Posted on 10/25/2021 10:07:23 AM PDT by ransomnote
Should you not follow your own advice? Otherwise, it seems that you're NOT ignoring it.
See post 84.
I remember when the CDC was not a hideous hack outfit with purely partisan motivations.
There is no indication in the study that such an effect exists in the amount shown by the data. In the 18-44 band most deaths are caused by accidents, followed by suicide and homicide.
It looks like the size of the effect reported in the paper can't be explained by healthier people joining the vaccinated group. Logically, wouldn't it be likely that people with health conditions would be more likely to get vaccinated? The CDC paper notes that they have tried to ensure that both groups had equal amounts of use of medical services so one group wasn't unable to obtain medical treatment.
Your theory requires that significantly more people with health conditions who are seeing doctors decided not to get vaccinated. And that people who did get vaccinated are less likely to be the victims of a homicide, or an accident.
Could you enlighten all of us about why that would be?
Is there any basis to believe that effect even exists? Wouldn't it be more likely that people who see doctors more often for other conditions are more likely to be vaccinated?
Look at the demographics for flu vaccines. Are they predominately taken by older people worried about the flu or 30 year old construction workers?
This is what comes of them saying you are not vaccinated until some time after you got the last booster shot.
They are counting all the vaccine caused deaths by cancer and heart attacks etc. as “unvaccinated” and throwing the numbers off.
Thanks to both of you for taking a closer look at this. It certainly seems that the C in CDC does not stand for clarity here, and there is bias at work.
Only "35.7 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 years old got the flu shot last season" whereas "Among 3.5 million Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients, 9.2% were aged 12–17 years, 69.4% were aged 18–64 years." - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w
All it really says is that people from that age group who choose to get vaccinated aren’t risk takers. It has nothing to do with the vaccine. It has everything to do with the demographics of the vaccine takers.
All it really says is that people from that age group who choose to get vaccinated aren’t risk takers. It has nothing to do with the vaccine. It has everything to do with the demographics of the vaccine takers.
~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s an ‘if - then’ corollary. IF what the CDC says is true here, then that must mean what the CDC has not said must be true THERE. So he’s proving part of the CDC’s content is ridiculous and then carrying their logic out to it’s fullest conclusion.
Bagster described it up thread somewhere. :)
I remember when the CDC was not a hideous hack outfit with purely partisan motivations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Was it 1992?
IN ‘92 the CDC established a 501c3 to accept donations and began collaboration with donors George Soros, Bill Gates, Pfizer, etc. etc.
SO back when it was decent, it was a government agency. Then it was bought out by Gates, their largest ‘donor’, and now they do what he and other enemies say to do. But they keep our tax dollars and use it against us.
The NIH also founded a 501c3 in the early 90’s and has been collaborating with Bill Gates extensively.
The FDA was restructured to put them in bed with pharma in ‘92-’94 somewhere in there.
Based on regulatory changes, these creeps in NIH, CDC, FDA use our tax dollars to develop drugs, and patent them in their own personal names and profit from them. They do what they want, whent hey want, and then scamper under the cloak of the Federal government and their former reputation to give our enemies control over us. They couldn’t defeat us any other way.
Lol!! “Science”
There's studies on this topic -- google google up a couple and see if you find them convincing.
But that's irrelevant to the point I made, which is that the article lies about what the CDC is saying.
The article claims The CDC just released an analysis that after you get vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops by 72% if you are age 18-44.
Actually not only did the CDC not did make that absurd claim, they didn't even imply it. They specifically said the lower mortality in the vaccinated group is likely due to the "healthy vaccinee effect".
If that's wrong, someone should write an article saying: The CDC is wrong when they claim that people who decide to get vaccinated are healthier than people who don't
The author of that article could google up studies critical of the "healthy vaccinee effect" and discuss them.
In the meantime, any article that says The CDC just released an analysis that after you get vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops by 72% if you are age 18-44 is just simply false.
By the way, it’s not my theory. I accurately reported what the CDC said. Unlike the author of the article who inaccurately reported what the CDC said.
The author manipulated their study to falsely claim that the CDC says that getting the vaccine lowers your mortality from all causes which is absurd and they did not say that.
Exactly. That is what the author is saying. It's also not what the CDC is saying. The CDC says that the differences between the two groups is likely due to the "healthy vaccinee effect" by which people who are healthier to begin with are more likely to get vaccinated.
Therefore you now can see that the author set up a false and absurd straw man. And the headline is a lie.
As a policy I ignore all personal comments directed at me until they rise to an abusive level that requires the involvement of a moderator.
If that's true, someone should write an article saying:
The CDC is wrong when they claim that the different mortality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people means that people who decide to get vaccinated are probably healthier to begin with compared to people who don't
The author of that article could google up studies critical of the "healthy vaccinee effect" and discuss them.
In the meantime, any article that says The CDC just released an analysis that after you get vaccinated, your all-cause mortality drops by 72% if you are age 18-44 is just simply false.
Note that as a policy I ignore all comments directed at my person until they rise to such an abusive level that a moderator needs to get involved.
They did explain it clearly. Not only that, they explained it clearly in the _very first_ paragraph of the discussion:
"The lower mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination suggests substantial healthy vaccinee effects (i.e., vaccinated persons tend to be healthier than unvaccinated persons)"
And they discussed the effect again in the the second paragraph.
No, they are just commenting on what the data published by the CDC means. Look at the table.
The titles of commentary about published reports don't have to be some PR agency style summary of the report. You seem to think that is a requirement for titles, but it isn't.
I was certain this was from the Bee.
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.