numbers are not numbers of people dying/severe. thats numbers of people getting it. the numbers of severe/ symptomatic/critical are much lover)


over 12 weeks alot more people are getting 2019
and no. dont even try t say that R0 is just some myth pulled out of my ass.. its actually a thing

the other thing is that when someone gets the symptoms (smal amount who actually feel it) with 2002 it was 2 days from infection. and those people usually call into work and have a few sick days and stay in bed
however 2019 varient is not noticed for 5-7 days meaning overall they touch more people, they visit vulnerable people thinking they are fine and so pass it on without knowing.

the third thing is the virus. although it is sars/corona base. it is not the exact same as 2002. this 2019 one can cause pneumonia. meaning its stronger than 2002 in all the ways i explained in this post.

anyway. while posting this i found a funny scene
the BBC was reporting a live meeting with scientific/health advisers
and many times i could hear a female cough.. the camera then pans across and has this woman coughing not into her sleeve. not using tissues and then rubbing her nose with her hand!!

[tvbcof]

the reason for, what you call 'getting triggered' is simple
many people on this forum in many topics form 'ideas' and 'hypothesis' and make 'ICO prospectuses' but initial they word it as fact/sustainable project. helpful info. but then later go back and say that they are not doing harm, its only an idea/hypothesis

they lack actually doing real research to back up their info. instead they just search quotes that sound like it supports their idea. but dont actually critically think if their ideda is fact or fiction.

I lack the ability to ignore everything but a single 'corp/gov approved' storyline no matter how ridiculous it might be.  Little thing called 'Occam's Razor' interferes.  I wouldn't say I envy people who don't have a problem doing it even though I'm sure it makes your life a lot less mentally demanding.

its like flatearthers. instead of actually experimenting and realising the earth is curved. they just google any quote that suggests its flat. and then use them niave quotes or mis represent the quote to entangle it into the fiction of their idea

Flat earth is a psy-op created for lazy idiots to use when they are losing an aurgument.  Nobody believes it.

..
as for putting numbers to it. and answering why covid19 is more serious than 2002's sars.. the answer is simple R0
2002s sars only had a transmission rate of near 1
this means in a 14 day period with all the people you come into contact with your probably only going to pass it onto 1 person
with the 2019 varient its more like 3

now if you know anything about pyramid scams and odds and ratios' and multiplication (all math/numbers games) you would know simple stuff like
fortnight: 1      2        3        4        5        6
2002:     1.3   1.7     2.2     2.9     3.7     4.8
2019       2.6  6.8    17.6   45.7   118.8 308.9

(simple note: the 6th fortnight 4.8/308 numbers are not numbers of people dying/severe. thats numbers of people getting it. the numbers of severe/ symptomatic/critical are much lover)


over 12 weeks alot more people are getting 2019
and no. dont even try t say that R0 is just some myth pulled out of my ass.. its actually a thing

the other thing is that when someone gets the symptoms (smal amount who actually feel it) with 2002 it was 2 days from infection. and those people usually call into work and have a few sick days and stay in bed
however 2019 varient is not noticed for 5-7 days meaning overall they touch more people, they visit vulnerable people thinking they are fine and so pass it on without knowing.

the third thing is the virus. although it is sars/corona base. it is not the exact same as 2002. this 2019 one can cause pneumonia. meaning its stronger than 2002 in all the ways i explained in this post.

You bring up some irrelevant and simplistic concepts that everyone already knows and accepts why?  How many brownie points do you think you deserve for this rather pathetic exhibition?

Hey, anti-vaxers, here is a challenge for you:  I will publicly support you, if you will be the first to step up and declare that much though we may wish otherwise, we need some more dead kids in each generation—to prevent unlimited mass suffering and potential extinction in all the generations yet unborn.

I need not reach the question of how bad the side effects of vaccines are or aren’t.  Of course, all medicines have side effects.  Whether vaccines are benign except in a few rare, unfortunate cases, or causing widespread injuries about which The Truth is suppressed by The Medical Establishment, the answer is irrelevant to me.

[...]  I don’t need to know medicine:  I know history.  People used to have eight, ten, or even twenty (yes, literally, twenty) kids with the knowledge that some would die, and others would survive...

tvbcof, want to take up my challenge here, where I can’t use self-mod powers to “censor” you?  Stop being a wimp.  Speak up for The Truth!

Glad to do it Mr. 'we need dead kids':

You guys crow all day long about being 'evidence based' and 'data driven', right?  Well then, how about a vaxxed vs. non-vaxxed study to get some numbers?

It's actually a very simple study.  Could at present be done to a statistically valid level by just evaluating existing data which is contained in secret databases.  There is one catch:

 - The study protocols need to be negotiated in public, the negotiations have to include individuals who are not tied to corp/gov and  who respected by us realskeptics, and there needs to be auditable assurance that the protocols are adhered to.

