Posted on 01/16/2023 3:25:17 PM PST by nickcarraway
If you are going to claim that more athletes have been suffering cardiac arrests and dying over the past two years, you had better sport some real numbers. Some real legitimate verifiable numbers. But that’s not what Tucker Carlson did on his FOX News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” when he made such a claim. Instead of real numbers, he mentioned a letter. One letter. One letter to the editor of a medical journal to be exact.
But Carlson didn’t even specify that it was a letter in the episode of this show. The episode came after Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin’s had suffered a cardiac arrest. Carlson, who is not a professional athlete, not a professional medical doctor, and not a professional scientist, suggested that there’s been a trend of more athletes suffering cardiac arrest. He asserted that “cardiologist Peter McCullough and researcher Panagis Polykretis looked into this trend in Europe, European sports leagues. They found that prior to Covid and the Covid-19 vaccines there were roughly 29 cardiac arrests in those European sports leagues per year.” Carlson went on to claim, “Since the vax campaign began, there have been more than 1,500 total cardiac arrests in those leagues and two-thirds of those were fatal.”
Hmm, does this sound like McCullough, a cardiologist who was not really known as an infectious disease expert or a public health researcher before the pandemic, and Polykretis, a biologist, actually conducted a real scientific study? Maybe even a peer-reviewed study? It looks like they didn’t, though, and instead all they did was write a letter to the editor published in the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. It doesn’t take much to write a letter to the editor for such a journal. You have to be able to write, which may rule out some kids below
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Just laughing! Journalism has been at it’s best the last few years. This is a great example.
If you suggest that Covid “vaccines” are killing people, you better be ready and able to prove it? Why not have to prove that Covid “vaccines” are not causing deaths. Why is the burden of proof upon those who suspect that excess mortality may be due to “vaccines” made by a newer messenger RNA methodology? Why do I have to prove that it is harmful if I don’t want to be injected with it? When are they going to bring the evidence that Covid “Vaccines” are harmless?
It’s like the Nigerian prince who asks for my account number, I don’t know that he is a fraud, and I can’t prove it. Does that mean that I should not ask him to prove he is actually a Nigerian prince before I give him my bank account information?
That settles it in my mind. Actually, I followed the real science from the beginning, so I didn’t get the jab.
Medicaid in each state has the largest database of youth. Do a FOIA in each state for the statistics on ICD-10 diagnosis of each death in the target age group. Do FOIA for ICD-10 on youth diagnosed who did not die.
Compare rate per 1,000 in each state, in city vs rural, in white vs black, by any variable in the Medicaid database.
Compare factors of alcohol, opioids, car crashes, suicide, and vaccinations. What should concern us most?
Medicaid in each state has the largest database of youth. Do a FOIA in each state for the statistics on ICD-10 diagnosis of each death in the target age group. Do FOIA for ICD-10 on youth diagnosed who did not die.
Compare rate per 1,000 in each state, in city vs rural, in white vs black, by any variable in the Medicaid database.
Compare factors of alcohol, opioids, car crashes, suicide, and vaccinations. What should concern us most?
The fact that there are not any verifiable numbers is part of the deception.
If the numbers were good for vaxinc, MSM would show us. Those numbers would be shared broadly and loudly, probably with a live ticker showing that recent death rate is the same as it ever was.
Thus one can conclude that the numbers are bad for vaxinc, since they say there is no data.
Vaxinc is the side that needs to come with proof because they are known liars. Everything and anything they say without verifiable proof should be doubted and discarded since they have knowingly lied many times.
Also, one may wonder why it is hard to get good data. Primarily because the monitoring systems are feeble. However, they are performing just as they were designed to do.
If vaxinc or BigPharma wanted effective safety monitoring we would have it. Its absence is more evidence that vaxinc and BigPharma should be considered unreliable witnesses. E.g., liars.
As you can imagine, there are countless blogs out there ranging from Ryan Gosling Disneyland Cats, which was “inspired by Ryan Gosling's belief that Disneyland is harboring an army of cats,” to Selleck Waterfall Sandwich, which exclusively focuses on Tom Selleck, waterfalls and sandwiches, because why not? Most of the blogs out there aren’t reviewed for accuracy content. So you are pretty much relying on the reputations of the author or authors of blog.
This guy's rebuttal is nonsense.
One doesn't need to rely on the reputation of the author of the blog. All the people in the long list of examples is fully documented.
Someone linked IOC numbers above from 1966-2004?
You can’t compare that count per year to the current year.
The population increased sharply 1966 to 2004. A raw comparison is not valid because of course there will be more athletes keeling over if there are more athletes, period. There was no link cited for that IOC data btw.
“That settles it in my mind. Actually, I followed the real science from the beginning, so I didn’t get the jab.”
We did the same thing in our family. I also discussed getting the vaxx with a doctor friend of mine. He’s a retired O-6 Navy trauma surgeon and taught at Texas Tech Medical Center. I asked him about getting the jab and he said “f*ck no!”
Forbes = Chinese
Credibility = None
Maybe, but they are in no way comparable to the ones in the Lausanne study McCullough & Polykretis cite.
On the one hand we have athletes under 35 who suffered sudden cardiac death and who’s cases got written up in a medical journal.
On the other hand we have the goodsciencing list which includes any death of people of any age who had any tenuous connection to athletics (an announcer!) and who died from any cause (cancer, strep infection, unknown causes…) and who’s case was found on the internet by some rando and sent to the blog.
Do you think it’s an honest exercise to compare these two data sets and claim deaths of athletes are increasing?
Some real legitimate verifiable numbers
/\
Like the adverse reaction numbers big pharma hid in their 50,000 page doc they tried to hide for the next 75 years ?
Like that kind of numbers ?
Or the prebunked numbers ?
Legitimate / verifiable numbers my arse.
Urinalists.
Is there any pee they won’t call rain ?
“Be the ball, Danny!”
That didn’t happen.
It used to be the left that fudged data, now it’s just as prevalent on the right. Anything to push an agenda.
You underestimate yourself
Your not semi
Your full blown weasel.
Didn’t happen ?
Sure, cuz YOU claim it didn’t happen.
Sure.
SSDD
Forbes is a fully owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.