Such a study will never happen.  The corp/gov bodies who hold all the power at present have said plain and simple that they will NEVER do such a study.  It fairly obvious to me that the reason is that they know exactly what they will find and they have no interest in finding it.

They would find the same thing this study found, except probably a lot worse.

Edit:

Just in case people don't get it, in order to calculate the number of 'dead kids', (and kids who are simply given life-long neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, etc) we need the numbers that can be expected from the different vaccine regime options we have to choose from.

We are sitting at a point where 1 in 2 children are on perscription meds already, or some crazy thing like that.  Autism has gone from 1/10,000 when I was a kid to something like 1/40.  Not having things like the vaxxed vs. un-vaxxed study allows corp/gov to say 'we have no information' that vaccines can cause blah, blah, blah.

Some people, including myself, strongly suspect that we are FAR past the point where the number of 'dead kids' is worth protecting people from things like chicken-pox, mumps, etc which hardly ever killed anyone.  And, in fact, probably contributed to healthy 'herd immunity' back when they were allowed to run their natural course.

But without proper studies these kinds of cost/benefit scenarios cannot be computed.  We now know that the CDC does NOT have the 'mountains' of studies showing no association between vaccines and health outcomes because www.icandecide.org sued them.  In fact they could not produce ANY valid ones which were responsive to the FOIA request.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJUjnY_FGNQ

[BADecker]

I got censored right off that same thread without a word as to why. Maybe he is only asking for medical people to respond.

[tvbcof]

I got censored right off that same thread without a word as to why. Maybe he is only asking for medical people to respond.

Just say you are a doctor and copy/paste some World Health Organization material.  80% of the people on this forum will believe it without a second thought.

If I were a scammer or an evil person I could make a ton of money off of sheeple or get them to wash down their tide-pods with a gallon of soy sauce.  Or get them to use my super-secure coin mixer like e_o_l_e_o does.

[tvbcof]

I got censored right off that same thread without a word as to why. Maybe he is only asking for medical people to respond.

I got censored off my own thread here for posting about the flu vaccine apparently and linked to little known information that the flu vaccine seems to have unusual interaction with coronavirus specifically.

Earlier when a genuine reply to a native post on this thread was censored I was given two rules which were supposed to apply.  They didn't, but I didn't bother to worry about it.  It's a fairly well thought out in-lined response, but the censor glued it on to the original post.

Back in the day it used to be the mod who did the censorship work was at least listed so in case they made a mistake it might be corrected.  In this way, if a moderator was abusing their position a person could complain.  If Theymos agreed he could get rid of the moderator (and protect the integrity of the platform.)  I think this happened at least once.

Anyway, as I say, knowing what was censored is a good indication that the information might be interesting.

---

If wannabe Dr. Oileo actually wanted to help people he would point out that studies show that the seasonal flu vaccine makes it easier to catch cononavirus.  He knows this is the case because I edjumucated him about it on the other thread.

He won't do it though.  He'll just censor this post so he can continue to play doctor on bitcointalk and make his masters in the medical/industrial complex happy at the same time.

And mainstream will actively push everyone to get the flu vaccine and make even more of them available.  Funny how they can get an extra 400,000 flu vaccines pumped out but getting enough coronavirus test kits is just to big a task.  To hard for the U.S. I should say.  Other countries don't seem to be having this problem.

[BADecker]

^^^ Interesting! Some of my posts have been deleted by moderators citing two rules. But there isn't any explanation about how the rules applied to my posts. And the rules themselves don't explain it clearly.

Is Bitcointalk starting to cave to popular opinion in some ways? Are they warning me that if I post in a politically incorrect way too many times, that I might get kicked off?

[tvbcof]

^^^ Interesting! Some of my posts have been deleted by moderators citing two rules. But there isn't any explanation about how the rules applied to my posts. And the rules themselves don't explain it clearly.

Is Bitcointalk starting to cave to popular opinion in some ways? Are they warning me that if I post in a politically incorrect way too many times, that I might get kicked off?

So far Bitcointalk has maintained a pretty censorship free operational mode.  That's why I've been using it for 9 years.  If/when it falls I'll move on...and I really do need a good excuse to set up a 'darkweb' navigation system and implement some modicum of anonymity anyway.

I can be somewhat vocal on controversial issues.  Yet, with only a few minor exceptions, I've been allowed to make contrary viewpoints heard.  Some of these mis-applications of 'the rules' have probably been accidental.  There was one incident in the distant past where it seemed that a particularly 'activist' moderator was given the boot by Theymos.

More recently spendulus tried to run to mommy moderator and get me banned for a critique of Zionism that he didn't like.  Presumably he did, and presumably the moderator staff told him to get bent because I never saw those posts deleted.  Even if I detest the guy's methods I'm still happy to send him merit points when he makes me laugh.